People calling anti-war protesters “unpatriotic” isn’t the problem I had in mind. As you rightly pointed out, it’s just two private citizens having a difference of views.
On the other hand, when we have government officiais equating anti-war protesters was “unpatriotic” (or, more precisely, “giving aid to the terrorists”), I think that does cross the line into censorship and repression. At the very least, it would be misusing the color of authority in an attempt to intimidate folks with dissenting views.
Well, what is it-- censorship or repression? There’s a difference, you know.
And let’s assume for the moment that the some officials attempted to “intimidate” folks iwth dissenting views. (I’m not saying I agree with you, but let’s just assumve for the sake of argument that your statement is true.) How would that violate the 1st ammendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The entire point of this OP is an ad-hominem attack on liberals. The only point of it seems to be to claim that liberals have bad character, and therefore, presumably, liberal ideas are bad ones.
While I disagree with some liberal positions, on the whole I consider myself liberal. I certainly would not support the kind of censorship described in the OP. Most of my friends are liberals. I can’t imagine any of them supporting this. Many of the posters on this board are liberals. Not a single one has supported the claimed censorship. Thus it seems absurd to say support for this kind of censorship is in any respect a liberal trait.
As to the behavior of college administrators, people who have achieved these positions of power, like powerful business people and powerful politicians, typically have not gotten there because of their ideological principles. Often it is because they are willing to play the dirty political games necessary to get to the top. One of these games is to cover up potentially embarrasing situations, which seems to be what happened here. This seems to be a “Protect Your Ass” situation, not the promotion of an ideological agenda.
Uh, yeah… like the difference between being shot in the head with a .45 and being shot in the head with a .386, eh? :rolleyes:
If you do not consider intimidating someone who wants to express a differing view as a form of abridging the freedom of speech, you need more help than I can provide.
And if you can’t tell the difference between “Congress shall make no law” and “administration officials shall speak no ill against”, then you cannot read. The former, by the way is in the 1st ammendment. The latter is simply something you might wish wouldn’t happen.
Has anyone else noticed that, virtually every time an RW commentator wants to reveal what “the liberals” are all about, teenaged or barely-post-teenage college students? Or worse, some statement of their “impressions”, even without any anecdotes at all? Take this thread for just one example. With a few years beyond college, anyone can see just how naive and self-righteous those with emerging understanding and sensibilities can be, right? Aren’t any of you a little ashamed to think back on how you used to be then? But you grew out of it, some of you anyway.
When the reverse is true, there’s any number of allegedly grown-up RW commentators, TV networks, media outlets, politicians, and administration officials, with real statements and actions and consequences, to discuss. To have to resort to denouncing a few kids to support one’s own allegedly-mature self-righteousness is a bit sad, never mind how much it actually reveals about the substance of their generalizations about people they disagree with.
Elvis, college administrators are not children. The principal complaint is not the college kids of any political stripe are immature – that’s to be expected – but rather that school officials use different standards depending on the political stripe of students involved in vandalism.
College administrators are, though, required by their jobs to be patient with children as they learn their own life’s lessons - or risk bad pub and firing if they aren’t.
Your support for the generalization about differing standards is, well, other than a few RW blog anecdotes, what? Its extendability to a generalization about “the liberals”, such as we’ve seen in this thread and a few others, is, well, what?
They are also supposed to punish infractions of the rules, particularly infractions that violate the notion of the university as a place for the free exchange of ideas. Part of “learning life’s lessons” includes facing the consequences for vandalism. Part of an administrator’s job is to be sure those lessons are learned. **
I’m not sure what this sentence means. I gather you mean the generalization that many colleges exercise a double standard is not proven. Suffice it to say that I’ve read enough of these types of complaints over the years, as well as noting that they comport with my own observations back when I was a law student, to state with some confidence that there is a political double standard on the average American college campus. **
I agree with James Lileks that being a “Lumper” is not a good thing. I see no need to defend a position that I never advanced in the first place.
So, Sam, if five years ago President Clinton had sent a 200-pound FBI agent to your house, on the pretense that said agent “just want to watch what you’re writing on that there internet thingie, to make sure you don’t make any death threats,” all while idly playing with the safety on his government-issued handgun, you wouldn’t have any problems with that? After all, Congress isn’t passing any laws…
(Yes, I know, you’re a Canadian, jurisdiction blab blab blab. Feel free to substitute decembeer in your place if you like. )
)