'Expel anti-speech zealots': Students demand Stanford fire woke dean Tirien Steinbach

Flash said:
What law was broken? You make unfounded assumptions--I completely oppose her actions.
Click to expand...

you are pretty dense.

keep proving aid for the brownshirts. way to go!

you oppose her actions - how about the other brown shirts that prevented a person they disagree with from speaking?

how about saying something to the other shit stain brownshirt in here that does support her actions
 
Earl said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity. No Stanford policy restricted free speech.
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

The law against murder was broken when a Capitol guard shot and murdered an unarmed female AF veteran.
 
Flash said:
Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity. No Stanford policy restricted free speech.
Click to expand...

it is so transparent and comical how you want to argue this is not a 1st amendment violation

meanwhile, we have a shit stain in here that says he wanted this fight - that his speech is a fight itself

we can see who you choose to debate - you are not fighting the fascists - which makes you a sympathizer of the fascists
 
Flash said:
Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity. No Stanford policy restricted free speech.
Click to expand...

The California law places restrictions of the First Amendment on California private colleges.
 
zymurgy said:
you are pretty dense.

keep proving aid for the brownshirts. way to go!

you oppose her actions - how about the other brown shirts that prevented a person they disagree with from speaking?

how about saying something to the other shit stain brownshirt in here that does support her actions
Click to expand...

You still didn't tell us what law was broken.

I think her action was stupid and I am a big believer in all constitutional rights. I oppose brownshirts whether they are trying to block free speech or attacking the nation's Capitol. Any violence to achieve political goals is wrong.

Who supports her actions?
 
The California law applies to private universities which means the First Amendment now applies to private universities.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
You still didn't tell us what law was broken.

I think her action was stupid and I am a big believer in all constitutional rights. I oppose brownshirts whether they are trying to block free speech or attacking the nation's Capitol. Any violence to achieve political goals is wrong.

Who supports her actions?
Click to expand...

again - you are using all your energy to argue they were all within their rights. I am quite sure the nazi brownshirts often times lived well within the rules as well - and assholes like you would argue with people like me for calling them out

You expel no energy to argue with the dipshits that support her actions - that is transparent
 
zymurgy said:
again - you are using all your energy to argue they were all within their rights. I am quite sure the nazi brownshirts often times lived well within the rules as well - and assholes like you would argue with people like me for calling them out

You expel no energy to argue with the dipshits that support her actions - that is transparent
Click to expand...

These brown shirts would be screaming if universities were censoring far left speech.
 
Flash said:
Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity. No Stanford policy restricted free speech.
Click to expand...
There it is folks this proves we are arguing with retards.

:facepalm:
 
Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. ***Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity.*** No Stanford policy restricted free speech.

This poster is ignorant, if a private citizen yells fire at a crowded movie, he/she has violated the First Anendmrnt.
 
zymurgy said:
it is so transparent and comical how you want to argue this is not a 1st amendment violation

meanwhile, we have a shit stain in here that says he wanted this fight - that his speech is a fight itself

we can see who you choose to debate - you are not fighting the fascists - which makes you a sympathizer of the fascists
Click to expand...

Anyone who support that is an idiot. There is a better video showing her entire speech and then he gave his speech. She welcomed him and supported free speech and then left so he could speak to those who wanted to hear him.

What Stanford policy did it violate? I don't think it was a free speech violation because no official act tried to block his speech. It was more of a disturbing the peace or interfering with a lawful assembly action by those who were interfering.

Individuals cannot violate the 1st amendment. It has to be a governmental policy that prohibits speech.

I was not originally debating anybody concerning blocking speech but the legal point of whether getting federal aid made the 1st amendment apply. If CA passed laws regarding free speech then it was a violation of state law, not the Constitution.
 
ExpressLane said:
There it is folks this proves we are arguing with retards.

Then state the facts that show my post was wrong.

Are you saying an individual can violate the Constitution? That is basic constitutional law that it only restricts what government can do. Did Stanford have a policy restricting speech?
Click to expand...
 
Earl said:
Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
Then they violated the state of CA law, not the 1st Amendment. ***Only the government can violate the Constitution, not an individual or private entity.*** No Stanford policy restricted free speech.

This poster is ignorant, if a private citizen yells fire at a crowded movie, he/she has violated the First Anendmrnt.
Click to expand...

That is not the way it works, Earl. There is nothing in the 1st amendment making any speech illegal.

Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech and government may make a law against it. That law is constitutional (not the speaker's act). The speaker did not violate the 1st Amendment or act unconstitutionally. The government acted constitutionally when it passed the law making that act illegal.

If the government makes a law saying it is illegal to criticize the government, that law is unconstitutional and the speaker cannot be punished. The speaker did nothing constitutional or unconstitutional, the government acted unconstitutionally.

The 1st Amendment does not specify what speech is allowed and which is not. That is a decision made by the courts if that law is challenged.

It is all based on the court's decision as what speech can be restricted and what speech cannot. Some very conservative interpretations claim no speech can be restricted because the Constitution says government can restrict "no speech" and they take that literally.

This is basic constitutional law and be easily verified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top