Why? Disrupting a speaker to the level that prevents them speaking (or prevents listening) is an action that clearly infringes on rights of others and restricts freedom of speech. Regardless of content.
1a and 14a. I guess not all state reps or senators can afford to or bother to be constitutional scholars like federal rep Jamie Raskin and have to advance patently unconstitutional legislation when feelings-exploitative influencers come calling.
I’m sure it sounded like a good idea to attach a bunch of serious penalties to the law, but college kids do a lot of dumb stuff and this now opens them up to civil (and criminal) RICO lawsuits.
“Your campus group tricked me into coming here with plans to retaliate when I left” is serious fucking stuff with a law like this.
Hate begets hate. Call for the death of others, and you might take a bullet to the throat and live just long enough to realize why this is happening to you and the irony.
this is a horrific reverse engineering of free speach in order to create a hiarchy that puts specific speach, right wing dog whistle hate speach, at the top.
booing is speach.
walkouts are an absolute right.
public platforms must by definition be open to the consequences of saying the wrong things to the wrong people.
2000 years on we are still dealing with the fall out from the closeing of the agora in Athens, when the last of the free philosophers had to flee, to of all places, Persia.
11 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 15.5 ms ] thread> The act would bring disciplinary action against students and faculty members that who disrupt a guest speaker by protesting or staging a walkout.
It reads like a bad joke but this is what people vote for.
“Your campus group tricked me into coming here with plans to retaliate when I left” is serious fucking stuff with a law like this.
Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”