Another pointless post by our dumb fuck contrarian douchebag.
The easy and obvious example is calling for the elimination of Israel and Jews which is what "From the river to the sea" means
The colloquial term for this is "bullshit." I do not that term does it justice. The last sentence is pure bait. Hopefully you don't believe that, but as it is obviously false, I won't be addressing it and I'm skeptical anyone else will either.
Maybe you want to read/quote the entire post and not cherry pick the part that you believes makes a point about my position on the first amendment.
Since most of your focus is on the last sentence, I'll say that the last sentence is the most accurate but I should have said religious extremism.
So let me just make I sure I have this right: your position is that if Harvard "allows" anyone to say "From the river to the sea" or "Free Palestine" on their campus (meaning what exactly? That Harvard has to expel any student that says that on grounds that it's antisemitism? That Harvard has to remove anyone from campus that says that?) then they are rightly subject to losing all of their federal funding on grounds that they have enabled antisemitism?
Throw yourself a party then. Who do you think is going to agree with you that Palestinians are uncivilized?
supreme.justia.com
You're nitpicking the wording. It's the behavior of Gaza, as a country and neighbor of Israel, that prevents Gaza from being a sovereign entity.
To whatever degree the US government is required to fulfill previous financial obligations to Harvard, those should be fulfilled. Beyond that, I would have no issue with the US government stopping funding to Harvard or any other school that permits bigotry on their campus. As we both know, receiving federal funding often has strings attached to it, and the federal government loves to use those strings to get what they want or when they don't get what they want.The rest of your post was also bullshit. It's been explained to you why. I'll do it again very briefly. What you are describing is called "a primary effect of speech" -- i.e. the reactions of people who hear the speech, interpret it in a particular way and react accordingly.
The Supreme Court has been unfailingly clear over decades that the primary effect of speech is not an acceptable ground for muzzling it. Read Boos v. Barry (opinion by O'Connor).
Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988)
Boos v. Barry: Content-specific regulations on protected free speech must meet strict scrutiny, which means that they must be narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.
"This justification focuses only on the content of the speech and the direct impact that speech has on its listeners. The emotive impact of speech on its audience is not a "secondary effect." Because the display clause regulates speech due to its potential primary impact, we conclude it must be considered content-based."
Another way of putting the point is that you're asking for a heckler's veto. The Heckler’s Veto
But what do I know? I've only read virtually every speech-related Supreme Court case decided post WWII, for a paper I was working on. That's how I know cases like Boos v. Barry, which are otherwise not well known. If you would drop your petulance, you could actually learn a fair amount of law from what I post.
You're entitled to that opinion. Maybe that's what should happen -- maybe we should empower the president to unilaterally decide whether a school is complying with the law and hand down harsh, punitive sanctions to force it to submit to all sorts of clearly illegal conditions unrelated to the purported transgression. I don't think so. I think the president should follow the laws and procedures that govern how the money is distributed, especially since the power of the purse goes to Congress. I think that the president should not be attempting to determine what viewpoints should and shouldn't be hired by private universities; I think that's characteristic of totalitarian regimes and anathema to a free society. But hey, who knows, maybe you have some good ideas about what should be done.
I bet the government could find some "incitement to violence" in the calls to eliminate Israel, that wouldn't be protected speech, and would justify cutting funding.
Try squaring that with Brandenburg.
How much would you bet? I'd be willing to bet thousands on the other side. Speech is only unprotected if it is both intended to and effective in inciting imminent lawless actions. Advocating in the abstract is insufficient. It would have to be, "go kill all the Zionists now!" or something that would produce an immediate response.
www.rawstory.com
It's all part of his revenge tour where he uses the power of the federal gov't to get back at those who personally wronged him. Trump was turned down for Harvard undergraduate. Told him they didn't take students with a C average in HS. I'd always assumed it was because he was a draft-dodging POS.
