I’m saying that once a public university allows students to invite speakers to speak on campus, it has created a designated public forum, and that it cannot ban certain people from speaking in the forum because it doesn’t like what they have to say.

This is absolutely 100% false, and you’ve gotten 6 people to star your wrong comment. When a state institution makes funding generally available (which the university has by allowing student groups to bring speakers to campus), it cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia.

Fascists referred to Antifa, as a (hyperbolic) reference to those who declare that they can set the boundaries of public discourse through the use of violence.

Oh look, you’re making a claim about how he can exercise his free speech, and hilariously and wrongly think that you can do so by banning him from being paid for speaking. Newsflash: the government can’t do that

He should be shunned and ignored. If he’s ACTUALLY calling for people to be threatened and harassed, and it’s resulting in people being threatened and harassed soon after, he should be stopped. Of course, “threaten” and “harass” have actual definitions beyond whatever people feel like they mean

No, the most important thing to remember is that shaming him is the approriate response in a free country, but that a state institution singling him out for for deplatforming is unconstitutional, and that a bunch of cretins dressing up in masks and assaulting random people because they don’t like him is fascism, even…

Yup that’s right, but it’s even better. In this order attempting to punish sanctuary cities, THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF WHAT A SANCTUARY CITY IS.

That’s simply not true. When a university makes funds generally available, it can’t discriminate based on viewpoint. See Rosenberger v. University of Virginia.

I was ready to call this out as some truly incompetent defense work. Guess not?

Maybe? I’m not clear if the school pays for the speaker or whether the student group does. That being said, even if the school pays, it can’t viewpoint discriminate when it makes funds generally available for student groups to use to invite speakers

Great gif, but the whole point of what’s going on here is that it looks like the school didn’t take every step it could have to prevent people who don’t like the speech from endangering by public safety

They can establish content/viewpoint-neutral parameters to ensure safety. That being said, they can’t simply shut down a speech because other people might not like it, and might respond violently. Shutting down a speech can only be the last resort when there is no other option to ensure safety.

UC Berkeley is a public university, and is therefore a part of the state of California. It is bound by the First Amendment

......no, they can’t. Government entities can’t burden or treat certain speakers worse simply because they don’t like their message. Obviously

This is sorta right but mainly wrong. Ann Coulter doesn’t have a right to demand that Berkeley give her a platform to speak. HOWEVER, once Berkeley has established that student groups generally may invite speakers to speak on school property, the school may not deny her the right to speak when a student group…

Well my original point is that it’s been a bipartisan escalation, and it has. And no, it has been clearly lopsided. Right now the republicans have pushed the envelope further, and that will last until the next time the democrats take control of the presidency or the senate and something even more unprecedented…

I wouldn’t describe the reaction to Brandeis as a response to his ideology or judicial philosophy, but rather as a manifestation of antisemitism.

The refusal to hold a hearing for Garland was obviously unprecented, but refusing to vote on lower court nominees was not; the democrats held up a bunch of Bush’s lower court nominees. Republicans threatened to use the nuclear option, but the Gang of 14 compromise averted that.

I’m....not sure what any of this has to do with anything, considering that these things aren’t about Supreme Court nominees, which is what we were talking about.

Well that was a mature response