Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

  1. The First Amendment isn't just another talking point, is it? She should know the law by heart, in her sleep, at every hour of the day and night . . . Private colleges should either embrace free speech or be forthright about embracing speech codes, and enforce them equally for everyone.
    12
  2. ​ @kennybachman35 Sue? She resigned. Resignation might have been a condition of getting a severance. She's all done there.
    8
  3. ​ @triarii9257 Words aren't crimes. If you fully embrace First Amendment freedoms, then you cannot punish such speech. That is well established and has been for years. Many decades.
    7
  4. ​ @triarii9257  Under the First Amendment, you can't ban cross burning or flag burning, or even an abstract call for violence. See Brandenburg v Ohio; RAV v City of St. Paul. See what the Court struck down in the latter case -- Scalia opinion, to boot. You can't ban a demonstration near a funeral of a fallen soldier, as long as it does not interfere with the ceremony or the mourners. You forgot about this? Just now? You can find good summaries of all of this at LII - Cornell, or at Oyez. How come?
    7
  5. You don't see that these are "native" French? Ethnic French? 😂😂😂😂 Well, either you really don't see race, or (more likely) you don't see French as quite white.
    6
  6. ​ @annabodot962 You are right that a private institution can embrace speech codes rather than free speech. It just has to apply them fairly to everyone: no Palestinian flag means no Israeli flag. Otherwise, they could be sued under Title VI.
    5
  7. True threats are defined as specifically targeting an individual or group with imminent violence, and there has to be some likelihood that it will happen. We have a strict First Amendment, protecting free speech. I wonder how long that will last.
    5
  8. Me too.😊
    5
  9. Actually, that is First Amendment protected speech as well, depending on where it is said, how it is said, why, in front of whom, and so forth, but these university presidents can't explain it properly because they don't care about free speech. They never bothered to study it, or prepare for this hearing. They expect their checks to keep coming anyway, so . . .
    4
  10. ​ @nieshamccoy9419 You are almost right about the principle (see Brandenburg v. Ohio; RAV v. City of St. Paul), but she did a horrible job of articulating the distinction. I got the impression that she neither understands the First Amendment, nor cares about free speech very much. Like, all of this is terra incognita to her. Really got me mad.
    4
  11.  @P.90.603  They did do a terrible job of explaining our most important right. They should be clear, eloquent, and passionate in their defense of First Amendment freedom of speech, and they should explain the actual law whenever called upon, instead of using lazy buzzwords like "context." (I remember when Amber Heard's expert witness used that word.) They don't care about freedom of speech or the welfare of the students. That's my impression, anyway. The Harvard president was the least bad. Penn was a nightmare. All three surprised me.
    4
  12.  @jordanmc27  Of course not. BUT I can articulate why that is, as a general matter, First Amendment protected speech.
    3
  13.  @jordanmc27  I'm not defending their performance. It was lackluster, when it should have been crystal clear on the LAW, and passionate about the PRINCIPLE. So, you don't think college demonstrations, if otherwise lawful, should be First Amendment protected? Better watch your pronouns, then.
    3
  14.  @jordanmc27  That's easy. That's not speech. You can't chase people into barricaded libraries even if you say absolutely nothing. Or gaslight them, scream "I love you." LOL
    3
  15.  @skysurfer5cva  If they made a commitment to hold their students to First Amendment standards rather than a speech code that is more restrictive, then they do have to honor their commitment.
    3
  16.  @thedizzyunicorn  If I'm free to refuse a warrantless search of my house, do I still have to "face consequences" for not letting the police in? If I have a right to remain silent, do I still have to "face consequences" if I refuse to talk to police?
    3
  17. ​@heraklit8.170 Benefits of diversity? ALL of the musical forms and dance forms first created in the Americas, that could never have been created anywhere else, and which have swept the entire world, have African roots. All. No blues, no rock; no rock, no Beatles. Etc.
    3
  18.  @cyrusparsa1724  If you lie to your girlfriend about where you were last night, can she call the cops? 🤔🤣🤣🤣
    3
  19.  @conradsieber7883  💯 But they failed to explain the law. They just used buzzwords like "context." Maybe they don't really care about the First Amendment. That was my impression.
    3
  20. True threats are illegal. True incitement to violence is illegal. Theoretical discussion is protected speech. They should have come prepared with copies of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court case that explains it, and later cases like R.A.V. v. St. Paul. And they should know Title VII, Title IX, etc., by heart, and know their relevance. But they don't really care.
    3
  21. The shocker for me is that the didn't. They gave no indication of understanding the First Amendment, or being able to articulate it in a hearing before the Congress and forcthe public at large. I had no idea they were that stupid. They must not have cared about free speech enough to learn about it at any point.
    3
  22. John of God was a huge mistake in a series of bad mistakes. Starts to look like a pattern of poor judgment. . .
    3
  23.  @brucewayne1777  Israel just confirmed that the link to heart inflammation is real. It is apparently similar but less severe than the heart inflammation caused by COVID itself, and is treatable. They say everyone who had it made a full recovery. Of course, Israel has national health care.
    3
  24.  @brucewayne1777  Why are you the one who is uninformed?
    3
  25.  @bolbyballinger  "From the river to the sea" is not a death threat. This is insane. Literally insane.
    3
  26. Performative. They are tending their stock portfolios.
    3
  27.  @bigwetbutt  Serious issues were noted during Phase 3 trials, but were treated. That is why people must be watched after administration. Yes, people can end up hospitalized after getting the vaccine because of a reaction.
