Yes. I'd agree. Why must law factor in this discussion per se? Liberalism is not an American rule. It's universal
-
-
Replying to @TamaraBrouwer1 @HPluckrose
point is when discussing free speech in a particular case within U.S. and not discussing law is half the story
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
OK, explain how a law preventing government from interfering with speech relates to what protesters shld do.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
can you state this in another way. I don't understand your question.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
How is the constitution relevant to subject under discussion?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
it's relevant because the amendment that protect Murray or the students are the same.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
Its about government not being allowed to interfere with free speech, isn't it? Murray & protesters not gov
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
yes, in most cases the U.S. govt can't interfere with free speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
How were the government involved in this case? What makes 1st amendment relevant?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
the govt wasn't involved but the discussion is about free speech, has to be interpreted thru lens of 1st amend.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Even tho it doesn't cover the actions of private individuals & this was private individuals? No.
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.