Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Robby Soave: College Elites Who Allow Antisemitic Speech Are HYPOCRITES, LYING About Censorship" video.

Brie also supports free speech. You've never seen her love fests with Glenn Greenwald? Or is listening to what a beautiful, intelligent woman has to say just too distracting?
6
@christr1ut87 I don't disagree with that, except that private universities are not government actors with respect to the First Amendment. But don't get me wrong, I think you're right. This was a communication problem, and I see that now. Brie should have acknowledged Robby's points and complimented him on his radar, and only then brought up her own points. But it was Robby who became objectively rude. Now, if she wants to paint him as some sort of Ben Shapiro hyper-Zionist, and he gets p'd off, at this point I cannot blame him. Takes two to tango . . .
6
Nope. Listened again from the top. She is right. You can't seem to follow? The anti-BDS laws that Abby Martin sued about and won were anti-First Amendment laws. Not colleges or opinions. Laws. You didn't hear that? Hm.
5
She never said that. She objected to Congress inviting a student to testify about an unproven, implausible claim of antisemitism that would be sanctioned if it happened.
4
 @wekurtz72 False. She mentioned anti-BDS laws, which are violations of First Amendment freedoms.
4
 @digitalzomb That's your answer? Facts don't care about your feelings.
3
 @subboid I watched both. Twice.
3
@amazingkris The only reason I think this is an excessively bad rap is because I am persuaded that her conduct is not born out of a desire to one-up anybody, but is a sincere expression of her concern for what is turning out to be a bloodbath in Gaza. This is not going to be a win for anybody. I think people in the States are too wrapped up in asserting themselves and competing, and have lost the sense of how they come across to the rest of the world. It's as if nothing is real, everything is score keeping and cashing in. 2020 to the present have been the worst years I have lived through, and that is saying a lot. In saying this, I am not absolving her of her communication issues. They are on her. I think you have her motives wrong.
3
 @ThisIsMyHandle333 Try listening again. Or educate yourself on First Amendment principles.
3
Listened carefully a second time, from the beginning. Brie is right.
3
@twoshedsjohnson8540 I do not defend her communication skills here.
3
 @gazmain All the more reason I'd like to hear her argument. Clearly it's not the usual talking points.
2
16:42 WHO WAS RUDE?
2
@WhatEver-gu9pz This was a communication problem, and I see that now. Brie should have acknowledged Robby's points and complimented him on his radar, and only then brought up her own, related points. But it was Robby who became objectively rude. Now, if she wants to paint him as some Ben Shapiro hyper-Zionist, and he gets p'd off, at this point I cannot blame him. It misrepresents who he is and what he believes. Takes two to tango . . .
2
No, exactly the opposite.
2
@nedrane297 Well, true enough, but don't you find it odd that it is before Congress? With such an undeveloped record? Why? (Was this just for show?) When it comes to that, then it is fair to ask about the violence against Muslims -- not violence to their feelings, but to their bodies. I remember after 9/11 when George Bush said that's not who we are. I mean, he even used it as a pretext for invading Iraq, but he refused to tolerate anti-Muslim violence on our own territory. This society is more and more unprincipled every darn day.
2
Well, the UN considers this serious enough to invoke Article 99, a measure allowing for the Secretary General to call for the Security Council to meet in emergency session at any time, day or night. I guess it's important.
2
@integrallens6045 I will grant you, it is not intuitive, and at the extremes, there are judgment calls. But in these college cases, the line is drawn when harassment is directed at a particular student, just as it would be in the workplace under Title VII hostile environment discrimination -- which, by the way, is a hard standard to meet. (Justice O'Connor wrote a lot of those opinions for a conservative Court.) Students are considered personally more vulnerable and in need of protection because they are young, but are also expected to be able to listen to ALL sorts of opinions and be exposed to ideas they find abhorrent without going to pieces. If they feel threatened by an opinion and don't want to engage the speaker in a discussion, they are supposed to learn to walk away, not run to Mommy. They are supposed to organize their own demonstration, or write for the school paper about it, etc. Yeah, well . . . After the COVID disaster, I don't know how anyone is willing to give the government more power to encroach on any Amendment, including the Second. Personally, I regret having to acknowledge that, but facts are facts. A free society means taking personal responsibility. My best friend hated guns, then married a veteran who had them. He asked her to join his gun club and give it a chance. If she couldn't do it, he'd get rid of them on the principle that all the adults in the home should be trained. Well, she ended up practicing marksmanship and winning matches. :)
2
Anti-BDS laws are most certainly anti-free speech laws.
