Antisemitism and Free Speech

Posted on December 7, 2023 by Stella

He makes the point very clearly. Thank you, Iowahawk. We don’t always agree, but this point is irrefutable.

The government cannot (should not, constitutionally) hamper free speech, even when it is hateful. A college administrator certainly can.

This entry was posted in Amendment 1, Antisemitism, Genocide, Israel, Jihadi, Social Media. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Antisemitism and Free Speech

  2. weather257 says:
    December 7, 2023 at 3:41 pm

    Today’s ceo’s and university presidents are the insidious AI’s released decades ago by the almighty universities to destroy successfu giants like Disney and Anheiser-Bush. Glad I couldn’t afford to go or I’d be like my sister and brother. Had to learn on the job and got paid by my educators instead of going into debt for it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  3. Lucille says:
    December 7, 2023 at 5:56 pm

    Misunderstanding the place of free speech reminds me of the “innocent until proven guilty” phrase. In essence, that sentiment is only for courtroom proceedings. Public opinion can opt for both “innocent” and “guilty” verdicts and there’s no law against that being done. The courtroom is different.

    Say a reliable witness sees a specific person committing a crime. The witness knows the criminal is guilty of the crime; so in his eyes the verdict is already obvious and he can say so with certainty. The jury has a different role. They have to make a decision based upon the evidence presented, and for them the “innocent until proven guilty” phrase is their guide.

    My take is that under our Constitution, free speech must be protected by the state and federal governments where they have jurisdiction. Private institutions of higher learning can make their own rules as long as public monies are not involved, set their own agendas, hire personnel who hold offensive-to-some views. If the administration wishes to indoctrinate their students with a certain point of view, the moral thing would be to make that fully known to prospective students, their parents and the community at large so that everyone can make their own judgment as to whether to support the institution, either by attending the school or donating to it. By now, every parent should know what the philosophy is of the college or university they want their children to attend. No one should be surprised if they do their due diligence.

    Public tax-supported institutions, however, have an obligation to remain neutral and teach students how to think, not what to think. Taxpayers have a say and under the Constitution, these institutions must follow the First Amendment.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    • weather257 says:
      December 7, 2023 at 6:45 pm

      Totally logical (wherein lies our problem).

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
    • resolute says:
      December 9, 2023 at 5:15 pm

      I have a problem with the “innocent until proven guilty” phrase. To say so suggests a presumption of guilt, that a person is, and will remain, guilty “until” they are somehow proven otherwise. Instead, I believe we have always had the presumption of innocence, and with that it would be correct to instead use the phrase “innocent unless proven guilty”, where the word “unless” supports that continued presumption of innocence, unless proven otherwise.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.