Political Roundtable Part X

[dckingsfan]

...While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible....

Sorry for cherry picking cammac but that is such an understatement as to be silly. They weren't even close. Herbert Hoover was the last one to promise us a chicken in every pot - how did that turn out?

Bernie flat out lied about the fiscal consequences of his programs. So many of the socialist democracies in Europe are struggling because they aren't fiscally sustainable.

It is one thing to want to push social projects, quite another not to be fiscally sane.

[FAH1223]

It is obvious that Trump is toast, he has run a absolutely terrible campaign and frankly it was a disgrace that he ever became the candidate. But one of the realities is that about 30 to 35% of both Republicans & Democrats are very unhappy with the status quo and that won't change. Obviously a shift has happened in that white males with HS or less have shifted towards the Republicans that has always been the case in the south but now more in mid America. On the Democratic side Bernie's strong rum in the primaries is shifting a part of the Democratic party. This is a trend more towards more socialist democracies after like Canada, Australia, NZ and Europe. A light that socialism isn't a bad name and a just a communist plot. While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible but some policies are sound in regulations against Wall St. & banks, ecology, better access to higher education ( free college & university unrealistic but lower tuition's aren't) and better universal type health care and lower priced drugs.

Both parties need reform obviously the Republican in a more dubious position especially when you see Texas within 3% for Hilary. They have lost every dynamic voters Black, Asian, Muslim, Hispanic, Jewish, Women and Gay. Plus the baby boomers are a smaller dynamic and the younger demographics are more to the left than ever before. While a 3 party system or more would be desirable because of a archaic electoral college it is completely unworkable because if candidates get less than 270 electoral votes then governors can disregard the election from the popular vote.

Bernie was aiming at transformational changes. While obviously not going to happen during a presidential term, he would have been steering us towards a better direction.

Prioritizing the citizens over corporate interests would have been a breath of fresh air. I also would take him at his words that he'd try to break up the too big too fail banks, push for a new Glass-Steagal, and enforce federal anti-trust laws (the Obama administration has done this but not on the scale Sanders would want).

But the rich ruling class will ruin it all before they let stuff like that happen.

[popper]

From the Washington Times -

The nation’s largest Catholic university told a group of pro-life students that it could not display posters reading “Unborn Lives Matter,” lest they provoke the Black Lives Matter movement.

In a letter to the College Republicans, DePaul University president Father Dennis Holtschneider said the posters contained “bigotry” veiled “under the cover of free speech,” the Daily Wire reported………

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/depaul-university-prohibits-unborn-lives-matter-po/

I wonder if the posters read “Black fetus lives matter” or “Catholic lives matter” or “Asian lives matter.” Would those be allowed? The good Father is evidently able to deduce the veiled secret intent of those exercising their free speech rights. Priceless.

[JWizmentality]

This one is for Nate - he might end up with a "I told you so"...

The Myth of the Racist Cop

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-racist-cop-1477261025

She is definitely a conservative - so it may be hard to read...

But the studies seemed neutral:
http://policingequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CPE_SoJ_Race-Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf

And liberal:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/27/this-study-found-race-matters-in-police-shootings-but-the-results-may-surprise-you/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name:homepage/story

So... the study isn't based on actual numbers but officers running through a simulation?

Cool my NASCAR simulator says I would kick Jimmy Johnson's arse.

Interesting conclusion as a summary of both the article and paper...

Sorry but the premise is severely flawed. Are most cops racist? No. Do they hold implicit biases? Yes.

Furthermore, I assume you're propensity to shoot at a screen when you're life is not in question is far less than in real life situations no? Or do we need more dead unarmed black men and boys before we're admit we have a problem?

Sent from my ASUS_Z00AD using Tapatalk

[dckingsfan]

Sorry but the premise is severely flawed. Are most cops racist? No. Do they hold implicit biases? Yes.

Link?

Furthermore, I assume you're propensity to shoot at a screen when you're life is not in question is far less than in real life situations no?

But wouldn't it hold both ways? That is the point... well, one of two points. The other point is that all sides are saying they have the facts without a real solid analysis having been done. At least this is taking it in the right direction.

Or do we need more dead unarmed black men and boys before we're admit we have a problem?