    3
  28. ​​ @pigdeal31 Try reading Brandenburg v. Ohio and R.A.V. v. St. Paul. Even symbolic cross burning and swastikas can't be made illegal on the sole ground that some people will be upset. But that doesn't mean you can wear one to work and not be fired, or use these things to make a death threat and escape prosecution.
    2
  29. THIS 💯
    2
  30.  @linguaphile42  No one said that. It is, however, true that the interests of a massive absentee landowner are materially different from those of a modest homeowner in permanent residence, and that the former creates risks to the latter, and that governments abet them hugely. This happens even though there are vastly more modest homeowners around than billionaire absentee landowners. Somehow, though, they never seem to count. Let's watch and see what happens next. Or, will you be duped by the deft dissembling and public relations prowess of a billionaire to look away? Hmm?
    2
  31.  @xx_HI_xx7  As a general matter, odious speech is protected. Why don't you spend the rest of the evening reading up on the law? It might do you good.
    2
  32.  @jordanmc27  We were discussing the speech of students, NOT the performance of university presidents. "Please understand the difference." You've already given up most of the Fourth Amendment, you want to jettison the First?
    2
  33.  @skysurfer5cva  No, you're wrong. The reason the First Amendment IS relevant IS because they chose to embrace it, as well as all of the jurisprudence that comes with it. That was a choice that they were not required to make, but they chose to make it. If this was about their code of conduct, then why did Stefanik only ask about speech, and permit no clarification? "Yes or no!!????? YES OR NO!!!?!"
    2
  34.  @patrickhenry2845  Then why didn't she pose those questions?
    2
  35.  @jordanmc27  I don't agree with the factual predicate. That's how. I'll make it simple: Aaron Mate discussed this very issue on the Monday Mourning program this week, on his and Katie Halper's show, Useful Idiots. If you don't want to read stuff, watch that. Mate was great. His grandfather survived the Holocaust and his father almost died during that time, as an infant, though he wasn't sent to a camp. You're upset about the wrong things. Exaggeration, demands for special treatment, and censorship isn't going to stamp out antisemitism. I am petrified it will backfire. I have the great privilege of watching similar discussions in France, where they have no First Amendment and the pro-Palestinian side is banned. Judith Butler (!) was just canceled. You should hear how calm and rational the discussions are by comparison to this. And they really do face more serious threats there than here. They are not as prone to utter hysteria. It's one hysteria after another. This needs to stop.
    2
  36.  @JimBob-jr5up  That was a great post.
    2
  37.  @kennybachman35  No, a Congress member is immunized from any suit for anything they say in Congress.
    2
  38.  @Johnarchiebald  💯 this
    2
  39.  @frankmarano1118  Agreed. Also, I do not agree with the law that Rittenhouse is being prosecuted for violating. It mandates that minors his age be tried as adults. I am opposed to mandates. Yes, those, too. ;) The people, i.e., ADULTS, who armed him and then disappeared from the scene have a lot to answer for. He was a juvenile who never finished high school and has no father in the picture. I strongly condemn what he did, but let's have some perspective. The laws pertaining to underage people exist for a reason.
    2
  40.  @vivianspinarski4846  The ADULTS who brought him there, gave him possession of the firearm, and convinced him he was deputized to assist the police. At 17, with no high school diploma or GED. Those adults. They were MIA as soon as things got hot for this kid. Get a grip.
    2
  41.  @thebluescfc3299  Same here. I'm not even saying Rittenhouse should be convicted. He should not be tried as an adult in the first place. The adults who put him up to all this, including giving him the gun, suddenly disappeared just when this kid's life was about to change irrevocably. But these people are invested in "sides." And in misconstruing self-defense laws and firearms laws. This will not end well. I don't care.
    2
  42.  @sharonharris9782  By thinking it through.
    2
  43.  @barryscott8041  They did a horrendous job. Did you get the impression they know or love the First Amendment? Me, neither.
    2
  44. Why? If you want to get to the truth, he is the best equipped to tell it.
    2
  45.  @slambo6  The prosecution has the burden of proof. If everyone were to go to a real trial, instead of plea bargain, the system would literally collapse. As long as they arrive at a true picture of what happened and who is responsible, that is a rare win. I'm more interested in the ADULTS who provided the weapon and put Rittenhouse up to this. Their charges are getting little press attention.
    2
  46. ​ @CaptainCataractss  She did an extremely poor job of articulating First Amendment freedoms, or really seeming to know a thing about them. I thought that was a disgrace. As a university president, she should know First Amendment law in her sleep, and be ready to defend it. The problem is, she gave that up a long time ago it seems. A private university can have a speech code instead of free speech, as long as it is enforced fairly. But if they CHOSE to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms, why can't they say so proudly and defend them?
    2
  47. If a person contributes to the circumstances leading to their need to use deadly force, they cannot claim perfect self-defense. Big "if."
    2
  48.  @johnbecker9242  I'm not saying he did or didn't, because I don't know. I'm not biased in advance, nor do I have any desire to influence an ongoing trial. But I'm the problem? Right, we need more vigilantes on juries, absolutely. Not rational people.
    2
  49.  @johnbecker9242  Do you know what "if" means?
    2
  50.  @jamestoney6599  Okay. So . . . You don't know how laws are formulated or interpreted. Why am I not surprised?
    2