Tune in to @IngrahamAngle tonight at 10pm EST on Fox News to watch me discuss what happened at @Portland_State on Tuesday night when a College Republicans event got shut down.pic.twitter.com/eF3YNraWQ4
Andy Ngô
Show this thread
-
Well, I understand the spirit of what you’re saying and certainly the heckler’s veto should not be tolerated by the people IN CHARGE of maintaining the event space. But technically what he’s doing is not unconstitutional. You’re link doesn’t actually support your tweet.
It's an unconstitutional infringement on free speech for the university to impose a policy where security guards do not intervene to stop hecklers. The heckler isn't violating the constitution; he's just guilty of disorderly conduct. The university is violating #1A. IMHO.
-
-
Yes, that is correct. If Portland State allowed the heckler to cancel he protected speech of others, it is THEM who are in violation, not the douchebag with the cowbell. As long as we’re straight on that.
-
*the* not ‘he’.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The university doesn’t have a positive obligation under the 1st to charge their security forces with protecting unfettered free speech. The 1st just doesn’t work that way. It supplies a negative prohibition against government creating laws abridging speech.
-
If an organization acting on behalf of the government puts in place a policy of effectively canceling the speech of its citizens based on a reacting party’s behavior, how is that policy not in violation of the 1st?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.