I'll assume that this is rhetorical? None of these studies aren't saying there isn't a problem.

narrative that policing is biased and violent and unfair” is resulting in “more dead young black men,...

Makes me think that they are very aware of the problem - you just disagree on the solution, no?

They (FBI & Police Chiefs) just think BLM and this Administration has made it worse...

BTW, this isn't something I am defending - I really don't think we have all the facts yet. And I do think we need to change - which I have outlined earlier (taking police unions out of the equation, external federal reviews of all police shootings, etc.). But I do think investigating the problem from all angles is helpful.

[cammac]

...While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible....

Sorry for cherry picking cammac but that is such an understatement as to be silly. They weren't even close. Herbert Hoover was the last one to promise us a chicken in every pot - how did that turn out?

Bernie flat out lied about the fiscal consequences of his programs. So many of the socialist democracies in Europe are struggling because they aren't fiscally sustainable.

It is one thing to want to push social projects, quite another not to be fiscally sane.

Exactly what is misleading they aren't fiscally possible. Yes some social democracies have problems but I look at Canada, NZ, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Norway as prime examples that work. One thing that differs is also all have extremely strong central governments with regions having much less power than the USA states. The taxation is much more balanced while higher rates than the USA they get more bang for the buck ( universal healthcare )and while I'm not sure of other jurisdictions Canada has a 15% corporate tax rate.

[Kanyewest]

...While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible....

Sorry for cherry picking cammac but that is such an understatement as to be silly. They weren't even close. Herbert Hoover was the last one to promise us a chicken in every pot - how did that turn out?

Bernie flat out lied about the fiscal consequences of his programs. So many of the socialist democracies in Europe are struggling because they aren't fiscally sustainable.

It is one thing to want to push social projects, quite another not to be fiscally sane.

I disagree with the notion that his proposals were not fiscally sane given that taxes would be higher under Sanders than Hillary. Granted you could argue that he wouldn't get his tax increases passed under a Republican house. That being said, I believe that Sanders would be beating Trump by a larger margin than Clinton, and would have been more likely to take the house.

Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app

[montestewart]

From the Washington Times -

The nation’s largest Catholic university told a group of pro-life students that it could not display posters reading “Unborn Lives Matter,” lest they provoke the Black Lives Matter movement.

In a letter to the College Republicans, DePaul University president Father Dennis Holtschneider said the posters contained “bigotry” veiled “under the cover of free speech,” the Daily Wire reported………

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/depaul-university-prohibits-unborn-lives-matter-po/

I wonder if the posters read “Black fetus lives matter” or “Catholic lives matter” or “Asian lives matter.” Would those be allowed? The good Father is evidently able to deduce the veiled secret intent of those exercising their free speech rights. Priceless.

What are the free speech rights on the campus of a private university?

[dckingsfan]

...While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible....

Sorry for cherry picking cammac but that is such an understatement as to be silly. They weren't even close. Herbert Hoover was the last one to promise us a chicken in every pot - how did that turn out?

Bernie flat out lied about the fiscal consequences of his programs. So many of the socialist democracies in Europe are struggling because they aren't fiscally sustainable.

It is one thing to want to push social projects, quite another not to be fiscally sane.

I disagree with the notion that his proposals were not fiscally sane given that taxes would be higher under Sanders than Hillary. Granted you could argue that he wouldn't get his tax increases passed under a Republican house. That being said, I believe that Sanders would be beating Trump by a larger margin than Clinton, and would have been more likely to take the house.

Sent from my LG-D851 using RealGM mobile app

He wanted free higher education and wanted to expand entitlements by 20%. We would literally have to increase taxes from 20 to 30% of GDP to balance that mess. Even if you wanted to it wouldn't work - people wouldn't pay and it would pile drive the economy.

But yes - he would have kicked Trump's butt too...

[dckingsfan]

...While many of Bernie's policies are not fiscally feasible....

Sorry for cherry picking cammac but that is such an understatement as to be silly. They weren't even close. Herbert Hoover was the last one to promise us a chicken in every pot - how did that turn out?

Bernie flat out lied about the fiscal consequences of his programs. So many of the socialist democracies in Europe are struggling because they aren't fiscally sustainable.

It is one thing to want to push social projects, quite another not to be fiscally sane.

