all the time. If we only did that when a law made us, what would we be?
-
-
it's relevant because the amendment that protect Murray or the students are the same.
-
Its about government not being allowed to interfere with free speech, isn't it? Murray & protesters not gov
-
yes, in most cases the U.S. govt can't interfere with free speech.
-
How were the government involved in this case? What makes 1st amendment relevant?
-
the govt wasn't involved but the discussion is about free speech, has to be interpreted thru lens of 1st amend.
-
Even tho it doesn't cover the actions of private individuals & this was private individuals? No.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
another consideration although Murray is protected to express his opinion, should you give him a platform?
-
Different issue. We shouldn't prevent speaker invited by ppl who want to hear him coz we don't like his views
-
that is a different issue. Those students were paying tuition so sure they should have some input about speakers
-
The issue is private individuals disrupting a speech coz they didn't like content. That's what is illiberal.
-
Other students will always want to hear ideas others don't like. Shldnt shout down a BLM speaker either.
-
no, that wouldn't be polite but you certainly can legally.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
both should be allowed to speak but students went beyond what is legal, I.e. violence.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.