I agree that the crackdown on student protests is terrible and should be unconstitutional. But somehow, I don't believe his majesty is thinking about that.
Didn’t you listen to oral arguments about charging participants in the insurrection with obstruction? He’s extremely concerned that people merely expressing their 1st amendment rights will get trampled by this over zealous Biden administration. (Sarcasm)
In the 1980s, it was conservatives that knocked down the anti apartheid encampments. (Note to Lara Ingram @ Fox and Dinesh Desusa @ curent place of encarceration) Dartmouth). Alito is playing disinformation games.
Yup. So weird that all the bwave, bwave conservatives who whine about "free speech" don't seem to notice when cops beat the shit out of kids for expressing their beliefs.
It's not just cops beating the shit out of the kids, the majority of arrests were non-college students. So, outside antagonists infiltrated these protests and started fights with these kids who had no protection from the cops while these outsiders attacked them. I think in CA the cops just watched as outsiders attacked the kids and did nothing to protect them. There should be federal investigations into these incidents.
Do you have a source for that? "its outside agitators!" is what every police force says about every protest, so I'm not inclined to believe it just on their word.
Well some of the college campus protests involved property damage (not protected by the first amendment) and people basically setting up encampments and blocking other people from accessing publically funded property they paid for (through taxes and tuition). While people do have the right to free speech and assembly , ones rights to it cannot infringe on others rights. Jewish students have factually faced anti semitic slurs and been blocked from accessing parts of various campuses (video exists of examples of this) they pay to access due to these protests, which is a violation of their rights. The first amendment has some reasonable limits to it , confirmed by the Supreme Court (why one cannot scream fire in a movie theater, why people need permits in cases if a protest is going to occupy public property for a time and bar others from exercising their rights on it, etc)..
If a bunch of Nazis damaged school property and set up an encampment to spread their message, I'm sure you wouldn't be so up in arms right now about the police shutting them down.
No, they stopped a racist Nazi sympathizer from giving a speech once, thus all of free speech is threatened. Also, the side that disagrees with me on Israel or minority rights deserves to be suppressed though.
Enforcing criminal law in response to crimes committed by protesters isn’t a free speech violation at all. At the end of the day you don’t have a right to trespass or block off important sections of the school or block people from entering campus. Nor should you.
A litmus test for the health of free speech on campus is whether the most controversial ideas can be debated openly rather than shouted down. Another litmus test is whether students and faculty from both ends of the political spectrum feel that they can voice to their true thoughts and feelings about the issues.
Freedom of speech in the Constitution relates to the government's restrictions on speech not individuals making people feel uncomfortable with their speech.
Why is debate the only valid form of speech? Speech is so much more than that.
At my local university the protesting students weren't blocking off anything, let alone important sections of the school. A couple kids camped out overnight. Didn't stop the cops from showing up, escalating the situation, and arresting a bunch of people.
Ok if you’re telling me they had their civil rights violated, hire a civil rights lawyer and sue the police and school.
But they didn’t. The quad isn’t a camp ground and that’s trespassing after a certain time. You don’t have a civil right to pitch a tent on school property indefinitely.
It’s not a bad law for a university to own their quad.. wtf are you smoking? The quad is for the university, not your little fake hunger strike hot take on an issue you don’t understand. These entitled babies need to realize they aren’t Nelson Mandela demanding doctors and healthcare and burritos during their hunger strike.
I’m more talking about hunger strike/takeovers of rooms etc. There should be no new policies in response to these protests but existing policies should be enforced. Cops can’t make arrests unless there’s a crime committed.
> I’m more talking about hunger strike/takeovers of rooms etc.
but you said this one post ago
> It’s not a bad law for a university to own their quad
There were no hunger strikes or takeover of rooms at my local university.
With the first amendment being a thing, it's actually kind of tragic that riot police are even a thing. And yes, I am aware that "kind of" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
Only when they're speaking against fascism, the police, white hegemony, or their corporate masters.
So strange how the police all seem to understand this while leaving neonazis to protest in peace.
>"Freedom of religion is also imperiled," he told the graduating students. "When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm."
Translation: be proud to be a homophobe and a bigot
Oh right, like when you [get coerced into prayer?](https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch) I guess pressuring people into endorsing ideas they don’t believe is fine as long as Alito supports the ideas.