Exactly what is misleading they aren't fiscally possible. Yes some social democracies have problems but I look at Canada, NZ, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Switzerland and Norway as prime examples that work. One thing that differs is also all have extremely strong central governments with regions having much less power than the USA states. The taxation is much more balanced while higher rates than the USA they get more bang for the buck ( universal healthcare )and while I'm not sure of other jurisdictions Canada has a 15% corporate tax rate.

Apples to oranges - look up what percentage of our tax receipts are spent on entitlements. Look at the rate they are growing. Then increase that rate. What would happen?

What you are saying is, if we didn't have states rights and everything was centralized then we could be like those countries. If dog rabbit. If the dog didn't stop to take a piss on the tree he would have caught the rabbit.

We aren't any of those countries... and if you are going to look at countries in the Eurozone, don't forget to bring up Greece, France, Italy and Spain? How is it going down in South America?

[Induveca]

I've liked a few of Michael Moore's documentaries, but usually they're just too one sided. I first saw him state on Bill Maher, although he personally detests Trump he believed he would win, and the polls would be way off much like Brexit due to the angry middle class "forgotten" vote.

His thoughts here are pretty insightful, and the exact same reason Brexit shocked pollsters. Have new respect for the guy. Not a blatant political party puppet like most talking heads. He may hate Trump, but acknowledging the reason people are voting Trump is more of a "**** you" to the establishment which destroyed their towns/cities than traditional political support.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=pADHLsECWxY

[popper]

From the Washington Times -

The nation’s largest Catholic university told a group of pro-life students that it could not display posters reading “Unborn Lives Matter,” lest they provoke the Black Lives Matter movement.

In a letter to the College Republicans, DePaul University president Father Dennis Holtschneider said the posters contained “bigotry” veiled “under the cover of free speech,” the Daily Wire reported………

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/depaul-university-prohibits-unborn-lives-matter-po/

I wonder if the posters read “Black fetus lives matter” or “Catholic lives matter” or “Asian lives matter.” Would those be allowed? The good Father is evidently able to deduce the veiled secret intent of those exercising their free speech rights. Priceless.

What are the free speech rights on the campus of a private university?

I believe they are the same as what appears in the constitution. There is no local, state or federal law that prohibits those students from speaking freely. The private university does however have the right to kick them out of school for doing so. The problem with that course of action is that most universities (and especially private) advertise in their brochures that they are intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. A student kicked out of school for saying or posting that "unborn lives matter" would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law (edit-especially given they allow other students to say or post that "black lives matter"). The university denied them what was promised (in writing) in the brochure.

[montestewart]

From the Washington Times -

The nation’s largest Catholic university told a group of pro-life students that it could not display posters reading “Unborn Lives Matter,” lest they provoke the Black Lives Matter movement.

In a letter to the College Republicans, DePaul University president Father Dennis Holtschneider said the posters contained “bigotry” veiled “under the cover of free speech,” the Daily Wire reported………

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/24/depaul-university-prohibits-unborn-lives-matter-po/

I wonder if the posters read “Black fetus lives matter” or “Catholic lives matter” or “Asian lives matter.” Would those be allowed? The good Father is evidently able to deduce the veiled secret intent of those exercising their free speech rights. Priceless.

What are the free speech rights on the campus of a private university?

I believe they are the same as what appears in the constitution. There is no local, state or federal law that prohibits those students from speaking freely. The private university does however have the right to kick them out of school for doing so. The problem with that course of action is that most universities (and especially private) advertise in their brochures that they are intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. A student kicked out of school for saying or posting that "unborn lives matter" would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law. The university denied them what was promised (in writing) in the brochure.

You're saying that a student "would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law" while basically admitting you haven't read the contract. I'm guessing a 3rd year law student might be able to defend with a puffing defense (no, not the one Clinton used). I think a court would probably see "intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas" as not too different from "better ingredients, better pizza" or similar.

Popper, you are drastically misstating the free speech rights in the Constitution, which apply to state actors, not to private entities. The people in charge of a private company, a private college, my home growing up, etc., are not subject to the 1st Amendment. They can prohibit speech on their property. You have to find some hook (the college does federal research, etc.) to connect the case to a state actor. (Hmm, my father worked for the federal government. Maybe I should have tried that angle. "Free speech, dad!")

