Ozz, can I ask you a question?
Do I recall a PM saying I was dead to you some years back?

I can't remember saying anything like that. Oddly enough I kept all my past PMs and just recently cleared them out, but I didn't read anything like that to you.

If so, I thank you for recanting and having a bit of conversation with me, even if we disagree on some points.

I do thank you for that much.

:-) See? Conversations can be fun!

Ozz, can I ask you a question?
Do I recall a PM saying I was dead to you some years back?

I can't remember saying anything like that. Oddly enough I kept all my past PMs and just recently cleared them out, but I didn't read anything like that to you.

If so, I thank you for recanting and having a bit of conversation with me, even if we disagree on some points.

I do thank you for that much.

:-) See? Conversations can be fun!

I think it was you.
And I cannot remember what the issue was at the time.
Yes, intelligent conversation can be rather enlightening.
I am a rather opinionated man, and hard to sway.
Almost never.
But, I do find a few alternative points of view find their way into my cranium once in a long while...

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Aren't propaganda videos fun? Let's create a video that looks authoritative, create the illusion that there's an attack on Free Speech, but let's not tell anyone why, in those specific cases we mention, those people were prevented from spreading their hate filled rants, and dress it up as "freedom from speech we don't like".

Yes propaganda is fun. Omission of facts is also fun. Changing speech inflection and tone is also fun.

The important legal part to realize is the owner of a press gets to regulate what is printed by his press. So the college campus, owner of the land, gets to decide what is spoken on his land.

So when you start passing out fliers on campus and they don't have an okay sticker on them, the content of them isn't relevant, it is the absence of permission to distribute that is, e.g. trespassing.

As to inviting speakers, I was under the impression anyone can control their own invitation list.

Now I knew about these cases and the real background behind them from that same organization that fights for things like the right of a woman to control her own body, or for immigrants to come to the USA, namely the American Civil Liberties Union.

What the propaganda film fails to explain is why. Lawsuits. Due to the numerous cases of filthy vile racist and sexist actions of a minority of troglodytes, the college, who has the deep pockets, has been forced to pay huge sums for conduct it did not do, but did nothing to stop. So now as a knee jerk reaction to those wild jury verdicts they have to put in place programs to show they are doing everything possible to prevent it in an effort to not have to pay for the actions of others. Then well meaning regulators and legislators come along and also pile on to show how they are tough on filth.

If you dislike the restriction on speech, find the root cause and fix it! It is xenophobia and misogyny in American Culture. Unfortunately that means faux news and its ilk contribute to the problem, but censoring them would be a real issue as they own the press they print their vile filth with.

If you want to do something positive to counter this, I suggest a donation to the ACLU foundation.

BTW A little history of speech at Berkeley Oh, and the University of California is a quasi-government owned campus, which makes it much more open than a private university - who can control content - but they still can control right to pass, time, place and manner restriction. (The White House is public, but you can't camp out in the oval office to pass out fliers!)

<ed>link address

---

Kill all the lawyers.
Not literally, just figuratively.
Get them out of the pool, and things get better exponentially.
Kill all the lawyers and all that wish to profit from their ilk.

Kill all the lawyers. Tort reform. Which is so filled with skank that those in our government cannot stand the smell, because they live in the stink and refuse to leave it.

It is a simple thing that would allow money to flow to victims rather than lawyers. And in reasonable amounts, not multi mega settlements that pay more to the freaking lawyers than the original plaintiffs.
There is justice and then there is the legal system that rewards those who complain the most, and those with already deep pockets, rather than those most hurt.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Glad the kitties have a glimmer of understanding of the issue.

I don't think violence is the answer though, no matter how appealing.

---

Freedom of speech is not a thing you can take for granted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OwiCEHjyZw

Freedom of speech is not a thing you can take for granted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OwiCEHjyZw

There appears to be a factual error at around the 6:25 mark:

[...] to the level of being unemployable, there are many examples. The CEO of Mozilla was recently removed from his position, was fired, had to step down because he, it was found out he donated money to a cause trying to block gay marriage. This was not something he made a public announcement about, it just came out about him, and as a result he has lost his career [...]

The link provided with the youtube as background for this is to a USA Today article on the resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla. Not removed from his position, not fired, though maybe "had to step down" is accurate.

Here's an article from Forbes magazine (the well known bastion for all things progressive ;) ), which has a slightly different take on the matter.

While there may be many examples of people being made unemployable by their privately held views, Brendan Eich is not one of them. Not that he'd want to, though if Silicon Valley were to ever close it's doors on him, I'm sure he could get a job at Chick-A-Fil, where the current CEO has similar opposition to same sex marriage.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Forbes. This is only the second time I have read articles from them.
The first was an article about the Crimean "election" last year done by an external journalist that have got the numbers totally wrong.
Swedish press published his "findings".
When they later called the Russia Human Rights Org about his numbers it turned out to be a canard.

The second is your ref to the article that is about special US things that I dont know anything about.

Glad the kitties have a glimmer of understanding of the issue.

I don't think violence is the answer though, no matter how appealing.

Of course not.
Just a rhetorical statement.
The kitties might cast a random claw in their direction, but would not go for the jugular, however tempting.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

To follow up on my previous post, as one spending much time on campuses, the bigger concern is whether faculty/staff can speak out freely against the actions of Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors.

To follow up on my previous post, as one spending much time on campuses, the bigger concern is whether faculty/staff can speak out freely against the actions of Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors.

Generally if you cuss out your employer you are fired.

---

To follow up on my previous post, as one spending much time on campuses, the bigger concern is whether faculty/staff can speak out freely against the actions of Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors.

100% correct. I too spent decades on Campus.

I do not understand why those in positions of authority, and professing to be Liberal. Will take negative actions , against those who disagree.

Perhaps another example of the 'Of us, by us, and for us' position, All Authority finally succumbs to.

I did not realize that in order to be a member of the group "Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors" one first had to profess to being a liberal. If this is not a prerequisite, is there a comparison of the negative actions taken by those that are liberal to those that are not?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

why those in positions of authority, and professing to be Liberal. Will take negative actions

They are home folks just like the rest of us!

---

To follow up on my previous post, as one spending much time on campuses, the bigger concern is whether faculty/staff can speak out freely against the actions of Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors.

100% correct. I too spent decades on Campus.

I do not understand why those in positions of authority, and professing to be Liberal. Will take negative actions , against those who disagree.

Perhaps another example of the 'Of us, by us, and for us' position, All Authority finally succumbs to.

I did not realize that in order to be a member of the group "Provosts, Presidents, Board of Governors and Chancellors" one first had to profess to being a liberal. If this is not a prerequisite, is there a comparison of the negative actions taken by those that are liberal to those that are not?

Nor a prerequisite to being a faculty or staff member.