Most folks IME holding libertarian right or fiscal conservative views…albeit the more extreme purists among them would agree exactly with what PG stated:
No specifics on restrictions, exceptions, etc.
If one takes PG’s words at face value, then it basically boils down to so long as the investment generates the greatest returns for the investing investor/institution, who cares how they go about making their money or possible moral/ethical dubiousness of the environments/societies they may be operating in/benefiting from.
In fact, some fiscal conservative/libertarian oriented economics graduates I knew/worked with have argued that any restriction which wasn’t strongly focused on maximizing return on investment is the greatest wrong.
Thus, she and they would be on common ground regarding that point assuming her words are to be taken as they were written…
When I was a student in Canada in the early 1980s, there was a big push to boycott, sanction, disinvest, etc. anything to do with South Africa. At the same time Lech Walesa was emerging as a leader of Solidarity in Poland, and there was a big push (from the same people) to buy Polish stuff (like shoes, as I remember), because it would help provide jobs for Polish laborers. I tried asking why buying South African stuff wasn’t similarly desirable, to help provide jobs to South African laborers, but I never got any sensible answer.
The cool thing is that I’m a complex individual. I can have some views which are libertarian, some which are conservative, and some which are liberal / progressive. I don’t need to be a sheep who blindly follows one ideology for all things. Amazing how I defy your stereotypes, cobrat.
@circuitrider I don’t think we have any such agreement. I think the BJL used bullying tactics this time around to get their way, disregarding the fact that reasonable folks on the other side could have a different opinion that did not match their perspective. They tried to force their view on an entire community because they strongly felt that they held the moral high ground on the argument. When somebody uses intimidation and harassment to express their opinion in ways that effects the debate climate in a public space, they should be called out on it. In my opinion
The BJL through their actions displayed scant respect for the rights of other Princeton stakeholders. They wanted their “views and opinions” exalted, held higher and more sacrosanct than the views of other students, alums, employees, trustees etc.
For this they should be condemned. Not for wanting to remove Wilson’s name from Princeton. That is their right to advocate. But for trying to force their “unique perspective” on a community that is probably unwilling to go that far. None of their fundamental rights were being violated. They’re is no fundamental right “not to be offended” in our Constitution.
Most folks IME holding libertarian right or fiscal conservative views…albeit the more extreme purists among them would agree exactly with what PG stated:"
So what? It’s not a compelling argument.
If Hitler said he liked bread, and I say I like bread, that doesn’t mean I agree with Hitler on everything.
The world is not “upper middle class white snobby racist conservatives who were Greek in college” vs “ethnic down-to-earth cool progressives / liberals.” People of sophistication understand that there are nuances. I’m very liberal, and yet I support the death penalty. Go figure! I’m complex. Try it sometime.
Well, we may never convince each other, but since you are up so bright and early, I will try to unpack your argument piece by piece.
Query: Do you hold Right to Lifers to the same standard every time they yell and scream at a pregnant single mother on her way to a health clinic? If so, we may have some grounds for agreement. But, since I fear your argument may be ideologically driven, I don’t hold out much hope.
Blame The Framers for that one. The First Amendment doesn’t regulate when, where and how I display respect for others. You want to wear an offensive Halloween costume? Yell offensive remarks at women? Glorify someone who used the power of the United States presidency to nullify hundreds of civil service exams, all for the sake of segregation? You go ahead. The Constitution protects you. But, it also protects my right to say, “Shame on you.”
I’m laughing @hebegebe on this one. If it were up to him, investment banking firms would be blacklisting (no pun intended) the names of every member of the BJL when at the tender age of twenty-something they have successfully negotiated a contract with the president of Princeton. Vulture capitalists everywhere should be out headhunting for these kids right now.
I know I am not @darth1289, but this is the part of what I will lazily refer to as the progressive argument that has always troubled me. Assume that everything you wrote above is true. Why is it troubling for others to opine that the protesters acted like idiots? Or is that part of the “true meaning of free speech” the Princeton protesters sought to educate their instructors and fellow students about?
