The_barBEARian said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Whiskey Pete said:

---

If you're in the United States on a visa and call for the death to America and calling for the killing of people, you should probably have your visa revoked and immediately sent packing

---

Here's an article that kind of lays out the case law on the First Amendment and aliens. (International, not Roswell).

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/aliens/#:~:text=Once%20situated%20lawfully%20in%20the,his%20concurrence%20in%20Bridges%20v.

---

Well we shouldn't be beholden to 100 year old case law. And even at the time, this long deceased Judge was an idiot for reaching this decision. This country is facing a co-ordinated invasion.

Constitutional rights should only be afforded to actual citizens.

We need a moratorium on legal immigration and a mass deportation campaign on illegal immigration. Also need congress to remove birthright citizenship.

---

Congress can't remove birthright citizenship. It's in the Constitution, requires an amendment.


Your post is filled with "just ignore the Constitution." Is that what you really think is best?

---

I think removing birthright citizenship is best, Yes. Absolutely!

They literally had to kill half the American citizenry to pass the 14th amendment and that was the beginning of centralized government clawing away our rights in this country.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

---

It isn't evil to want to restrain and punish speech that promotes or incites violence. Anyone who is honest knows that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is speech that has been acted on many times before, leading to the violent deaths of Americans and Israelis.

I still want an answer to my previous question: do you believe that if someone says they will kill another person on a future date five years from now (so, not imminently) that it should be legal to say, and should be protected speech?

---

First, I said "imminent" is judged by juries on the facts of each case. Because there is no hard and fast rule, there could be circumstances under which the threat you described is criminal.

Second, to the extent the threat is not imminent I said it is legal and protected, not that it should be.

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

---

It isn't evil to want to restrain and punish speech that promotes or incites violence. Anyone who is honest knows that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is speech that has been acted on many times before, leading to the violent deaths of Americans and Israelis.

I still want an answer to my previous question: do you believe that if someone says they will kill another person on a future date five years from now (so, not imminently) that it should be legal to say, and should be protected speech?

---

....
The ironic thing is that you are making the same type of argument that comes from the snowflake, woke left. They want to criminalize "hate speech" and remove it from the First Amendment. Their base argument is that the speech itself is the harm, by saying it you satisfy the Brandenburg test because the harm is immediate, not just imminent.

To most sane people , the answer is that whatever harm come from hate speech alone (meaning no violence or trespass attached) is less than the harm that comes from repression of ideas and liberty. Same thing here-without a specific, credible threat the harm of outlawing offensive language far outweighs the harm of allowing it.

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

Did someone really shout that he should know all 500 names?

---

90sBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

Did someone really shout that he should know all 500 names?

---

That's several years old. He and his wife resigned as heads of the residence college.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/yale-professor-and-wife-targets-of-protests-resign-as-college-heads.html

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

Did someone really shout that he should know all 500 names?

---

Quote:

---

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to
the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear. I've always found Halloween an interesting
embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach
a class on "The Concept of the Problem Child," and I was speaking with some of my students
yesterday about the ways in which Halloween traditionally a day of subversion for children and
young people is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics,
or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now,
we've grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are
unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don't wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other
challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have
proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those
goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as
a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative)
exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about
complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue "signalling." But I wanted to
share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the
developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is
something objectionably "appropriative" about a blonde-haired child's wanting to be Mulan for a day.
Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the
business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it.

I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture,
wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But,
then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if
you aren't a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don't know the
answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain
that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don't, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on
others. I can't defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween,
anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I've always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I
love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica.

When I lived in Bangladesh, Ibought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others' cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.
Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense and I'll note that no one around campus seems
overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes
I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young
person to be a little bit obnoxious... a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American
universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even
transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.
And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves!

Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity in your capacity - to exercise self-
censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?
We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs.
liberal values ("liberal" in the American, not European sense of the word).
Nicholas says, if you don't like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are
offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free
and open society.

But again, speaking as a child development specialist I think there might be something missing in
our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it
is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their
strength and judgment?
In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I
know that.
Happy Halloween.
Yours sincerely,
Erika

---

90sBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

Did someone really shout that he should know all 500 names?

---

That's several years old. He and his wife resigned as heads of the residence college.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/yale-professor-and-wife-targets-of-protests-resign-as-college-heads.html

---

Chipoople said:

---

It's pretty funny watching the Democratic and Republican parties both splintering at the same time.

About time.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

A 1966 poll found that among Yale students only 10% favored withdrawal from Vietnam. When the Johnson Administration restricted draft deferments the following year, however, support for withdrawal surged, and the anti-war movement at Yale ballooned.

It's often overlooked that in… pic.twitter.com/Y9600nusGZ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) April 22, 2024

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

I believe this is when the college students turned into little brats - 8 years ago.

---

Look at all the faces of absolute privledge in that crowd of kids and they literally believe they are oppressed.