1
@AndyMilonakis-j5p I agree with this, too. Substantively, it was the right question to ask in December 2023. Let's get real.
1
@amandalindquist2262 Before Congress? Please give exactly two of these many examples. And if it were common, would that make it right?
1
@amandalindquist2262 Baseless accusations of racism are a Bad Thing, correct? They are unfair to the accused, they are defamatory, they undermine trust and belief in the genuine cases. Like MeToo abuse, correct?
1
This is harassment. Is there a report on record?
1
@nedrane297 That can be testified to. "I cannot say more about an ongoing investigation on advice of my attorney." Or, "I made a report (submit it redacted) but it was ignored by the administration." Don't sweep any of this under the rug. Robby was right, they are all wrong.
1
Show me who. One example of someone actually expelled or fired in the United States.
1
 @AB-ol5uz Show me the example.
1
Anti-BDS laws are against free speech.
1
@bentritle9221 Israel is doing that stuff over and over and over again, though. UN just called an emergency session of the Security Council. Our emergency is the growing power of the BRICS. Think of her as a window to their thinking, because it probably is. Too bad RT is banned. It would be a good time to spy on what they are pushing, for those who want to know.
1
"Hate speech" is not illegal as such. It can be sanctioned only in certain very narrow contexts, and only in civil suits, not criminal: Title VII hostile environment claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and the like. Colleges are supposed to use Title VII to inform their regulations. If you are subjected to hate speech, the position of the government is that you should walk away. If you can't, then you might be able to sue for damages, depending on all the facts and circumstances. If it rises to the level of a true threat, then you can call the police.
1
You never heard of Brandenburg v. Ohio? The white guy didn't go to jail. You never heard of the cross burning in R.A.V. v. St. Paul? The white kid did not go to detention or pay a fine.
1
None of those are illegal when advocated as a theoretical matter. Incitement has a specific meaning, and must be directed at a particular person or group and involve some form of imminent physical danger to that person or group. Glenn Greenwald covered this, in his discussion of Brandenburg v. Ohio.
1
@integrallens6045 If there is no armed group you are addressing or nearby group you are targetting, then there is no danger of imminent violence. It's not controversial, it's really First Amendment protected.
1
Not only that, but "hate speech" is not illegal as such. It can be sanctioned only in certain very narrow contexts, and only in civil suits, not criminal: Title VII hostile environment claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and the like. Colleges are supposed to use Title VII to inform their own regulations. Nadine Strossen wrote about this extensively. If you are subjected to hate speech, the position of the government is that you should walk away. If you can't, then you might be able to sue for damages, depending on all the facts and circumstances. If it rises to the level of a true threat against you, then you can call the police.
1
@integrallens6045 I have an idea. Read Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's online. Read the whole case. See what it says. Then when you're done, read R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Then see what you think.
1
@integrallens6045 In any case, I anticipated your objection, and I didn't say the group perpetrating violence had to be nearby. Obviously, they can plan in one location and travel to another --- although that would be prosecuted as a conspiracy, most likely. No Internet needed for that, conspiracies have been around for millenia. Yet even in such a case, it is not instigation of an imminent attack, so the analysis is different. It is not the speech itself that is inherently unprotected and criminal, but the fact that the speech is an essential part of another crime (criminal conspiracy) that matters. In any event, that's not what "or" means in what I wrote. Go read the cases. That's where the law is.
1
@integrallens6045 It's really sad for me to see, that after all of this cancel culture garbage, censorship of valid questions and information sharing during the pandemic, and all the rest that we've been through during the last decade and since 9/11, there is no appreciation for what the First Amendment is. People have no idea, and no taste for it. Then there's nothing special about America. That was the last thing left.
1
@integrallens6045 You're welcome, it's fine. I really am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. RAV is a case where a St. Paul ordinance banning cross burning, swastikas and similar symbols was struck down as unconstitutional. A liberal decision? No, a Scalia opinion, with concurrences.
1
@wekurtz72 No. She does have communication issues, but that is not what she did.
1
16:42 WHO WAS RUDE?
1