I'm not saying that I support DePaul's position, but universities, especially private universities, and most especially religiously affiliated universities, have a long history of suppressing student speech. Charles Curran sure knows that. Contrary to the current depiction that suppression of free speech on campus is strictly in accordance with "politically correct" doctrines, academic speech throughout history has largely been suppressed by conservative elements hostile to new ideas.

Regarding the upset over "[fill in the blank] lives matter," I heard a commentator explaining it thus (and I'm paraphrasing), "If someone said, 'Cancer research matters,' would you assume they were saying, 'Heart disease research doesn't matter,' and repeatedly utter 'Heart disease research matters' as a response?" I can understand why some people view the coopting of the "...lives matter" phrase to new purposes as intended in part to say, "No, black lives don't really matter. So we're going to steal your cool phrase for something that does matter."

[DCZards]

Regarding the upset over "[fill in the blank] lives matter," I heard a commentator explaining it thus (and I'm paraphrasing), "If someone said, 'Cancer research matters,' would you assume they were saying, 'Heart disease research doesn't matter,' and repeatedly utter 'Heart disease research matters' as a response?" I can understand why some people view the coopting of the "...lives matter" phrase to new purposes as intended in part to say, "No, black lives don't really matter. So we're going to steal your cool phrase for something that does matter."

I obviously don't know for sure, but I suspect your explanation above was essentially what the administration of DePaul was thinking when it told the pro-life group that it could not display its "Unborn Lives Matter" posters. The pro-life group's sign would very likely be seen as downplaying or belittling the point that the BLM folks are trying to make.

If the pro-life students want to make their views known they should have to come up with their own cool or catchy slogan.

[popper]

What are the free speech rights on the campus of a private university?

I believe they are the same as what appears in the constitution. There is no local, state or federal law that prohibits those students from speaking freely. The private university does however have the right to kick them out of school for doing so. The problem with that course of action is that most universities (and especially private) advertise in their brochures that they are intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. A student kicked out of school for saying or posting that "unborn lives matter" would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law. The university denied them what was promised (in writing) in the brochure.

You're saying that a student "would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law" while basically admitting you haven't read the contract. I'm guessing a 3rd year law student might be able to defend with a puffing defense (no, not the one Clinton used). I think a court would probably see "intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas" as not too different from "better ingredients, better pizza" or similar.

Popper, you are drastically misstating the free speech rights in the Constitution, which apply to state actors, not to private entities. The people in charge of a private company, a private college, my home growing up, etc., are not subject to the 1st Amendment. They can prohibit speech on their property. You have to find some hook (the college does federal research, etc.) to connect the case to a state actor. (Hmm, my father worked for the federal government. Maybe I should have tried that angle. "Free speech, dad!")

I'm not saying that I support DePaul's position, but universities, especially private universities, and most especially religiously affiliated universities, have a long history of suppressing student speech. Charles Curran sure knows that. Contrary to the current depiction that suppression of free speech on campus is strictly in accordance with "politically correct" doctrines, academic speech throughout history has largely been suppressed by conservative elements hostile to new ideas.

Regarding the upset over "[fill in the blank] lives matter," I heard a commentator explaining it thus (and I'm paraphrasing), "If someone said, 'Cancer research matters,' would you assume they were saying, 'Heart disease research doesn't matter,' and repeatedly utter 'Heart disease research matters' as a response?" I can understand why some people view the coopting of the "...lives matter" phrase to new purposes as intended in part to say, "No, black lives don't really matter. So we're going to steal your cool phrase for something that does matter."

I think most private universities sell their product, in part, with the understanding that students will be able to explore diverse ideas and to express their own unique perspectives freely. DePaul states in their on-line brochure:

Distinctively Diverse

Everyone isn't the same here. And that's good. By nurturing diversity and intentionally incorporating multiple viewpoints into academic and student life, you'll have a learning experience that better reflects — and prepares you for — the world.

Can one absorb that statement and then approve speech that "Asian lives matter" but not that "Hispanic lives matter," To my feeble brain, it's an obvious contortion of logic. Perhaps you think differently.