What a horrid job of raising children to be greatful for their blessings we as adults have done. These kids have more privledge than over 99% of the people that have been born on this planet and here they are living in a make believe world of oppression.

---

Did someone really shout that he should know all 500 names?

---

This is the e-mail from the man's wife that spurned all of this..

Quote:

---

Dear Sillimanders:

Nicholas and I have heard from a number of students who were frustrated by the mass email sent to
the student body about appropriate Halloween-wear. I've always found Halloween an interesting
embodiment of more general adult worries about young people. As some of you may be aware, I teach
a class on "The Concept of the Problem Child," and I was speaking with some of my students
yesterday about the ways in which Halloween traditionally a day of subversion for children and
young people is also an occasion for adults to exert their control.

When I was young, adults were freaked out by the specter of Halloween candy poisoned by lunatics,
or spiked with razor blades (despite the absence of a single recorded case of such an event). Now,
we've grown to fear the sugary candy itself. And this year, we seem afraid that college students are
unable to decide how to dress themselves on Halloween.

I don't wish to trivialize genuine concerns about cultural and personal representation, and other
challenges to our lived experience in a plural community. I know that many decent people have
proposed guidelines on Halloween costumes from a spirit of avoiding hurt and offense. I laud those
goals, in theory, as most of us do. But in practice, I wonder if we should reflect more transparently, as
a community, on the consequences of an institutional (which is to say: bureaucratic and administrative)
exercise of implied control over college students.

It seems to me that we can have this discussion of costumes on many levels: we can talk about
complex issues of identify, free speech, cultural appropriation, and virtue "signalling." But I wanted to
share my thoughts with you from a totally different angle, as an educator concerned with the
developmental stages of childhood and young adulthood.

As a former preschool teacher, for example, it is hard for me to give credence to a claim that there is
something objectionably "appropriative" about a blonde-haired child's wanting to be Mulan for a day.
Pretend play is the foundation of most cognitive tasks, and it seems to me that we want to be in the
business of encouraging the exercise of imagination, not constraining it.

I suppose we could agree that there is a difference between fantasizing about an individual character vs. appropriating a culture,
wholesale, the latter of which could be seen as (tacky)(offensive)(jejeune)(hurtful), take your pick. But,
then, I wonder what is the statute of limitations on dreaming of dressing as Tiana the Frog Princess if
you aren't a black girl from New Orleans? Is it okay if you are eight, but not 18? I don't know the
answer to these questions; they seem unanswerable. Or at the least, they put us on slippery terrain
that I, for one, prefer not to cross.

Which is my point. I don't, actually, trust myself to foist my Halloweenish standards and motives on
others. I can't defend them anymore than you could defend yours. Why do we dress up on Halloween,
anyway? Should we start explaining that too? I've always been a good mimic and I enjoy accents. I
love to travel, too, and have been to every continent but Antarctica.

When I lived in Bangladesh, Ibought a sari because it was beautiful, even though I looked stupid in it and never wore it once. Am I fetishizing and appropriating others' cultural experiences? Probably. But I really, really like them too.
Even if we could agree on how to avoid offense and I'll note that no one around campus seems
overly concerned about the offense taken by religiously conservative folks to skin-revealing costumes
I wonder, and I am not trying to be provocative: Is there no room anymore for a child or young
person to be a little bit obnoxious... a little bit inappropriate or provocative or, yes, offensive? American
universities were once a safe space not only for maturation but also for a certain regressive, or even
transgressive, experience; increasingly, it seems, they have become places of censure and prohibition.
And the censure and prohibition come from above, not from yourselves!

Are we all okay with this transfer of power? Have we lost faith in young people's capacity in your capacity - to exercise self-
censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?
We tend to view this shift from individual to institutional agency as a tradeoff between libertarian vs.
liberal values ("liberal" in the American, not European sense of the word).
Nicholas says, if you don't like a costume someone is wearing, look away, or tell them you are
offended. Talk to each other. Free speech and the ability to tolerate offence are the hallmarks of a free
and open society.

But again, speaking as a child development specialist I think there might be something missing in
our discourse about the exercise of free speech (including how we dress ourselves) on campus, and it
is this: What does this debate about Halloween costumes say about our view of young adults, of their
strength and judgment?
In other words: Whose business is it to control the forms of costumes of young people? It's not mine, I
know that.
Happy Halloween.
Yours sincerely,
Erika

---

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

in 1969, the Black Panthers and another black nationalist organization had a gunfight in a classroom meeting of UCLA’s Black Student Union, killing two https://t.co/kmHMYbbTe3

— David Hines (@hradzka) April 24, 2024

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

A 1966 poll found that among Yale students only 10% favored withdrawal from Vietnam. When the Johnson Administration restricted draft deferments the following year, however, support for withdrawal surged, and the anti-war movement at Yale ballooned.

