So Columbia has disgraced itself the same way social media businesses and whatnot have.
If anyone is wondering how long it is going to be before people are deported just for expressing negative views about Trump…apparently minus two days from now:
Columbia’s groveling is disgusting but I wish this nonsense would die. University endowments are not a big savings account that can be dipped into whenever for whatever and what have you. There are legal and donor restrictions on what and how the funds can be spent on. Only “unrestricted” funds can be used freely and those are almost always few and far between.
If you ever donate money to a University, make sure the gift is unrestricted.
And again, my mind is blown that this (if accurate) hasn’t been on repeat in the news cycle. I’d heard about it, but I want to see Anderson fecking Cooper talking about it. Again, if it is as relayed, it is an egregious affront on so many levels.
Agreed.
Freedom of speech is one of the core American values, that all Americans believe in. It’s never been entirely true, but now it’s a complete joke.
Vance lectured Europe on freedom of speech just a couple weeks ago, but this is yet another in a long list of things that would be unthinkable in other democracies.
The first amendment is just a polite suggestion at this point.
(yes I’m aware this particular case wasn’t a US citizen, but a lot of others are, and note that his main gripe with this administration was the deleting or censoring of scientific papers on DEI, climate change etc)
The first amendment just says freedom of speech won’t be “abridged”. Doesn’t say it won’t have consequences. And if the consequences of angering the musktrump is jail, well, those are consequences, not abrigement.
Once the Big Boss’s word is Law, then even words come to have only the meaning he ascribes to them. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets 1984 with an extra dollop of never-ending cruelty.
I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or not.
The way the amendment has been interpreted by the courts, and Americans in general, is that freedom of speech means there won’t be consequences, from the state, apart from the explicit exceptions to FoS such as sharing state secrets.
If the meaning were strictly that speech won’t be abridged then it would be a largely pointless thing to write. It would come down to saying we won’t put a literal gag in your mouth or, if we do, you’re allowed to take it out.
My intent was to point out that freedom of speech in the USA existed, and continues to exist, only insofar as the government chooses to abide by the constitution, and the public doesn’t promptly physically remove that government if/when it chooses to ignore the constitution.
The potential that the government would go off the rails like that has been adjudged as negligible bordering on unthinkable from the founding of the republic up until a relative few years ago.
And yet right now it is doing the unthinkable and jumping those rails fast and hard. And yet the public slumbers. Or cheers.
Capeesh? 
Well I had to check because I don’t think you put it that clearly originally.
But of course I agree: there’s nothing in the constitution that can’t be re-interpreted; it’s so woke after all.
There is a bit of hope here Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the courage to brawl for the working class | Democrats | The Guardian as the Bernie and AOC tour continues across America to rave reviews, and here, as protests against Trump etc. grow Resistance is alive and well in the United States | Waging Nonviolence
And here, as Canadians rub poop on a Wayne Gretsky statue as “The Great One” is a Trump supporter. Edmonton statue of Oilers great Wayne Gretzky smeared with poop | Globalnews.ca
Whether resistance is futile is historically contingent; but it is inevitable.
I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic here or what. In fact, most Americans, actually most people generally, believe:
I am RIGHT. I should be allowed to speak. I have a right to be published. I can take my manifesto to the press, and they MUST print it. If they don’t then I have been silenced. I have the right to put my opinion on any message board or social media I want. The people running the board don’t have the right to ban me, or to delete my posts, or to tell me to shut up about my subject. Of course, the people who oppose me are WRONG. they should not be permitted to print their lies. They should be banned from the message boards. The publishers should not be allowed to publish their words. My rights are violated if you print any words against me.
No worries. Sarcasm, satire, or hyperbole become very difficult to write (or read) reliably when reality itself is suddenly surreally hyperbolic.
I am neither slumbering or cheering.
Agonizing might be a better term for me.
Or lamenting.
I need a new thesaurus because there just isn’t anything that captures my inner turmoil in one word just yet.
May I submit for your consideration …
It gets at least part of the way there, I think.
Oh yes - I totally forgot about this one.
Weltschmerz it is from now on.
It’s been a year since I last went to Germany and my language skills suffer.
Many thanks!
Trumpschwindel has the advantage that Schwindel means dizziness/confusion as well as what it sounds like in English.
Not true at all. “The consequence of speech that angers the king is jail” is exactly what the 1st amendment is protecting us against.
That said I don’t think what’s described in the OP is a violation of the 1st amendment. A private individual choosing what appears in their newspaper is not a violation of the 1st amendment
But the first amendment is not the be all and end all of freedom of speech. Obscenely rich oligarchs buying up all the media outlets and social media platforms, and then controlling the opinions that are allowed to be aired IS an infringement of freedom of speech.
Sure the people who run the SDMB deciding what is acceptable content on their website, is not infringing freedom of speech. But when it’s the social media platform used by more people than reside in the United States, it does.
Evidently my sarcasm was insufficiently overwhelmingly obvious.
Possibly Poes Law at work
For sure.
You raise a good point though. “Freedom of speech” as a buzzphrase is often thrown about in the USA meaning only 1FA freedom. Namely freedom from federal governmental prior restraint.
True freedom of speech includes freedom from being shouted down by a mob or silenced by an oligarch.
Although dating back centuries it’s been true that “freedom of the press attaches to the person who owns one.” Namely that you’re only as free as your audience is large. Or perhaps better said, your freedom extends to the audience you can attract and hold. Others’ freedoms attach to their respective audiences.