Fox news is known for creatively editing these “man-on-the-street” videos. The fact that it is shot at such a distance and the faces of the people are blurred makes me think that the audio track is likely not matching the video track. People could have been cheerfully signing a petition against climate change or for better food in the cafeteria.
If that were the case, by now some of them should have come forward to clarify what happened. At the very least, it likely shows that even smart kids don’t read what they’re signing before they sign.
Actually, freedom of speech is a liberal concept. So, yeah, what makes you think that the signers of this petition are “liberal”?
You got anything other than media matters articles for the statement that Fox is known for creative editing? I saw a couple articles from 2009 from media matters and think progress about crowd switching at a Palin book signing. Is there anything else?
And why do so many of you fail to admit what is right in front of your eyes? There are people on college campuses who do not believe in the First Amendment. They say it when they harass and attack conservative speakers, or attack pro life demonstrators. They said it directly over the last few weeks in threatening reporters and seeking reeducation over the “true” meaning of free speech. Now there is another video. Look at the speech codes and trigger warnings. What exactly do you think that all means?
True, I guess this could all be a massive shell game by conservatives trying to make liberals look looney. But do you really want to bet on it?
Freedom of speech may be a “liberal” concept, although I am not sure how you would establish that, especially in the world of the last twenty or thirty years.
But the idea that the government should have no right to tell you what you can say or with whom you can associate is manifestly a conservative concept.
@brantly it’s a liberal concept in the sense that it’s a classical liberal concept and classical liberalism is much more libertarian. These new liberals are more authoritarian leftists and polling has shown liberal/democrats or millennials are significantly more likely to oppose full free speech. In fact, a majority of my generation supports repealing the concept of free speech now.
@realtwinkle Why do you think a majority of your “generation supports repealing the concept of free speech”? A majority?? If this is true, God help us. Somehow, in all our striving to turn out kids who are the brightest and best, we have failed at passing down our Liberal (with a capital L) values to the next generation.
@Zekesima A majority of millennials have been shown, now, to support banning offensive speech that is termed hate speech which would effectively repeal the first amendment. I understand people not liking the idea of somebody saying ignorant things but you can’t ban everything you don’t like. It’s getting ridiculous. We are the generation where everybody gets a participation trophy and it seems to be showing here. We think we can make some kind of utopia and reality doesn’t have any constraints on us. We support banning whatever we don’t like as a generation. Unfortunately, the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson has turned into the statist liberalism of college activists who want to ban what they don’t like. That’s enough of a digression.
Even our second President had a problem appreciating free speech (in his butthurt over the nasty things his opponents said about him) so the current struggle is not new. But we who understand the importance of this protection must speak up whenever ignorant citizens start jabbering about shutting the 1st down.
@Zekesima true John Adams was a sleazy politician in that regard and showed why George Washington didn’t want political parties to exist. Anyways, you’re right that this problem has been around and we just have to fight for these fundamental American values.
Yes, I have seen lack of support for freedom of speech/press/religion as well among many people in the US, whether well-educated or not well-educated, or left-leaning or right-leaning. This includes people who apparently believe that the existence of people spouting noxious opinions on (for example) a college campus necessarily means institutional support for such noxious opinions (so therefore, according to them, the college must take steps against such spouting of noxious opinions).
Fun fact! Repealing the first amendment* wouldn’t take away freedom of speech (among other things), it would merely empower the government to do so.
Of course, some might well argue that that’s all the same, but there are a lot of other nations out there where there isn’t an explicit constitutional right to the same sorts of things you get in the US Bill of Rights, but such rights are enshrined in statute and/or respected anyway. (Not always in precisely the same form as they are in the US, of course, but I don’t know that anyone here would make the claim the the US has the only right way of doing any of these things.)
Well, that’s why you’d never have to fear that I’d sign a petition in favor of repealing the First.
@dfbdfb, very true. That was my initial point, albeit inartfully made.
Around here, people need signatures to get initiatives onto the ballot for popular referendums. I sometimes sign such ballot petitions, even for causes or candidates I won’t vote for, if I feel the issue deserves a hearing. You have to be registered in the town.
Does Connecticut have such a thing? Because if so, the clips are so strongly edited, we don’t see if he goes through a spiel about “getting it on the ballot,” and “are you a registered voter?” And I’d expect well educated college students to know that a ballot initiative won’t overturn the first amendment. Nor will a petition.
Would you consider the ACLU a “liberal” organization?
I asked my daughter about this (she’s a Yale undergrad). She said students may have thought it was a joke. She doesn’t believe any significant number of Yale students would actually support repeal of the First Amendment.
Really, they shouldn’t have to try THAT hard. 
@brantly they’re modern liberals, not classical liberals. They support a lot of government involvement in certain issues, the overriding of the 10th amendment, and they aren’t constitutionalists. I wouldn’t call myself a fan of them.
You are still assuming the story is true as reported by a self-described satirist?