cbbass1 said:

---

bear2034 said:

---

What percentage of Palestinians are Hamas and what percentage of the remaining people are pro-Hamas?

---

That does not matter. They're either combatants, or civilians. If they aren't combatants, they're civilians.

And NO, Palestinian boys who throw rocks at tanks are NOT combatants. They're boys throwing rocks.

Many of the Israelis killed by Hamas on 10/7 were innocent civilians. So Hamas's 10/7 attack was both a military operation AND a act of terrorism. But Hamas's breach of the wall, and the attacks of the IDF's positions & barracks in the Kibbutz were both military operations -- NOT terrorism.

By asking that question, you're using Hamas's logic: that the civilians who support the actions of their military leaders are "fair game" as military targets. By that logic, Hamas is perfectly justified in launching rockets at Israeli citizens.

And by that logic, Osama bin Laden was perfectly justified in attacking U.S. civilians on 9/11, because so many Americans (but certainly not all) supported the illegal and unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

As Sen. Mitt Romney would say, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to live in a world in which civilians are off limits. Because -- of all the world's nations -- the U.S. has killed more innocent civilians than any other since the 1949 Geneva Convention.

---

Genocide Joe said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Every now and then, there's a fall out of your chair moment when you are reading stuff online. That happened for me when I read WIAF's post.



Well done WIAF.

.@DavidSacks is questioned about the congressional testimony of the Presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT and whether students should be able to march around campus chanting phrases like "from the river to the sea" and "intifada"?

"I have a very high bar for free speech. So I… pic.twitter.com/l1b2QjsIlc

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) December 8, 2023

Tonight, @Penn President Liz Magill signaled that one of our nation's most prestigious institutions is willing to abandon its commitment to freedom of expression.

“For decades, under multiple Penn presidents and consistent with most universities, Penn’s policies have been guided… https://t.co/k2GaIi4NY0

— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) December 7, 2023

As David Sacks properly identifies, the problem became when new liberal thinking allowed the creation of victim groups and oppressor groups. Victim groups were protected from all speech that even insinuated the tiniest bit of criticism of their groups while it was open season on oppressor groups. The correct answer is to not pretend that words are violence and any of this other BS woke crap and not to have these speech codes in the first place.

The answer to objectionable speech will always be more speech, not the suppression of speech.

Also, Stefanik's questioning depending on her defining intifada as genocide while she is actively supporting Israel's genocide of Palestinians with American dollars and bombs, so for her to pretend she's some sort of moral champion here is hypocrisy at the higheset dajo9/Unit2Sucks kind of level.

---

EXCLUSIVE: @RealChrisBrunet and I have obtained documentation demonstrating that Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple sections of her Ph.D. thesis, violating Harvard's policies on academic integrity.

This is a bombshell. 🧵

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) December 10, 2023

wifeisafurd said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Disagree. Free speech is not absolute. It is never okay to call for the genocide of a race of people. Change the terms just a tiny bit…could there ever be a context in which it would be okay for white people to call for the death of all African Americans? This isn'teven close to being a tough free speech question.

This is such as easy one. "Students are allowed to peacefully protest and express themselves in virtually all circumstances, but it is never okay to call for the murder of others, much less others based on a protected class. That is not protected speech." The fact the 3 presidents couldn't say anything close to that and instead had the "context" answer, which implies that there is some instance where it is okay…well, they deserve every ounce of whatever professional consequences that comes their way.

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.

There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, and clearly that is at odds with your thoughts when you start saying well what happens if you use another group, much less when you go down the path of "protected classes". Students are allowed to have and expouse racist or sexist opinions (interestingly sexual obscene such as pornography is not protected). (This may not be the case for an employee such as a faculty member). The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular, offensive or wrong. It is black letter law that racist, misogynist, homophobic, and [fill in a protected group speech] is protected, and Stefanki didn't give any specifics in the hypothetical that would fit an exception. Now there are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions to try and stop have speech. But when litigated, as discussed below, the broadly drafted college codes are found wanting (see the discussion of harassment below).

