I just love watching @goACTA webinars!
@PoliakoffACTA asks Nadine Strossen, a former ACLU President, "When a group of students call out Intifada now, Globalize the Intifada on a college campus where Jews are walking and going about their business, how different is it from saying let's have a pogrom or how about a lynch mob?"
Strossen points out "I want to set the record straight. You are allowed to do that under the First Amendment if the only element of the distress is the message and let me be very precise about this. This is not a radical proposition under First Amendment law. Way back in 1969, the United States Supreme Court unanimously issued a decision that not a single justice has disagreed with since then, despite the many other differences among them, where they said even advocacy of violent or lawless conduct is constitutionally protected the line is crossed only when it's not just advocacy but it's incitement and moreover intentional incitement to imminent violence which is likely to happen imminently."
Strossen then pointed out, "The line has been crossed on so many campuses and I'm being precise. I'm referring to detailed complaints that I have read that have been brought by Jewish students and organizations against a number of campuses including Columbia and Harvard and we're talking complaints that are almost 100 pages long with hundreds of specific allegations that it's not just chanting odious slogans in the middle of the campus, it's deliberately targeting and sometimes following Jewish students. it's invading classrooms, it's confronting physically with menacing gestures students who are perceived to be Jewish or Israeli."
@PoliakoffACTA asks Nadine Strossen, a former ACLU President, "When a group of students call out Intifada now, Globalize the Intifada on a college campus where Jews are walking and going about their business, how different is it from saying let's have a pogrom or how about a lynch mob?"
Strossen points out "I want to set the record straight. You are allowed to do that under the First Amendment if the only element of the distress is the message and let me be very precise about this. This is not a radical proposition under First Amendment law. Way back in 1969, the United States Supreme Court unanimously issued a decision that not a single justice has disagreed with since then, despite the many other differences among them, where they said even advocacy of violent or lawless conduct is constitutionally protected the line is crossed only when it's not just advocacy but it's incitement and moreover intentional incitement to imminent violence which is likely to happen imminently."
Strossen then pointed out, "The line has been crossed on so many campuses and I'm being precise. I'm referring to detailed complaints that I have read that have been brought by Jewish students and organizations against a number of campuses including Columbia and Harvard and we're talking complaints that are almost 100 pages long with hundreds of specific allegations that it's not just chanting odious slogans in the middle of the campus, it's deliberately targeting and sometimes following Jewish students. it's invading classrooms, it's confronting physically with menacing gestures students who are perceived to be Jewish or Israeli."
Strossen detailed how "even the strongest champions of free speech" would consider many of these infamous viral incidents we have seen not to be protected speech due to it posing "an emergency by directly causing or imminently threatening certain specific serious harm."
Strossen details what this would look like: reasonable fear that you're going to be subject to an immediate attack, intimidation, targeted harassment, and violating content neutral time, place and manner restrictions
Strossen details what this would look like: reasonable fear that you're going to be subject to an immediate attack, intimidation, targeted harassment, and violating content neutral time, place and manner restrictions
Remember this is coming from a former President of the ACLU. Nadine Strossen also discussed how...
"One of the Silver Linings to the terrible cloud of what's happened on campuses including after October 7th is D.E.I. is now being subject to very close reexamination.
It seems to me the debate now is only over do you get rid of it entirely or is it something that can be very deeply reformed."
"One of the Silver Linings to the terrible cloud of what's happened on campuses including after October 7th is D.E.I. is now being subject to very close reexamination.
It seems to me the debate now is only over do you get rid of it entirely or is it something that can be very deeply reformed."
It was also interesting to hear @PamelaParesky point out how so few people understand Free Speech on College Campuses.
"Even the presidents of colleges and universities don't understand what constitutes free speech and if the presidents don't understand surely the students don't understand."
We definitely need @TheFIREorg and @goACTA running orientations on campuses across America to educate students and staff about Free Speech!
"Even the presidents of colleges and universities don't understand what constitutes free speech and if the presidents don't understand surely the students don't understand."
We definitely need @TheFIREorg and @goACTA running orientations on campuses across America to educate students and staff about Free Speech!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
