Israel Hates Free Speech, Loves 1984

[kalm]

Oooooh this is a good one and another example of college campus thought control that deserves it's own thread.

Evil Democratic Senators, evil defense contractors, evil, evil, Israel!

Greenwald proving once again he's the best journalist Brazil has to offer.

There is no shortage of American pundits who love to denounce “PC” speech codes which restrict and punish the expression of certain ideas on college campuses. What these self-styled campus-free-speech crusaders typically – and quite tellingly – fail to mention is that the most potent such campaigns are often devoted to outlawing or otherwise punishing criticisms of Israel. The firing by the University of Illinois of Professor Steven Salatia for his “uncivil” denunciations of the Israeli war on Gaza – a termination that was privately condoned by Illinois’ Democratic Senator Dick Durbin – is merely illustrative of this long–growing trend.

One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses which includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The University’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the State’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that – in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” – would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.

Under the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided instead to push the decision off until September, when they instead would adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.”

One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported The Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the University if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation........

How does speech about Israel become “anti-Semitic”? According to the State Department, “anti-Semitism” includes those who (1) “Demonize Israel” by “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”; (2) espouse a “Double standard for Israel” by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” or “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”; or (3) “Delegitimize Israel” by “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” The State Department generously adds this caveat at the end: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”.............

The ironies of this definition are overwhelming. First, it warns against advocating a “double standard for Israel” – at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel. Would the State Department ever formally condemn what it regards as excessive or one-sided criticism of any other government, such as Russia or Iran? Why isn’t the State Department also accusing people of bigotry who create “double standards” for Iran by obsessing over the anti-gay behavior of Iran while ignoring the same or worse abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uganda? The State Department is purporting to regulate the discourse surrounding just one country – Israel – while at the same time condemning “double standards.”

Worse, this State Department definition explicitly equates certain forms of criticism of Israel or activism against Israeli government policies with “anti-Semitism.” In other words, the State Department embraces the twisted premise that a defining attribute of “Jews” everywhere is the actions of the Israeli government, which is itself a long-standing anti-Semitic trope.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/dia ... criticism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[93henfan]

The Jews trying to control the world? No way!

[kalm]

The Jews trying to control the world? No way!

[93henfan]

Meanwhile, in Moscow:

[Baldy]

Seeing Greenwald defend a bigoted piece of shit like Steven Salaita tells us all we need to know about this editorial.

Greenwald...journalist.

[dal4018]

Oooooh this is a good one and another example of college campus thought control that deserves it's own thread.

Evil Democratic Senators, evil defense contractors, evil, evil, Israel!

Greenwald proving once again he's the best journalist Brazil has to offer.

There is no shortage of American pundits who love to denounce “PC” speech codes which restrict and punish the expression of certain ideas on college campuses. What these self-styled campus-free-speech crusaders typically – and quite tellingly – fail to mention is that the most potent such campaigns are often devoted to outlawing or otherwise punishing criticisms of Israel. The firing by the University of Illinois of Professor Steven Salatia for his “uncivil” denunciations of the Israeli war on Gaza – a termination that was privately condoned by Illinois’ Democratic Senator Dick Durbin – is merely illustrative of this long–growing trend.

One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses which includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The University’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the State’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that – in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” – would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.

Under the most stringent such regulations, students found to be in violation of these codes would face suspension or expulsion. In July, it appeared that the Regents were poised to enact the most extreme version, but decided instead to push the decision off until September, when they instead would adopt non-binding guidelines to define “hate speech” and “intolerance.”

One of the Regents most vocally advocating for the most stringent version of the speech code is Richard Blum, the multi-millionaire defense contractor who is married to Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. At a Regents meeting last week, reported The Los Angeles Times, Blum expressly threatened that Feinstein would publicly denounce the University if it failed to adopt far more stringent standards than the ones it appeared to be considering, and specifically demanded they be binding and contain punishments for students found to be in violation........

How does speech about Israel become “anti-Semitic”? According to the State Department, “anti-Semitism” includes those who (1) “Demonize Israel” by “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” or “blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions”; (2) espouse a “Double standard for Israel” by “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” or “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations”; or (3) “Delegitimize Israel” by “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” The State Department generously adds this caveat at the end: “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.”.............