I also disagree with your views on this not being a tough free speech question because you can never call for the geocode of people -the law actually says you can. Look there is free speech for hate mongers and those the utter offensive speech, as a general rule. Calling for the death of all police, faculty, schools administrators, the French (been watching some British comedies lately), the Saudi Royals, Jews (even while dressed in a Ku Klux Klan or Nazis dress while walking though a Jewish neighborhood) or screaming death to all black people while in a moving car in Harlem is in fact protected speech, and there is plenty of case law to back that-up (okay, not the French commentary in British comedies). Mere advocacy of lawbreaking, violence or death is in fact protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Chanting something in a demonstration, or yelling something stupid is protected. You even can give charged speech (including to do away with a race of people) to a restless crowd. Terminiello v. Chicago. Again, Stefanki didn't provide any context how saying the genocide for Jews meets this exception.

There is also no general First Amendment exception for "harassment," and courts have struck down anti-harassment regulations and laws for overbroad language reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. In the educational context, the Supreme Court held in the Davis vs, Monroe County that student-on-student harassment consists only of unwelcome, discriminatory conduct (which may include expression) that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. The college Presidents kept trying to insert language into Stafanki's base hypothetical, to meet the exception for repetitive behavior, because the wanted to say yes, calling for genocide violates our Codes, and got in trouble for it. But absent an exception which could not be deduced from Stafanki's simple question, that is protected speech.

Those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of individuals is also an exception..The problem again with Stafanki's hypothetical is she didn't provide context, and made such a general if someone says something inquiry where the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, has said context is required.

Finally, there are fighting words are those that, by the very act of being spoken, tend to incite the individual to whom they are addressed to respond violently and to do so immediately, with no time to think things over. Basically, you have to have face-to-face physically imposing communications (think a demonstrator that seeks out a counter demonstrator and gets into it) that would obviously provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the average listener. One of the Presidents mentioned that and got shot down by Stefanki.

There are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions. At the risk of being repetitive, the Presidents kept trying to fit Stafanki's base hypothetical within one of the narrow exceptions so they could say yes, it fits our code, but the bottom line is calling for the genocide of people is protected speech, absent there exceptions.

And the other part about the present situation (which didn't hit the media) is that a lot of people at these demonstrations are not students or employees, but outsiders who the University has no jurisdiction over with respect to their codes of conduct.

The Presidents also talked about physical acts in hopes of being able to say yes. The First Amendment does not protect civil disobedience, violent of peaceful, and the School can place time, place and manner restrictions that are issue or group nuetral, and again the Presidents wee trying to button hole Stafanki into providing facts on which President's could act. She didn't rise to the bait.

You might ask why this is allowed in our democracy? Silencing others doesn't often work. Other groups on campus have the same right as you to make their voices heard, even if you don't agree with them. You can always learn from talking and debating with people who disagree with you. The speech codes deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find offensive. The best way to challenge calls for genocide is to challenge those calls, not suppress them. In that regard, the 3 Presidents failed (see my first sentence).

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Disagree. Free speech is not absolute. It is never okay to call for the genocide of a race of people. Change the terms just a tiny bit…could there ever be a context in which it would be okay for white people to call for the death of all African Americans? This isn'teven close to being a tough free speech question.

This is such as easy one. "Students are allowed to peacefully protest and express themselves in virtually all circumstances, but it is never okay to call for the murder of others, much less others based on a protected class. That is not protected speech." The fact the 3 presidents couldn't say anything close to that and instead had the "context" answer, which implies that there is some instance where it is okay…well, they deserve every ounce of whatever professional consequences that comes their way.

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.

There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, and clearly that is at odds with your thoughts when you start saying well what happens if you use another group, much less when you go down the path of "protected classes". Students are allowed to have and expouse racist or sexist opinions (interestingly sexual obscene such as pornography is not protected). (This may not be the case for an employee such as a faculty member). The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular, offensive or wrong. It is black letter law that racist, misogynist, homophobic, and [fill in a protected group speech] is protected, and Stefanki didn't give any specifics in the hypothetical that would fit an exception. Now there are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions to try and stop have speech. But when litigated, as discussed below, the broadly drafted college codes are found wanting (see the discussion of harassment below).

