There Are Two Sets of Rules for Speech

Friday, May 03, 2024

A police officer who pulls over speeding black motorists"and only black motorists"isn't protecting "law and order." He's engaging in invidious discrimination. So too the university administrators who suddenly discover they are free speech absolutists only when student protesters call for the death of their Jewish classmates. In January, a junior at Columbia University, Khymani James, told a disciplinary committee at the school that Zionists "don't deserve to live." "Be grateful that I'm just not going out and murdering Zionists," he instructed them. Then, James headed back to campus, scot-free

Posted by BellRinger at 06:00 PM | 16 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

... A police officer who pulls over speeding black motorists"and only black motorists"isn't protecting "law and order." He's engaging in invidious discrimination. ....

That has nothing to do with free speech.

#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 06:09 PM | Reply

"A police officer who pulls over speeding black motorists -- and only black motorists -- isn't protecting "law and order."

But he is protecting Order.

And he's doing it by carrying out the Law.

That's what you are denying when you deny Critical Race Theory.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 06:11 PM | Reply

#1. I think she was trying to set up an analogy. I don't think she succeeded with that.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-03 06:39 PM | Reply

@#3 ... I don't think she succeeded with that. ...

Yeah, it's the typical false equivalency attempt.

And in the first sentence of the OpEd.

Sort of sets the tone for reading the rest of the OpEd...

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 06:48 PM | Reply

#4. That's a fair criticism. I encourage you to look past the opening to this piece and read the rest of it.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-03 07:19 PM | Reply

@#5 ... I encourage you to look past the opening to this piece and read the rest of it. ...

I did, and I usually do.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 07:23 PM | Reply

"Frat parties with offensive themes are swiftly punished. But publicly contemplate murdering Zionists? That's a different story."

The difference in the story is that Frats are endorsed by the college.

That's why they are held to a higher standard.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-03 07:42 PM | Reply

So is this where the right takes a turn for censorship? Come to find out they don't really believe in the 1A either, unless it's for them?

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2024-05-03 09:19 PM | Reply

@#8 ... So is this where the right takes a turn for censorship? ...

Takes a turn for? Or continues their determination for?

In other words, is this type of censorship by the right something new? Or just a continuation?

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-03 09:21 PM | Reply

" So is this where the right takes a turn for censorship? Come to find out they don't really believe in the 1A either, unless it's for them?

#8 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2024-05-03 09:19 PM | FLAG: "

If you read the linked piece I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-03 10:36 PM | Reply

Ballwasher is trying SOOOOO hard.

Sucks to be you, don't it?

#11 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-05-04 01:46 AM | Reply

@#10 ... If you read the linked piece I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. ...

Yet another vacuous comment from that current alias.

#12 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-04 01:55 AM | Reply

#12. I agree that JPW made a vacuous comment.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-05-04 02:11 AM | Reply

@#13 ... I agree that JPW made a vacuous comment. ...

Do try harder.

Your current alias' reply was to my #12 comment, which was a reply to your current alias' #10 comment, not a JPW comment.

But that leads me to another question this evening...

Is your current alias actively trying to destroy any credibility it may have left (and, I'll say, that reserve is minimal, oh so minimal)?

#14 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-05-04 02:55 AM | Reply

"They cry "Go back to Poland," "baby killers," and "globalize the Intifada" at Jewish students."

Jews Will Not Replace Us.
Blood And Soil.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-05-04 09:03 PM | Reply

Intifada means "To shake off" like a dog shaking off fleas.

It has some connotations of violence in the vernacular. It isn't a specific call to murder Jews or anyone else. It's a noun in Arabic.

This is certainly protected free speech.

Paranoid ranting was the overall impression given.

The comments section was an echo chamber far worse than the DR ever was.

Overall,a waste of time. She just cried about being Victims again.

But she never seemed to question anything about, Why?,so many people are protesting this so vocally.

There was the usual Outside Agitators BS. And the double Standards for Jews stuff.

She hit all high notes in the Victimhood Symphony.

But somehow it sounded totally off key compared to 40,000 Deaths for just being in the way.

The hermetic seal on any variety of opinions in the comments also was remarkable.

#16 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-05-04 09:59 PM | Reply