Thanks for your thoughtful, but triggered, input. lol
Wow! Step back from the ledge.
If we have learned anything from the past 5 years, it's that was the media portrays as "true" isn't always true, and what the media claims are lies are sometimes truths.
You might remember in the first few months of Daniels' tenure when some freshmen engineering students made a music video about Purdue engineering that went viral. It was cute and hilarious. Some left-wing faculty members immediately labelled the video and the freshmen who made it as racists and anti-women because it did not show diversity. They claimed that Daniels making a cameo appearance proved their charge that he was racist. They wrote letters to the Exponent and the Lafayette J&C with these claims. Interesting that the video had women and Asians, which was completely ignored in the radical left's description. If these insane faculty members were making these statements publicly, imagine what they were doing in the classroom.
So who is the arbiter of "truth"? And are those arbiters justified to violently stop you from stating what you believe to be true if they think it's a lie?
And the other well-documented example is the few radical faculty members who tried to block the Chick-fil-A from campus because they disagreed with the founder's religious beliefs. Even though thousands of students and faculty members approved of -- and petitioned for -- the restaurant, the leftists whined that their voices weren't being heard. Daniels and the administration responded to them every time they whined. So they were heard, they were simply informed that the vast majority would not be silenced by a fringe group.
Abu, I know what you are saying, but any logical person knew that media has be lying WAY before the last 5 years. (I know you know this) It's important to teach children that news exists to sell itself (fear mongering, etc). It doesn't matter if it is right, left, middle. Consider the motive of the source and think for yourself on what is true, cross referencing with as much reliable neutral sources you can. Whenever my kids bring me a piece of news and ask me what I think, I first ask them why they think the author of the piece wrote it the way they did.
100%
That's why we have libel and slander laws. If I want to stand in the street and yell "Covid can't hurt me" at the top of my lungs, that's my right. I'm not hurting anyone.
Right, except what we view as "facts" regularly changes. For example, it was viewed as fact earlier this year that the lab leak origin story had no merit and was only propagated due race-based fear mongering. Now it is widely seen, regardless of political affiliation, as the most likely source of COVID.
I agree with this. But when a crazy leftist realizes that they are in the wrong, based on facts, they will respond with, "You have your truth and I have mine." I have seen this argument used on this board. That is mysterious to me. You can't reason with people who do not have the ability to reason.
none of that was argued.
What an ivory tower elitist view of the world. Those who have completed university work should be able to figure out what is true and not true. "But there are many more who have not completed that work and are led to believe what they are fed." I'm guessing you're young. Hopefully being exposed to the great unwashed as you go through life will show you that those poor uneducated fools understand a lot more about life's truths than a whole university of "thinkers". Expose yourself to a variety of people. It's healthy for us all.
Ah, but now you have to define "hurting". If someone says they are offended by someone's words, does that mean they are "hurt" by the words? And therefore people should not be allowed to say those words. Many on the left think so.
Once again, it’s a paraphrase. The legality aspect is that your freedom of speech ends where it can be harmful to others. It isn’t a free for all and let each individual figure it out as you were inferring above. So my point and it still stands is that although you say that “but” eliminates everything that comes before is false. There is a “but” and then Supreme Court has laid out what those “buts” are very clearly. My second point is that the First Amendment only prevents the government from limiting free speech except that which is outlined by the Supreme Court and that in the real world, there is no free for all as speech is limited in almost every aspect of ones daily life.
Once again, the "yelling fire" trope has no bearing whatsoever to the point.
You use the terms "hurt" and "harm". What do those terms mean, in your mind?
Or more appropriate for the current context, why should doctors who use science to challenge mask and vaccine mandates, or alternative treatments for Covid be silenced? The left thinks they should, even though their arguments are science-based and are not opinion.
Because the left thinks the scientific evaluation by a doctor or scientist that differs from the left-wing world view is "hurtful" or "harmful". This language of "hurt" and "harm" is simply an excuse to prevent the public from hearing the facts.
"speech is violence" ... is one of the dumbest arguments in the history of mankind.
During the 2016 campaign, students at Ball State were claiming that "Vote Trump" signs were hate speech. I notice Ball State did not appear on the list of schools upholding free speech.
Maybe the truth commission considered it an "untruth"...