The ironies of this definition are overwhelming. First, it warns against advocating a “double standard for Israel” – at exactly the same time that it promulgates a standard that applies only to Israel. Would the State Department ever formally condemn what it regards as excessive or one-sided criticism of any other government, such as Russia or Iran? Why isn’t the State Department also accusing people of bigotry who create “double standards” for Iran by obsessing over the anti-gay behavior of Iran while ignoring the same or worse abuses in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Uganda? The State Department is purporting to regulate the discourse surrounding just one country – Israel – while at the same time condemning “double standards.”

Worse, this State Department definition explicitly equates certain forms of criticism of Israel or activism against Israeli government policies with “anti-Semitism.” In other words, the State Department embraces the twisted premise that a defining attribute of “Jews” everywhere is the actions of the Israeli government, which is itself a long-standing anti-Semitic trope.

https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/dia ... criticism/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course Israel hates free speech the obvious when its directed towards them by Palestine or supporters of that country.They will continue to hate free speech.

[expandspanos]

Isn't it "weird" how ISIS never seems to attack Israel?

[JohnStOnge]

Isn't it "weird" how ISIS never seems to attack Israel?

Are you implying that ISIS knows that if it attacks Israel it will get its ass kicked really badly?

[JohnStOnge]

There shouldn't be campus "speech codes" at all.

It's odd though that this is going on while it seems that students and professors at US universities are free to participate in the "BDS" movement (http://www.bdsmovement.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I've been kind of generally aware that a campus movement to economically isolate Israel has been underway for some time. One example: http://www.princetondivests.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

To my knowledge nobody is being kicked out or anything over that movement.

[kalm]

Seeing Greenwald defend a bigoted piece of shit like Steven Salaita tells us all we need to know about this editorial.

Greenwald...journalist.

What are you even talking about?

[CID1990]

Isn't it "weird" how ISIS never seems to attack Israel?

Are you implying that ISIS knows that if it attacks Israel it will get its ass kicked really badly?

TBH I wish they would use some of those gazillions of dollars worth of toys we have given them.

That said, Israel understands the dynamic over there much better than our amateur dabblers in peace and rainbows

Israel know that this is just the latest chapter in the Sunni-Shia schism and that they will happily kill each other with no help from us. Might even draw Iran into their own quagmire.

When Christendom was wallowing in its own filth in Europe, Islam was the torch bearer of classical civilization- they threw it all away to fight a 900 year old feud and have been content to wallow in their own filth for that entire time

no need to interfere

[Baldy]

Seeing Greenwald defend a bigoted piece of shit like Steven Salaita tells us all we need to know about this editorial.

Greenwald...journalist.

What are you even talking about?

Instead of just linking a blog post. Read (and understand) it.

[kalm]

What are you even talking about?

Instead of just linking a blog post. Read (and understand) it.

Greenwald is defending free speech in academia here which...apparently you only support if you agree with it. Really, what are struggling to understand? Can I help you?

[Baldy]

Instead of just linking a blog post. Read (and understand) it.

Greenwald is defending free speech in academia here which...apparently you only support if you agree with it. Really, what are struggling to understand? Can I help you?

Greenwald only defends the free speech he agrees with.

As I said, he vehemently defended Steven Satalia in the first paragraph of the blog post you linked. Satalia lost his tenure track position at the U of Illinois because he apparently likes to get drunk and go on bigoted anti-Israeli Twitter tirades. He says things like certain Israeli leaders need to meet the pointy end of a "shiv", and more Israeli settlers need to end up like the three boys who were kidnapped and killed by Palestinians last year, etc.

In the real world, people get fired for saying things like that on social media because your employer doesn't want to be associated with sociopaths like him. In Progressive Academialand, apparently it's OK to be a bigot...well unless you say something about the queers, Muslins, blacks, illegal aliens, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, when you link a blog post from a nutbag like Greenwald and in the first paragraph he defends another nutbag like Salatia, the rest of his blog post is just like all the others...not worth reading.

[kalm]

Greenwald is defending free speech in academia here which...apparently you only support if you agree with it. Really, what are struggling to understand? Can I help you?

