Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

libananahammock t1_j4quzgn wrote

Its major grants come from the ultra-conservative Earhart, John Templeton, and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations; the Scaife family foundations; the Koch-linked Donors Trust, and funders that sustain a myriad of conservative campus-targeting organizations that include FIRE, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the David Horowitz Freedom Center (whose "Academic Bill of Rights" would mandate more hiring of conservative faculty and would monitor professors' syllabi for "balance") and Campus Watch (which tracks and condemns liberal professors' comments on the Middle East).

All of these organizations stoke public anger against "political correctness" as a threat to academic freedom and to the free-market economy, which they insist would enhance it. Never mind that, as FIRE keeps discovering-but never invites us to ponder-the college trustees and deans whom it condemns rightly enough for restricting speech are serving not politically correct pieties, but market pressures to satisfy student "customers" and avoid negative publicity, liability, and losses in "brand" or "market share."

The Conservatives Behind the Campus ‘Free Speech’ Crusade

10

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4qzhdk wrote

Who cares who funded them when they are defending a sound principle? Your post is a perfect example ‘people I don’t like are in favor of it therefore I’m against it’.

13

BluCurry8 t1_j4tcle7 wrote

So critical think is not your strong suit. There is an agenda and this is not a case where the government is limiting the groups ability to perform free speech. This group is soliciting. For as much as we talk about freedom of speech it is well past time people learn more about what is means.

0

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4thqb8 wrote

They are not soliciting. They are campaigning to gain access to the ballot. It is very much political speech that is protected by 1st amendment. Political speech is the most protected type of speech and gaining access to the ballot is a decidedly political act.

Here’s a SCOTUS case saying gathering of signatures is protected speech (unanimously decided)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/486/414/

Here’s an example of someone engaged in the exact same conduct successfully suing a municipal for violation of 1st amendment rights.

https://www.lp.org/conn-libertarians-receive-37k-settlement-in-petitioner-harassment-suit/

3

BluCurry8 t1_j4uzo61 wrote

They are soliciting if they are collecting signatures. Sorry you seem to not understand the meaning of the word and are so willing to give away your private data.

−1

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4v5ns3 wrote

You can call it whatever you want, the activity - gathering signatures for a petition - is protected by the 1st Amendment. I provided links supporting my position. You’ve provided a semantic assertion. Please support your position

2

libananahammock t1_j4qzk9i wrote

Lol that’s rich coming from you

−9

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r09na wrote

Excellent job addressing the underlying issue.

12

libananahammock t1_j4r2hba wrote

Lol okay bud you’re the one who took it off topic. Keep being the hypocrite you’ve been on Reddit. Rules for thee but not for me, am I right?

And the funding was talking about the group in the article who was threatening to sue. I mentioned it because they themselves call themselves non partisan.

Also, if your wife or daughter was with their kids in the park you’d be okay with an aggressive candidate in their face asking for their full name, address and phone number? I don’t give a crap what political party you a part of or claim to be a part of (any creeper can claim to be collecting signatures) I don’t want to be approached in the park by an aggressive man. I mean you’d think the party that screams pedo at anyone they don’t like would understand that some people are cautious around strange people being AGGRESSIVE when campaigning which many people who were there said as much if you read other articles about this that aren’t published by the people with the agenda.

−10

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4r4a13 wrote

You assumed the candidate was aggressive. You’ve created a whole narrative of how this went down based on zero evidence. Which just bolsters my initial point that facts are the least important of your position.

Candidates for office are required to approach people to get signatures. It’s either approach them in public places like sidewalks or parks or go door to door. If you have an issue with them obtain personal information your issue is with the law not the candidate

If a candidate or their campaigners are being aggressive and harassing people that is not covered by the 1st amendment.

