petergriffin999 t1_iuhxtz1 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 1:54 PM

Liberals: doing everything they can to get viewpoints they don't agree with cancelled.

"You must not be allowed to hear that message!"

warren_stupidity t1_iuhyzz1 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 2:03 PM

Just FYI protesting is an exercise of 1st amendment rights.

petergriffin999 t1_iuieaaj wrote on October 31, 2022 at 3:50 PM

Just FYI protesting peacefully without breaking any laws sounds great.

Demanding that others not hear the message of the opposing viewpoint isn't protesting.

The 1st amendment entitles you to be free of persecution from the govt for holding and expressing your opinion.

It doesn't allow you to block traffic, entrance to buildings, pull fire alarms.

When you think that others shouldn't be able to simply hear a viewpoint, then you should check yourself.

warren_stupidity t1_iuifi4b wrote on October 31, 2022 at 3:58 PM

>Demanding that others not hear the message of the opposing viewpoint isn't protesting.

Sure it is. Enforcing a ban, for example by physically attacking people trying to attend, would cross the line from protesting to assault.

While I find it massively obnoxious that rightwing religious nutjobs conduct perpetual protests at abortion clinics, demanding that women not get abortions, I recognize that it is their right to conduct such protests. Wouldn't you agree?

petergriffin999 t1_iuignaw wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:05 PM

Attempting to prevent, by breaking laws, whether successful or not... others from hearing the opposing viewpoint, is unacceptable.

You can have your opinion. You can organize your own public speaking event at the school to express your viewpoint. You can stand to the side and not impede others from entering the building, just like the anti abortionists are required to, and shout till your heart is content, without breaking any laws, and be free from persecution by the govt.

If you glue yourself to the doors, pull fire alarms, call in threats, or, like many loony liberals do: assault, throw concrete milkshakes, etc -- you should be arrested and prosecuted.

warren_stupidity t1_iuihy6d wrote on October 31, 2022 at 4:14 PM

OK. But none of that happened here. In fact it was the event organization itself that cancelled the event. No assaults occurred, no protest happened. It wasn't even Dartmouth that cancelled. These snowflakes decided that there was more to be gained by playing the victim than by presenting their shitty case for bigotry.

Hilarias_Glucose_Cup OP t1_iuipymw wrote on October 31, 2022 at 5:07 PM

You are just being a disingenuous. Dartmouth forced the cancellation of the event by adding insurmountable roadblocks. If the original logistics had been allowed by Dartmouth the event would have proceeded. Why do think it is justified that Dartmouth limits the event to students only when they had previously said it was okay for the public to attend? Why do you think it is acceptable to screen questions? Why would they want to insert an unaffiliated speaker ahead of the event? None of that makes any sense unless you look at it from the perspective of wanting to force the event organizers into not coming.

WASRmelon_white_claw t1_iuhzdy5 wrote on October 31, 2022 at 2:06 PM

This has nothing to do with the govt so 1st amendment doesn’t apply

warren_stupidity t1_iuiemzr wrote on October 31, 2022 at 3:52 PM

Sure, Dartmouth as a private institution can allow or bar anyone from discussing anything, but if one is going to claim that 'liberals' are 'cancelling' viewpoints by expressing contrary viewpoints then a reminder that all expressions are equally protected seems appropriate.