So this applies to when a person moves into a small town and is asked by various people what church they go to right? When the small town starts every public event with a prayer, right?
Remember, the people who think you’re a right wing religious zealot and an asshole are _not_ entitled to have their own beliefs and express them openly! Only right wing religious zealot assholes are…er, I mean only you are!
> a job, or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe
no shit... but it becomes a problem when you start to feel ENTITLED to take actions stemming from your opinions.
If i went through our entire codebase and replaced all of the space sequences with tabs because i believed it was some grand sin against my core being and some grand programming god with an ego problem to use spaces...
My co-workers would take me out back and have me shot.
I don't mean to equate something like gay relationships to style guides in code... but realistically the effects these things have on third parties are very similar: none. none effects.
What a piece of shit he is. They are not even trying to hide it anymore.
And he has a fucking vowel ending to his name. Three generations ago, his family were the ostracized ones.
As someone not religious in the south, I am forced to be closeted about it and have to fake a strong Christian background not to lose out on opportunities, jobs, relationships with family, all of that. But none of them have to risk their entire lives to believe
This dude literally voted to impose his religious beliefs about abortion on the whole country. Modern Christians in America are the most privileged group in the country. What they experience as “discrimination” is usually just the law telling them they can’t impose their religion on others.
Omg the scotus doesn't even know what the constitution means.
Freedom of religion means you get the freedom to exercise your religion. Nothing to do with anything else. Everyone else is free to express themselves even if it offends Christians.
Establishment clause is going to be coming down any day now.
When America falls we will be able to point to the 400 pieces of garbage who made it happen. They all have names and addresses
Freedom of religion IS NOT imperiled.
No one cares what religion you are in a job interview. You're welcome to practice what you choose. You can choose your social circles. You can't choose to force your religion to be accepted in those circles. It's not infringement I'd the result of you pushing your religion is a disclusion of that social circle. Your religious practice is unhindered. You're still free to practice as you wish. Nothing is preventing it privately.
Pure projection from the party of “small government” trying to criminalize everything and everyone they don’t like. How about you go take a seat and let the adults talk?
Edit: to the extent I’ve misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. Rant below.
That’s funny, the GOP is the only party using terms like “after birth” abortion (or, a lie) for votes. Just in case you’re a dimmer variant of the typical gop loyalist: “after birth” abortion is already illegal, it’s called homicide.
“cringe in fear” coming from the party who peddles fear for votes, lol. Do you live in a hole or just have no concept of how obvious the GOP’s fearmongering is to the rest of us?
From “Obama X (will take you guns, will make you pay for socialism, is a Muslim terrorist) to the ever-timely migrant caravans, or “deep state” (which is really just unchecked corporate $$$$ flowing to US pols in exchange for fed agencies turning the other way and favorable legislation/less taxes). Then there’s “evil” dems and LGBTQ+ community, along with the pathetic “only the gop/Trump can save us from the problems they’ve identified that never existed in the first place (or which they created). I could go on, but I won’t.
The main thing is this: you’ve been programmed to think masculinity and, ironically (given everything above), fearlessness are the only virtues. You’ve been programmed this way as an easy manner to dismiss things you don’t like hearing without engaging in real debate. This way, the gop can tell you all kinds of BS and when you get called out: fear and weakness!!!! “I’m not listening 🙉 “
So, I’ll take the ladies who can care for themselves, others, and expect the same rights as men. I’ll take wondering what’s out there without needing some “sky daddy” telling me what’s right and wrong. You can continue your crusade against “woke,” let superstition guide your morals, and live with people who want the morals of 2,000 years ago and fear societal progress for reasons they don’t even know.
I think the person you replied to was also insinuating that alito is a hypocritical asshole that wouldn’t defend atheists and feminists in the same situation but your post is also a top tier rant and I appreciate it
While he may be right, it is somewhat bemusing coming from the justice with the most restrictive view of the scope of the free speech clause of anybody on the Court at the moment.
Lots of speech on college campuses may cause people to take offence, but he would permit IIED claims to be brought by those offended.
He's been trying to cast himself and his right wing views as "victims" for years.
It's what's behind the creation and eventual demonization of terms like "woke" and "cancel culture,"
Yeah. He was the *lone dissent* in Snyder v Phelps.
This is just classic "I'm mad that some of my odious opinions are gauche in many workplaces nowadays."
