@AverageJoe1 saidExactly what I just said.
One can say they hate someone, and be protected by free speech. However, if such statements, promote violence or lead to violence, they are not allowed under free speech.
Better be careful, you might get thrown out of the country club if you're caught agreeing with me.
@Suzianne saidIf I could put my finger on the single most significant contribution to civilization in the Western world in the last 250 years, I would say the education of women. In medieval Europe, education was the preserve of clerics; there's a reason why they're called The Dark Ages.
That doesn't affect the fact that actual humans don't mind funding education in this country. We need MORE education, not less.
If I could put my finger on the single most damning thing about the Taliban and Boko Haram, it would be restriction of education of girls to the Koran, and then only up the the sixth grade, and the barring of woman from any further education beyond that. In Afghanistan, it is forbidden for women even to recite the Koran out loud or teach it to each other--girls and women in Afghanistan hear only male voices speaking the Koran and only the males' interpretation of it. They and their 7th c. Arabian nomads' morality will be consigned to the dust bin of oblivion.
@moonbus saidCouldn't agree more.
If I could put my finger on the single most significant contribution to civilization in the Western world in the last 250 years, I would say the education of women. In medieval Europe, education was the preserve of clerics; there's a reason why they're called The Dark Ages.
If I could put my finger on the single most damning thing about the Taliban and Boko Haram, it would ...[text shortened]... of it. They and their 7th c. Arabian nomads' morality will be consigned to the dust bin of oblivion.
@AverageJoe1 saidAdd the word "imminent" and that's about right.
One can say they hate someone, and be protected by free speech. However, if such statements, promote violence or lead to violence, they are not allowed under free speech.
"A state may not forbid speech advocating the use of force or unlawful conduct unless this advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/
3 edits
@spruce112358 saidIt was suggested in an adjacent thread, I could not let it go!!!
No one ever suggested that a University DID have rights! 😆
Why is everyone upset bout my question? I asked if independent universities have a right to receive govt funds. It was never answered until just above when Marauder agreed that they do not have such a right.
Problem, is on another thread a person who shall go unnamed said that they have such a right, and I take full blame for my issue there bleeding over into this thread. It got a bit heated, I am glad that it is over now.
@AverageJoe1 saidBut you would be just fine with the decimating of Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. That is EXACTLY what they are doing as we speak, AND a 300 BILLION dollar cut to SNAP, food stamps. Tell me that is OK.
No I would not. I will not be slandered!
@sonhouse saidDecimate a poor choice of words. Biden et al have spent a lot of money,,,,,over here, we call it waste fraud and abuse. You want to keep it up, we won, and we Do NOT want to keep it up.
But you would be just fine with the decimating of Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security. That is EXACTLY what they are doing as we speak, AND a 300 BILLION dollar cut to SNAP, food stamps. Tell me that is OK.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidSure, REpuke TRUMP puke about all that waste and fraud.
Decimate a poor choice of words. Biden et al have spent a lot of money,,,,,over here, we call it waste fraud and abuse. You want to keep it up, we won, and we Do NOT want to keep it up.
Here is the thing: They did not even LOOK for fraud, they just chopped the tops off the agencies with ZERO due process, NOBODY but the traitor Musk and his gang of thugs did that.
So don't tell me about waste and fraud, MUSK wanted to decimate ALL the agencies in our government BECAUSE HE IS A TRAITOR, pure and simple.
All that waste BS was a dodge to hide what they were REALLY after, the MASTER DATA list and they got it, JUST LIKE in China, a kid does a shoplift when he was 13 say, so 20 years later he is up for a high grade job, they come back, ok you may have that job just remember, we are watching your every move......
THAT is what they are after, SCREW saving money which BTW they didn't save ANYTHING. Just made lives miserable for tens of thousands of people just doing their jobs but OF COURSE you repuke the BS Trump puked out about all that fraud and waste which they DID NOT find.
They were after the DATA from SS, Medicare, IRS and the like.
Before the Traitor Musk did his thing, there WAS no master data list with privacy laws to make sure that never happened but we never thought a POTUS would be so corrupt he would sic a traitor like Musk and his thugs to do that job.
Killing all those agencies was just the distraction for the real purpose of the hacking of all the data.
BTW, now Musk has that data and can use it for his own personal businesses, finding who has what money in what banks, what competitors are working on, in brief, ALL the data of the US at his disposal AND BTW the hacks they installed have back doors that will allow them to change ANYONE's data, wipe out their bank accounts or anything they want. Print out ANYONE's IRS forms for instance.
