Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Burlison Asks Harvard's President If She's Taken Steps To Remove Students For Justice In Palestine" video.

And here I thought we were against cancel culture.
7
 @Planet_Xplorer This excerpt was.
4
What did the letter say that created a basis for an investigation of those organizations? Can someone write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class? Or, it's enough to trigger an Investigation?
4
@liseklerekoper2441 If you did your research, you would know Israelis have expressed that very concern in the pages of Haaretz for years. You would know that Israel has a peace movement. I wish American did.
3
Because some other group wrote a letter? I thought we were against cancel culture.
2
@yolandabrinkman2653 There is no general "hate crimes" law. Who told you there was?
2
@verityveracity6704 If that's true, OMG. More money changed hands?
2
For a second, I thought of the president, lol.
2
Oh now I get it. The letter was from a group with MORE MONEY than the groups that then got investigated and banned. Silly me. That took way too long.
2
Wrong. He talked about a letter. What did the letter say? Did it contain evidence that student organizations were fronts for terrorist cells or were terrorist sympathizers? Or is a letter all you need, with the right accusations? I thought we were against cancel culture.
1
@republicansthatdidntvotefo1605 I am chagrined that people are this quick to give up rights -- one obviously grandstanding congresswoman making her career with outrage p**n is enough. I'm starting to wonder how we ever got them in the first place. Look up RAV v. City of St. Paul. 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 coming to the same conclusion for different reasons, from Justices who didn't like his approach but agreed the ban was unconstitutional.
1
What did the letter say that created a basis for an investigation of those organizations? Can someone write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class? Or, it's enough to trigger an Investigation? Just a letter, calling me a racist, etc.? I thought we were against cancel culture.
1
Not from this excerpt.
1
Leslie Wexner did, and he gave hundreds of millions. Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's close friend and patron. They were taking his money until this happened and he withdrew his support.
1
 @liseklerekoper2441 Yeah, Leslie Wexner, a huge donor, withdrew all support. You remember Wexner? He was Jeffrey Epstein's closest friend and patron. That wasn't a problem, apparently.
1
We can start by outlawing China from buying our Treasury Bonds. Oh wait.
1
The honorable thing would be a spirited defense of First Amendment freedoms, and an explanation of the scope and limits of conduct codes in light of those freedoms. But maybe they don't really care about that, huh? Maybe that's it.
1
Maybe you should take the time to read about the First Amendment. Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio, then RAV v City of St. Paul.
1
They can't be an officially recognized student organization, but if they want to open an independent chapter in town, right down the street, and they can afford it, they can.
1
Where did you see evidence that any student group made terrorist threats? Is a bare claim in a letter enough? I thought we were against cancel culture.
1
@peterardison5930 Oh good. So someone can write a letter about me, or about some group I belong to, and because they don't like my opinions, I can be fired from my job or removed from a class. Or, it's enough to trigger an investigation. Wonderful. I better not cross anyone with beaucoup bucks.
1
@peterardison5930 What law was broken? Before you answer, read Brandenburg v. Ohio. Then try R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
1
@peterardison5930 Jesus loves readers.
1
@odeleya1768 YES IT IS protected speech, because it isn't a true threat unless imminent violence is actually threatened or incited. I suggest you do some reading, since you care so much (paraphrasing Socrates right there). Start with Brandenburg v. Ohio. It's the most important case. Next, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (about cross burning and swastikas, etc.; a Scalia opinion) Find out what our rights are . . . before we lose them. Before they become quaint.
1
@odeleya1768 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 from Justices who came to the same conclusion using different reasoning. IOW, solid First Amendment law. Don't be so easily led. Did you support mandates, too? Were you scared and everything?
1
@odeleya1768 White people can say the police in the George Floyd case did the world a favor. I hear that one all the time. Do you correct them, or no?
1
@AEMoreira81 Thanks for this!! Will read it immediately. With all the anti-free speech warriors around, there is no time to waste. :(
1
@AEMoreira81 They did not make a case for the First Amendment. Instead, they used contemporary buzzwords like "context." You have to wonder whether they understand freedom of speech or support it. I'm truly chagrined by their incompetence. The First Amendment isn't supposed to be bent to satisfy this constituency or that constituency, this fat donor or that fat donor. Why didn't they stand up for free speech?
1
Oh now I get it. The letter was from a group with MORE MONEY than the groups that then got investigated and banned. Silly me. That took way too long.
1