• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Decisions like this lead to less money for band and UM

PlayerRep said:
behappp said:
Everyone seems to be ignoring one of the fundamental questions. How much money needs to be given to demand who gets to be a sponsored speaker?
Is$1M the number? 50 grand enough? 5 grand?

Reminds me of the old joke where you ask someone if you could sleep with their wife for $50. How about$500? How about$50,000,etc. Until you reach a point where they say yes. Then you say that we now know what she is, we're just haggling over price.

Do you believe in free speech and discourse on university campuses, or do you believe that only speakers who have PC views, or at least don't have non-PC views, should be allowed to speak?

hey greenie, do you believe adams misrepresented the situation by claiming in his response to be 'banned' from speaking at um? you seem to want to hold people, like the dean, accountable for their most recent statements (i don't disagree), but then go on to make a lot of associations (i.e. his degrees from berkely) that may or may not have anything to do with the current situation. what about adams? has he issued a retraction of his response claiming to be 'banned' from speaking at um? don't know, just curious. if not, do you think he should?
 
sdk.catfish said:
I sure hope none of you complaining are one in the same as those that felt the NFL players had no right to take a knee in the so-called "Brock Coyle" thread. I guess I could go check but that seems like a lot of work. Freedom to express ones self works both ways.

Just a quick perusal of the thread you referenced doesn't really show a lot of folks proclaiming that they had/have no right to do so. Just that they disagree with the timing and/or methods employed.

Also, it's not a lot of work, especially if you're going to be calling people out. :twocents:
 
CFallsGriz said:
sdk.catfish said:
I sure hope none of you complaining are one in the same as those that felt the NFL players had no right to take a knee in the so-called "Brock Coyle" thread. I guess I could go check but that seems like a lot of work. Freedom to express ones self works both ways.

Just a quick perusal of the thread you referenced doesn't really show a lot of folks proclaiming that they had/have no right to do so. Just that they disagree with the timing and/or methods employed.

Also, it's not a lot of work, especially if you're going to be calling people out. :twocents:

:lol: mic drop. :clap: :clap:
 
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
behappp said:
Everyone seems to be ignoring one of the fundamental questions. How much money needs to be given to demand who gets to be a sponsored speaker?
Is$1M the number? 50 grand enough? 5 grand?

Reminds me of the old joke where you ask someone if you could sleep with their wife for $50. How about$500? How about$50,000,etc. Until you reach a point where they say yes. Then you say that we now know what she is, we're just haggling over price.

Do you believe in free speech and discourse on university campuses, or do you believe that only speakers who have PC views, or at least don't have non-PC views, should be allowed to speak?

hey greenie, do you believe adams misrepresented the situation by claiming in his response to be 'banned' from speaking at um? you seem to want to hold people, like the dean, accountable for their most recent statements (i don't disagree), but then go on to make a lot of associations (i.e. his degrees from berkely) that may or may not have anything to do with the current situation. what about adams? has he issued a retraction of his response claiming to be 'banned' from speaking at um? don't know, just curious. if not, do you think he should?

I am more concerned about the decision and lack of honesty by the Dean. Horrible decision. Will have negative impacts on the reputation of UM and looks like it will likely have a negative impact on funding for the Journalism school.

I am also more concerned about the Dean seeming to get caught in a bit of a lie. He first said, or said at some point in a written statement, that he had rejected the speaker because the speaker wasn't a journalist. Aside from that not being correct (e.g. 41 columns so far this year for TownHall and other things), he had cited other reasons in his emails with the donor and had said other things in an interview with a Missoula radio station. He clearly made the decision because of things that the speaker had supposedly said or done, and because he wanted "to protect students".

As for the speaker, I don't mean to defend him. However, in trying to sort through articles, interviews, letters, columns and radio show audio, it looks like the speaker was first informed of the dean's/UM's decision when contacted by the Missoula media, not by the dean, UM or the donor. So, who knows what the media told him. He then wrote his letter/column to Sheila Stearns on Oct. 19. He probably didn't have official communication from UM at that time. In the letter/column, he asks that Stearns to allow him to speak at UM. Later, Stearns does say that he can speak at UM. Remember, however, that Stearns has said that she wasn't consulted by the Dean on his initial decision. Somewhere, perhaps on the radio interview, the speaker does say that he is not being allowed to speak at the Journalism school event. Anyway, I don't have all the facts. So, it may not have been a false statement. And, even if it was, I don't find it to be nearly as big of a problem as UM and the Dean's problem and lack of honestly. Now, that is becoming a little war, it wouldn't surprise me if the speaker continues to say he was banned from UM.
 
PlayerRep said:
behappp said:
Everyone seems to be ignoring one of the fundamental questions. How much money needs to be given to demand who gets to be a sponsored speaker?
Is$1M the number? 50 grand enough? 5 grand?

Reminds me of the old joke where you ask someone if you could sleep with their wife for $50. How about$500? How about$50,000,etc. Until you reach a point where they say yes. Then you say that we now know what she is, we're just haggling over price.

