I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.
The Congress is a legislative body. Their purview is limited to their >constitutional duty. There's no rationale to haul anyone in for
confessional sessions, to demand that the schools suppress
unpopular views. What law have they violated?
What if the university bureaucrats simply refused to comply, for
these reasons?
--
Rich
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.
The Congress is a legislative body. Their purview is limited to their constitutional duty.
There's no rationale to haul anyone in for
confessional sessions, to demand that the schools suppress
unpopular views. What law have they violated?
What if the university bureaucrats simply refused to comply, for
these reasons?
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.
According to RichD <[email protected]>:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >>the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and >>spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal
threats are made.
The three schools in question are all private, so the First Amendment
does not apply. Many people have pointed out that if the events were
at Bunker Hill Community College, a short subway ride from Harvard or
MIT, the 1st would indeed apply since it's a state school.
In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
While their answers were correct,
sheesh, for a bunch of people
with fancy graduate degrees they sure did a terrible job of telling
their stories.
In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:25:48 -0800 (PST), "John >Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
According to RichD <[email protected]>:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to >>>harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and >>>spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do? As long as no personal >>>threats are made.
The three schools in question are all private, so the First Amendment
does not apply. Many people have pointed out that if the events were
at Bunker Hill Community College, a short subway ride from Harvard or
MIT, the 1st would indeed apply since it's a state school.
In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it. >>While their answers were correct,
I don't think their answers were correct. They spoke as if they were
the defense attorneys for people calling for genocide, and did not utter
a syllable of their school's or their own personal condemnation of such >things.
They applied the same standard a US judge would apply but the standards
of a university can be stricter. In fact from what I hear, they had
been stricter in the fairly recent past when other groups were attacked >verbally, but now when it's Jews who feel in actual danger, they chose
this time to emphasize free speech. Can you say double standard?
The congressional testimony fallowed months of complaints by Jews and
and inaction by the colleges.
Especially McGill, who is a lawyer and on the law faculty, didn't
remember what her role was now and answered like a lawyer and not like a >representative of her school.
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
On 2023-12-13, RichD <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to
harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment. These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech
and all activities on their private property.
"Mikey" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2023-12-13, RichD <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to
harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment. These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech
and all activities on their private property.
Absolutely true - but because they receive some federal funding, Congress >does have a legitimate right to question them about their practices.
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment.
These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech
and all activities on their private property.
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >>> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do?
In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
They applied the same standard a US judge would apply but the standards
of a university can be stricter. In fact from what I hear, they had
been stricter in the fairly recent past when other groups were attacked verbally, but now when it's Jews who feel in actual danger, they chose
this time to emphasize free speech. Can you say double standard?
On December 15, micky wrote:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to
harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
If the arab/nazi students are demonstrating over the Israel war, and
spewing antisemitic bile, that's first amendment stuff. The schools
have to permit this, what else can they do?
In case it wasn't obvious, the execrable Ms. Stefanik was cynically
setting them up for a gotcha sound bite and they walked right into it.
They applied the same standard a US judge would apply but the standards
of a university can be stricter. In fact from what I hear, they had
been stricter in the fairly recent past when other groups were attacked
verbally, but now when it's Jews who feel in actual danger, they chose
this time to emphasize free speech. Can you say double standard?
"Ms. Prez, how would Harvard handle a case of Euro-American students
calling for the roundup of Afro-Americans, and shipping them back to
Africa,
in the name of justice, to right a historical wrong?"
"We would absolutely forbid that. We consider feelings first, much higher >than facts or opinions, thus we cannot allow anyone to be offended.
Persons of color, above all. The college experience should be a time of >security and self-esteem, not disruption."
"In Huckleberry Finn, widely considered a classic of literature, 'nigger' >appears on every page... nigger nigger nigger, much like today's rap
music. Does the English Dept. include that on its recommended reading
list?"
"Of course we deplore that. In case it's studied, we present it in >historical
racist context, as further proof that Columbus' landing in Cuba was the
worst disaster that that ever hit Mother Earth. For students suffering
acute ethnosensitivity, we offer printed editions where 'Afro-American' >replaces that obscenity everywhere."
"And what if a mob were calling for genocide of jews?"
"At Harvard, we do not suppress free expression of ideas, especially
if those ideas represent strong sincere feelings. Any censorship
would stunt the intellectual and emotional growth of the children."
--
Rich
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:18:55 -0800 (PST),
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Mikey" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2023-12-13, RichD <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to
harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment. These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech >>>and all activities on their private property.
Absolutely true - but because they receive some federal funding, Congress >>does have a legitimate right to question them about their practices.
I've noticed in Usenet that even when people are agreeing with the
poster they are responding to, they often sound like they are
disagreeing.
Here is a partial example. Partial only because of the first 2
agreeable words, but the third word is 'but'. A more logical word here >would be 'and', but I think people on Usenet are in the mood to argue.
Changing and to but, just a one word change, seems like the most common
way people appear to show disagreement even when they are agreeing.
Perhaps it's the combative nature of Usenet, or the times.
I wonder if courtrooms show the same thing.
"micky" wrote in messageI should have added that my response above probably supports the notion that Usenet is inherently combative.
news:[email protected]...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:18:55 -0800 (PST),
"Rick" <[email protected]> wrote:
"Mikey" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 2023-12-13, RichD <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to
harass
the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.
Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment. These are all private colleges and they can regulate speech >>>>and all activities on their private property.
Absolutely true - but because they receive some federal funding, Congress >>>does have a legitimate right to question them about their practices.
I've noticed in Usenet that even when people are agreeing with the
poster they are responding to, they often sound like they are
disagreeing.
Here is a partial example. Partial only because of the first 2
agreeable words, but the third word is 'but'. A more logical word here >>would be 'and', but I think people on Usenet are in the mood to argue.
Changing and to but, just a one word change, seems like the most common
way people appear to show disagreement even when they are agreeing.
Perhaps it's the combative nature of Usenet, or the times.
I wonder if courtrooms show the same thing.
I disagree that in this case a more logical word would be "and". In this >case, the "Absolutely true" indicates I agree with the point that these are >private schools and can regulate speech as they wish on private property.
The "but" is a signal that I am adding an additional point - namely that
the schools receive some federal funding - which gives Congress the right
to question them about it. Had I used "and" in place of "but" it would
have implied that the second part of the post was just a continuation of
the first and in this case it wasn't.
--
I don't think their answers were correct. They spoke as if they were
the defense attorneys for people calling for genocide,
The congressional testimony fallowed months of complaints by Jews and
and inaction by the colleges.
On December 18, Mikey wrote:
Hauling them into a Congressional hearing for questioningI don't understand the authority or rationalization for Congress to harass >>> the college bigwigs for an issue of free expression.Asking people questions in a Congressional hearing is not
harassment.
without cause is harassment.
It is not "without cause". These universities (which receive significant amounts of federal funds) forbid the use of words like "n----r" or the
use of the wrong pronoun when dealing with a trans student, but
apparently have no problem with "k-ke" or with groups of students
calling for mass murder of Jews.
Even if they weren't accepting federal money, Congress would have the
right to summon them and ask them questions. They could refuse to
answer, of course. "Mr. Senator, I respectfully refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me." Or just "Fifth Amendment, Mr.
Senator" (Or Ms. Senator)
What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
have been indicted for? As far as I'm aware, poor judgment is not a
crime -- if it were, the jails would be bulging.
If the universities weren't accepting Federal money, they wouldn't
need to take the Fifth because Congress would have had no grounds to investigate them; they would have refused through their lawyers to
answer any questions based on lack of jurisdiction. But since they
were accepting the money, the Fifth Amendment couldn't help them
because they weren't accused of a crime and, I think, couldn't be.
And unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress
doesn't even have to pay them.
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:13:01 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
And unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress
doesn't even have to pay them.
Why is that not slavery ?
What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The
protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
have been indicted for?
*Anybody* can take the Fifth Amendment. They don't need to try to figure
out what crime they could have been indicted for.
It's the same situation as when the cops show up at your door
and start asking questions. If you're smart, you won't answer, just "take the fifth".
If the universities weren't accepting Federal money, they wouldn't
need to take the Fifth because Congress would have had no grounds to
investigate them; they would have refused through their lawyers to
answer any questions based on lack of jurisdiction.
But since they were accepting the money, the Fifth Amendment couldn't help them
because they weren't accused of a crime
Congress has the power to investigate anything they think necessary or advisable.
On December 27, Barry Gold wrote:
Wrong, in this case.What would the Fifth Amendment have to do with anything? The*Anybody* can take the Fifth Amendment. They don't need to try to figure
protection against self-incrimination applies to criminal
proceedings. What crime could those university presidents possibly
have been indicted for?
out what crime they could have been indicted for.
Think about it:
Congress subpoenas a witness.
Witness appears.
Questions.
Silence.
Committee adjourns.
Witness goes home.
Absurd. The witness will be charged with contempt. There may be borderline cases, where he answers a subset of the questions.
If he faces criminal jeopardy, he might take the 5th. In that case, he'll have a lawyer at his side, whispering instructions.
On December 15, �micky wrote:
I don't think their answers were correct. They spoke as if they were
the defense attorneys for people calling for genocide,
The congressional testimony fallowed months of complaints by Jews and
and inaction by the colleges.
Sam Goldman faces a mob at Harvard calling for jewish blood. �He feels >threatened, he recalls similar nazi mobs in Germany (jews are haunted by that),
he's thin skinned about death threats. �He pulls a bat and cracks a few skulls.
This being Massachusetts, not Texas, he's arrested. �He naturally claims self >defense. �How does that go? � Maybe he wins, maybe not, depending on the >jury? �Does the judge matter?
On 12/28/2023 8:25 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:13:01 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
And unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress
doesn't even have to pay them.
Why is that not slavery ?
For the same reason that being called as a witness in a court trial
isn't slavery. And that taxation isn't slavery. (If you are a
libertarian purist, then taxation _is_ slavery, but that's a different >story.)
In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 28 Dec 2023 10:06:23 -0800 (PST), Barry
Gold <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/28/2023 8:25 AM, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2023 15:13:01 -0800, Barry Gold wrote:
And unlike someone called as an expert witness in court, Congress
doesn't even have to pay them.
Why is that not slavery ?
For the same reason that being called as a witness in a court trial
isn't slavery. And that taxation isn't slavery. (If you are a
What about "community service" which is sometimes demanded of public
school children (and maybe other schools too for all I know)? How is
that not slavery?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 714 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 138:43:35 |
| Calls: | 12,087 |
| Files: | 14,997 |
| Messages: | 6,517,398 |