Greenwald only defends the free speech he agrees with.

As I said, he vehemently defended Steven Satalia in the first paragraph of the blog post you linked. Satalia lost his tenure track position at the U of Illinois because he apparently likes to get drunk and go on bigoted anti-Israeli Twitter tirades. He says things like certain Israeli leaders need to meet the pointy end of a "shiv", and more Israeli settlers need to end up like the three boys who were kidnapped and killed by Palestinians last year, etc.

In the real world, people get fired for saying things like that on social media because your employer doesn't want to be associated with sociopaths like him. In Progressive Academialand, apparently it's OK to be a bigot...well unless you say something about the queers, Muslins, blacks, illegal aliens, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, when you link a blog post from a nutbag like Greenwald and in the first paragraph he defends another nutbag like Salatia, the rest of his blog post is just like all the others...not worth reading.

I know you don't actually ever read Greenwald which is what makes your first and second sentences so funny.

"Vehemently"? It was one illustrative sentence in a long article.

I'll help you out here. The point you're not suppose to like about the Salaita issue and exactly why Greenwald uses it as an example isn't that Salaita is anti-israel, it's that wealthy private donors (probably an anti-semitic statement itself ) who don't like what he says and influenced a public university to not let him teach, were exposed by the courts.

They're suppose to be able to buy the silence. Again...the entire point of Greenwald's article.

Now...run along and research some more anti-speech talking points from the Daily Caller.

[DSUrocks07]

Isn't it "weird" how ISIS never seems to attack Israel?

Are you implying that ISIS knows that if it attacks Israel it will get its ass kicked really badly?

You mean like Hamas and Hezbollah?

[Baldy]

Greenwald only defends the free speech he agrees with.

As I said, he vehemently defended Steven Satalia in the first paragraph of the blog post you linked. Satalia lost his tenure track position at the U of Illinois because he apparently likes to get drunk and go on bigoted anti-Israeli Twitter tirades. He says things like certain Israeli leaders need to meet the pointy end of a "shiv", and more Israeli settlers need to end up like the three boys who were kidnapped and killed by Palestinians last year, etc.

In the real world, people get fired for saying things like that on social media because your employer doesn't want to be associated with sociopaths like him. In Progressive Academialand, apparently it's OK to be a bigot...well unless you say something about the queers, Muslins, blacks, illegal aliens, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, when you link a blog post from a nutbag like Greenwald and in the first paragraph he defends another nutbag like Salatia, the rest of his blog post is just like all the others...not worth reading.

I know you don't actually ever read Greenwald which is what makes your first and second sentences so funny.

"Vehemently"? It was one illustrative sentence in a long article.

I'll help you out here. The point you're not suppose to like about the Salaita issue and exactly why Greenwald uses it as an example isn't that Salaita is anti-israel, it's that wealthy private donors (probably an anti-semitic statement itself ) who don't like what he says and influenced a public university to not let him teach, were exposed by the courts.

They're suppose to be able to buy the silence. Again...the entire point of Greenwald's article.

Now...run along and research some more anti-speech talking points from the Daily Caller.

As the dedicated Greenwald fanboi, you should know that he has written about and vehemently defended the guy on more than one occasion.

What I don't like about the Salaita issue is that the people who are screaming "free speech" the loudest are the ones who only believe in selective free speech. I can advocate the killing of Israeli settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, but if you say one thing about the queers, Palestinians, illegal aliens, Muslins, etc., I'm bringing the rope to your journalistic lynching.

Some wealthy donors told the U of Illinois that if they hired the bigot they were cutting off their donations. So? Why do you hate free will?

[kalm]

I know you don't actually ever read Greenwald which is what makes your first and second sentences so funny.

"Vehemently"? It was one illustrative sentence in a long article.

I'll help you out here. The point you're not suppose to like about the Salaita issue and exactly why Greenwald uses it as an example isn't that Salaita is anti-israel, it's that wealthy private donors (probably an anti-semitic statement itself ) who don't like what he says and influenced a public university to not let him teach, were exposed by the courts.

They're suppose to be able to buy the silence. Again...the entire point of Greenwald's article.

