Imagine you’re a professor who disagrees with your university’s indigenous land acknowledgement, so you write your own as a joke — and then your school investigates you for “unacceptable” and “inappropriate” speech.
I'm curious as to the dropping of the mandatory discipline section. I would like to see serious consequences for those preventing a speaker being heard , or preventing students from attending. I'd include the possibility of suspension. Without out clear and enforceable standards for behavior, I'm unclear on what this accomplishes. I need a better understanding of how this would work.
I am also curious to know how the original and the final language differ. I like the change that protects both directions of speech about specific topics. Like you, I am curious about the sentencing section.
From the news articles I've seen there was or is language about expulsion and charges for blocking view of speakers with signs, and disruption caused by timing mass walkouts to when a speaker is presenting. Those are both variations of the heckler's veto so that makes sense as a protection, but the mandatory expulsion might be what was removed? Though I don't trust the news sources so, would prefer a clear answer.
I wonder whose bright idea it was to call this the "Charlie Kirk" law. Kirk was a love-him-or-hate-him figure, so attaching his name to this bill is instantly going to put off a substantial number of people who would otherwise support the law's mandates.
I'm curious as to the dropping of the mandatory discipline section. I would like to see serious consequences for those preventing a speaker being heard , or preventing students from attending. I'd include the possibility of suspension. Without out clear and enforceable standards for behavior, I'm unclear on what this accomplishes. I need a better understanding of how this would work.
I am also curious to know how the original and the final language differ. I like the change that protects both directions of speech about specific topics. Like you, I am curious about the sentencing section.
From the news articles I've seen there was or is language about expulsion and charges for blocking view of speakers with signs, and disruption caused by timing mass walkouts to when a speaker is presenting. Those are both variations of the heckler's veto so that makes sense as a protection, but the mandatory expulsion might be what was removed? Though I don't trust the news sources so, would prefer a clear answer.
Agreed. So often there is no cost for blatant violation of freedom of speech.
Maybe a decent bill but naming it after a fascist is really dumb.
I wonder whose bright idea it was to call this the "Charlie Kirk" law. Kirk was a love-him-or-hate-him figure, so attaching his name to this bill is instantly going to put off a substantial number of people who would otherwise support the law's mandates.