Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "University presidents face backlash for testimony in antisemitism hearing" video.

  1. 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
  2.  @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
  3.  @cyrusparsa1724  If you lie to your girlfriend about where you were last night, can she call the cops? 🤔🤣🤣🤣
    3
  4.  @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
  5. 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
  6. ​​ @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
  7. THIS 💯
    2
  8.  @barryscott8041  They did a horrendous job. Did you get the impression they know or love the First Amendment? Me, neither.
    2
  9. They did a terrible job and were unprepared. They did not defend the First Amendment or the welfare of their students. They don't believe in either. What is wrong with them? How could people in this position be this poor?
    2
  10. This is what happens when people think they are owed a paycheck.
    2
  11. It can be First Amendment protected --- this happens to be true --- but they clearly have no idea how or when, or why, because they don't really care about the First Amendment. It was plain as day. I was stunned.
    1
  12. ​@shaneoberdier They did a terrible job, because they don't really care about the First Amendment, or the welfare of students on campus. They don't care, and didn't think they needed to know. No one like this should be admitted to Harvard, much less "lead" it. They don't stand for anything except their own paychecks. That, they are interested in.
    1
  13. ​ @bsquared4604 There is no general law against lying.
    1
  14. ​ @bsquared4604 A lot of unethical things are not criminal for all that. And some unethical things will get you fired from your job or excluded from the classroom, but they cannot be prosecuted or censored.
    1
  15. They have these positions, and have ZERO knowledge of free speech law, and ZERO ability to communicate, and ZERO knowledge of the history of their own institutions. What a disgrace.
    1
  16.  @assaf  I have an idea. Look up Brandenburg v. Ohio and see what speech is First Amendment protected. You can find a summary on Oyez and a one-page analysis on Legal Information Institute. We can start there. Then see what the Title VII workplace harassment rules say. This body of law will inform the standards of conduct on campus as well, though not exactly. The campus is a forum where demonstrations can take place and work, in general, is not. More speech is protected at university. But that gives no one a right to bully or harass or torment anyone else. Why didn't these university presidents explain this to the members of Congress? That's their job to explain it, when Congress calls them in, even if the hearing was grandstanding.
    1
  17. It never is justifiable. It could still be speech protected by the First Amendment. A lot of immoral speech is. That they could not explain the scope and limits of free speech at university tells you everything. They don't care about free speech. Why should they bother to learn about it and defend it properly?
    1
  18. ​ @sellmav This is generally true, but unless they study First Amendment law, or at least watch Glenn Greenwald for a while, they won't know. It's a specialized field of law, and you can't always rely on intuition. The real disgrace is that these university presidents can't explain free speech. They never learned it. They don't care about it.
    1
  19.  @nancymiller4557  That has nothing to do with this. And many of the Founders were disestablishmentarianists. Seriously, it was a movement, to make sure no public money went to support any church in any form.
    1
  20.  @malebovinemanure  The questions were shameless grandstanding, and as long as she excoriates someone not on your team, you think it's brilliant.
    1
  21.  @Kimbas3274  Why do you think? 💰 💰 💰
    1
  22.  @babyspider99  💰 💰 💰
    1