Not sure where you got my “ideological leanings”, but I suspect you are really off-base. I’m pro-choice. I would however defend the other side’s right to protest outside abortion clinics, display gory photographs etc, as long as they don’t block access to clinics and advocate violence to promote their beliefs. I don’t think I agree with them, but they have their rights, as long as they don’t violate mine.
I think we are saying the same thing here. Again, I don’t have the problem with the BJL opining or even trying to convince others of their opinion. They don’t have to respect their opponent, although human decency would dictate that you respect another human being even if you disagree with them. That’s their right. But the minute they use intimidation tactics to win the argument, that’s where my toleration ends. Again, they could have held a prayer vigil, protested outside the offices of the President, circulated a petition, written to the school paper, etc etc. all legitimate ways to express your views. But they did not do this nor stop there. They did not do these things, because they really don’t care for a debate. They want a decision in their favor, Everything else including due process be damned. They insisted that they want “Wilson gone”. They want their views imposed on others. And if others disagree, they want to disrupt the proceedings. Doing this when none of their rights are being violated is just usurping others’ rights. They don’t have that right and the Constitution nor the framers give them that right.
What proceedings are you referring to? It seems to me that a huge part of the problem at Princeton, just as it is at every other university I can think of, is that there is no clear due process mechanism for deciding something which no one but the board of trustees can actually effectuate. What I’m beginning to sense in your comments has less to do with The First Amendment than with sour grapes that the protesters were simply better communicators, better managers of a complex coalition, and better negotiators than the opposition…
“Query: Do you hold Right to Lifers to the same standard every time they yell and scream at a pregnant single mother on her way to a health clinic? If so, we may have some grounds for agreement. But, since I fear your argument may be ideologically driven, I don’t hold out much hope.”
Not Darth, but I’ll take this on. I’m very staunchly pro-choice and donate heavily to PParenthood. I also think pro-lifers have every right to protest peacefully outside clinics, plant crosses on the lawns of their churches, pass out materials, as long as they are not physically blocking women from entering clinics, threatening workers, or disturbing the peace in other ways (such as blocking city streets).
That’s what’s known as freedom. I as a pro-choicer have no “right” not to see / hear the messages of pro-lifers. I’m committed to my views, so what would I be afraid of?
darth1289 I agree with circuitrider completely. This really has nothing to do with first amendment rights, It has to do with advocacy. I guess maybe my sensors are bad too. It sure appears that you are irritated that the protesters were at least partially successful
It is possible to violate principles of free speech without violating the First Amendment to the US Constitution. That is why, for example, it’s possible to talk about free speech in other countries.
Many democracies, including some of our stoutest allies, manage to function without a written Constitution. For them, the concept of freedom of speech is something they have to revisit every time they pass a law about something they don’t like. France’s prohibition of women from wearing traditional muslim headgear in public school is one such example of an area where few Americans would ever even think of treading. In Great Britain, it is far more difficult to write muckraking articles about public officials because there is no libel exception carved out for newspapers making honest mistakes in covering people who essentially make their living by appearing constantly in the news. And, Germany has no compunction at all about prohibiting hate speech. FIRE would go out of business in most of these countries because there’d be nothing for them to write about.
Right there with you. Hold your signs, but don’t physically touch me or stop me from going in. I have zero problem with that.
However. people yelling at me going into PP, while certainly their 1st A right, is IMO “bullying” behavior. Protected, yes, but I personally don’t approve.
I would put that in the same category as the Dartmouth protesters calling out specific students in the library that weren’t participating in the protest, but not in the same category as the Yale kid who was yelling at her college master/dean/whatever.
Was anyone at Princeton yelling at anyone else? I hadn’t seen that.
Right, and context matters. And other factors. For example, if I screamed at my boss like Princeton girl did, my First Amendment rights remain intact. I will, however, be sacked on the spot.
The problem is the tactics of the pro lifers has lead to intimidation threats and even murders. There was show on last night I believe on either CNN or MSNBC about this. It is a direct attack on womens right to make their own health choices, These same philosophically bent people are now attacking the BJL at Princeton whose tactics are tame compared to theirs
