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
another consideration although Murray is protected to express his opinion, should you give him a platform?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
Different issue. We shouldn't prevent speaker invited by ppl who want to hear him coz we don't like his views
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
that is a different issue. Those students were paying tuition so sure they should have some input about speakers
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @blahandblahandb @TamaraBrouwer1
The issue is private individuals disrupting a speech coz they didn't like content. That's what is illiberal.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @TamaraBrouwer1
maybe you think we are wrong but that's just your opinion. But that's how it's largely discussed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
How? Give me an example. Discuss 1A in relation to this situation in which the government was not involved
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.