Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Columbia Student Protests Day 6: NO Free Speech On Campuses UNLESS SAFETY Assured, Rights Advocate" video.

WHAT violence on campus???
28
Maybe you should take a look at the Westboro Baptist Church case; RAV v. City of St. Paul; and Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case (Texas v. Johnson, I believe). You're confusing the First Amendment with Miss Manners.
10
It's entirely unclear whether anything the guest is saying is factually accurate. The demonstrators at Columbia did not block anyone's ability to move freely, including to avoid them completely.
9
Jewish Voice for Peace filed suit against Columbia last March 11th. You could read the court papers if you wanted to understand the law.
6
Well, but were there? Aren't facts important?
3
@mattnewhouse1781 See, for example, the Westboro Baptist Church case; RAV v. City of St. Paul; and Brandenburg v. Ohio. RAV was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia joined the opinion on the flag-burning case (Texas v. Johnson, I believe). You're confusing the First Amendment with Miss Manners. Better yet, consult Nadine Strossen.
3
@censoredamerican3331 When I saw this report, I couldn't find any, on any campus.
3
@SnowsStorm1 Er . . . The plaintiff has to demonstrate standing, and a viable legal claim. If the plaintiff has no legal ground whatsoever to press their claim, the suit is dismissed and they may even face some sanction, like having to pay the other side's court fees. Laws are not feelings or personal opinions. See, if you actually looked up the case . . . 🤷‍♂️
3
💯
2
@scotttovey Not just false -- delusional.
2
@candygustafson8858 There is no category of unprotected speech known as "hate speech." Just like there is no such thing as a "thought crime." All of those people listed by OP were told to "love it or leave it."
2
@scotttovey Your assertion that protesting US funding of a foreign war --- where the ICJ has found a plausible case of genocide, with the American judge agreeing --- is "treason." No. It's free speech. It's a classic case of free speech. If you want to organize a protest against the ICJ, that's your right. "From the river to the sea, _____ shall be free" is First Amendment protected political speech, no matter whether you put Israel or Palestine (or Likud, IDF, Hamas, etc., etc.) in the blank. See how that works? And Hess v. Indiana is still good law.
2
@RalphJBater First document her exact words.
2
@rezrunnercl Both chants are permitted. You should read the Supreme Court cases that give a lot of leeway to cross burning as symbolic speech. It isn't automatically classified as a threat, if you can believe it, though of course it may be and often is, depending on all the facts of the case. Still, First Amendment, yes!! Keep it strong, because the alternative is grim.
2
@ryanrex297 💯
2
@charlesmrader Huh? No one ever said you had no right to speak? Then you didn't go to those protests. Some protesters were even shot, and not just in Ohio. People were petrified of the civil rights movement, and were silent and looked the other way when protesters were beaten or shot because the protests scared them so much.
1
@scotttovey I answered you in detail. Seems to have disappeared. Amazing. Demonstrating against funding a foreign war that we have no part in, and where one participant is being cited for possible genocide, is free speech, not treason.
1
@scotttovey Well, unless you can find it by using the Newest tab to sort, I guess someone would rather that we not communicate.
1
@scotttovey Replied twice, went "poof!"
1
@Michael-qx6fr Actually, Krystal Ball featured a series of comments from a Columbia student that were elucidating: if a video shows city streets, shops, a subway, and similar scenes, it is OFF campus. The aerial photos of the student demonstrations confirm that.
1
@Techlax43 Did you miss the seder that Jewish students held on the Columbia lawn, which was without a doubt on campus and part of the demonstration?
1
@RalphJBater I see your point, yes.
1
@kenzaifun On the basis of race? Or for some other reason? In general, I'm for allowing anyone to speak provided there are people who want to hear from that person. The general problem we have is one of qualifications: we no longer have a consensus concerning what those are. If it is possible for a problem to be even larger than the problem of encroachment of the freedom of speech, then it is this one. One look at recent presidential elections, all candidates, would tell you that. Same goes for university presidents. I mean, come on. Get serious.
1
@kenzaifun Show me one instance of anyone, literally, screaming "death to the Jews" -- even a possible false flag or provocateur. Cameras and video recorders are everywhere. Recording is ubiquitous. So, where is the evidence? Fevered imaginations do not count. Glenn Greenwald has called for making public just one such recording. He promised to show it on System Update. So far, none have been forthcoming.
