Why Do Liberals Keep Trying To Control Speech?

[seer]

If students say something that doesn't constitute slander/plagiarism/fighting words and are arrested for it, then their free speech rights have been violated. Otherwise, no.

But if a college sanctions a student for speech (not necessarily arrested) then that is a violation. The fact is it is not the conservatives that are instituting "speech codes" it is the left. And that is a broader view of the left's attack on freedom.

This doesn't warrant more repeated explanation.

The fact is if Johnny can freely share his views in forum that is open to all and Joe is not, that is a restriction of Joe's right. And that is exactly what the College did.

Clearly, not all Muslims follow their founder in this regard.

The point is Ali's justification for dodging the draft. It was specious.

[Carrikature]

Again Carrikature, he said it is likely to succeed meaning that the judge does agree that the plaintiffs would win. But win what - the case was presented as a violation of their First Amendment rights.

"Likely to succeed" is not "would win". That's an equivocation.

The point was that Ali used his religion to dodge the draft, but there is no justification inherent in Islam to support his position.

This is downright false, but it doesn't matter because now you're shifting goalposts from 'founder' to 'religion itself'.

[seer]

"Likely to succeed" is not "would win". That's an equivocation.

The point is the judge did agree that they had a case, and the case was about the violation of the First Amendment.

This is downright false, but it doesn't matter because now you're shifting goalposts from 'founder' to 'religion itself'.

What are you taking about? What is false? And the only reason I switched is because you brought up the idea of following their god, as opposed to following their founder. Sheesh!

[fm93]

But if a college sanctions a student for speech (not necessarily arrested) then that is a violation. The fact is it is not the conservatives that are instituting "speech codes" it is the left.

Do you think the Republican Convention allows random people to run into the auditorium, jump on stage, and start blabbering about how Republicans are evil? If not, then they are instituting speech codes.

I look forward to your threads "Why Do Conservatives Keep Trying To Control Speech?" and "Conservatives Sink Deeper Into Fascism!!"

And that is a broader view of the left's attack on freedom.

That is a broader view of the right's attack on freedom.

The fact is if Johnny can freely share his views in forum that is open to all and Joe is not, that is a restriction of Joe's right. And that is exactly what the College did.

The fact is that the forum didn't allow anyone to freely share views without a permit. Apparently the university failed to properly enforce this, but this one university's failing does not constitute evidence of some "broad left-wing attack on freedom."

The point is Ali's justification for dodging the draft. It was specious.

There's nothing specious about it. You might as well complain that a Baptist man's religious objection to something is specious because it differs from Catholic beliefs.

[Jedidiah]

Do you think the Republican Convention allows random people to run into the auditorium, jump on stage, and start blabbering about how Republicans are evil? If not, then they are instituting speech codes.

Is the Republican Convention an open forum?

[fm93]

Is the Republican Convention an open forum?

No, and neither are universities unless declared otherwise by the government (which it wasn't in this case). That's my point.

[Carrikature]

The point is the judge did agree that they had a case, and the case was about the violation of the First Amendment.

Agreed. To say more than that, like claiming the judge said there was a violation, is incorrect.

What are you taking about? What is false? And the only reason I switched is because you brought up the idea of following their god, as opposed to following their founder. Sheesh!

There is clearly room within Islam for non-violence and no slavery. Saying otherwise is false. Rather than shifting goals, you could have just admitted that the founder isn't necessarily the basis for what is or isn't acceptable behavior.

[Carrikature]

No, and neither are universities unless declared otherwise by the government (which it wasn't in this case). That's my point.

I think public universities have spaces that are open forums, but I'm not sure that extends to the entire campus.

[seer]

There is clearly room within Islam for non-violence and no slavery. Saying otherwise is false. Rather than shifting goals, you could have just admitted that the founder isn't necessarily the basis for what is or isn't acceptable behavior.

I did not shift anything YOU DID. I just followed suit. And if you suggest that your religion does not allow for both either slavery and war, when it clearly does, then your argument is meaningless.


I'm going to assume that this quote is correct:

I have said it once and I will say it again. The real enemy of my people is right here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality…

If I thought the war was going to bring freedom and equality to 22 million of my people they wouldn’t have to draft me, I’d join tomorrow. But I either have to obey the laws of the land or the laws of Allah. I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail. We’ve been in jail for four hundred years.”

So by this logic Mohammad himself disgraced the religion he founded by warring with and enslaving others.

[Carrikature]

I did not shift anything YOU DID. I just followed suit. And if you suggest that your religion does not allow for both either slavery and war, when it clearly does, then your argument is meaningless.

"Allow for" is not "dictated by". A leader, even a founder, disgracing the religion does not invalidate the precepts of the religion.

I'm going to assume that this quote is correct:

So by this logic Mohammad himself disgraced the religion he founded by warring with and enslaving others.

So? No one in the history of Judeo-Christianity has disgraced their religion? Peter? David? Jonah? Moses? There's kind of a lot to choose from.

[fm93]

So? No one in the history of Judeo-Christianity has disgraced their religion? Peter? David? Jonah? Moses? There's kind of a lot to choose from.

Catholic Christians even believe Jesus founded his church upon Peter the three-time Christ-denier.

[seer]

"Allow for" is not "dictated by". A leader, even a founder, disgracing the religion does not invalidate the precepts of the religion.


So? No one in the history of Judeo-Christianity has disgraced their religion? Peter? David? Jonah? Moses? There's kind of a lot to choose from.

So you believe that Mohammad disgraced his religion by warring and enslaving? Did God ever command him not to do either? And No, Jesus Christ never disgraced His religion.

[seer]

Catholic Christians even believe Jesus founded his church upon Peter the three-time Christ-denier.

Yes, but we say that Peter was wrong. Since denying Christ is a sin. Where does Islam teach that warring and enslaving is wrong?

[fm93]

Yes, but we say that Peter was wrong. Since denying Christ is a sin. Where does Islam teach that warring and enslaving is wrong?

You know full well that there are passages in the Bible that at least appear to contradict other passages. Different Christians have different ways of resolving those apparent contradictions. I see no reason to not apply the same standard to Muslims. Ali probably looked at the Quran passages talking about Allah's compassion and mercy and figured that it would be wrong to kill and enslave other people when his own people were once killed and enslaved themselves.

Besides, Muhammad did advocate for manumission of slaves, and the Quran treats slavery as an exceptional condition. It's not as if it tells all Muslims to go out and enslave as many people as possible.

So once again, there is no reason to doubt Ali on this point.

[seer]

You know full well that there are passages in the Bible that at least appear to contradict other passages. Different Christians have different ways of resolving those apparent contradictions. I see no reason to not apply the same standard to Muslims. Ali probably looked at the Quran passages talking about Allah's compassion and mercy and figured that it would be wrong to kill and enslave other people when his own people were once killed and enslaved themselves.

Besides, Muhammad did advocate for manumission of slaves, and the Quran treats slavery as an exceptional condition. It's not as if it tells all Muslims to go out and enslave as many people as possible.

So once again, there is no reason to doubt Ali on this point.

I don't buy Ail's excuse, a man who would go into the ring and beat his black brothers half to death.