(10-18-2026, 04:25 PM)SteveFoerster Wrote: Yes, if by that you mean that they care about their own views being protected and don't care about opposing views being protected.

Politics should be about principles, or at least about policies, but instead all too often it's about cheering for the home team and booing the other team.

(10-19-2026, 11:32 AM)wow Wrote: I tend to distrust polls like this because of perception vs. fact. Often, people talk about their free speech rights being violated when, in fact, they have been and continue to be allowed to speak freely. What they're really identifying as impediments to speech are things like:

- people disagreeing with them publicly and "winning" the argument
- people telling them their speech is stupid (rude, but generally permissible at universities unless it escalates to harassment or targeting)
- consequences for failing to do acceptable academic work (following assignment rubrics, supporting one's arguments with evidence and citations, etc.)
- consequences for being a jerk and/or violating non-speech related rules while engaged in free speech (e.g., trespassing, vandalism, interfering with others' freedom of movement and use of school resources, harassing those who disagree with them or they perceive as disagreeing with them)
- anger that the administration is not acceding to demands (confusion between the right to free speech and the non-right to dictate how others speak or act)

(10-19-2026, 12:26 PM)NotJoeBiden Wrote:

(10-19-2026, 11:32 AM)wow Wrote: I tend to distrust polls like this because of perception vs. fact. Often, people talk about their free speech rights being violated when, in fact, they have been and continue to be allowed to speak freely. What they're really identifying as impediments to speech are things like:

- people disagreeing with them publicly and "winning" the argument
- people telling them their speech is stupid (rude, but generally permissible at universities unless it escalates to harassment or targeting)
- consequences for failing to do acceptable academic work (following assignment rubrics, supporting one's arguments with evidence and citations, etc.)
- consequences for being a jerk and/or violating non-speech related rules while engaged in free speech  (e.g., trespassing, vandalism, interfering with others' freedom of movement and use of school resources, harassing those who disagree with them or they perceive as disagreeing with them)
- anger that the administration is not acceding to demands (confusion between the right to free speech and the non-right to dictate how others speak or act)

I believe this conflation is purposeful. It muddies the water and proved cover for government restrictions of free speech under the guise of protecting free speech. one such is the government push to expel and deport students for exercising their first amendment:

https://www.highereddive.com/news/trump-admin-reignites-court-battle-over-student-deportations-based-on-speec/833151/

(10-19-2026, 05:49 PM)wow Wrote: Maybe? I'm not an expert in every single case. I do know in some of these cases, there was evidence of the students doing things that are criminal to some degree ("e.g., trespassing, vandalism, interfering with others' freedom of movement ..., harassing those who disagree with them or they perceive as disagreeing with them") and therefore would be grounds for revocation under prior administrations as well. I also remember a lawsuit charging Columbia University SJP (including members with student visas) of coordinating with Hamas (which is illegal given that Hamas is a designated terror organization) on social media campaigns and having prior knowledge of some Hamas actions--although IDK what came of it.

Do I agree with the way this administration has handled things with student visas? No. Does Trump sometimes say he's deporting students based on speech when the case is actually based on criminal activity or genuine visa violations? Yes. Is that stupid and unhelpful? Yes. 

Did you bring up a potentially bad example of free speech restrictions on campus, given that the restrictions aren't campus-specific and non-citizens don't have free-speech rights in the first place? Yes.