1
@kenzaifun Show me one instance of anyone literally screaming those words (which I can't even repeat, though you got to post them) -- even a possible false flag or provocateur. Cameras and video recorders are everywhere. Recording is ubiquitous. So, where is the evidence? Fevered imaginations do not count. Glenn Greenwald has called for making public just one such recording. He promised to show it on System Update. So far, none have been forthcoming.
1
@davidnguyen7891 Exactly!
1
@user-sk3me6qq1k "From the river to the sea, ____ shall be free" is First-Amendment protected political speech, regardless of whether you put Palestine or Israel in the blank. No, Brandenburg v. Ohio was not overturned while I was dozing, lol.
1
@millergdonald That wasn't the question. What will happen if something else were to happen (often a very useful exercise, even essential at times) was not the question.
1
@millergdonald Where did that happen? The aerial photos of the Columbia campus showed that the demonstrators were very easily avoided, for example -- absurdly so. The police called in to arrest them filled the area that had been mostly empty. NYU was probably different, because it is in a congested urban setting. Their presence probably forced some to go around them. I support speech and assembly. That will, in some areas, inconvenience some people.
1
@censoredamerican3331 Anyone have images? Words are not violence, nor are they videos.
1
@SnowsStorm1 You looked up the case? Then how is it that you do not know your OP is simply false?
1
@SnowsStorm1 How else would you ascertain the nature of the claim and the law it is based on? That's done by reading the complaint. It's far easier to obtain the other side's views if you start at the beginning and find the case name and number.
1
@Unfamous_Buddha Don't listen to this guy. Read the complaint, which has a jurisdictional statement. That's how the plaintiff asserts he's in the right court. Then it has to state the precise law it is based on, and why it applies to the facts. If the First Amendment had no application to the case, then it would be dismissed outright. There is no guessing involved.
1
@SnowsStorm1 Why are you pretending to know something about the law? 🤣
1
@SnowsStorm1 Columbia has adopted the First Amendment jurisprudence into its own bylaws. Hence, to sue on free speech grounds, you bring a contract action. I argued this elsewhere, forgot to say that here. Of course, except in California, where all universities are bound by law to afford First Amendment protection to students and faculty, a private university is subject to the First Amendment only by express adoption of the full panoply of free speech rights. Which it has done.
1
@SnowsStorm1 Yes it is. First, because they themselves adopted it. I've said that so many times, I no longer remember where --- OR where it was taken down by our free speech friends. In fact, I am almost certain did say it here, too. That doesn't mean you got to see it! Second, if they summon the NYC police, rather than their own, then the arm of the state is involved. The police cannot infringe on fundamental rights just because they were called in. Third, do see what the NYCLU complaint on behalf of JVP says. Read it for yourself. If a university adopts First Amendment jurisprudence by contract (which all of these universities testifying before Congress did), then it IS bound by the First Amendment. It doesn't disappear when convenient.
1
@SnowsStorm1 No, other posters said that if a university takes government money, it could be a First Amendment issue. This could come under Title VI or Title IX, possibly, but not having researched it, I didn't comment. It's a good question. I'll read up on that now.
1
@SnowsStorm1 I wonder how much you will see.
1
@SnowsStorm1 I was looking at originaljazz. Who is daniel?
1
@SnowsStorm1 As for Title VI, if they allow pro-Israeli demonstrations, student organizations, etc., they can't treat Palestinian demonstrations differently. So why didn't you acknowledge the point about a contractual obligation to respect the same free speech rights as on public university campuses? That would have been simple.
1
@SnowsStorm1 Maybe there's a lot that's missing here. Scents or ship? Irony.
1
@SnowsStorm1 If a university adopts First Amendment jurisprudence by contract (which all of the universities testifying before Congress do), then it IS bound by the First Amendment. There is nothing uncertain about it. As for public sector law enforcement, they are bound by the limits set forth by the Constitution, no matter whether they are on public or private property. This is a big fight among the billionaires. That's what this is.
1
@SnowsStorm1 What's the contract about?
1
@SnowsStorm1 🤣🤣🤣 You're doing me a favor.
1