Now...run along and research some more anti-speech talking points from the Daily Caller.

As the dedicated Greenwald fanboi, you should know that he has written about and vehemently defended the guy on more than one occasion.

What I don't like about the Salaita issue is that the people who are screaming "free speech" the loudest are the ones who only believe in selective free speech. I can advocate the killing of Israeli settlers in Gaza and the West Bank, but if you say one thing about the queers, Palestinians, illegal aliens, Muslins, etc., I'm bringing the rope to your journalistic lynching.

Some wealthy donors told the U of Illinois that if they hired the bigot they were cutting off their donations. So? Why do you hate free will?

Huh? Free will?

You're confusing criticism with using one's money or (in the case of Feinstein and her hubby) political power to silence speech. That's the point of this article as well as the other one I posted recently regarding liberal micro aggressions. It sucks when either side does it. Please show me where Greenwald has come out against free speech (good luck). In fact, he's often defended those he politically disagrees with.

Hope this helps!

[Baldy]

Huh? Free will?

You're confusing criticism with using one's money or (in the case of Feinstein and her hubby) political power to silence speech. That's the point of this article as well as the other one I posted recently regarding liberal micro aggressions. It sucks when either side does it. Please show me where Greenwald has come out against free speech (good luck). In fact, he's often defended those he politically disagrees with.

Hope this helps!

I honestly don't think you're as dense as you're letting on here.

A private citizen who withholds a voluntary contribution to a foundation in protest is not prohibiting, quashing, or preventing anyone from exercising their free speech rights. This is elementary...Civics 101 shit.

Salaita has learned a valuable lesson...what life is like outside the academic bubble. Free speech does not come without circumstances.

Greenwald knows better than to criticize free speech in general. However, it's extremely hard for him to hide the disgust he has towards people who criticize Muslins. Just read some of the articles he wrote regarding the Charlie Hebdo attack...

“What, pray tell, is remotely admirable about sitting in the west – which has been invading, bombing, and otherwise dominating Muslim countries around the world for decades, and has spent the last decade depicting Islam as the Gravest Threat – and echoing that prevailing sentiment by bashing Muslims? Nothing is easier than mocking and maligning the group in your society most marginalized and oppressed…. Bashing Muslims and Islam is orthodoxy in the west, both on the level of official policy and political culture.“

That guy has some strange off the wall version of Stockholm syndrome of something.

[kalm]

Huh? Free will?

You're confusing criticism with using one's money or (in the case of Feinstein and her hubby) political power to silence speech. That's the point of this article as well as the other one I posted recently regarding liberal micro aggressions. It sucks when either side does it. Please show me where Greenwald has come out against free speech (good luck). In fact, he's often defended those he politically disagrees with.

Hope this helps!

I honestly don't think you're as dense as you're letting on here.

A private citizen who withholds a voluntary contribution to a foundation in protest is not prohibiting, quashing, or preventing anyone from exercising their free speech rights. This is elementary...Civics 101 shit.

Salaita has learned a valuable lesson...what life is like outside the academic bubble. Free speech does not come without circumstances.

Please point out where Greenwald said the private donors should be prohibited from withholding their contribution or threatening to? 1) That does not mean they are beyond criticism and 2) neither is the UI Admin in bowing to their wishes. Speech should be greater than a publicly funded university's development office. That's the point Greenwald, the Chicago Tribune, and pointy bearded white tower residing academics are making.

Real world: Money buys influence and can restrict speech. Perhaps you're confused because you think this case is being argued from a constitutional angle?

Going back to the original point of the thread...it's good to know you're on the side of political correctness and Diane Feinstein.

Greenwald knows better than to criticize free speech in general. However, it's extremely hard for him to hide the disgust he has towards people who criticize Muslins. Just read some of the articles he wrote regarding the Charlie Hebdo attack...

“What, pray tell, is remotely admirable about sitting in the west – which has been invading, bombing, and otherwise dominating Muslim countries around the world for decades, and has spent the last decade depicting Islam as the Gravest Threat – and echoing that prevailing sentiment by bashing Muslims? Nothing is easier than mocking and maligning the group in your society most marginalized and oppressed…. Bashing Muslims and Islam is orthodoxy in the west, both on the level of official policy and political culture.“

That guy has some strange off the wall version of Stockholm syndrome of something.

