Is calling for genocide protected by free speech?

[TreeFrogTrader]

In short calling for murder and/or genocide does not violate the first amendment.

Ahh, gets subtle legally.

To say "does not violate the First Amendment" puts it one way. But the question is: Does the First Amendment protect your right to say specific thing in specific circumstances. The answer is: No it does not protect your right to call for the murder or genocide if it is so imminent and directed to a person that it causes them bodily threat or mortal fear and a reasonable person would conclude that harm was about to come to them.

So for example the First Amendment does not protect the right of a mob of yell "lets kill all those jews" who are all in a room behind a closed door because it is an imminent threat.

It would protect the right of - for example- to say generically "I think all fucking Russians should be shot" where it is considered to be a general expression of hate or disdain but not attached to actions that could lead to their harm. I am talking about from the First Amendment alone point view. But as you mention, there are various hate speech and discrimination laws now that now go beyond the First Amendment.

And you hear people say that, for example, that the university presidents "had the right to say what their view is." Yeh, well, that is not in question. But the right to say something stupid does not protect them from the consequences of doing so. They have employment obligations to provide leadership, to provide safe and non-discriminatory environments for students and to comply with a whole pantload of federal and state civil rights laws. They are not being paid to express their personal views such as "we are into women's rights, transgender rights and racial equity and will fight tooth and nail for that but the little jews are not our problem." Nope the presidents can use their little First Amendment right to say something stupid, then hit the road. You are fired.

Could we just get rid of all these diversity hire university officials and bring some talent in with out regard to their gender and skin color?

 

[Cuddles]

Hate speech coming soon to a college near you:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733207792029204762

 

[Cuddles]

Timestamped for you OP:

 

[El OchoCinco]

Hate speech coming soon to a college near you:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733207792029204762

View attachment 329473

The liberals defense shield of "Its racist" now being replaced by "That's Antisemitic".

It is a wonderful tactic to remove all possible criticism

 

[El OchoCinco]

Ahh, gets subtle legally.

To say "does not violate the First Amendment" puts it one way. But the question is: Does the First Amendment protect your right to say specific thing in specific circumstances. The answer is: No it does not protect your right to call for the murder or genocide if it is so imminent and directed to a person that it causes them bodily threat or mortal fear and a reasonable person would conclude that harm was about to come to them.

So for example the First Amendment does not protect the right of a mob of yell "lets kill all those jews" who are all in a room behind a closed door because it is an imminent threat.

It would protect the right of - for example- to say generically "I think all fucking Russians should be shot" where it is considered to be a general expression of hate or disdain but not attached to actions that could lead to their harm. I am talking about from the First Amendment alone point view. But as you mention, there are various hate speech and discrimination laws now that now go beyond the First Amendment.

And you hear people say that, for example, that the university presidents "had the right to say what their view is." Yeh, well, that is not in question. But the right to say something stupid does not protect them from the consequences of doing so. They have employment obligations to provide leadership, to provide safe and non-discriminatory environments for students and to comply with a whole pantload of federal and state civil rights laws. They are not being paid to express their personal views such as "we are into women's rights, transgender rights and racial equity and will fight tooth and nail for that but the little jews are not our problem." Nope the presidents can use their little First Amendment right to say something stupid, then hit the road. You are fired.

Could we just get rid of all these diversity hire university officials and bring some talent in with out regard to their gender and skin color?

I would even put it more succintly...harvard univeristy is not subject to the 1st Amendment and if they want to ban you from saying XYZ because it violates its policy, you are free to walk 2 blocks off campus and say it all you want not on their property without any damage to your 1st Amendment rights. students at a private uni have no real 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want free from reaction from the private institution whose property you are using to say it.

So when Congress cunts ask UPenn president these questions, it should have been an easier answer than hemming and hawing and looking for some PC correct answer. Just say we dont allow hate speech which we define by our own policies since we (UPenn) have the right to monitor speech on our own private campus. Period... congress go fuck yourself.

 

[Cuddles]

The liberals defense shield of "Its racist" now being replaced by "That's Antisemitic".

It is a wonderful tactic to remove all possible criticism

Netanyahu is no liberal, but I get your point.

I would even put it more succintly...harvard univeristy is not subject to the 1st Amendment and if they want to ban you from saying XYZ because it violates its policy, you are free to walk 2 blocks off campus and say it all you want not on their property without any damage to your 1st Amendment rights. students at a private uni have no real 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want free from reaction from the private institution whose property you are using to say it.

So when Congress cunts ask UPenn president these questions, it should have been an easier answer than hemming and hawing and looking for some PC correct answer. Just say we dont allow hate speech which we define by our own policies since we (UPenn) have the right to monitor speech on our own private campus. Period... congress go fuck yourself.

Students going to private Unis also get federal financial aid do they not? Could the feds not argue that if private schools are getting bankrolled by uncle Sam they must abide by constitutional law? Hasn't that been the case w/other private entities until this SCOTUS decided it wasn't? (some religious school exceptions they decided to do with vouchers).