11

libananahammock t1_j4r4eav wrote

LOL I didn’t assume, like you like to say DO YOUR RESEARCH! Look it up bud

−1

CltAltAcctDel t1_j4rahtl wrote

Link it. I’ve found nothing that indicates they were being aggressive. If you’ve got something I’ll be more than happy to read. That doesn’t change the underlying point that peaceful gathering petitions is protected speech and anyone who defends free speech should be applauded for that defense

12

libananahammock t1_j4qvgum wrote

Progressive watchdog organization Media Matters included FIRE in a 2017 piece describing how groups funded by right-wing billionaires and dark money organizations influence college campuses. Media Matters says "FIRE has partnered with anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom for some of these cases. It has also frequently weighed in on sexual misconduct cases, arguing that the definition of sexual harassment should not include 'large amounts of constitutionally protected expression, such as any unwanted "sexual comments, gestures, jokes, or looks,"' and defended campus organizations that use hateful rhetoric or seek to exclude potential group members based on sexual orientation. Recently, FIRE took up the cause of defending student groups that did not want to pay extra security costs for hosting serial harasser Milo Yiannopoulos on his campus speaking tour, during which he engaged in targeted public harassment of individual students."

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education Read in another language

12

Working-Photograph12 t1_j4rv7o2 wrote

I'm a progressive liberal and I don't think banning speech is a good thing. Even if I don't agree with it. Laws like these can be easily turned back around on gay rights groups, poc groups, etc. I think that is what most people are saying. Fuck FIRE, but I don't want to lose rights just so they also lose them. It us cutting off your nose to spite your face.

8

BluCurry8 t1_j4tc87j wrote

No usually if you are going to solicit or petition the public on any publicly owned space you are required to have a permit. This is not government suppression this is protecting the peace from public nuisances.

3

Working-Photograph12 t1_j4uovuv wrote

No, I did gotv. To register people to vote we were only allowed on public property unless given permission by private property owners.

Added: In areas where most businesses were owned by Republicans. The parks were one of the few places we could set up.

0

Working-Photograph12 t1_j4upm9i wrote

Pro tip: even though courts have repeatedly ruled that voter registration drives are not considered soliciting. Police do not know this and are too "my way, or the highway" about it to argue with. Just find a new spot. Or waste the day maybe even days for it.

1

BluCurry8 t1_j4uz4jt wrote

How is collecting signatures and private data for a petition to “protect freedom of speech” voter registration drives?

1

Working-Photograph12 t1_j4vuak8 wrote

Well if they are doing that there are laws against it already. Public spaces usually have "no soliciting posted." The article says they were doing voter registration. But FIRE mixes in polical bias and a host of other issues. The problem is police not enforcing the laws they are already breaking. No need to bann voter drives in parks because one group doesn't know how to properly do it.

1

BluCurry8 t1_j4tbsi5 wrote

Ughhhh. You really guzzled that Kool Aid! You are fucking tripping if you think they want to defend free speech.

1

libananahammock t1_j4tbyys wrote

Like you know the laws regarding free speech lol

1

BluCurry8 t1_j4td1kh wrote

Lol. I certainly know more than someone who only can copy and paste and not filing read!

0

libananahammock t1_j4td77m wrote

Lol it’s called doing research and not just vomiting up Fox News fear mongering talking points and things you read off of Facebook memes.

1

mkinn01 t1_j4qx1td wrote

How about George Soros groups and the WEF etc. this goes both ways as it should

−9

libananahammock t1_j4qy3qu wrote

Stay on topic buddy, can you do that? We are talking about this particular situation at hand. Is George Soros involved in this particular situation at hand?

7

mkinn01 t1_j4qypkj wrote

The statement was aimed at the remark about a conservative funded group in the park. I was on topic stating that you have plenty of groups on the other end of spectrum doing the same thing “buddy”.

−2

libananahammock t1_j4qzbqa wrote

Lol you STILL have zero reading comprehension skills. Did you even read the article to even be able to try and be able to understand what I’m saying. The conservative groups I mentioned weren’t funding the candidate in the park. They are funding FIRE, the group that threatened to file the lawsuit against the county. I brought up the funding because someone claimed that they were non partisan when in reality all of their funding is from and their board members are all right wing conservatives.

9