This example has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or my challenge to you so rather than acknowledge you were wrong about Greenwald's position on free speech, you fail with this turd of a red herring.

There's much to criticize about islam without embellishing their menace. There is plenty of that coming from our culture. Greenwald's schtick is to point out when that criticism is inaccurate and non-reason based. You and Feinstein would silence that push-back if you could.

Congrats!

[Baldy]

I honestly don't think you're as dense as you're letting on here.

A private citizen who withholds a voluntary contribution to a foundation in protest is not prohibiting, quashing, or preventing anyone from exercising their free speech rights. This is elementary...Civics 101 shit.

Salaita has learned a valuable lesson...what life is like outside the academic bubble. Free speech does not come without circumstances.

Please point out where Greenwald said the private donors should be prohibited from withholding their contribution or threatening to? 1) That does not mean they are beyond criticism and 2) neither is the UI Admin in bowing to their wishes. Speech should be greater than a publicly funded university's development office. That's the point Greenwald, the Chicago Tribune, and pointy bearded white tower residing academics are making.

Real world: Money buys influence and can restrict speech. Perhaps you're confused because you think this case is being argued from a constitutional angle?

Going back to the original point of the thread...it's good to know you're on the side of political correctness and Diane Feinstein.

Greenwald knows better than to criticize free speech in general. However, it's extremely hard for him to hide the disgust he has towards people who criticize Muslins. Just read some of the articles he wrote regarding the Charlie Hebdo attack...

That guy has some strange off the wall version of Stockholm syndrome of something.

This example has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic or my challenge to you so rather than acknowledge you were wrong about Greenwald's position on free speech, you fail with this turd of a red herring.

There's much to criticize about islam without embellishing their menace. There is plenty of that coming from our culture. Greenwald's schtick is to point out when that criticism is inaccurate and non-reason based. You and Feinstein would silence that push-back if you could.

Congrats!

My God someone needs to teach you how to use the quote feature.

I'm not talking about Feinstein or her hubby. Don't give a flying fuck about either. I've been simply pointing out (not simply enough for you evidently) the fact that "free speech" has consequences. If you are a so-called respected employee of a very visible organization and are stupid enough to go onto social media and advocate the killing of people because of their Jewiness, don't be a crybaby when your ass gets fired. Nobody has denied the bigot his constitutionally guaranteed right, and he isn't immune to fallout from his stupidity, either. Protected academic bubble be damned.

The people who decided to pull their voluntary contributions don't have the bully pulpit Greenwald or Salaita have. They exercise their right by not sending checks.
The "point" Greenwald, the Chicago Tribune, and greasy ponytailed professors are trying to make is that there shouldn't be consequences. Maybe that will fly in the festering shithole of "progressiveland", but that isn't how the real world works. You are free to say all the stupid things you want, but be prepared to pay the price. Free speech is a two way street.

Go back, refresh your browser, rub one out to Glenn's next blog post, and try again later.

[kalm]

My God someone needs to teach you how to use the quote feature.

I'm not talking about Feinstein or her hubby. Don't give a flying fuck about either. I've been simply pointing out (not simply enough for you evidently) the fact that "free speech" has consequences. If you are a so-called respected employee of a very visible organization and are stupid enough to go onto social media and advocate the killing of people because of their Jewiness, don't be a crybaby when your ass gets fired. Nobody has denied the bigot his constitutionally guaranteed right, and he isn't immune to fallout from his stupidity, either. Protected academic bubble be damned.

The people who decided to pull their voluntary contributions don't have the bully pulpit Greenwald or Salaita have. They exercise their right by not sending checks.
The "point" Greenwald, the Chicago Tribune, and greasy ponytailed professors are trying to make is that there shouldn't be consequences. Maybe that will fly in the festering shithole of "progressiveland", but that isn't how the real world works. You are free to say all the stupid things you want, but be prepared to pay the price. Free speech is a two way street.

Go back, refresh your browser, rub one out to Glenn's next blog post, and try again later.