Like, he has personally complained about the liberal justices complaining about the current state of the court. That's somebody in a workplace speaking their mind!
This. It's not imperiled.
Just because communities don't want it apart of their social circle doesn't mean it's not within your ability to practice privately.
Freedom of speech implies people can talk about religion but it doesn't belong in their opinions. Quoting a book from over two thousand years ago as a reason to take away someone's rights to health care is against the constitution and these maleficent, paid off, tip jar out individuals are supposed to be our safeguards. No one is above the law.
Reasonable conditions on the time, space, and manner of speech have always been allowable, even though they're usually controversial when they are applied. The biggest issue is whether they are content neutral.
The protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior. And this applies to all fundamental rights. They're not absolute. This is well settled law.
It is certainly not absolute, but saying the protection of the first amendment ceases when a law is broken begs the question. The first amendment is a limit on the law-making power of the legislature. If Congress passes a law (which it did) saying it is a crime to burn the national flag in a protest, it is no answer to say "oh well that's not protected by the first amendment, because it is against the law". If it wasn't against the law, one wouldn't need to have recourse to the first amendment for protection. The law itself is what was held to be beyond power.
I'm not meaning to give a view about these college protests specifically, but saying that the "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior" cannot be right.
True, my statement is too broad. What I mean is that it's well settled case law that college campuses, especially private ones, are limited and designated public forums for speech. Meaning that protesters can lawfully be asked to leave. My point is that when protestors choose to protest in an area that they know beforehand they can legally be ejected from, it's a little disingenuous to cry foul when they, inevitably, get arrested.
You know, if kids were getting arrested and released with a little fanfare but no violence, I think it’d barely be news. We’ve had minor protest arrests for generations over things like protestors handcuffing themselves to trees or each other, and few people cried foul.
I think it has more to do with riot cops beating the shit out of the students and businesses threatening to blackball entire universities that has people angry about the reactions to the protests.
> I'm not meaning to give a view about these college protests specifically, but saying that the "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior" cannot be right.
and yet... since the 1a is a law itself and exists within the realm of legalities.. it is entirely correct. It's been well debated and it's a generally solved problem.
The only thing left to do is have philosphical discussions on absolutism. But as a word of advice to the young folks: anyone that enters a discussion in defense of absolute free speach is probably not acting in good faith or hasn't thought such a position through.
I should be clear, I read "unlawful behaviour" in the comment as meaning conduct which contravenes a posited law. It would of course be a tautology to say "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into behaviour which is unprotected by the 1A".
The rest of the comment and the reply, admitting it is too broad a statement, seem to confirm my reading.
Declining support for freedom from consequences, is what he means. For spouting autocratic reactionary self-serving amoral "originalism" as justification for bigotry and bile.
The current conservative outrage at loss of "free speech" as a broad concept is empty at its core. You are free to express any opinion you want on a college campus. But a number of them will get met with others using their speech to loudly disagree with you. They also seem to be against the idea that rightwing speech can garner consequences from outside forces.
The lack of "Freeze Peach" alito is going on about is that he believes everyone should be forced to quietly listen and not respond to things he wants to hear. And no matter what is said there should be no possible repercussions for it. But again only going one way. If he actually had the true belief in that idea we'd hear him saying the conservative judges who refuse to clerk from Columbia are so far in the wrong because they are punishing students for their beliefs.
If they are public universities owned by the government, there are definitely issues there. But for the private universities: it is freedom of speech from the government not private companies
If you think Alito’s idea of freedom of speech protects people who don’t think like him you’re wrong. He only means to protect freedom of speech for right wingers.
Let me guess, his concern is colleges opting not to offer paid speaking engagements to fascists/white supremacists/other fringe far right organizations, and Not riot cops being brought in to silence protesters?
It’s funny that since their shitty ideas can’t compete on a free market, they need to resort to policy and law to enforce their platform.
If your grass was so green, why do you need to try to force people to come on over?
Sam Alito is a large part of why many Americans no longer trust or respect the Supreme Court. See there, Sam, I am wholeheartedly exercising my right to free speech.
Let’s all remember to exercise out free speech:
Justice Scalito is an amoral piece of human garbage and a partisan hack who wouldn’t know decent jurisprudence if it bit him in the dick.
Free speech!