I also disagree with your views on this not being a tough free speech question because you can never call for the geocode of people -the law actually says you can. Look there is free speech for hate mongers and those the utter offensive speech, as a general rule. Calling for the death of all police, faculty, schools administrators, the French (been watching some British comedies lately), the Saudi Royals, Jews (even while dressed in a Ku Klux Klan or Nazis dress while walking though a Jewish neighborhood) or screaming death to all black people while in a moving car in Harlem is in fact protected speech, and there is plenty of case law to back that-up (okay, not the French commentary in British comedies). Mere advocacy of lawbreaking, violence or death is in fact protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Chanting something in a demonstration, or yelling something stupid is protected. You even can give charged speech (including to do away with a race of people) to a restless crowd. Terminiello v. Chicago. Again, Stefanki didn't provide any context how saying the genocide for Jews meets this exception.

There is also no general First Amendment exception for "harassment," and courts have struck down anti-harassment regulations and laws for overbroad language reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. In the educational context, the Supreme Court held in the Davis vs, Monroe County that student-on-student harassment consists only of unwelcome, discriminatory conduct (which may include expression) that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. The college Presidents kept trying to insert language into Stafanki's base hypothetical, to meet the exception for repetitive behavior, because the wanted to say yes, calling for genocide violates our Codes, and got in trouble for it. But absent an exception which could not be deduced from Stafanki's simple question, that is protected speech.

Those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of individuals is also an exception..The problem again with Stafanki's hypothetical is she didn't provide context, and made such a general if someone says something inquiry where the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, has said context is required.

Finally, there are fighting words are those that, by the very act of being spoken, tend to incite the individual to whom they are addressed to respond violently and to do so immediately, with no time to think things over. Basically, you have to have face-to-face physically imposing communications (think a demonstrator that seeks out a counter demonstrator and gets into it) that would obviously provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the average listener. One of the Presidents mentioned that and got shot down by Stefanki.

There are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions. At the risk of being repetitive, the Presidents kept trying to fit Stafanki's base hypothetical within one of the narrow exceptions so they could say yes, it fits our code, but the bottom line is calling for the genocide of people is protected speech, absent there exceptions.

And the other part about the present situation (which didn't hit the media) is that a lot of people at these demonstrations are not students or employees, but outsiders who the University has no jurisdiction over with respect to their codes of conduct.

The Presidents also talked about physical acts in hopes of being able to say yes. The First Amendment does not protect civil disobedience, violent of peaceful, and the School can place time, place and manner restrictions that are issue or group nuetral, and again the Presidents wee trying to button hole Stafanki into providing facts on which President's could act. She didn't rise to the bait.

You might ask why this is allowed in our democracy? Silencing others doesn't often work. Other groups on campus have the same right as you to make their voices heard, even if you don't agree with them. You can always learn from talking and debating with people who disagree with you. The speech codes deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find offensive. The best way to challenge calls for genocide is to challenge those calls, not suppress them. In that regard, the 3 Presidents failed (see my first sentence).

---

Why would you invoke the first amendment unless Harvard's policy is intended to permit all first amendment protected speech?

I might be wrong, but isn't Harvard one of the schools that limits free speech that could be seen as harassing? And that it could even include micro aggressions?

Just spitballing, but if you aren't going to permit all 1A protected speech, why would you permit calls for genocide? That seems like one of the first things you would prohibit.

Saying that calls for genocide are not acceptable speech on a college campus which prohibits other protected speech is pretty easy.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Disagree. Free speech is not absolute. It is never okay to call for the genocide of a race of people. Change the terms just a tiny bit…could there ever be a context in which it would be okay for white people to call for the death of all African Americans? This isn'teven close to being a tough free speech question.

This is such as easy one. "Students are allowed to peacefully protest and express themselves in virtually all circumstances, but it is never okay to call for the murder of others, much less others based on a protected class. That is not protected speech." The fact the 3 presidents couldn't say anything close to that and instead had the "context" answer, which implies that there is some instance where it is okay…well, they deserve every ounce of whatever professional consequences that comes their way.

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.

