Is calling for genocide protected by free speech?

Cuddles said:
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
More...

Sure. That’s why zero tolerance for any of this stuff that goes outside of the historical context needs to be enforced ASAP.

As to who’s POV is superior, you’re welcome to all of the free speech you want on government land or your own property but once you leave those areas you are subject to various laws and policies.

But at the end of the day these universities are not responsible for whatever racist appropriated the term “woke” or whatever, they are responsible to enforce their mandatory anti discrimination policies on campus. They are also charged to protect their institutions from suit under title VI.

The rest of this conversation should mean absolutely nothing to them. Maybe run a symposium or something, I guess.
 
UsualName said:
Sure. That’s why zero tolerance for any of this stuff that goes outside of the historical context needs to be enforced ASAP.
More...
Because students are genuinely calling for the genocide of Jews when they chant "from the river to the sea":rolleyes:. It couldn't possibly have anything to do w/what's currently going on. You sound like all those cons bitching about Kaepernick kneeling and jumping to whatever bias they held.

UsualName said:
As to who’s POV is superior, you’re welcome to all of the free speech you want on government land or your own property but once you leave those areas you are subject to various laws and policies.


But at the end of the day these universities are not responsible for whatever racist appropriated the term “woke” or whatever, they are responsible to enforce their mandatory anti discrimination policies on campus. They are also charged to protect their institutions from suit under title VI.

The rest of this conversation should mean absolutely nothing to them. Maybe run a symposium or something, I guess.
More...

"Trans women are men" is transphobic, shut it down.
"Trans in sports should not be allowed" is trans exclusionary, shut it down
"Blue lives matter" is racist, shut it down.
"Black lives matter" is racist because I'm white, shut it down.
"it's ok to be white" is racist, shut it down.
"bitch" is misogynistic, shut it down

and on and on...
 
Last edited:
Cuddles said:
Because students are genuinely calling for the genocide of Jews when they chant "from the river to the sea":rolleyes:. It couldn't possibly have anything to do w/what's currently going on. You sound like all those cons bitching about Kaepernick kneeling and jumping to whatever bias they held.



"Trans women are men" is transphobic, shut it down.
"Trans in sports should not be allowed" is trans exclusionary, shut it down
"Blue lives matter" is racist, shut it down.
"Black lives matter" is racist because I'm white, shut it down.
"it's ok to be white" is racist, shut it down.
"bitch" is misogynistic, shut it down

and on and on...
More...

So I have no issue with you or anyone else arguing how to enforce policy. Where is the line, etc… I expect university presidents to be leaders and see past the noise and make clear eyed decisions too.
 
UsualName said:
Sure. That’s why zero tolerance for any of this stuff that goes outside of the historical context needs to be enforced ASAP.

As to who’s POV is superior, you’re welcome to all of the free speech you want on government land or your own property but once you leave those areas you are subject to various laws and policies.

But at the end of the day these universities are not responsible for whatever racist appropriated the term “woke” or whatever, they are responsible to enforce their mandatory anti discrimination policies on campus. They are also charged to protect their institutions from suit under title VI.

The rest of this conversation should mean absolutely nothing to them. Maybe run a symposium or something, I guess.
More...

One of the guest commentators on one of the programs made a valid point the other day, in my humble opinion. He is on the board of some university but also has a business background.

He was pointing out that some of the big corporations have sort of learned their lessons in some ways in that damage control is a specialty that requires outside help when you are in deep. But he went on to say that universities are now big business ventures with lots of different stakeholders and moving parts and investor/donors etc, etc. Yet when they get in trouble they still surround themselves with their academic buddies because that is the only world they know, even though all those professors are not adept at the bigger missions or the art of messaging. Thus, instead of taking a clear stand to put fires out all the university clowns show up with garbage talk about "contextualizing." You know as in when they are asked if calling for the killing of Jews is right or wrong they say "you need to put it in context." Sheesh. Cannot make this up.

Yeh. They need/needed outside help with the bigger picture. Not their academic professor buddies.
 
Last edited:
UsualName said:
So I have no issue with you or anyone else arguing how to enforce policy. Where is the line, etc… I expect university presidents to be leaders and see past the noise and make clear eyed decisions too.
More...
So just dismiss the arguments as noise w/zero validity as if it's not being discussed by the Unis. and go full authoritarian? How has the admin not acted as leaders in upholding students 1st because some unknown arbitrary number nobody's cared to poll are having a hard time? What of the Jewish students who see nothing wrong w/the chants and are in fact amongst the crowds?

I agree to an extent, we simply can't have hostile/unwelcoming environments at universities much like we don't tolerate it at work (and it's clear to me some Jews find those statements offensive). At this time though, I don't see how administrators have acted wrong in this particular instance. I understand there's been legitimate harassment in other institutions, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion imo.

I also think students need to value and fight/appreciate our constitutional rights. I don't much care for university policy but whether it will hold under court scrutiny.

If this particular SCOTUS has allowed for prayer in the football fields of high schools, and to their credit w/o necessarily excluding other doctrines, I suppose challenging a school policy that bans "genocide xyz" could go either way and it'd definitely be of interest how it conflicts w/section vi.

What happens when Jewish students march with slogans "Palestine isn't a thing", "Palestinians aren't a people", "another Nakba"?; things I've heard often from Israelis and I personally could see be interpreted as genocidal.
 
Last edited:
UsualName said:
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.
More...
Only 47% of the students who embrace the slogan were able to name the river and the sea.
 
Cuddles said:
So just dismiss the arguments as noise w/zero validity as if it's not being discussed by the Unis. and go full authoritarian? How has the admin not acted as leaders in upholding students 1st because some unknown arbitrary number nobody's cared to poll are having a hard time? What of the Jewish students who see nothing wrong w/the chants and are in fact amongst the crowds?

I agree to an extent, we simply can't have hostile/unwelcoming environments at universities much like we don't tolerate it at work (and it's clear to me some Jews find those statements offensive). At this time though, I don't see how administrators have acted wrong in this particular instance. I understand there's been legitimate harassment in other institutions, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion imo.

I also think students need to value and fight/appreciate our constitutional rights. I don't much care for university policy but whether it will hold under court scrutiny.

If this particular SCOTUS has allowed for prayer in the football fields of high schools, and to their credit w/o necessarily excluding other doctrines, I suppose challenging a school policy that bans "genocide xyz" could go either way and it'd definitely be of interest how it conflicts w/section vi.

What happens when Jewish students march with slogans "Palestine isn't a thing", "Palestinians aren't a people", "another Nakba"?; things I've heard often from Israelis and I personally could see be interpreted as genocidal.
More...

In a way I am dismissing your “what about so and so” points because this stuff has to be handled on a case by case basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top