Greg Lukianoff is the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and along with Nadine Strossen, is the author of "The War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech--And Why They Fail."
We can't have a small group or an individual determining what was acceptable and what's verboten, except for within the marketplace then has to be a class of individuals who determine what is and what isn't acceptable. The government shouldn't be imposing a limited number of forms of enterprises, nor should government be enforcing contracts that limit the forms of enterprises (NFL franchises can't be community owned, Greenbay Packers are grandfathered in and are the exception that proves the rule). If there's a democratic will to experiment with enterprises at the detriment of marketplace incumbents, then the experimentation should be done rather than what we have is that publicly owned enterprises are made illegal Chattanooga has a publicly owned utility that provides internet service, and there are laws in other states that ban similar utilities to compete with private enterprises, the consumer would benefit from government owned competitors but the private enterprises are determined to keep competitors out of the marketplace. Free speech and free thought is better for the competition of ideas, so would enterprises be benefitted from a varied forms of enterprises and competitors even if abandoning ideology that private enterprises are the only acceptable form.
Regarding violent speech, call me when voting is acknowledged for the violence that it is. Libel and slander? Bring back duels. You run your mouth about someone be prepared to meet them at 10 paces with a smoothbore pistol or refuse and be considered a coward who likes to talk big but not back it up and shunned accordingly by society in general.
Cutting funding over speech issues? No problem. Cut all government funding to all universities and then it’s not a problem that will come up. Make loans like mortgages when students go to a bank to apply. Can’t feel too sorry for universities while they take in more students for a major than they intend to graduate, stick them in special classes with other students of that major that are harder and called “weed out classes” by the professors.
I always thought that the kind of horse-trading and negotiating that the state has to do to determine whether defunding a particular department or professor is or is not a first amendment violation is indicative of the problems with this broad interpretation of the first amendment that covers both private and public actions.
We'd all have much brighter lines if the government could fund or defund whoever it wants but can't prosecute anyone on the contents of their speech.
We can't have a small group or an individual determining what was acceptable and what's verboten, except for within the marketplace then has to be a class of individuals who determine what is and what isn't acceptable. The government shouldn't be imposing a limited number of forms of enterprises, nor should government be enforcing contracts that limit the forms of enterprises (NFL franchises can't be community owned, Greenbay Packers are grandfathered in and are the exception that proves the rule). If there's a democratic will to experiment with enterprises at the detriment of marketplace incumbents, then the experimentation should be done rather than what we have is that publicly owned enterprises are made illegal Chattanooga has a publicly owned utility that provides internet service, and there are laws in other states that ban similar utilities to compete with private enterprises, the consumer would benefit from government owned competitors but the private enterprises are determined to keep competitors out of the marketplace. Free speech and free thought is better for the competition of ideas, so would enterprises be benefitted from a varied forms of enterprises and competitors even if abandoning ideology that private enterprises are the only acceptable form.
Regarding violent speech, call me when voting is acknowledged for the violence that it is. Libel and slander? Bring back duels. You run your mouth about someone be prepared to meet them at 10 paces with a smoothbore pistol or refuse and be considered a coward who likes to talk big but not back it up and shunned accordingly by society in general.
Cutting funding over speech issues? No problem. Cut all government funding to all universities and then it’s not a problem that will come up. Make loans like mortgages when students go to a bank to apply. Can’t feel too sorry for universities while they take in more students for a major than they intend to graduate, stick them in special classes with other students of that major that are harder and called “weed out classes” by the professors.
I always thought that the kind of horse-trading and negotiating that the state has to do to determine whether defunding a particular department or professor is or is not a first amendment violation is indicative of the problems with this broad interpretation of the first amendment that covers both private and public actions.
We'd all have much brighter lines if the government could fund or defund whoever it wants but can't prosecute anyone on the contents of their speech.