There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, and clearly that is at odds with your thoughts when you start saying well what happens if you use another group, much less when you go down the path of "protected classes". Students are allowed to have and expouse racist or sexist opinions (interestingly sexual obscene such as pornography is not protected). (This may not be the case for an employee such as a faculty member). The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular, offensive or wrong. It is black letter law that racist, misogynist, homophobic, and [fill in a protected group speech] is protected, and Stefanki didn't give any specifics in the hypothetical that would fit an exception. Now there are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions to try and stop have speech. But when litigated, as discussed below, the broadly drafted college codes are found wanting (see the discussion of harassment below).

I also disagree with your views on this not being a tough free speech question because you can never call for the geocode of people -the law actually says you can. Look there is free speech for hate mongers and those the utter offensive speech, as a general rule. Calling for the death of all police, faculty, schools administrators, the French (been watching some British comedies lately), the Saudi Royals, Jews (even while dressed in a Ku Klux Klan or Nazis dress while walking though a Jewish neighborhood) or screaming death to all black people while in a moving car in Harlem is in fact protected speech, and there is plenty of case law to back that-up (okay, not the French commentary in British comedies). Mere advocacy of lawbreaking, violence or death is in fact protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Chanting something in a demonstration, or yelling something stupid is protected. You even can give charged speech (including to do away with a race of people) to a restless crowd. Terminiello v. Chicago. Again, Stefanki didn't provide any context how saying the genocide for Jews meets this exception.

There is also no general First Amendment exception for "harassment," and courts have struck down anti-harassment regulations and laws for overbroad language reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. In the educational context, the Supreme Court held in the Davis vs, Monroe County that student-on-student harassment consists only of unwelcome, discriminatory conduct (which may include expression) that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. The college Presidents kept trying to insert language into Stafanki's base hypothetical, to meet the exception for repetitive behavior, because the wanted to say yes, calling for genocide violates our Codes, and got in trouble for it. But absent an exception which could not be deduced from Stafanki's simple question, that is protected speech.

Those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of individuals is also an exception..The problem again with Stafanki's hypothetical is she didn't provide context, and made such a general if someone says something inquiry where the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, has said context is required.

Finally, there are fighting words are those that, by the very act of being spoken, tend to incite the individual to whom they are addressed to respond violently and to do so immediately, with no time to think things over. Basically, you have to have face-to-face physically imposing communications (think a demonstrator that seeks out a counter demonstrator and gets into it) that would obviously provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the average listener. One of the Presidents mentioned that and got shot down by Stefanki.

There are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions. At the risk of being repetitive, the Presidents kept trying to fit Stafanki's base hypothetical within one of the narrow exceptions so they could say yes, it fits our code, but the bottom line is calling for the genocide of people is protected speech, absent there exceptions.

And the other part about the present situation (which didn't hit the media) is that a lot of people at these demonstrations are not students or employees, but outsiders who the University has no jurisdiction over with respect to their codes of conduct.

The Presidents also talked about physical acts in hopes of being able to say yes. The First Amendment does not protect civil disobedience, violent of peaceful, and the School can place time, place and manner restrictions that are issue or group nuetral, and again the Presidents wee trying to button hole Stafanki into providing facts on which President's could act. She didn't rise to the bait.

You might ask why this is allowed in our democracy? Silencing others doesn't often work. Other groups on campus have the same right as you to make their voices heard, even if you don't agree with them. You can always learn from talking and debating with people who disagree with you. The speech codes deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find offensive. The best way to challenge calls for genocide is to challenge those calls, not suppress them. In that regard, the 3 Presidents failed (see my first sentence).

---

Why would you invoke the first amendment unless Harvard's policy is intended to permit all first amendment protected speech?

I might be wrong, but isn't Harvard one of the schools that limits free speech that could be seen as harassing? And that it could even include micro aggressions?

Just spitballing, but if you aren't going to permit all 1A protected speech, why would you permit calls for genocide? That seems like one of the first things you would prohibit.

Saying that calls for genocide are not acceptable speech on a college campus which prohibits other protected speech is pretty easy.

