Posted on Oct 10, 2017
University of Wisconsin approves protest punishment policy - SRN News
3.75K
42
18
17
17
0
University of Wisconsin System leaders approved a policy Friday that calls for suspending and expelling students who disrupt campus speeches and presentations, saying students need to listen to all sides of issues and arguments.
Oh the pain.
Oh the pain.
University of Wisconsin approves protest punishment policy - SRN News
Posted from srnnews.com
Freedom of Speech
Information
Humor
Education
Culture
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
3
3
0
This is sure to rub some people the wrong way. Not that I'm opposed to rubbing the fur the wrong way, mind you.
Turning protests into mobs through such actions doesn't accomplish much more than drive a wedge between people and ultimately backfire as animosity builds up.
EDIT:
Re-reading the article, it's quite evident that people who are SUPPOSED to be "in the know" with respect to what "Freedom of Speech" REALLY is (which, honestly, should be EVERYBODY, but I'm talking about to p9oliticianis who are elected to office) don't honestly understand what "Freedom of Speech" means.
The First Amendment's most important words are the first five: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."
This is a very clear proscription against the GOVERNMENT. Not private citizens or private organizations.
Yet, in this article I keep reading tripe like the following:
Evers, a Democrat running against Walker in next year’s gubernatorial election, cast the only dissenting vote. He accused the regents of sacrificing free speech to curry favor with Republican lawmakers.
“This policy will chill and suppress free speech on this campus and all campuses,” Evers said.
And this:
“The First Amendment is supposed to be messy and contentious and allow contentious debate,” Castro said during the news conference. “The whole point of protest is to disrupt the status quo and make people uncomfortable.”
A college/university setting rules/guidelines by which protests may be conducted is NOT and abridgement of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech because the college/university is NOT the government nor an agent of the government.
The same can be said if someone comes on my property mouthing off, or otherwise doing/saying things I do not appreciate or agree with...if I tell them they can have a nice, piping hot cuppa STFU with a side order of GTF-Off-My-Property. That is not suppression of anyone's "Freedom of Speech", either.
Turning protests into mobs through such actions doesn't accomplish much more than drive a wedge between people and ultimately backfire as animosity builds up.
EDIT:
Re-reading the article, it's quite evident that people who are SUPPOSED to be "in the know" with respect to what "Freedom of Speech" REALLY is (which, honestly, should be EVERYBODY, but I'm talking about to p9oliticianis who are elected to office) don't honestly understand what "Freedom of Speech" means.
The First Amendment's most important words are the first five: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..."
This is a very clear proscription against the GOVERNMENT. Not private citizens or private organizations.
Yet, in this article I keep reading tripe like the following:
Evers, a Democrat running against Walker in next year’s gubernatorial election, cast the only dissenting vote. He accused the regents of sacrificing free speech to curry favor with Republican lawmakers.
“This policy will chill and suppress free speech on this campus and all campuses,” Evers said.
And this:
“The First Amendment is supposed to be messy and contentious and allow contentious debate,” Castro said during the news conference. “The whole point of protest is to disrupt the status quo and make people uncomfortable.”
A college/university setting rules/guidelines by which protests may be conducted is NOT and abridgement of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech because the college/university is NOT the government nor an agent of the government.
The same can be said if someone comes on my property mouthing off, or otherwise doing/saying things I do not appreciate or agree with...if I tell them they can have a nice, piping hot cuppa STFU with a side order of GTF-Off-My-Property. That is not suppression of anyone's "Freedom of Speech", either.
(3)
(0)
SSgt Christopher Brose
CPO Glenn Moss - One could credibly make the argument that because the University of Wisconsin is taxpayer funded, it is an extension of government and therefore 1st Amendment rights cannot be truncated. I wouldn't argue in favor of this new rule on the basis that it reduces 1st Amendment rights of leftwing protesters only a little bit and that's OK, I would argue that it doesn't reduce 1st Amendment rights of leftwing protesters at all because the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, and what the leftwing protesters do by shutting down the speech of others is not peaceable.
(1)
(0)
CPL Dave Hoover
To avoid speaking out of fear of a wedge being formed or animosity building is to surrender ones freedom of speech. Those who exercise their rights but bully others who do the same just because they don't like what a say really don't care about others rights. That's what happens when one exercise their voice on Rally Point and someone votes them down (you take 50 points, I'm speaking my rights). I'm not going to hate or bully you if you disagree, if we respect each others rights, then maybe we can learn to respect each other and our democracy. Love all of you fellow veterans.
(1)
(0)
CPO Glenn Moss
SSgt Christopher Brose - I agree...publicly funded universities, being primarily funded by tax payer money, does make the employees representatives of the government by virtue of being government employees. This would, indeed, make these discussions of "Freedom of Speech" valid ones.
However, you are correct..."the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is clearly written into the First Amendment, and forcibly shutting down the speech of others is definitely NOT peaceable.
Which means all the university rule is doing is enforcing the First Amendment in that regard.
However, you are correct..."the right of the people peaceably to assemble" is clearly written into the First Amendment, and forcibly shutting down the speech of others is definitely NOT peaceable.
Which means all the university rule is doing is enforcing the First Amendment in that regard.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
One can disagree with a speaker and remain silent. A lot of us do it all the time, right here on RP. Glad to see this action take place.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google