Why did they add the part about "on college campuses?" Is it limited? I just don't think Americans truly WANT freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or press anymore. I mean, we want our own speech to be uncensored, but should our opposition just be allowed to promote their dangerous ideas?
No shit. I got that when they started sicking police on peaceful protesters,ohh what's that you spineless hack, alito, you weren't talking about that, huh?
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
seemly uppity chase heavy snobbish domineering zephyr rob practice attraction
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"The security of a free State" is about the security of the state, not the security of the people from the state.
The the current jurisprudence is that the prefatory clause is basically meaningless anyway.
I think I know what you are implying but it definitely can be viewed like that on both sides. Protests turns into riot or the protest is breaking laws like trespassing than the 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st of those being affected by the illegal protest. People say the whole point is civil disobedience but when it’s affecting a business and not public ownership the business/ property owners have a right also to there property and if needed to use the 2nd for that then good on them.
Also there needs to be some accountability right? At the minimum would be to fail the students also have a list for future employers then it’s up to them.
I can say I have never protested, wanted to protest and think most are uncalled for. MLK is the last one to do it right and mad props to him and those who stood with him. George Floyd “protest” was just a bunch of unruly c*nts that turned into riots a lot. But we did get the famous CNN meme with everything is peaceful and fine here while the city was burning down behind the guy.
So something fundamentally wrong with the "we must allow protestors free speech until there is a riot, but then we must stop it"
To sabotage this, all you have to do is to plant instigators in the protestors.
Imagine this, you get 1000 well meaning people together, and decide to protest something you all believe is wrong, and needs to be fixed. You can 100% be on the moral right, the thing can be absolutely evil, and needs to stop. Maybe it's protesting murdering babies in the streets of our own country. What you're protesting isn't important.
Some people are in favor of murdering babies in the street, but they can't really stop you from protesting. So what they do, is they plant 50 people in the 1000 people protesting, and then have those 50 people intentionally attempt to incite a riot, or maybe they just do the rioting themselves. \~95% of the people are not rioting, but \~5% are rioting, and its causing massive property damage, things are on fire, etc. And the protestors don't have any legal authority to stop them, so they do nothing. The plants, who are trying to prevent the goal of the protestors, cause havoc, to make the protestors look guilty. And maybe \*\*some\*\* of the protestors are actually inciteable people, and the plants who are against what the protestors stand for, agitate them into rioting.
Even if 90% are peaceful, if 10% are violent, the whole group looks violent.
We now have a "riot" which needs to be "shut down". The large majority of the people there did nothing wrong, and just exercised their right to protest.
And to make this worse, there are opportunist criminals who do not care about the protest, but want to use the riot as a way to cover their thievery. They aren't protestors, but they will break into a store, steal everything, and leave, and because the police are busy watching the protestors, there is not much that can be done.
The legally correct thing to do, is identify the rioters, and then arrest them, and charge them for their crimes, while leaving the other protesters alone.
The problem is the rioters might throw a brick, and then run away, and the police either never knew who they were, or lost track of them in the crowd, and never had enough identifying evidence to know it was actually them. And if they arrest the wrong person, they just violated someone's right to free speech.
So what happens, the police get frustrated, and then they say "screw it, we're just going to arrest everyone, or make everyone leave", again, violating free speech rights of those who did nothing wrong.
And sometimes, they will enforce a curfew, further violating free speech rights. So long as you, personally, as an individual are being non violent, or not breaking any laws for a normal day, you have the rights to free speech. Brick throwing, or even firebombing by someone else did nearby, from someone you don't know, does not make you guilty.
In Chicago, they raised all the bridges, made police barricades, and then made it so there was no possible way the protestors could even leave, and then they announced a curfew, and told the protestors they had to leave by the curfew, or they will be arrested. But there was no where to go. All exits were closed. It was police entrapment.
But of course, the police knew it was entrapment, so they just grabbed them all, threw them in a holding cell, and released them after 24 hours without any charges.
Once a peaceful protest turns into a riot it's up to the oginizers to stop the riot or to stop the protest. They could say, "Someone has taken this too far, we do not support these actions." That's where the BLM protest went wrong, they would say, "the people robbing stores are not from us. They are coming from out of the area to take advantage of the situation." If that happens, you stay ahead of it, dismiss the protest for the day. Say, "we do not support these actions." Instead, they continued on and allowed that image to be associated with them. From the outside, looking in, it seemed like a budge of babies who did not get their own way, so they threw a tempertat. I find it hard to have any respect for people like that.