---

I'm admittedly not sure, and in talking with some HLS alum, they are not either. I know as an employer, our employee handbook outlawed all sorts of conduct and speech, but always had an intro, which started except for constitutional or otherwise legally protected communication, you can't do [then came a long list]. Given all the lawyers running around the Harvard campus, it is hard to believe the college's codes of conduct would not carve out legally protected speech and conduct.

---

I’m no fan of @RepStefanik but I’m with her here. Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends: https://t.co/HEzQ0sLKkA

— Laurence Tribe 🇺🇦 ⚖️ (@tribelaw) December 6, 2023

wifeisafurd said:

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.
***

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Disagree. Free speech is not absolute. It is never okay to call for the genocide of a race of people. Change the terms just a tiny bit…could there ever be a context in which it would be okay for white people to call for the death of all African Americans? This isn'teven close to being a tough free speech question.

This is such as easy one. "Students are allowed to peacefully protest and express themselves in virtually all circumstances, but it is never okay to call for the murder of others, much less others based on a protected class. That is not protected speech." The fact the 3 presidents couldn't say anything close to that and instead had the "context" answer, which implies that there is some instance where it is okay…well, they deserve every ounce of whatever professional consequences that comes their way.

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.

There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, and clearly that is at odds with your thoughts when you start saying well what happens if you use another group, much less when you go down the path of "protected classes". Students are allowed to have and expouse racist or sexist opinions (interestingly sexual obscene such as pornography is not protected). (This may not be the case for an employee such as a faculty member). The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular, offensive or wrong. It is black letter law that racist, misogynist, homophobic, and [fill in a protected group speech] is protected, and Stefanki didn't give any specifics in the hypothetical that would fit an exception. Now there are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions to try and stop have speech. But when litigated, as discussed below, the broadly drafted college codes are found wanting (see the discussion of harassment below).

I also disagree with your views on this not being a tough free speech question because you can never call for the geocode of people -the law actually says you can. Look there is free speech for hate mongers and those the utter offensive speech, as a general rule. Calling for the death of all police, faculty, schools administrators, the French (been watching some British comedies lately), the Saudi Royals, Jews (even while dressed in a Ku Klux Klan or Nazis dress while walking though a Jewish neighborhood) or screaming death to all black people while in a moving car in Harlem is in fact protected speech, and there is plenty of case law to back that-up (okay, not the French commentary in British comedies). Mere advocacy of lawbreaking, violence or death is in fact protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Chanting something in a demonstration, or yelling something stupid is protected. You even can give charged speech (including to do away with a race of people) to a restless crowd. Terminiello v. Chicago. Again, Stefanki didn't provide any context how saying the genocide for Jews meets this exception.

There is also no general First Amendment exception for "harassment," and courts have struck down anti-harassment regulations and laws for overbroad language reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. In the educational context, the Supreme Court held in the Davis vs, Monroe County that student-on-student harassment consists only of unwelcome, discriminatory conduct (which may include expression) that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. The college Presidents kept trying to insert language into Stafanki's base hypothetical, to meet the exception for repetitive behavior, because the wanted to say yes, calling for genocide violates our Codes, and got in trouble for it. But absent an exception which could not be deduced from Stafanki's simple question, that is protected speech.

Those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of individuals is also an exception..The problem again with Stafanki's hypothetical is she didn't provide context, and made such a general if someone says something inquiry where the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, has said context is required.

Finally, there are fighting words are those that, by the very act of being spoken, tend to incite the individual to whom they are addressed to respond violently and to do so immediately, with no time to think things over. Basically, you have to have face-to-face physically imposing communications (think a demonstrator that seeks out a counter demonstrator and gets into it) that would obviously provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the average listener. One of the Presidents mentioned that and got shot down by Stefanki.

There are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions. At the risk of being repetitive, the Presidents kept trying to fit Stafanki's base hypothetical within one of the narrow exceptions so they could say yes, it fits our code, but the bottom line is calling for the genocide of people is protected speech, absent there exceptions.

And the other part about the present situation (which didn't hit the media) is that a lot of people at these demonstrations are not students or employees, but outsiders who the University has no jurisdiction over with respect to their codes of conduct.