Do you believe in free speech and discourse on university campuses, or do you believe that only speakers who have PC views, or at least don't have non-PC views, should be allowed to speak?
I believe in free speech and he should not be arrested because of what he says. But I don't know enough about this particular incident to know why they decided to not have him as a sponsored lecturer. I don't believe that just because you give money you can dictate who you want as a speaker.

I do know that those running the government now don't believe in free speech

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/epa-cancels-scientists-apos-climate-070300083.html

Btw-I'm done with this discussion
 
maroonandsilver said:
No one is denying Mike Adams right to speech. He can come to campus and rant away on the oval like others do .
I have been to hear many of the J-School sponsored speakers. The speakers are journalists talking about their experiences and their trade. Adams is not a journalist.

Exactly!
 
Hey! I just got an email inviting me to diverseU next week. There's going to be "meaningful dialogue" and "public discourse" at this university event...
 
PlayerRep said:
I don't know if what this guy says is or isn't "hate speech", but there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.35acf0203446

anything is hate speech if it hurts the snowflakes feelers
 
The.Real.2506 said:
PlayerRep said:
I don't know if what this guy says is or isn't "hate speech", but there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.35acf0203446

anything is hate speech if it hurts the snowflakes feelers

Absolutely ... anything is fake news if it hurts "president" Snowflake's feelers ... which happens several times a day. As for Adams, just another case of some right winger trying to buy someone access to a campus who has no business being there. And, writing for Townhall definitely does not make anyone a journalist -- quite the opposite, in most cases.
 
PlayerRep said:
argh! said:
PlayerRep said:
behappp said:
Everyone seems to be ignoring one of the fundamental questions. How much money needs to be given to demand who gets to be a sponsored speaker?
Is$1M the number? 50 grand enough? 5 grand?

Reminds me of the old joke where you ask someone if you could sleep with their wife for $50. How about$500? How about$50,000,etc. Until you reach a point where they say yes. Then you say that we now know what she is, we're just haggling over price.

Do you believe in free speech and discourse on university campuses, or do you believe that only speakers who have PC views, or at least don't have non-PC views, should be allowed to speak?

hey greenie, do you believe adams misrepresented the situation by claiming in his response to be 'banned' from speaking at um? you seem to want to hold people, like the dean, accountable for their most recent statements (i don't disagree), but then go on to make a lot of associations (i.e. his degrees from berkely) that may or may not have anything to do with the current situation. what about adams? has he issued a retraction of his response claiming to be 'banned' from speaking at um? don't know, just curious. if not, do you think he should?

I am more concerned about the decision and lack of honesty by the Dean. Horrible decision. Will have negative impacts on the reputation of UM and looks like it will likely have a negative impact on funding for the Journalism school.

I am also more concerned about the Dean seeming to get caught in a bit of a lie. He first said, or said at some point in a written statement, that he had rejected the speaker because the speaker wasn't a journalist. Aside from that not being correct (e.g. 41 columns so far this year for TownHall and other things), he had cited other reasons in his emails with the donor and had said other things in an interview with a Missoula radio station. He clearly made the decision because of things that the speaker had supposedly said or done, and because he wanted "to protect students".

As for the speaker, I don't mean to defend him. However, in trying to sort through articles, interviews, letters, columns and radio show audio, it looks like the speaker was first informed of the dean's/UM's decision when contacted by the Missoula media, not by the dean, UM or the donor. So, who knows what the media told him. He then wrote his letter/column to Sheila Stearns on Oct. 19. He probably didn't have official communication from UM at that time. In the letter/column, he asks that Stearns to allow him to speak at UM. Later, Stearns does say that he can speak at UM. Remember, however, that Stearns has said that she wasn't consulted by the Dean on his initial decision. Somewhere, perhaps on the radio interview, the speaker does say that he is not being allowed to speak at the Journalism school event. Anyway, I don't have all the facts. So, it may not have been a false statement. And, even if it was, I don't find it to be nearly as big of a problem as UM and the Dean's problem and lack of honestly. Now, that is becoming a little war, it wouldn't surprise me if the speaker continues to say he was banned from UM.

fair enough.
 
Fat Bruno said:
The.Real.2506 said:
PlayerRep said:
I don't know if what this guy says is or isn't "hate speech", but there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.35acf0203446

anything is hate speech if it hurts the snowflakes feelers

As for Adams, just another case of some right winger trying to buy someone access to a campus who has no business being there.

Right, because anyone to the right of Lenin has no business speaking on a college campus these days.
 
AZGrizFan said:
Fat Bruno said:
The.Real.2506 said:
PlayerRep said:
I don't know if what this guy says is or isn't "hate speech", but there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/?utm_term=.35acf0203446

anything is hate speech if it hurts the snowflakes feelers

As for Adams, just another case of some right winger trying to buy someone access to a campus who has no business being there.

Right, because anyone to the right of Lenin has no business speaking on a college campus these days.

He can speak all he wants, but no one has an obligation to invite him or pay him for it.
 
Back
Top