I understand that you don't want to talk about Feinsten and her hubby...you know...the actual topic of this thread. The Greenwald-is-wrong boner gets in the way.

You're awesomeness of reading right past pertinent little points like... no one is arguing the constitutionality of this...is truly amazing.

In all honesty, the real world consequences of living in a bubble like Salaita and expecting protection for your views is not a bad debate at all. You should start a thread about it.

[Baldy]

My God someone needs to teach you how to use the quote feature.

I'm not talking about Feinstein or her hubby. Don't give a flying fuck about either. I've been simply pointing out (not simply enough for you evidently) the fact that "free speech" has consequences. If you are a so-called respected employee of a very visible organization and are stupid enough to go onto social media and advocate the killing of people because of their Jewiness, don't be a crybaby when your ass gets fired. Nobody has denied the bigot his constitutionally guaranteed right, and he isn't immune to fallout from his stupidity, either. Protected academic bubble be damned.

The people who decided to pull their voluntary contributions don't have the bully pulpit Greenwald or Salaita have. They exercise their right by not sending checks.
The "point" Greenwald, the Chicago Tribune, and greasy ponytailed professors are trying to make is that there shouldn't be consequences. Maybe that will fly in the festering shithole of "progressiveland", but that isn't how the real world works. You are free to say all the stupid things you want, but be prepared to pay the price. Free speech is a two way street.

Go back, refresh your browser, rub one out to Glenn's next blog post, and try again later.

I understand that you don't want to talk about Feinsten and her hubby...you know...the actual topic of this thread. The Greenwald-is-wrong boner gets in the way.

You're awesomeness of reading right past pertinent little points like... no one is arguing the constitutionality of this...is truly amazing.

In all honesty, the real world consequences of living in a bubble like Salaita and expecting protection for your views is not a bad debate at all. You should start a thread about it.

Using a bigot in defending "free speech" among the academic elite probably wasn't a good example for your boy to use. Wait...was the article about about academic free speech?

Greenwald is defending free speech in academia here...

That's a nice dodge, bro, but who said anything about the constitutionality of it?

[kalm]

I understand that you don't want to talk about Feinsten and her hubby...you know...the actual topic of this thread. The Greenwald-is-wrong boner gets in the way.

You're awesomeness of reading right past pertinent little points like... no one is arguing the constitutionality of this...is truly amazing.

In all honesty, the real world consequences of living in a bubble like Salaita and expecting protection for your views is not a bad debate at all. You should start a thread about it.

Using a bigot in defending "free speech" among the academic elite probably wasn't a good example for your boy to use. Wait...was the article about about academic free speech?

Greenwald is defending free speech in academia here...

That's a nice dodge, bro, but who said anything about the constitutionality of it?

I brought up constitutionality as a question to you because otherwise, there's really no other point to what you're saying (not that constitutionality would fly either).

A private citizen who withholds a voluntary contribution to a foundation in protest is not prohibiting, quashing, or preventing anyone from exercising their free speech rights. This is elementary...Civics 101 shit.

Liberals prohibiting the use of "microagressions" in classrooms through the power of student groups and legal threats over "hostile environments".

A US Senator and her defense contractor husband threatening political retribution unless Israel friendly speech codes are adopted.

Threatening to withhold donations unless...

All three are attempts to limit speech that each group finds disagreeable. All three groups are entitled to make that attempt. Greenwald's beef is with the BOR for kowtowing to the threats. College liberal elites are constantly criticized for repressing conservative dissent and speakers on their campuses. Even comedians are starting to stay away from campus gigs.

But I guess you, Feinstein, the Illinois BOR, and the Dartmouth Lesbian Lives Matter Club have all figured out that it's perfectly fine as long as that speech offends you.

Congrats!

[Ivytalk]

Greenwald watered down the effectiveness of his article by throwing in a few gratuitous slaps at the Israeli government, anyone who disagrees with his views about the Palestinians, and "war profiteer" Richard Blum. That said, the fundamental premise of the piece is correct as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence: codes against "hate speech", of whatever variety, at a state university are invalid prior restraints. Even Abraham Foxman agrees with that. And threatening to "sic" Dianne Feinstein on the UC Board of Regents is just another iteration of crony capitalism.