Getting federal funds does not make a private institution subject to constitutional limitations.
It makes them subject to federal regulations for higher ed institutions, but not the 1st amendment.
'Expel anti-speech zealots': Students demand Stanford fire woke dean Tirien Steinbach
- Thread starter ExpressLane
- Start date
Getting federal funds does not make a private institution subject to constitutional limitations.
It makes them subject to federal regulations for higher ed institutions, but not the 1st amendment.
this!
“... Private institutions that receive federal funding must also adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws, such as those applicable under Title IX.
There are some exceptions to this rule. Private colleges and universities that accept government funding or which otherwise engage with government closely may be required to adhere to the First Amendment more closely. State governments may also pass statutes requiring private universities to respect free speech rights as a matter of state law, even when the US Constitution imposes no such requirement. For example, California law applies First Amendment protections to both public and private universities. Congress also has the power to propose and pass federal laws which would require private universities, by statute, to adhere to various free speech guidelines.
https://campusfreespeechguide.pen.org/the-law/the-basics/
Adhering to the First Amendment applies to both public and private universities.
There are some exceptions to this rule. Private colleges and universities that accept government funding or which otherwise engage with government closely may be required to adhere to the First Amendment more closely. State governments may also pass statutes requiring private universities to respect free speech rights as a matter of state law, even when the US Constitution imposes no such requirement. For example, California law applies First Amendment protections to both public and private universities. Congress also has the power to propose and pass federal laws which would require private universities, by statute, to adhere to various free speech guidelines.
https://campusfreespeechguide.pen.org/the-law/the-basics/
Adhering to the First Amendment applies to both public and private universities.
Last edited:
Under federal or state law, not under the 1st amendment.
you are a greasy shit stain liar. you literally tried to pretend you didn't equate speech with fighting
so fuck off fascist brown shirt - we already proved you are the asshole we said you are
So no quote? That's what I thought.
I never said his speech equate with fighting.
It's your imagination, Nazi.
we already proved it retardo - and we laughed and pointed when you tried to say you didn't say what you said
your gaslighting might help you sleep at night, but we already proved the claim
brown shirt fascist
This is what I said: "He went there looking for a fight and got it."
Now explain how it equates his speech to fighting, Nazi.
Have an adult read this to you:
“...There are some exceptions to this rule. Private colleges and universities that accept government funding or which otherwise engage with government closely may be required to adhere to the First Amendment more closely. State governments may also pass statutes requiring private universities to respect free speech rights as a matter of state law, even when the US Constitution imposes no such requirement. For example, California law applies First Amendment protections to both public and private universities. Congress also has the power to propose and pass federal laws which would require private universities, by statute, to adhere to various free speech guidelines...”
The Second Amendment has been interpreted to allow restrictions that are not extant...so has the First Amendment.
Last edited:
we already did. brownshirts support this - people like you only support this
being stupid is like being dead - the pain is felt by everyone else
Because private universities are not government entities, they are not required to uphold First Amendment protections in the same manner as public universities. In other words, private institutions may impose stricter limitations on free speech. Still, most adhere to free speech principles and support academic freedom. Private institutions that receive federal funding must also adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws, such as those applicable under Title IX.
There are some exceptions to this rule. Private colleges and universities that accept government funding or which otherwise engage with government closely may be required to adhere to the First Amendment more closely.
Congress also has the power to propose and pass federal laws which would require private universities, by statute, to adhere to various free speech guidelines.
If the 1st amendment applied to private universities that accept federal money there would be no need for Congress to pass laws requiring certain protections--it would already apply. It is a more limited application as was stated in the guidelines.
Almost all private universities receive some federal funding but are not subject to all 1st amendment protections. In the Stanford case the university did not impose restrictions on the judge's speech so the institution violated no free speech provisions. He was invited to speak and interrupted by the dean.
You are getting boring, Nazi.
I hope you are so bored you kill yourself nazi brownshirt
An adult would point out the phrase "may be required to adhere to the First Amendment more closely."
"May be.." means it does not necessarily apply" and "more closely" means it does not have to meet all 1st amendment interpretations. It depends on circumstances like determining how closely the university works with the government (more than simply receiving federal funds) and which 1st amendment provisions apply. Schools have been given certain leeway in making certain regulations like creating free speech zones to limit speech to areas that do not interfere with the flow of school business.
However, Stanford had no school policies limiting free speech that would interfere with the 1st Amendment.
the brownshirts are arguing they are within the law
What "law" was violated? It was an attempt by the dean to make her voice heard over somebody she did not agree with. A stupid act on her part was not violating any law.
again - the brownshirts are saying their fellow brownshirts are doing nothing wrong - no laws broken.
own this!
An adult would understand that California...and other states, have already successfully applied this restriction to the First Amendment.
When Stanford accepts 1.4 billion in federal largess, they have accepted the liabilities of the First Amendment.
The judge’s free speech was suppressed by a dean of the university.
Last edited:
What law was broken? You make unfounded assumptions--I completely oppose her actions.
Next you will be claiming no laws were broken on January 6.