It's often overlooked that in… pic.twitter.com/Y9600nusGZ

— Lafayette Lee (@Partisan_O) April 22, 2024

---

Maybe it was because the corruption of the war became more evident.

---

For years, conservative students, speakers, and activists nationwide have been enduring the brunt of leftist assaults!

Where the hell was the GOP epiphany then? https://t.co/r2I75taPbs

— Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) April 25, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

For years, conservative students, speakers, and activists nationwide have been enduring the brunt of leftist assaults!

Where the hell was the GOP epiphany then? https://t.co/r2I75taPbs

— Lauren Chen (@TheLaurenChen) April 25, 2024

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

---

It isn't evil to want to restrain and punish speech that promotes or incites violence. Anyone who is honest knows that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is speech that has been acted on many times before, leading to the violent deaths of Americans and Israelis.

I still want an answer to my previous question: do you believe that if someone says they will kill another person on a future date five years from now (so, not imminently) that it should be legal to say, and should be protected speech?

---

First, I said "imminent" is judged by juries on the facts of each case. Because there is no hard and fast rule, there could be circumstances under which the threat you described is criminal.

Second, to the extent the threat is not imminent I said it is legal and protected, not that it should be.

---

That's what I'm asking you - do YOU, Frank Galvin, think that speech should be legal and protected?

Do you believe that ANY threat to someone's life, regardless of the timeframe they put on it (imminence), should be illegal, and considered unprotected speech?

---

Republicans continued to fund these universities during Black Lives Matter. They continued to fund them during the DEI revolution. They continued to fund them as academic "defund the police" theories became public policy.

As @America_2100 says: This did not start six months ago. https://t.co/Yz9BIOlsj1

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) April 25, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

Republicans continued to fund these universities during Black Lives Matter. They continued to fund them during the DEI revolution. They continued to fund them as academic "defund the police" theories became public policy.

As @America_2100 says: This did not start six months ago. https://t.co/Yz9BIOlsj1

— Nate Hochman (@njhochman) April 25, 2024

---

Gov. Abbott's approach, which included an executive order to suppress speech, is misguided. https://t.co/qJPMYm4CiQ

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) April 25, 2024

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have repeatedly said there should be arrests for actual crimes, whether that be unlawful assemnby, trespass, assault, etc. And that has happened. Its just that speech is not one of those crimes.

As far as the evil left, you might note that it all conservatives on this thread who want to restrain and punish speech.

---

It isn't evil to want to restrain and punish speech that promotes or incites violence. Anyone who is honest knows that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" is speech that has been acted on many times before, leading to the violent deaths of Americans and Israelis.

I still want an answer to my previous question: do you believe that if someone says they will kill another person on a future date five years from now (so, not imminently) that it should be legal to say, and should be protected speech?

---

First, I said "imminent" is judged by juries on the facts of each case. Because there is no hard and fast rule, there could be circumstances under which the threat you described is criminal.

Second, to the extent the threat is not imminent I said it is legal and protected, not that it should be.

---

That's what I'm asking you - do YOU, Frank Galvin, think that speech should be legal and protected?

Do you believe that ANY threat to someone's life, regardless of the timeframe they put on it (imminence), should be illegal, and considered unprotected speech?

---

I don't think chanting Death to America by itself should be illegal. Just like burning the American flag should not be illegal.

---

New: The Travis County attorney dropped 46 charges after 57 people were arrested at a pro-Palestinian demonstration Wednesday.

A spokesperson for the attorney's office said law enforcement lacked probable cause in the cases dismissed. https://t.co/pzl2BdGiLB

— Texas Tribune (@TexasTribune) April 25, 2024

The American Association of University Professors announces a statement of no confidence in UT President Jay Hartzell.

“Faculty demand that criminal charges against students and others be dropped”

“End Hamas Now” in the background from a group of Jewish counterprotesters pic.twitter.com/3ndu2q1iBl

— Ryan Chandler (@RyanChandlerTV) April 25, 2024

Update our photographer was released just now from Travis County Jail.

He was booked last night at 8:29pm. @fox7austin pic.twitter.com/euZnliA2bj

— Jessica Rivera (@JessicaonFOX7) April 25, 2024

The_barBEARian said:

---

BearN said:

---

Whites make up over 70% of the population in this country, and have never been seriously threatened with bodily harm en masse in this country. Christians (not talking about inter-denomination fights early in our history) have not been seriously threatened with bodily harm en masse in this country.

Jews are a minority. They make up less than 3% of our population, and are being threatened with bodily harm all over this country. Hundreds of thousands of protestors in this country are calling for mass extinction of the Jews.

This is something quite different.

---

Totally false.

BLM riots were much worse and they were not pro-black, they were anti-white riots.

Normal white people were assaulted and even a few were killed. Haven't seen these anti-zionist riots get anywhere close to the "summer of love"

---

BearN said:

---

Hundreds of thousands of protestors in this country are calling for mass extinction of the Jews.

---