Tenn. Rep: ISIS should be allowed to recruit at state universities


#1

Are people really this ignorant?
Free speech now covers recruiting for terrorists organizations?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) – A state lawmaker from Knoxville said Wednesday that ISIS should be allowed to recruit at the University of Tennessee and other state universities during discussion about a bill protecting free speech on college campuses.
The bill, called the “Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act,” is sponsored by Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) and would require the governing boards of Tennessee higher education institutions to adopt a policy on freedom of speech and expression.

Tenn. Rep: ISIS should be allowed to recruit at state universities | WKRN News 2


#2

Yes, it DOES. Free speech is free speech…even speech that you may find abhorrent.


#3

Good grief, the guy’s an R- not even at the Federal level- and he’s still promoting this crap…


#4

I don’t think it ever did. It wasn’t uncommon for communities to have laws banning cursing and verbal obscenities in public. The free speech granted by the first amendment was to protect people from prosecution for criticizing the government. Now it’s “anything goes.” That’s not free speech, that’s license.


#5

I don’t think free speech would cover recruiting for a known criminal organization.

Then again, just let them recruit and put some surveillance on them and people they recruit.


#6

Perhaps “communities” did have such laws, but that doesn’t mean they were constitutional. What it means is that nobody really challenged such laws because do-gooders decided they were “for the common good” of the community.


#7

Reminds me of “obscenity” laws.


#8

I don’t think the Founding Fathers ever considered sedition as protected. As to local communities, yes it was constitutional; the 1st Amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no law" etc.; laws made at the state or municipal level are not made by Congress. Some people cite the 14th Amendment here, but the 14th is quite vague about what it is addressing.


#9

I think sedition was always protected under the Constitution, and was vehemently opposed by many Founding Fathers, in particular the main author of the Constitution James Madison and the author of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson. As an example, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 were never struck down by a Supreme Court because the principle of judicial review did not exist yet, but were violently opposed by Jefferson and Madison, with Jefferson even suggesting that Kentucky secede in protest of the legislation.

However, purposive interpretation or doctrinalism might suggest otherwise. The Espionage Act of 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940 were never struck down in Court, and prosecution of speech that was harmful to the government was tacitly accepted.

I, for one, am a First Amendment absolutist. Once we begin cracking down on speech that ISIS, we have set the precedent that it is constitutional to deny first amendment rights to enemies of the state.

This is dangerous.

The Founding Fathers feared above all tyrannical governments. I share this fear, at least theoretically.

It is not hard to imagine a scenario in which the government, perhaps influenced by desire for power, despotism, or the clamoring of the majority, choose to designate American citizens enemies of the government and thus abridge their constitutional rights. Indeed this has already happened (see the case of Anwar al-Alwaki, and others).

From there, it is only a little harder to imagine a government, motivated by the same urges, designates American citizens fighting for righteous causes enemies of the state, and thus abridge constitutional rights. For example, those fighting for firearm rights under the Second Amendment or civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment might be seen as enemies of the state, and thus denied First Amendment, or more dangerously, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights.

With this specter looming, I choose constitutional absolutism. We must fight against the infringement on our rights at all costs. Too many despots have used “enemies of the state” or “security” as excuses to gain the acquiescence of their citizenry to repression. We must remain vigilant, so that this cannot let that happen in our country.

That said, I’d like to make clear that I do not believe there exist any vile villains vigorously vanguarding vigorous violations of volition in government. I don’t see anyone plotting any of these moves. But it is better to remain uncompromising now, so if later the threat materializes, we are ready with precedent and custom to fight it.


#10

[quote=“silliessis, post:1, topic:48467”]
Free speech now covers recruiting for terrorists organizations?
[/quote]Yes. It also covers (or should cover) recruiting for neo-Nazi groups, the KKK, the statement that “homosexuality is a sin,” Donald Trump, socialist policy prescriptions, “Mein Kampf,” violent skinhead groups, politicians, hate speech, commercial speech, “The Communist Manifesto,” blasphemy, treason, Ayn Rand, puppies and kittens, racism, pro-skittles literature, Noam Chomsky, my city council, etc.

[quote=“Susanna, post:4, topic:48467”]
I don’t think it ever did. It wasn’t uncommon for communities to have laws banning cursing and verbal obscenities in public. The free speech granted by the first amendment was to protect people from prosecution for criticizing the government. Now it’s “anything goes.” That’s not free speech, that’s license.
[/quote]Still trying to figure out where alleged boundary between freedom and license is and who gets to decide.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:5, topic:48467”]
I don’t think free speech would cover recruiting for a known criminal organization.
[/quote]Why not? Of course, they use enough of it, and you might just build a case against the organization.