The Presidents also talked about physical acts in hopes of being able to say yes. The First Amendment does not protect civil disobedience, violent of peaceful, and the School can place time, place and manner restrictions that are issue or group nuetral, and again the Presidents wee trying to button hole Stafanki into providing facts on which President's could act. She didn't rise to the bait.

You might ask why this is allowed in our democracy? Silencing others doesn't often work. Other groups on campus have the same right as you to make their voices heard, even if you don't agree with them. You can always learn from talking and debating with people who disagree with you. The speech codes deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find offensive. The best way to challenge calls for genocide is to challenge those calls, not suppress them. In that regard, the 3 Presidents failed (see my first sentence).

---

Why would you invoke the first amendment unless Harvard's policy is intended to permit all first amendment protected speech?

I might be wrong, but isn't Harvard one of the schools that limits free speech that could be seen as harassing? And that it could even include micro aggressions?

Just spitballing, but if you aren't going to permit all 1A protected speech, why would you permit calls for genocide? That seems like one of the first things you would prohibit.

Saying that calls for genocide are not acceptable speech on a college campus which prohibits other protected speech is pretty easy.

---

I'm admittedly not sure, and in talking with some HLS alum, they are not either. I know as an employer, our employee handbook outlawed all sorts of conduct and speech, but always had an intro, which started except for constitutional or otherwise legally protected communication, you can't do [then came a long list]. Given all the lawyers running around the Harvard campus, it is hard to believe the college's codes of conduct would not carve out legally protected speech and conduct.

---

sycasey said:

---

Honestly, I think the better answer to the questions they were getting from Stefanik is not too hard to come by:

1. Yes, actively calling for genocide of Jews would be against our conduct policies.

Then after the obvious follow-up question:

2. No, just using the word "intifada" or the phrase "from the river to the sea" is not automatically an example of that. It depends on context.

The problem was in jumping to the second answer without clarifying the first part. They fell right into Stefanik's trap. These people assumed a general audience was already familiar with the fraught internal politics they've been dealing with for a while and would make that leap too. It doesn't work that way.

---

Source https://t.co/q7cFYxTquj

Also it's not some dunk on engineering Vs Humanities.. pic.twitter.com/t8DKWT5X78

— rohit (@krishnanrohit) December 10, 2023

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Honestly, I think the better answer to the questions they were getting from Stefanik is not too hard to come by:

1. Yes, actively calling for genocide of Jews would be against our conduct policies.

Then after the obvious follow-up question:

2. No, just using the word "intifada" or the phrase "from the river to the sea" is not automatically an example of that. It depends on context.

The problem was in jumping to the second answer without clarifying the first part. They fell right into Stefanik's trap. These people assumed a general audience was already familiar with the fraught internal politics they've been dealing with for a while and would make that leap too. It doesn't work that way.

---

Just to double click on the "from the river to the sea" chant, there is reason to believe that most college kids chanting it have no idea that it's closer to "heil, hitler" than it is to "let my people go."

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Honestly, I think the better answer to the questions they were getting from Stefanik is not too hard to come by:

1. Yes, actively calling for genocide of Jews would be against our conduct policies.

Then after the obvious follow-up question:

2. No, just using the word "intifada" or the phrase "from the river to the sea" is not automatically an example of that. It depends on context.

The problem was in jumping to the second answer without clarifying the first part. They fell right into Stefanik's trap. These people assumed a general audience was already familiar with the fraught internal politics they've been dealing with for a while and would make that leap too. It doesn't work that way.

---

Just to double click on the "from the river to the sea" chant, there is reason to believe that most college kids chanting it have no idea that it's closer to "heil, hitler" than it is to "let my people go."

---

For the majority of these students I absolutely believe that they just use it because it's a catchy slogan and they broadly support Palestinians having their own nation. Most people in America are not aware of how the phrase has been used by terrorist groups.

---

Spitballing here, but would it be crazy if hypothetically a place that was created to educate young people would use all of that power they have to ... educate young people. Rather than throwing their hands up at people using genocidal chants casually, Harvard could like inform students that "from the river to the sea" is a chant for the destruction of israel and the death of all jewish people and that it's not cool.

