Thus I appreciate this thoughtful critique of some actions that the present administration is taking that arguably are unconstitutional transgressions of the First Amendment. These are not the usual suspects for whom that administration can do no right but ever wrong; rather, they're supporters more or less who are pointing out that some of this is over the line. Not all of it, though, and they try to draw out where the lines really are or ought to be.
3 comments:
I believe in free speech too.
But when the government pays hundreds of millions for it, is it really free anymore? Paid Speech would be a more accurate description.
My position is all these Universities can do what they like, just don't ask me to pay for it. Hillsdale would be a good example for them.
I don't think it's a free speech issue. At all. It's more akin to a contract law case. When you accept the privilege of being granted a green card, you agree to terms- some of which might well impinge on your rights. But you agreed to that in exchange for the benefit. It's not unlike agreeing to join the armed forces and being subject as a result of accepting the (admittedly low) pay, that you can be prosecuted under the UCMJ for things that were you not in the military would be perfectly within your rights.
Maybe I'm wrong in this thinking, but it makes sense to me.
For what it's worth, I think a similar argument applies to the Georgetown case- they accept the money, they get the strings that are attached too. It's not like *requiring* speech is any less control of speech, and that's currently what happens with that money. If that's legal, so is this.
Post a Comment