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:5, topic:48467”]
Then again, just let them recruit and put some surveillance on them and people they recruit.
[/quote]Yeah. See? An upside to free speech you don’t like.

[quote=“cynicaloptimist, post:9, topic:48467”]
with Jefferson even suggesting that Kentucky secede in protest of the legislation.
[/quote]I really like that guy. Big fan of state secession here. Now, given some of the viewpoints around here, why is no one calling for my arrest due to my pro-treason comment?


#11

I would assume, though I don’t know, that recruiting for ISIS would constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime. It would be like asking people on campus if they want to rob a bank with you.


#12

I did mention above how the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" etc.

I’m curious as to why you regard the denial of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments as “more dangerous” than the denial of the 2nd.

Not sure exactly, but I imagine it ties in (at least in some cases) with the constitutional provisions against treason.


#13

[quote=“Trekky0623, post:11, topic:48467”]
I would assume, though I don’t know, that recruiting for ISIS would constitute a conspiracy to commit a crime. It would be like asking people on campus if they want to rob a bank with you.
[/quote]Well, yes. And somehow people think this is not protected? I think if you’re investigating and you can get your ears on it, it’s evidence; but nowhere in the First Amendment does it say “except when planning to rob a bank.”

Think about this: You and I meet, drink some coffee and yap about different things. Finally we start talking about how we go about pulling off a heist, like in “Ocean’s 11.” We’re talking about robbing a bank. Should we be picked up and charged with “conspiracy to commit a crime”? What if we were serious? We start planning this thing, but in the end we back out. Did we really commit a crime with our speech? As far as I’m concerned putting people away for talking about committing a crime before they commit a crime is draconian.

[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:12, topic:48467”]
I did mention above how the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" etc.

I’m curious as to why you regard the denial of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments as “more dangerous” than the denial of the 2nd.

Not sure exactly, but I imagine it ties in (at least in some cases) with the constitutional provisions against treason.
[/quote]Not sure what obscenity would have to do with treason, and I’m a big fan of treason if it’s done right for the right reasons. In fact, it’s one of our basic human rights. Nope. It’s a basic human duty.

I’m a big fan of decent speech too and not nasty licentious speech. I just don’t see anything in the First Amendment defining licentiousness or an exception for it. Assuming licentiousness is what we’re really talking about here, it in and of itself may be an actual thing, but it’s nothing more than a kind of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment.

As for “Congress,” we all pretty much agree it binds states too, either by the 14th Amendment or by state constitutions. My state matches up to the federal government on this. No matter how you slice, you’ve got a right to speak in Oregon – until you step out of your free speech zone anyway. Then they do what they do and somehow think they can regulate speech.


#14

[quote=“Rightwing_Nutjob, post:10, topic:48467”]
Now, given some of the viewpoints around here, why is no one calling for my arrest due to my pro-treason comment?
[/quote]White privilege :grin:


#15

That’s gotta be it… Or maybe no one’s taking me seriously, which maybe they should. I could be very dangerous. I am currently most in favor of breaking up the United States into its constituent counties, creating a vast number of sovereign county-states.


#16

I thought the original free-speech issue here was in regard to sedition, not obscenity.

And I don’t agree that the 14th binds states in this matter; it was worded far too vaguely.


#17

I did mention above how the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law” etc.

I’m curious as to why you regard the denial of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments as “more dangerous” than the denial of the 2nd.

Yeah, I think you and I were making just about the same point.

I was saying that the Amendments around due process were more important than the First Amendment. This is perhaps not true, but I reasoned that those Amendments restrict the very machinery of oppression (imprisonment, search and seizure, punishment, torture, sham trials etc.), while the First Amendment only restricts the government from using that machinery to oppress certain things. I’m not too sure about that reasoning at the moment, but at the time that’s what I was thinking.


#18

The 2nd Amendment is the recourse of the people when the government tramples the others, which is why Obama has unwittingly been the best gun salesman in the country. It’s one thing to tell people they can’t have guns; it’s another to try to take them away…


#19

Usually, Susanna brings up license around obscenity and moral issues. It matters not to me. The principle is identical.

And my own state binds my own state. Additionally, the courts seem to think the 14th binds the states. It worked in Heller too. But if we can’t have it, I’ll happily support an amendment binding states to the Bill of Rights – at least till I complete my treasonous plan to break up the United States into its constituent counties as sovereign nation-states.


#20

Easy answer is to declare War on ISIS, then arrest the people for treason.