Your mention of free speech as it regards state actors pursuant to constitutional protection is why I stated up front that a private college can define and enforce a speech code. I thought I was very clear with that. We agree that a private university can prohibit free speech that it disagrees with, but the students enrolled in the college have a constitutional right to speak freely even on a campus that prohibits it. They may very well be thrown out of school for saying or posting that "Hispanic lives matter" but they do have the right to say it under the constitution.

I'm assuming the conflict would be adjudicated under some form of contract law. A judge or jury would have to decide whether the college brochure led students and parents to believe that those enrolled could communicate that both "Asian lives matter" and that "Hispanic lives matter." (and not just one or the other). I'm no lawyer but just trying to exercise some common sense. Maybe I'm wrong and someone here can correct my thinking.

[montestewart]

I believe they are the same as what appears in the constitution. There is no local, state or federal law that prohibits those students from speaking freely. The private university does however have the right to kick them out of school for doing so. The problem with that course of action is that most universities (and especially private) advertise in their brochures that they are intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. A student kicked out of school for saying or posting that "unborn lives matter" would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law. The university denied them what was promised (in writing) in the brochure.

You're saying that a student "would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law" while basically admitting you haven't read the contract. I'm guessing a 3rd year law student might be able to defend with a puffing defense (no, not the one Clinton used). I think a court would probably see "intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas" as not too different from "better ingredients, better pizza" or similar.

Popper, you are drastically misstating the free speech rights in the Constitution, which apply to state actors, not to private entities. The people in charge of a private company, a private college, my home growing up, etc., are not subject to the 1st Amendment. They can prohibit speech on their property. You have to find some hook (the college does federal research, etc.) to connect the case to a state actor. (Hmm, my father worked for the federal government. Maybe I should have tried that angle. "Free speech, dad!")

I'm not saying that I support DePaul's position, but universities, especially private universities, and most especially religiously affiliated universities, have a long history of suppressing student speech. Charles Curran sure knows that. Contrary to the current depiction that suppression of free speech on campus is strictly in accordance with "politically correct" doctrines, academic speech throughout history has largely been suppressed by conservative elements hostile to new ideas.

Regarding the upset over "[fill in the blank] lives matter," I heard a commentator explaining it thus (and I'm paraphrasing), "If someone said, 'Cancer research matters,' would you assume they were saying, 'Heart disease research doesn't matter,' and repeatedly utter 'Heart disease research matters' as a response?" I can understand why some people view the coopting of the "...lives matter" phrase to new purposes as intended in part to say, "No, black lives don't really matter. So we're going to steal your cool phrase for something that does matter."

I think most private universities sell their product, in part, with the understanding that students will be able to explore diverse ideas and to express their own unique perspectives freely. DePaul states in their on-line brochure:

Distinctively Diverse

Everyone isn't the same here. And that's good. By nurturing diversity and intentionally incorporating multiple viewpoints into academic and student life, you'll have a learning experience that better reflects — and prepares you for — the world.

Can one absorb that statement and then approve speech that "Asian lives matter" but not that "Hispanic lives matter," To my feeble brain, it's an obvious contortion of logic. Perhaps you think differently.

Your mention of free speech as it regards state actors pursuant to constitutional protection is why I stated up front that a private college can define and enforce a speech code. I thought I was very clear with that. We agree that a private university can prohibit free speech that it disagrees with, but the students enrolled in the college have a constitutional right to speak freely even on a campus that prohibits it. They may very well be thrown out of school for saying or posting that "Hispanic lives matter" but they do have the right to say it under the constitution.

I'm assuming the conflict would be adjudicated under some form of contract law. A judge or jury would have to decide whether the college brochure led students and parents to believe that those enrolled could communicate that both "Asian lives matter" and that "Hispanic lives matter." (and not just one or the other). I'm no lawyer but just trying to exercise some common sense. Maybe I'm wrong and someone here can correct my thinking.

There is no Constitutional right to free speech. The Constitution does not protect your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The Constitution ONLY protects you from government infringement on free speech. The government. Government. If you are talking about some other right, perhaps a natural right to free speech not encoded in federal law, well OK.

I do not understand the "Asian lives matter" vs "Hispanic lives matter" hypothetical, so I won't comment.