These schools took stronger stances against people chanting "all lives matter" and I think we can all agree that merely saying "all lives matter" is certainly first amendment protected speech.

We're 2 months in, it's probably time to let these children know what they're actually calling for.

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Honestly, I think the better answer to the questions they were getting from Stefanik is not too hard to come by:

1. Yes, actively calling for genocide of Jews would be against our conduct policies.

Then after the obvious follow-up question:

2. No, just using the word "intifada" or the phrase "from the river to the sea" is not automatically an example of that. It depends on context.

The problem was in jumping to the second answer without clarifying the first part. They fell right into Stefanik's trap. These people assumed a general audience was already familiar with the fraught internal politics they've been dealing with for a while and would make that leap too. It doesn't work that way.

---

Just to double click on the "from the river to the sea" chant, there is reason to believe that most college kids chanting it have no idea that it's closer to "heil, hitler" than it is to "let my people go."

---

For the majority of these students I absolutely believe that they just use it because it's a catchy slogan and they broadly support Palestinians having their own nation. Most people in America are not aware of how the phrase has been used by terrorist groups.

---

calbear93 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Two thoughts. It doesn't sound like Harvard alum Stefanki will be making her donation this year. The other is I'm glad I'm not the President of a major college these days. There is a move by Harvard alums to dump the current President, as she runs the gauntlet between pissing off students or alums.

I dunno. Harvard could set sane, reasonable standards of conduct and discourse and dismiss any student who refuses to abide by them. Problem solved.

---

This is a generational thing to some degree. Students want safe spaces to not be offended, yet the right to protest and offend. Then there are Harvard alums, who trend towards being ultra establishment, and don't find anything students do or say to be reasonable. And then there is the pesky right of free speech thing in the constitution. All problems once you go down the slippery road of restraining speech with "reasonable standards." What is reasonable then will always depend on context, which is exactly what all 3 Presidents said. .

---

Disagree. Free speech is not absolute. It is never okay to call for the genocide of a race of people. Change the terms just a tiny bit…could there ever be a context in which it would be okay for white people to call for the death of all African Americans? This isn'teven close to being a tough free speech question.

This is such as easy one. "Students are allowed to peacefully protest and express themselves in virtually all circumstances, but it is never okay to call for the murder of others, much less others based on a protected class. That is not protected speech." The fact the 3 presidents couldn't say anything close to that and instead had the "context" answer, which implies that there is some instance where it is okay…well, they deserve every ounce of whatever professional consequences that comes their way.

---

The fact that 3 Presidents of our top Universities, including one who is Jewish, couldn't say that was offensive or wrong is problematic. No problem with that.

But this may come as a shock, but calling for genocide is protected speech, despite your comments to the contrary.

There is no First Amendment exception for hate speech, and clearly that is at odds with your thoughts when you start saying well what happens if you use another group, much less when you go down the path of "protected classes". Students are allowed to have and expouse racist or sexist opinions (interestingly sexual obscene such as pornography is not protected). (This may not be the case for an employee such as a faculty member). The First Amendment fully protects speech that is unpopular, offensive or wrong. It is black letter law that racist, misogynist, homophobic, and [fill in a protected group speech] is protected, and Stefanki didn't give any specifics in the hypothetical that would fit an exception. Now there are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions to try and stop have speech. But when litigated, as discussed below, the broadly drafted college codes are found wanting (see the discussion of harassment below).

I also disagree with your views on this not being a tough free speech question because you can never call for the geocode of people -the law actually says you can. Look there is free speech for hate mongers and those the utter offensive speech, as a general rule. Calling for the death of all police, faculty, schools administrators, the French (been watching some British comedies lately), the Saudi Royals, Jews (even while dressed in a Ku Klux Klan or Nazis dress while walking though a Jewish neighborhood) or screaming death to all black people while in a moving car in Harlem is in fact protected speech, and there is plenty of case law to back that-up (okay, not the French commentary in British comedies). Mere advocacy of lawbreaking, violence or death is in fact protected speech as long as it is not intended to and likely to provoke immediate unlawful action. Brandenburg v. Ohio. Chanting something in a demonstration, or yelling something stupid is protected. You even can give charged speech (including to do away with a race of people) to a restless crowd. Terminiello v. Chicago. Again, Stefanki didn't provide any context how saying the genocide for Jews meets this exception.

