4 ms·
That doesn't sound right. It doesn't match up with what I know of FIRE. I couldn't find anything to suggest that FIRE opposed the verdict in my searches. Please
by 7402 4y ago
That doesn't sound right. It doesn't match up with what I know of FIRE. I couldn't find anything to suggest that FIRE opposed the verdict in my searches. Please try to find the link - I'd like to see it.
I did find one document [0] that was a legal filing that references some FIRE documents discussing speech codes, but that was it. FIRE didn't sign it, and as far as I can tell FIRE had nothing to do with the filing supporting Oberlin.
Some of the attorneys signing the filing identified themselves as "Attorneys for Amici Curiae National Coalition Against Censorship, and Defending Rights & Dissent." NCAC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Coalition_Against_Cen...) and DRAD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defending_Rights_%26_Dissent) are not the same thing as FIRE.
[0] https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pdf https://www2.oberlin.edu/appeal/documents/amicus-ncac_osc.pd...
- crackercrews 4y agoI tried searching again but failed. I think I probably heard a mention of it on a podcast since I can't find a link. Maybe the Reason Roundtable? I am 90% certain this was FIRE I'm recalling. I was caught off-guard because I generally agree with FIRE, and my first reaction was that this was an exception. It made me rethink about my reaction to the verdict. I can't think of another organization that fits this description in my mind. But I could be wrong! I will continue thinking about where I saw or heard this and leave a link if I can find it.
- dmix 4y agoIt does make sense that it targets a people’s speech though. Even if the circumstances are ridiculous. This crosses into the territory of defamation though so it’s not merely their progressive political opinions being challenged by the courts.