[popper]

You're saying that a student "would have a very strong lawsuit based on contract law" while basically admitting you haven't read the contract. I'm guessing a 3rd year law student might be able to defend with a puffing defense (no, not the one Clinton used). I think a court would probably see "intellectually diverse and dedicated to the free exchange of ideas" as not too different from "better ingredients, better pizza" or similar.

Popper, you are drastically misstating the free speech rights in the Constitution, which apply to state actors, not to private entities. The people in charge of a private company, a private college, my home growing up, etc., are not subject to the 1st Amendment. They can prohibit speech on their property. You have to find some hook (the college does federal research, etc.) to connect the case to a state actor. (Hmm, my father worked for the federal government. Maybe I should have tried that angle. "Free speech, dad!")

I'm not saying that I support DePaul's position, but universities, especially private universities, and most especially religiously affiliated universities, have a long history of suppressing student speech. Charles Curran sure knows that. Contrary to the current depiction that suppression of free speech on campus is strictly in accordance with "politically correct" doctrines, academic speech throughout history has largely been suppressed by conservative elements hostile to new ideas.

Regarding the upset over "[fill in the blank] lives matter," I heard a commentator explaining it thus (and I'm paraphrasing), "If someone said, 'Cancer research matters,' would you assume they were saying, 'Heart disease research doesn't matter,' and repeatedly utter 'Heart disease research matters' as a response?" I can understand why some people view the coopting of the "...lives matter" phrase to new purposes as intended in part to say, "No, black lives don't really matter. So we're going to steal your cool phrase for something that does matter."

I think most private universities sell their product, in part, with the understanding that students will be able to explore diverse ideas and to express their own unique perspectives freely. DePaul states in their on-line brochure:

Distinctively Diverse

Everyone isn't the same here. And that's good. By nurturing diversity and intentionally incorporating multiple viewpoints into academic and student life, you'll have a learning experience that better reflects — and prepares you for — the world.

Can one absorb that statement and then approve speech that "Asian lives matter" but not that "Hispanic lives matter," To my feeble brain, it's an obvious contortion of logic. Perhaps you think differently.

Your mention of free speech as it regards state actors pursuant to constitutional protection is why I stated up front that a private college can define and enforce a speech code. I thought I was very clear with that. We agree that a private university can prohibit free speech that it disagrees with, but the students enrolled in the college have a constitutional right to speak freely even on a campus that prohibits it. They may very well be thrown out of school for saying or posting that "Hispanic lives matter" but they do have the right to say it under the constitution.

I'm assuming the conflict would be adjudicated under some form of contract law. A judge or jury would have to decide whether the college brochure led students and parents to believe that those enrolled could communicate that both "Asian lives matter" and that "Hispanic lives matter." (and not just one or the other). I'm no lawyer but just trying to exercise some common sense. Maybe I'm wrong and someone here can correct my thinking.

There is no Constitutional right to free speech. The Constitution does not protect your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The Constitution ONLY protects you from government infringement on free speech. The government. Government. If you are talking about some other right, perhaps a natural right to free speech not encoded in federal law, well OK.

I do not understand the "Asian lives matter" vs "Hispanic lives matter" hypothetical, so I won't comment.

The constitution protects our rights to speak freely in any forum, public or private (assuming we're not stirring up insurrection or panic). The constitution guarantees that the govt won't punish you for doing so in both the public and private sectors. Your country club or private college may expell you for speaking freely but the constitution guarantees that you may do so without fear of prosecution. At least that's my understanding. Again, if I'm misguided please correct the record.

[montestewart]

I think most private universities sell their product, in part, with the understanding that students will be able to explore diverse ideas and to express their own unique perspectives freely. DePaul states in their on-line brochure:

Distinctively Diverse

Everyone isn't the same here. And that's good. By nurturing diversity and intentionally incorporating multiple viewpoints into academic and student life, you'll have a learning experience that better reflects — and prepares you for — the world.

Can one absorb that statement and then approve speech that "Asian lives matter" but not that "Hispanic lives matter," To my feeble brain, it's an obvious contortion of logic. Perhaps you think differently.

Your mention of free speech as it regards state actors pursuant to constitutional protection is why I stated up front that a private college can define and enforce a speech code. I thought I was very clear with that. We agree that a private university can prohibit free speech that it disagrees with, but the students enrolled in the college have a constitutional right to speak freely even on a campus that prohibits it. They may very well be thrown out of school for saying or posting that "Hispanic lives matter" but they do have the right to say it under the constitution.