There is also no general First Amendment exception for "harassment," and courts have struck down anti-harassment regulations and laws for overbroad language reaching a substantial amount of protected speech. In the educational context, the Supreme Court held in the Davis vs, Monroe County that student-on-student harassment consists only of unwelcome, discriminatory conduct (which may include expression) that is "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." By definition, this includes only extreme and usually repetitive behavior behavior so serious that it would prevent a reasonable person from receiving his or her education. The college Presidents kept trying to insert language into Stafanki's base hypothetical, to meet the exception for repetitive behavior, because the wanted to say yes, calling for genocide violates our Codes, and got in trouble for it. But absent an exception which could not be deduced from Stafanki's simple question, that is protected speech.

Those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of individuals is also an exception..The problem again with Stafanki's hypothetical is she didn't provide context, and made such a general if someone says something inquiry where the SCOTUS, in its wisdom, has said context is required.

Finally, there are fighting words are those that, by the very act of being spoken, tend to incite the individual to whom they are addressed to respond violently and to do so immediately, with no time to think things over. Basically, you have to have face-to-face physically imposing communications (think a demonstrator that seeks out a counter demonstrator and gets into it) that would obviously provoke an immediate and violent reaction from the average listener. One of the Presidents mentioned that and got shot down by Stefanki.

There are exceptions to the protected speech and the codes of conduct, at least at a place like Harvard, make use of these exceptions. At the risk of being repetitive, the Presidents kept trying to fit Stafanki's base hypothetical within one of the narrow exceptions so they could say yes, it fits our code, but the bottom line is calling for the genocide of people is protected speech, absent there exceptions.

And the other part about the present situation (which didn't hit the media) is that a lot of people at these demonstrations are not students or employees, but outsiders who the University has no jurisdiction over with respect to their codes of conduct.

The Presidents also talked about physical acts in hopes of being able to say yes. The First Amendment does not protect civil disobedience, violent of peaceful, and the School can place time, place and manner restrictions that are issue or group nuetral, and again the Presidents wee trying to button hole Stafanki into providing facts on which President's could act. She didn't rise to the bait.

You might ask why this is allowed in our democracy? Silencing others doesn't often work. Other groups on campus have the same right as you to make their voices heard, even if you don't agree with them. You can always learn from talking and debating with people who disagree with you. The speech codes deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find offensive. The best way to challenge calls for genocide is to challenge those calls, not suppress them. In that regard, the 3 Presidents failed (see my first sentence).

---

Why would you invoke the first amendment unless Harvard's policy is intended to permit all first amendment protected speech?

I might be wrong, but isn't Harvard one of the schools that limits free speech that could be seen as harassing? And that it could even include micro aggressions?

Just spitballing, but if you aren't going to permit all 1A protected speech, why would you permit calls for genocide? That seems like one of the first things you would prohibit.

Saying that calls for genocide are not acceptable speech on a college campus which prohibits other protected speech is pretty easy.

---

I'm admittedly not sure, and in talking with some HLS alum, they are not either. I know as an employer, our employee handbook outlawed all sorts of conduct and speech, but always had an intro, which started except for constitutional or otherwise legally protected communication, you can't do [then came a long list]. Given all the lawyers running around the Harvard campus, it is hard to believe the college's codes of conduct would not carve out legally protected speech and conduct.

---

I think we need to make sure we are not conflating issues.

Unless we view Harvard as a state actor, how does the first amendment apply to Harvard? Harvard can restrict speech as a private organization, could it not? Private employers restrict speech all the time. Heck, even UC Berkeley, which is a state actor, restricts speech that may offend certain people all the time. It's that they pick and choose as always who they want to protect and who they don't. It's about politics and picking who they like and who they don't. It's rarely about principle of the underlying right.

Also, even assuming that for whatever reason, Harvard is viewed as a state actor and therefor bound by the first amendment, couldn't we make the argument that there is compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored to prohibiting speech that makes members of the of the community in danger of physical violence?

---