• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Yale Law School Students Interrupt Event, Demand Right To Talk Over Speakers

Its ok, someone already went full Jonnys Law already and the thread was ruined.

But yes, I would expect jews to defend the freedom of nazis to speak, and I bet they have. Assuming we're talking about the US where have rule of law.
So did Germany, the US had rule of law for 160 years, yet it still enslaved black people or enforced segregation.

Rule of law can be used for oppression just as it can be used to defend freedom
 

We should probably just have a cancel culture section, because heres another example.

TLDR
Student group invites speakers to discuss a legal case
Other students disrupt it, claiming they have more freedom of speech than the speakers
After theyre ejected, they claim the speakers are intolerant and shouldnt be tolerated
After the police show up to stop their peaceful banging on the walls, harrasment, and blocking exits, they claim the police are harmful and should be ejected (by who?)



Which makes me wonder if they teach irony at Yale.
You disrupt a meeting and the speakers are escorted out and the ones that disrupted the meeting get to stay?
For the left free speech is only free if you agree with them.
 
So did Germany, the US had rule of law for 160 years, yet it still enslaved black people or enforced segregation.

Rule of law can be used for oppression just as it can be used to defend freedom

Exactly why we need to defend free speech.
 
I haven't seen much from them on that; it's not really what they're about. If you have specific things they've done supporting white supremacists, it'd be good to hear.



They are focused on it, but they are careful not to say it out loud.
 



They are focused on it, but they are careful not to say it out loud.
The Federalist Society is one of the worst, most harmful organizations in the country I think, but I have to say I don't think they are "focused" or much about racism. Their promotion of far-right judges might result in benefits to racists, but that's not the same as being their reason for doing it.

"States' Rights" has long been a rallying right for a political movement opposing civil rights, it was huge in the 60's, it could be argued it was an important part going back to the confederacy though I'd have to check what the phrase they used for it was.

Federalist Society is all about indoctrination, having speaking events with many speakers from the right; having some with racist views doesn't make it a "focus" of the organization though their not banning such a speaker can be criticized as not being anti-racist enough.

Your own link says this - "The Federalist Society is well known as an extremely conservative group, but it has not been publicly associated with racism or white nationalists like Brimelow." That's not saying, 'they are focused on it but careful not to say it out loud', it's saying it's not a main issue for them.
 
The Federalist Society is one of the worst, most harmful organizations in the country I think, but I have to say I don't think they are "focused" or much about racism. Their promotion of far-right judges might result in benefits to racists, but that's not the same as being their reason for doing it.

"States' Rights" has long been a rallying right for a political movement opposing civil rights, it was huge in the 60's, it could be argued it was an important part going back to the confederacy though I'd have to check what the phrase they used for it was.

Federalist Society is all about indoctrination, having speaking events with many speakers from the right; having some with racist views doesn't make it a "focus" of the organization though their not banning such a speaker can be criticized as not being anti-racist enough.

Your own link says this - "The Federalist Society is well known as an extremely conservative group, but it has not been publicly associated with racism or white nationalists like Brimelow." That's not saying, 'they are focused on it but careful not to say it out loud', it's saying it's not a main issue for them.
Yet you pointed out the main point right here:
"States' Rights" has long been a rallying right for a political movement opposing civil rights,

JUst because they don't throw around the "N" word doesn't mean they aren't racist.
 
JUst because they don't throw around the "N" word doesn't mean they aren't racist.
No, but it takes more than their ideology happening to have some alignment with racists or to inadvertently benefit them.
 
So did Germany, the US had rule of law for 160 years, yet it still enslaved black people or enforced segregation.

Rule of law can be used for oppression just as it can be used to defend freedom
That is very true. Rule of law is a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. And that is why we are careful to encode our rule of law as amendments to our Supreme Law of the Land. Which includes the Bill of Rights, and very specifically what the government is allowed to do, and what government is not allowed to do. It would be reckless to do otherwise.
 
If you defend all groups the right to speak, all groups would include the protestors and this wouldn't even be a big deal to you.

That would be under the discretion of the moderator that can keep things on topic. Everyone should have a chance to speak, but that doesn't mean talking over anyone when they want. The group is hosting the guest speakers and decide how it is moderated. If the protesters don't like it, they can leave and start their own speaking event.
 
Woke fascism in action.

It's just so boring... Do they even realize how lame they appear to us? Limousine fascists go home to mommy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
No, but it takes more than their ideology happening to have some alignment with racists or to inadvertently benefit them.
It's more than that.



There are tonnes of examples.
 
That is very true. Rule of law is a double-edged sword, it cuts both ways. And that is why we are careful to encode our rule of law as amendments to our Supreme Law of the Land. Which includes the Bill of Rights, and very specifically what the government is allowed to do, and what government is not allowed to do. It would be reckless to do otherwise.


The bill of rights did not stop slavery or segregation, they have been change in the past and will be changed in the future.
 
The bill of rights did not stop slavery or segregation, they have been change in the past and will be changed in the future.
The Thirteenth Amendment ended slavery, and the only thing that will end segregation is to abolish of the extremely bigoted Democratic Party who continues to support segregation today with their identity politics like that have for the last 200+ years. There is no greater threat to the US than the Democratic Party.
 
Of course it did. People spoke out about those eventually convincing change. There were massive protests about civil rights.
You call 100 years of not doing anything working?
 
Plenty was done and slavery wasnt ended over night. Go read some history.
You are right it was not ended overnight, in the US it took a civil war to do that, and another 100 years to provide legal equality
 
And 100 years of speech leading up to it. Free speech DID help the slaves.


Slavery in the British empire and the Canadian territory were ended quite a bit before it in the US, free speech as a right did not really exist in Britain back then
 
Slavery in the British empire and the Canadian territory were ended quite a bit before it in the US, free speech as a right did not really exist in Britain back then

Sure it did, even if not secured by govt. As far back as at least the Magna Carta. The Society for the Abolotion of Slave Trade used the freedom of speech to help end it.
 
In fact his belief in the inherent inferiority of black people was already a matter of public record by that time, published in "Intelligence or Prejudice?," in National Review XVI, No. 48 (December 1, 1964) pp. 1059–63.

I therefore find it very hard to believe that the picketers did not know about his openly racist views of black people.
They had no idea who he was. They were complaining about the topic-affirmative action.
 
Back
Top Bottom