I'm assuming the conflict would be adjudicated under some form of contract law. A judge or jury would have to decide whether the college brochure led students and parents to believe that those enrolled could communicate that both "Asian lives matter" and that "Hispanic lives matter." (and not just one or the other). I'm no lawyer but just trying to exercise some common sense. Maybe I'm wrong and someone here can correct my thinking.

There is no Constitutional right to free speech. The Constitution does not protect your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The Constitution ONLY protects you from government infringement on free speech. The government. Government. If you are talking about some other right, perhaps a natural right to free speech not encoded in federal law, well OK.

I do not understand the "Asian lives matter" vs "Hispanic lives matter" hypothetical, so I won't comment.

The constitution protects our rights to speak freely in any forum, public or private (assuming we're not stirring up insurrection or panic). The constitution guarantees that the govt won't punish you for doing so in both the public and private sectors. Your country club or private college may expell you for speaking freely but the constitution guarantees that you may do so without fear of prosecution. At least that's my understanding. Again, if I'm misguided please correct the record.

You are misguided. Rather than give you a link to a source, I will merely encourage you to read the Amendment again. "Congress shall make no law..." etc.

[popper]

There is no Constitutional right to free speech. The Constitution does not protect your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want. The Constitution ONLY protects you from government infringement on free speech. The government. Government. If you are talking about some other right, perhaps a natural right to free speech not encoded in federal law, well OK.

I do not understand the "Asian lives matter" vs "Hispanic lives matter" hypothetical, so I won't comment.

The constitution protects our rights to speak freely in any forum, public or private (assuming we're not stirring up insurrection or panic). The constitution guarantees that the govt won't punish you for doing so in both the public and private sectors. Your country club or private college may expell you for speaking freely but the constitution guarantees that you may do so without fear of prosecution. At least that's my understanding. Again, if I'm misguided please correct the record.

You are misguided. Rather than give you a link to a source, I will merely encourage you to read the Amendment again. "Congress shall make no law..." etc.

Yes. We agree. Congress shall make no law restricting free speech (with certain narrow exceptions) in both the public and private spheres. I see that as a constitutional guarantee that no law enforcement officer or prosecutor has the authority to criminally detain or prosecute you for exercising free speech (in public or in private) as they do in China for instance I stipulated at the beginning of this discussion that that doesn't prevent a private college from kicking you out of school for speaking freely. I made the point however that in a civil court of law the school might very well lose a lawsuit given the circumstances that I described earlier in the discussion.

[montestewart]

The constitution protects our rights to speak freely in any forum, public or private (assuming we're not stirring up insurrection or panic). The constitution guarantees that the govt won't punish you for doing so in both the public and private sectors. Your country club or private college may expell you for speaking freely but the constitution guarantees that you may do so without fear of prosecution. At least that's my understanding. Again, if I'm misguided please correct the record.

You are misguided. Rather than give you a link to a source, I will merely encourage you to read the Amendment again. "Congress shall make no law..." etc.

Yes. We agree. Congress shall make no law restricting free speech (with certain narrow exceptions) in both the public and private spheres. I see that as a constitutional guarantee that no law enforcement officer or prosecutor has the authority to criminally detain or prosecute you for exercising free speech (in public or in private) as they do in China for instance I stipulated at the beginning of this discussion that that doesn't prevent a private college from kicking you out of school for speaking freely. I made the point however that in a civil court of law the school might very well lose a lawsuit given the circumstances that I described earlier in the discussion.

So this is a semantics discussion. Private entities can prohibit speech on their properties, can bar or evict people from private property in order to enforce that prohibition, and their remedies would in the tort and/or contract law and criminal trespass arenas. The Constitution does not protect such a free speech right, nor does it bar such legal action for violations.

A wide variety of other laws impinge on speech: disorderly conduct/criminal mischief-type laws (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater just for kicks, joking about a bomb on a plane), libel, slander and defamation laws, laws related to fraud, patent and copyright laws, etc. Courts have consistently found that free speech in public schools can be restricted in a variety of ways. Free, unfettered speech of any kind is an ideal, not a reality. Just ask children, or prisoners.