Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you’ve said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.
Clubs need to get permission from the University to invite people onto campus grounds and speak at campus facilities. Someone who actually works for and represents the facility had to sign off on that little fascist coming to speak.
Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
Not the university, a student club. Students have first amendment rights here.
I’m not asking whether or not he had a right to speak there.
Nobody said that he has a right to speak there. The students have a right to invite him to speak there.
Not sure how that’s relevant to the question I asked.
Gotcha, you want to simmer. /out
Whatever that means.
It means that you don’t want to converse, you just want to be angry. It was a mistake of me to attempt it with you.
Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you’ve said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.
Not sure how making irrelevant statements constitutes conversation, or how wondering how they’re relevant means I’m angry, but okay, bud. Run along.
Clubs need to get permission from the University to invite people onto campus grounds and speak at campus facilities. Someone who actually works for and represents the facility had to sign off on that little fascist coming to speak.
Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus
But it’s not even about him being controversial – just pointless. What educational value does a boring, loser kid have to offer?
Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren’t there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it’s there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.
So we’re just calling anything “education” these days.
You don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. I don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse. He’s a horrible human being and a terrible role model.
This falls under the “I will fight to the death for your right to speak” philosophy.
Again, not challenging his right to speak. Challenging the value of what he has to say.
No, you cannot block that. Public universities are a first amendment forum which means that all viewpoints are allowed.