this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
212 points (94.2% liked)

Antifascism

827 readers
1 users here now

A community to post acts of antifascism and other left-wing activism. Please message a mod if you would like something posted and we can tag you in the post as well.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stoly@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not the university, a student club. Students have first amendment rights here.

[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Clubs need to get permission from the University to invite people onto campus grounds and speak at campus facilities. Someone who actually works for and represents the facility had to sign off on that little fascist coming to speak.

[–] thesushicat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Public universities are legally not allowed to ban controversial speakers, even if they are racist. It is a constitutional right, and banning free speech at a public institution amounts to government censorship. This article from the ACLU is relevant: https://www.aclu.org/documents/speech-campus

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But it's not even about him being controversial -- just pointless. What educational value does a boring, loser kid have to offer?

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Public discourse is an educational experience. Universities aren't there to just teach you mathematics and basket weaving, it's there to challenge your viewpoint and make you question your assumptions. That comes from being exposed to differing, even extreme, viewpoints.

[–] null@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we're just calling anything "education" these days.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't like Kyle Rittenhouse. I don't like Kyle Rittenhouse. He's a horrible human being and a terrible role model.

This falls under the "I will fight to the death for your right to speak" philosophy.

[–] null@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Again, not challenging his right to speak. Challenging the value of what he has to say.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

No, you cannot block that. Public universities are a first amendment forum which means that all viewpoints are allowed.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not asking whether or not he had a right to speak there.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Nobody said that he has a right to speak there. The students have a right to invite him to speak there.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not sure how that's relevant to the question I asked.

[–] stoly@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Gotcha, you want to simmer. /out

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] stoly@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It means that you don't want to converse, you just want to be angry. It was a mistake of me to attempt it with you.

[–] firewallfail@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Go back and reread this conversation. Nothing you've said has been relevant. There was never a question about him being allowed to speak it was about whether there was value to him speaking.

[–] null@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Not sure how making irrelevant statements constitutes conversation, or how wondering how they're relevant means I'm angry, but okay, bud. Run along.