3 ms·

> the students' rights are obviously more important The students rights aren't being infringed. They can spend all 365 days of the year saying what they want,

> the students' rights are obviously more important The students rights aren't being infringed. They can spend all 365 days of the year saying what they want, everywhere they want, except in that one room for two hours. To imply that they have a right to amplified shrieking over the speaker to state their point, you're doing what you accuse the other side of doing, insisting that free speech is a right to be heard. The students deserve the same treatment the invited speaker deserves - a guarantee that they can speak and be peacefully heard - somewhere. Universities have many rooms and the students can have their own.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I think it's okay for the students to decide that the speaker's actions make them ineligible to speak at the school and "shriek" over them. People get to decide you're a piece of shit and refuse to let you speak without getting shouted down, because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights. And it's the school administration's job to do with that behavior as they will. Frankly, it's good to see people taking a moral stance against someone who takes a "moral" stance (imposing their holy book on everyone) by doing something like allowing states to ban gay marriage. People on this site talk big about "accountability" for their pet problems like data leaks and privacy but seemingly don't like it when public figures are held even modestly accountable for their shit behavior which does irreparable harm.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights That statement is frightening. I sure hope most people think they are obligated to allow other people their right to free speech.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Oh yes, quite frightening! I don't want to listen to people who peddle bullshit, and I would deny them a platform to do so, gasp in horror! In situations where people start threatening others with violence to shut them up, concern is warranted. Until then... Let's touch grass together.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      Well okay, if you think violence isn't significantly occurring then help draw that line anyway. Even just crowding beyond capacity into a room, or shoving signs in front of speakers, or blocking people's way, would be treated as a crime if it was done to interrupt a stockholder's meeting. Do you think these actions are okay in protests or do you think they should be stopped? How close, how many, and how loud, would the people be allowed to be? Are they allowed to shove into every elevator with you to deny you any potential "platform" to talk, or are they limited to only disrupting sanctioned meetings? Can they follow you home at night, or to the movies? Can they simply scream incoherently, or are they limited to actually speaking words to be treated as protestors? Are amplified sirens allowed, and when? Given that masked protestors have and frequently do attack people at rallies, and threats are easily implied from masked people screaming at you, would you be fine asking police to follow the usual (pre 2010) rules on masking at political events and either unmask people or make them leave? And lastly, are these rules that you think are reasonable and should apply in both directions, regardless of which side protests what?
    - cudgy 4y ago
      Would be interesting to see how long you (a seemingly intolerant person who singlehandedly decides what is bullshit and condones harassment) would tolerate someone following you around and insulting or berating you and/or your family constantly, including your place of work like a speaking engagement at a university. Hopefully, you realize that what you suggest is not feasible.

DangitBobby 4y ago

I think it's okay for the students to decide that the speaker's actions make them ineligible to speak at the school and "shriek" over them. People get to decide you're a piece of shit and refuse to let you speak without getting shouted down, because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights. And it's the school administration's job to do with that behavior as they will. Frankly, it's good to see people taking a moral stance against someone who takes a "moral" stance (imposing their holy book on everyone) by doing something like allowing states to ban gay marriage. People on this site talk big about "accountability" for their pet problems like data leaks and privacy but seemingly don't like it when public figures are held even modestly accountable for their shit behavior which does irreparable harm.

goatlover 4y ago
> because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights That statement is frightening. I sure hope most people think they are obligated to allow other people their right to free speech.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Oh yes, quite frightening! I don't want to listen to people who peddle bullshit, and I would deny them a platform to do so, gasp in horror! In situations where people start threatening others with violence to shut them up, concern is warranted. Until then... Let's touch grass together.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    Well okay, if you think violence isn't significantly occurring then help draw that line anyway. Even just crowding beyond capacity into a room, or shoving signs in front of speakers, or blocking people's way, would be treated as a crime if it was done to interrupt a stockholder's meeting. Do you think these actions are okay in protests or do you think they should be stopped? How close, how many, and how loud, would the people be allowed to be? Are they allowed to shove into every elevator with you to deny you any potential "platform" to talk, or are they limited to only disrupting sanctioned meetings? Can they follow you home at night, or to the movies? Can they simply scream incoherently, or are they limited to actually speaking words to be treated as protestors? Are amplified sirens allowed, and when? Given that masked protestors have and frequently do attack people at rallies, and threats are easily implied from masked people screaming at you, would you be fine asking police to follow the usual (pre 2010) rules on masking at political events and either unmask people or make them leave? And lastly, are these rules that you think are reasonable and should apply in both directions, regardless of which side protests what?
  - cudgy 4y ago
    Would be interesting to see how long you (a seemingly intolerant person who singlehandedly decides what is bullshit and condones harassment) would tolerate someone following you around and insulting or berating you and/or your family constantly, including your place of work like a speaking engagement at a university. Hopefully, you realize that what you suggest is not feasible.