 

[UsualName]

I'm guessing this applies to administration? I can see that by extension it'd apply to student body if they're allowed to go unimpeded. I still don't think there's enough specificity to constitute a threat/harassment personally. Definitely hostile environment.....it was a hypothetical right? The verbatim posited?

The outright question was hypothetical based on experiences happening at college campuses. For example, from the river to the sea is understood to mean the complete annihilation of all Jews in what is considered Palestine. This is a Hamas slogan used.

Title VI is very broad in its anti discrimination implementation. Right wingers often deride it because it extends protections to historically discriminatory practices. If the chant was from the mason dixon to the Florida coast and the implication was the call for the return of slavery then I guarantee every one of those presidents would be shutting it down.

Furthermore, every university receiving federal money must have an anti discrimination policy and a pathway for complaints. Students are currently too scared to leave their dorm rooms on some campuses due to the anti semitic sentiment on campus.

 

[UsualName]

Ahh, gets subtle legally.

To say "does not violate the First Amendment" puts it one way. But the question is: Does the First Amendment protect your right to say specific thing in specific circumstances. The answer is: No it does not protect your right to call for the murder or genocide if it is so imminent and directed to a person that it causes them bodily threat or mortal fear and a reasonable person would conclude that harm was about to come to them.

So for example the First Amendment does not protect the right of a mob of yell "lets kill all those jews" who are all in a room behind a closed door because it is an imminent threat.

It would protect the right of - for example- to say generically "I think all fucking Russians should be shot" where it is considered to be a general expression of hate or disdain but not attached to actions that could lead to their harm. I am talking about from the First Amendment alone point view. But as you mention, there are various hate speech and discrimination laws now that now go beyond the First Amendment.

And you hear people say that, for example, that the university presidents "had the right to say what their view is." Yeh, well, that is not in question. But the right to say something stupid does not protect them from the consequences of doing so. They have employment obligations to provide leadership, to provide safe and non-discriminatory environments for students and to comply with a whole pantload of federal and state civil rights laws. They are not being paid to express their personal views such as "we are into women's rights, transgender rights and racial equity and will fight tooth and nail for that but the little jews are not our problem." Nope the presidents can use their little First Amendment right to say something stupid, then hit the road. You are fired.

Could we just get rid of all these diversity hire university officials and bring some talent in with out regard to their gender and skin color?

Remeber the bill of rights is a liat of what the government cannot do, not what the citizenry cannot do.

Having diversity in leadership is good. The problem with these DEI types is they are too activist and not practitioners.

 

[UsualName]

I would even put it more succintly...harvard univeristy is not subject to the 1st Amendment and if they want to ban you from saying XYZ because it violates its policy, you are free to walk 2 blocks off campus and say it all you want not on their property without any damage to your 1st Amendment rights. students at a private uni have no real 1st Amendment rights to say whatever they want free from reaction from the private institution whose property you are using to say it.

So when Congress cunts ask UPenn president these questions, it should have been an easier answer than hemming and hawing and looking for some PC correct answer. Just say we dont allow hate speech which we define by our own policies since we (UPenn) have the right to monitor speech on our own private campus. Period... congress go fuck yourself.

Eh, you have to be careful with all of the federal money coming into these colleges. They do have obligations and commitments to the federal government for funding and grants.

Additionally, these schools need to be very careful because they can get sued for not enforcing their own policies.

 

[Cuddles]

The outright question was hypothetical based on experiences happening at college campuses. For example, from the river to the sea is understood to mean the complete annihilation of all Jews in what is considered Palestine. This is a Hamas slogan used.

Title VI is very broad in its anti discrimination implementation. Right wingers often deride it because it extends protections to historically discriminatory practices. If the chant was from the mason dixon to the Florida coast and the implication was the call for the return of slavery then I guarantee every one of those presidents would be shutting it down.

Furthermore, every university receiving federal money must have an anti discrimination policy and a pathway for complaints. Students are currently too scared to leave their dorm rooms on some campuses due to the anti semitic sentiment on campus.

I understand the rationale but it's not that simple given the history of the slogan (as I understand it). Yes Hamas uses it but so do Palestinians as a call for literal freedom from current status quo. Some also use it as a type of fight for independence which doesn't necessarily mean genociding a colonizing force. I don't know which came first, the slogan or Hamas but just dismissing this history/cultural aspect because some assholes appropriated it ignores their freedom to say it. Point blank, why is the Jewish POV more important than the Palestinian?

Racists appropriate shit all the time right? the gadsden flag, the Betsy Ross, hell some liberals feel uncomfortable flying the American Flag at home given the association w/conservatives. So what, now whoever doesn't have ill intent must kowtow to those who feel offended by it?

https://www.rollingstone.com/cultur...pernick-patriot-movement-ku-klux-klan-854612/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_the_river_to_the_sea