Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "University of Pennsylvania president resigns after backlash over antisemitism testimony" video.

@TRUTHandLIGHT4809 Not if it adheres to First Amendment principles it can't. If it adheres to whichever way the wind blows and the dollars flow, well that's something else. It's a private institution, it doesn't have to respect free speech anymore than your boss does.
5
@tjsbbi She was utterly incompetent, probably because she neither knows First Amendment law, nor in her heart of hearts supports it. Out of these three university presidents, not one was capable of explaining -- and passionately defending -- free speech.
5
@tamdang8346 Exactly. But the worst part is what you see here: these people are SO easily led. Rile them up, and they can't think. Any skilled politician can make them fall for anything, especially with bullying tactics. People love to see someone privileged be bullied. And they'll give up constitutional rights for the thrill. (Speaking of thrills, I thought Stefanik was just a little too enthusiastic about being able to repeat those words.)
3
That was not a question that could be answered yes or no. Amazing how everyone loves bullying and falls for grandstanding. No one in this picture showed principles, character, or intelligence, and these are supposed to be leaders.
3
@dr.g3860 That's a good point. They are private, so they could ban all demonstrations pro Israel or pro Palestine on campus, as "too disruptive to the educational process," but if they banned one and not the other, they would be sued under Title VI. Yup, excellent point. (I wonder if she knows, lol.)
2
@professorwiggins3290 They CLAIM to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms. It's rather sad that their president could not articulate what those are. Well, I already said why I think they can't --- they stopped caring about free speech a long time ago.
2
@dr.g3860 Wait, are you KIDDING? And she cannot clearly articulate First Amendment law and ardently defend free speech? She never read Nadine Strossen? I read her last book twice. I noticed she was utterly incompetent but my GOD. This beats everything. I have got to look that up.
1
@dr.g3860 OH MY GOD. She is supposedly an eminent lawyer. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg!!! And she could not coherently explain and defend freedom of speech. Blew my mind. This is serious, but not for the reasons we're being told.
1
@dianadelcastillo1896 Your factual premises do not withstand scrutiny. You've just listed a whole bunch without evidence, and concluded "antisemitism." If that's true, then nearly every nation in the UN except for the United States has openly declared itself to be "antisemitic." In fact, everyone who does not support Likud is "antisemitic." That's not what the word means. First of all, where is the evidence that anyone on campus called for the "genocide" of any group? As for the young man who testified, did he make a report? Universities spend millions on administrators to ensure Title VI and Title IX are followed. These are Ivy League schools. The student managed to get admitted; he is supposed to know how to find the office and file a complaint to begin an INVESTIGATION, which he has a right and an obligation to demand. One would think. Tara Reade had more evidence. Crying wolf isn't a good idea, because there is real antisemitism in the world and it's always a sinister sign.
1
@mw5556 Because there is no evidence. Crazy how that is. Someone should just scream and grandstand, or write a letter (and ahem, make a campaign donation), and that should be enough to have someone else prosecuted for terrorism.
1
@JayChoi1118 They are paying attention. It's you who is falling for demagoguery yet again.
1
@victorseger6044 Yup. "Context" reminded me of Amber Heard's expert witness psychologist. Stupid buzzwords in the place of thought.
1
@Ndisikasewe What I found disgusting and shocking was that a woman who is supposed to be an eminent legal scholar --- who clerked for Justice Ginsberg --- cannot explain the First Amendment. Or distinguish between what is a full First Amendment forum on campus and what isn't. Or show concern for the rights of ALL students. At a state school, at a demonstration on the quad, students have a right to chant "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free." What they can't do is target Jewish students and show up with that stuff at their dorm or cafeteria. That's harassment. That could get them expelled. This was crystal clear when I was in school. Why are you so quick to give up more rights? You know the Fourth Amendment has been trashed, correct? You fell for that little Stefanik's act, who was fundraising? You think she's all worried about Jewish kids? You think Jewish kids aren't demonstrating for a cease fire, too, and chanting, too? Wow, are you easy to manipulate. I wish I were evil, it's clearly the way to make bank.
1
@F_YT2023 You're 💯 right --- but that applies to you, too.
1
@yolandabrinkman2653 Where has anyone been inciting affluent, pampered students of the world's most expensive, selective universities to commit genocide? Show me one such incident. Does any place around Harvard look like Gaza to you? You must know this is the tactic they used to lie to you about a recent pan demic, I dare not say more. You still don't spot it? Just change the outrage p**n and it all looks new to you?
