Quote:
Originally posted by Cloud9
Ksig, I agree with you and have always believed that above all, free speech must be preserved...having to be exposed to the opinions and views of bigots and idiots is a worthy price to pay for what so many other cultures don't really have, at least to the extent that we do. However, I think that in this specific case, the University should be able to control what happens on it's own property. Their own right to free speech and the welfare of their student body outweights the rights of these "people" (for lack of a harsher and more honest term).
|
Maybe it should be able to - however, it looks like they're not willing to go to litigation to solidify this via court ruling . . . now, is this on the same level as yelling fire in a crowded theatre? Maybe - I honestly don't know. If so, then take the appropriate action, I was merely arguing (conceptually) that the laws exist as they do for a reason, and unfortunately some extremist, ignorant viewpoints are protected in this way. These guys were assholes, but I don't know that the school can punish the organization for being ignorant . . . if they can, more power to them to exercise this. I'm just not sure that particular right is afforded a University that accepts public endowment money.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cloud9
Also, sometimes I wonder, ARE there limits? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Supreme Court once had a case in which they ruled that free speech does not include things that are outrageously harmful, i.e. "yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater", (which is I think a quote from that instance). Also, fundamentally what all Americans are quaranteed above all else are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do you think that maybe in order to find the balance between these three inalienable rights, the unlimited power of one cannot outweigh the other two? I'm not challenging anyone, I really am asking, I don't know myself what I think, entirely. 
|
Well, "life liberty and happiness" we can argue another time - that was stolen from John Locke, and perverted along the way . . . but the point remains, and it's a good one: to what extent freedom? Again, as above, I don't know - to what extent can the University police its organizations for its beliefs? I completely buy FuzzieAlum's analogy, but to me it seems that this particular thought process could be extended from "racist organizations lose university support" to "pro-islamic organizations lose university support" without too much of a leap. I know it sounds extreme, but the line is nearly impossible to draw in my mind, which is difficult for me to stomach.
//edited for typographical error