Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Peter Beinart & Omer Bartov on UPenn President Resignation, Gaza & the Weaponization of Antisemitism" video.

  1. Let's be honest: the university presidents did a terrible job. This is evident from the explanations given by these two distinguished scholars. The factual premises of Stefanik's questions were not challenged, the presidents showed no real interest in the concerns of Jewish students, and were lukewarm in their defense of the First Amendment when they should have been passionate. Political speech during times of controversy and war must be zealously protected. Amy Goodman shined here. Thank you, Amy.
    12
  2. They did a terrible job. Let's face it.
    11
  3. They did a poor job standing up to demagoguery. I expected much better. I wonder if they do support free speech. The real problem could be that they don't.
    7
  4. You are too kind. That was Stefanik fundraising, and wow did she do a good job.
    7
  5. Worse than that. Liz Magill is considered an eminent legal scholar. She clerked for Justice Ginsberg. I was stunned. She did a poor job, let's be honest.
    2
  6. As a general matter, the First Amendment protects that speech. The standard for true threats or incitement to violence, both of which are crimes, is very high. See Brandenburg v Ohio, and RAV v St. Paul, or the Westboro Baptist Church case. The problem with campuses is that most of the campus is not a true free speech forum. No one should have to hear that kind of rhetoric in their dorm or directed at them personally anywhere. When there is a march in a big city, you can just avoid it.
    2
  7. @gothgammy666  As Ash Sarkar said to Piers Morgan when he tried his best to bait her, "I'm a communist, you idiot. No, I'm literally a communist." Or better yet, in the immortal words of the late Françoise Dorleac, "Nobody asked your opinion."
    1
  8. @elyg I'm pretty sure you never read Brandenburg v. Ohio, RAV v. St. Paul, the Westboro Baptist Church case, or any harassment case, or any book on propaganda, or free speech, or antisemitism, or anything, probably. Or listened to a single Glenn Greenwald talk on any of these issues, like, ever.
    1
  9. @mariahewitt9787  The tide is turning, and more people are seeing through Stefanik --- and Ackman, for that matter.
    1
  10. @gothgammy666  The tide is turning, but that's not any thanks to insipid smear merchants like you. Unless this is some more false flag? It has that flavor all right.
    1
  11. Liz Magill is not only considered a leading legal scholar, but is a former Ginsberg clerk and the daughter of a federal judge. It's enough to make you weep.
    1
  12. @zephyrus001  The "context" (lord how I hate that word --- remember how it came out of the mouth of Amber Heard's "expert witness?") is a narrow one: its utterance during otherwise lawful assemblies in designated First Amendment fora like the quad. That is where Brandenburg v Ohio, RAV v City of St. Paul, etc., etc., apply --- and make no mistake, they do. They are not relevant in the dorms, dining halls, classrooms, amphitheaters, libraries, or pretty much anywhere else, and do not apply in the First Amendment fora, either, the moment one student or group singles out another for targeted harassment. This is also a great example of First Amendment jurisprudence in another respect: plenty of legitimate Middle Eastern scholars will tell you calls for intifada are calls for resistance, not genocide. It's not up to government to censor them, absent a "compelling interest," a standard the government cannot meet in light of the cases mentioned, where laws against actual cross burning and Nazi symbols were struck down as unconstitutional. Kind of sad when university presidents can't explain it. Isn't it? :/
    1
  13.  @zephyrus001  Anyway, we basically agree. Obviously. Was my main post, directly above, placed in shade? It has big words in it.
    1
  14.  @jamessilver6429  I'm a lawyer. Can you see my posts? How do I sound?
    1
  15.  @jamessilver6429  Amy Goodman has been wonderful since the terrorist attacks of October 7.
    1
  16. @zephyrus001  Where is the factual predicate here? There is no question that targeting and confronting a Jewish student individually and using words that can reasonably be construed as advocacy of genocide IS Title VI harassment. Who did that, at Harvard, MIT, or Pennsylvania? I'd expel them myself, and I'm sure they can find a lawyer to bring a civil suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress. As for the rest, I support free speech in traditional or designated First Amendment fora. These standards of review are a long discussion, and I'm reading Chemerinsky again (his constitutional law textbook) even as we speak. His short book on campus speech, and Nadine Strossen's, are both must-read. If you don't agree with Strossen, she has nevertheless set the mark. Anyone who wants to say anything coherent about free speech, especially at university, has to grapple with her analysis. Yes, she is that good. She explains exactly why odious speech is better left alone than suppressed, however counterintuitive that may be, with many examples.
    1
  17. She was fundraising. She succeeded. I thought she got a little thrill repeating the question. I wonder why.
    1
  18. How is it that people are unprepared, seven years after the 2016 election?
    1
  19. I think that's true. The problem that I see is that they don't offer a passionate defense of First Amendment freedoms because they don't believe in them themselves. Students need to feel safe on campus in order to freely engage in political speech. The two are not opposed, but intimately connected.
    1
  20.  @paulmartin6419  For a lot of people, yes, exactly that. Not everyone.
    1