1
@F_YT2023 This thread must be sense oared. Because I explained it adequately already.
1
@yolandabrinkman2653 Show me where anyone condoned incitement to commit genocide on any college campus. One example. Greenwald has been calling for examples. No one has managed to give him one so far.
1
Yup, sense er sheep. All over the place. Bravo, I guess words are violence, especially when overly logical and not bowing to the cause/hysteria du jour.
1
@F_YT2023 Advertising has groomed you.
1
@zdubzz1280 Targetted harassment, not to mention vandalism, can and should lead to expulsion, but no college demonstration I've seen consisted of anything other than First Amendment-protected speech. The fact that she cannot explain what I could explain in my sleep was mind-boggling. Like, maybe she doesn't know First Amendment law, or believe in free speech? ("Ya think?")
1
@zdubzz1280 In the US, the following are First Amendment protected when they are engaged in as a demonstration of political or social positions or beliefs: cross burning; swastikas; Israeli flags (flown, or shredded); Palestinian flags (flown, or shredded); American flags, ditto; protests against "anti-Christian moral decay" at the funerals of fallen soldiers (if not so close as to disrupt the ceremony and mourners); and calls for violent revolution. ALL of that is free speech. First, there is no evidence anyone called for the genocide of Jews. Second, if it happened during a demonstration, I think it should trigger an investigation, but not automatic punishment. It's not clear on its face whether it is outside the limits of free speech, and it very likely isn't. Third, private universities don't have to embrace the First Amendment. If they claim they do, then they should do so proudly.
1
@tactless8671 Upholding free speech if you have chosen to embrace it should be a very high priority. That confused and lukewarm defense of fundamental civil liberties, by people who are supposed to ardently believe in them, should worry you, not the "gotcha" performance of that careerist congresswoman. You still fall for manufactured hysteria? You don't ask for evidence? If you don't, then that should worry you. Don't jump when you're told to jump. There might be a cliff nearby.
1
@stucktrick5757 If not, the college is at risk of losing Title VI funding.
1
@wh2174 Colleges claim to embrace the First Amendment. It's sad when the presidents of the most illustrious colleges cannot explain First Amendment freedoms. Someone should send her Nadine Strossen's books as a retirement gift.
1
@wh2174 So, college should be a business? Lol, it's already ruined as a place of free inquiry. Maybe Silicon Valley fads in management should be enshrined as governing principles. That way, you can fire (expel) a person for pronoun errors and not worry about it. Serve cricket pilaf at the dorm as an experiment, require mindfulness meditation before breakfast, reward students for viral memes, etc.
1
@JS-dt1tn Private universities can choose to embrace speech codes instead of free speech, because they are private, but they can have very serious problems if they discriminate in the enforcement of speech codes. They could end up in court on Title VI. Could? Would!
1
@andrewduff2048 Congress cannot ban First Amendment protected speech because it would be struck down as unconstitutional. But the rest of that post is great.
1
@JS-dt1tn Title VI doesn't force a private entity to embrace the full panoply of First Amendment freedoms, it just mandates strict equality in enforcing any speech or conduct code they adopt. They can't favor Jews over Palestinians, etc. PEN American Center has a great explanation of free speech on campus. Anyway, those private universities DID adopt the First Amendment, so this is moot. They have to apply it to everyone.
1
@peggypasson8794 That's simple. Discrimination isn't covered under free speech. That's why it can lead to loss of employment, expulsion from school, a lawsuit, etc. Just like defamation, harassment, criminal conspiracy, all sorts of things that are crimes or torts. If speech is free, the consequences are more speech, not censorship. Pro-Israel students must have every opportunity to demonstrate and to denounce the political positions they find abhorrent.
1
@alphafort Other countries don't have a First Amendment. I hope we can keep ours. We believe the perpetrator is responsible for violence. An instigator has to be very explicit and has to incite imminent violence to be culpable.
1
@maryjohnson1890 That's up to them. It's not a law that they can't. I think people who fall for the hysteria du jour, after all the hysteria we've already had in this decade, might benefit from therapy, too.
1
@57Thumper 💯
1
@JS-dt1tn Exactly! Great point.
1
Consequences as to what, exactly? To targeted threats or harassment? Certainly. To attending a lawful demonstration in support of Palestine? The First Amendment protects that. Laws against swastikas and cross burning have been struck down as unconstitutional. Repeatedly. In America, you can fly any flag --- or burn it.
1
FreDDyjewGer-co6cq Is mine in vi si bled?
1