But you are too stupid to have ever even CONSIDERED why that traitor Musk was doing what he did, you fell for the ruse, WASTE and FRAUD. BULLPUKEY,
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidLet me explain this by analogy:
Sue, we can discuss reasons all day long. You may have great reasoning, to not withhold it. That is not the point. They do not have a right to it.
Businesses are allowed by law to deduct capital investments in the year they are made
https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/expensing-taxation-capital-investment
They don't have a "right" to do so; it's a feature of the tax code which Congress elected to include (they didn't have to).
Now suppose some of a business' employees went to a demonstration in support of something the government didn't like and the Executive Department decreed you must fire them or you couldn't expense your capital investments like other businesses' can.
Do you think that would be legal?
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHarvard, like most universities, has a set of policies and codes of conduct that students agree to when they enroll. These typically cover behavior, academic integrity, and student responsibilities. However, they don’t explicitly forbid participation in protests. In fact, universities often support the right to free expression, which includes participating in protests, as long as those protests don’t disrupt the university’s operations or violate other policies (like safety or non-violence rules).
Let me explain this by analogy:
Businesses are allowed by law to deduct capital investments in the year they are made
https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/expensing-taxation-capital-investment
They don't have a "right" to do so; it's a feature of the tax code which Congress elected to include (they didn't have to).
Now suppose some of a business' employees went t ...[text shortened]... 't expense your capital investments like other businesses' can.
Do you think that would be legal?
So, while students may not sign an agreement saying they won’t protest, they are expected to follow guidelines around behavior, safety, and respect for others. Some protests, depending on their scale and nature, could still lead to consequences if they breach university policies.
So, I believe that if Harvard University allows the aforementioned to get out of hand, that it would be evidence of not running their school properly, and that the government ought to get the hell out of there with their money.
Disruption, like I have stated. They disrupt, man. The towels on the heads scare the heck out of my little girls.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAs to the business in your analogy, if someone that is working, there is not happy with something that is going on, I think they have only one recourse and that would be to quit. Why do you think they have some right to tell people how to run their business?
Let me explain this by analogy:
Businesses are allowed by law to deduct capital investments in the year they are made
https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/expensing-taxation-capital-investment
They don't have a "right" to do so; it's a feature of the tax code which Congress elected to include (they didn't have to).
Now suppose some of a business' employees went t ...[text shortened]... 't expense your capital investments like other businesses' can.
Do you think that would be legal?
And when this ruckus is going on before they are fired, if they don’t quit, the government would have nothing to do with the personal and business runnings of this business. As long as no laws are being broken. I assume in all of this, you are not saying laws are being broken
1 edit
@AverageJoe1
I am sorry, but you would have to be quite specific as to what the protest was about for me to comment on whether the government would have an interest in it.
Your analogy is quite general, but I have done my best to answer it.
@Suzianne saidI doubt any member of the Club would, for example, hold that men should compete with women, per our many discussions thereof.
Exactly what I just said.
Better be careful, you might get thrown out of the country club if you're caught agreeing with me.
So if someone overheard you and I chatting about your position, yes, they would feel uncomfortable about subjects of an abnormal nature.
So you are right, if I agreed with you that men should be allowed to overwhelm women in the world of sports, I would certainly not say it in front of them chatting with you. But I would love to buy you a Moscow Mule, a popular vodka drink of the ladies.
@sonhouse saidWhy did Biden not think of those miserable people, that are down and out while he was paying off the tuition of Rich college graduates?
Sure, REpuke TRUMP puke about all that waste and fraud.
Here is the thing: They did not even LOOK for fraud, they just chopped the tops off the agencies with ZERO due process, NOBODY but the traitor Musk and his gang of thugs did that.
So don't tell me about waste and fraud, MUSK wanted to decimate ALL the agencies in our government BECAUSE HE IS A TRAITOR, pure and simp ...[text shortened]... ERED why that traitor Musk was doing what he did, you fell for the ruse, WASTE and FRAUD. BULLPUKEY,
Just a question, I don’t mean to get you heated up.
@AverageJoe1 saidContent based actions by the government restricting or punishing speech are presumptively unconstitutional. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/content-based/
@AverageJoe1
I am sorry, but you would have to be quite specific as t
An example: "a District of Columbia law prohibiting the display of signs critical of foreign governments within a certain distance outside embassies, in Boos v. Barry (1988)" was struck down by the SCOTUS.
So a political protest, like the ones at issue, are protected speech regardless of what the protest was about.