Author Topic: Yale Psychiatry Professor talks about "Unloading a Revolver" Into White People  (Read 776 times)

I think you're talking past me and attacking points I didn't make.

Quote
The First Amendment does not protect you from "censorious institutions"; it protects you from Congress passing legislation that prevents your right to free speech.

Yes, and Congress financing organizations that promote censorship is preventing the right to free speech.

Quote
I've been "caught up" with your position this entire time, it's you who doesn't understand the stipulations of the First Amendment, to which I have posted quotes from a Congressional Scholar explaining how it doesn't apply in this situation as well as Federal legislation that addresses what free speech a private entity is or isn't allow to censor you on.

I'm disputing Congress's right to finance such institutions.

If you don't understand this then I really give up. I can't break down my argument any further.

Offline Shiranu

Quote
Institutions that disregard the 1st amendment shouldn't be allowed any kind of federal money.

Sound familiar?


Quote
Wouldn't financing people who violate the First Amendment be in its own way a violation of the First Amendment?

This you?

Yes, i agree, they shouldn't be allowed federal money because empowering such institutions would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Congress would be the ones providing the financing for these institutions and thus they would be guilty of violating the 1st amendment.

Are you just playing dumb to fuck with me?

Offline Shiranu

Yes, i agree, they shouldn't be allowed federal money because empowering such institutions would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

So Yale is passing legislation?

No, Congress passed legislation that enables other entities to block freedom of speech, thereby making Congress guilty of suppressing speech. Are you fucking lobotomized or something?

Offline Shiranu

No, Congress passed legislation that enables other entities to block freedom of speech, thereby making Congress guilty of suppressing speech. Are you fucking lobotomized or something?

Freedom of speech under a private entity is not and has never been protected by the First Amendment.

They didn't "pass legislation" allowing Yale to do this; there has literally never been legislation telling them they couldn't.

Ergo Congress took no steps to violate freedom of speech, nor did they take any steps to allow others to violate your free speech; it's literally the system working the way it always has since day one.

To finance such institutions is to enable them. What don't you get?

Offline Shiranu

To finance such institutions is to enable them. What don't you get?

The First Amendment doesn't say anything about that, my friend.

Offline Shiranu

The First Amendment:

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress, in funding Yale, does not enact or redact any laws that violate the people's right to free speech; ergo Congress is not violating anyone's right to free speech as Yale is a private, not public, institution.

Unless Yale was to convert to a public institution, under jurisdiction of Congress, the First Amendment does not apply to any of their actions; even if they were 99% funded by Congress.

And since they aren't passing laws, I don't believe the Supreme Court would rule in favor of your position even in that hypothetical.

If Conservatives want to be the party of "Constitutional Purism", then they have to sleep in that bed they made when it doesn't always work out in their favor.

I'm not your "friend".

I'm not interested in Yale's culpability here, ultimately.

And to create or empower an institution to suppress free speech is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Just to reiterate, if you hire somebody to do something bad, then you're culpable for their actions. If you don't anything to say other than to just stonewall me like an imbecile I don't want to hear it.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2021, 02:16:36 AM by arch warmonger »

Offline Shiranu

I'm not your "friend". And to create or empower an institution to suppress free speech is a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment. Just to reiterate, if you hire somebody to do something bad, then you're culpable for their actions. If you don't anything to say other than to just stonewall me like an imbecile I don't want to hear it.

Firstly, the example would be more if you hired someone to do a job, and in the process of it they did something bad, you are culpable for their actions; AFAIK Congress is not intentionally spending money on Yale just to silence people's free speech.

Secondly, Yale did not break any laws in silencing her, so even under the assumption Congress specifically funded Yale just to silence opinions they don't like... it was legal under both State and Federal law, and there have never been laws stating it to be illegal since the foundation of this nation.


If that hypothetical was in fact the truth then I myself would have issues with it, but it's not.

At this point the part that colleges play in silencing free speech is so obvious that only an idiot or a shill would deny it. For Congress to continue supporting institutions that do this would be a violation.

Offline Shiranu

So just to make sure we are on the same page, so far I have quoted to support my position...

- A Constitutional Scholar
- Federal Legislation on What Is and Isn't Prohibited for Private Entities to Censor
- The First Amendment

And you have cited... your feelings.


And as a famous conservative once said... "Facts don't care about your feelings.".

You've quoted things that are completely irrelevant to my point. My going hypothesis is that you're banking on the other people on this forum being too stupid to notice that.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2021, 02:28:45 AM by arch warmonger »

Offline Shiranu

You've quoted things that are completely irrelevant to my point.

In-so-far as the First Amendment actually was irrelevant to your point, even if you kept on pretending it was relevant, I will applaud that you finally said something factually true.

Congrats.