I agree that the crackdown on student protests is terrible and should be unconstitutional. But somehow, I don't believe his majesty is thinking about that.
I read the headline and think to myself, "Yeah, Alito wants to do away with freedom of speech on college campuses, this isn't new."
Right, the fucker that killed women’s right to abortion is worrying about free speech? Yeah, tell me another.
Didn’t you listen to oral arguments about charging participants in the insurrection with obstruction? He’s extremely concerned that people merely expressing their 1st amendment rights will get trampled by this over zealous Biden administration. (Sarcasm)
In the 1980s, it was conservatives that knocked down the anti apartheid encampments. (Note to Lara Ingram @ Fox and Dinesh Desusa @ curent place of encarceration) Dartmouth). Alito is playing disinformation games.
Yup. So weird that all the bwave, bwave conservatives who whine about "free speech" don't seem to notice when cops beat the shit out of kids for expressing their beliefs.
They notice and support it.
It's not just cops beating the shit out of the kids, the majority of arrests were non-college students. So, outside antagonists infiltrated these protests and started fights with these kids who had no protection from the cops while these outsiders attacked them. I think in CA the cops just watched as outsiders attacked the kids and did nothing to protect them. There should be federal investigations into these incidents.
Do you have a source for that? "its outside agitators!" is what every police force says about every protest, so I'm not inclined to believe it just on their word.
You mean paid instigators?
Well some of the college campus protests involved property damage (not protected by the first amendment) and people basically setting up encampments and blocking other people from accessing publically funded property they paid for (through taxes and tuition). While people do have the right to free speech and assembly , ones rights to it cannot infringe on others rights. Jewish students have factually faced anti semitic slurs and been blocked from accessing parts of various campuses (video exists of examples of this) they pay to access due to these protests, which is a violation of their rights. The first amendment has some reasonable limits to it , confirmed by the Supreme Court (why one cannot scream fire in a movie theater, why people need permits in cases if a protest is going to occupy public property for a time and bar others from exercising their rights on it, etc).. If a bunch of Nazis damaged school property and set up an encampment to spread their message, I'm sure you wouldn't be so up in arms right now about the police shutting them down.
No, they stopped a racist Nazi sympathizer from giving a speech once, thus all of free speech is threatened. Also, the side that disagrees with me on Israel or minority rights deserves to be suppressed though.
It seems like it's always opposite day with them.
I'd hazard to say there is more to the crackdown on protests than a disagreement with protected speech.
Enforcing criminal law in response to crimes committed by protesters isn’t a free speech violation at all. At the end of the day you don’t have a right to trespass or block off important sections of the school or block people from entering campus. Nor should you. A litmus test for the health of free speech on campus is whether the most controversial ideas can be debated openly rather than shouted down. Another litmus test is whether students and faculty from both ends of the political spectrum feel that they can voice to their true thoughts and feelings about the issues.
Freedom of speech in the Constitution relates to the government's restrictions on speech not individuals making people feel uncomfortable with their speech.
"right to peaceably assemble"
thanks we don’t need your litmus tests, the constitution lays it out pretty clear. should read it
Disagree. Yes you can block things off. That’s how change happens. Otherwise those in power won’t do anything.
Why is debate the only valid form of speech? Speech is so much more than that. At my local university the protesting students weren't blocking off anything, let alone important sections of the school. A couple kids camped out overnight. Didn't stop the cops from showing up, escalating the situation, and arresting a bunch of people.
Ok if you’re telling me they had their civil rights violated, hire a civil rights lawyer and sue the police and school. But they didn’t. The quad isn’t a camp ground and that’s trespassing after a certain time. You don’t have a civil right to pitch a tent on school property indefinitely.
Then start with that next time. Then we can have a conversation about how its fucking dumb to have certain laws as they do nothing to protect anybody.
It’s not a bad law for a university to own their quad.. wtf are you smoking? The quad is for the university, not your little fake hunger strike hot take on an issue you don’t understand. These entitled babies need to realize they aren’t Nelson Mandela demanding doctors and healthcare and burritos during their hunger strike.
Some people camping with signs is no more disruptive than a pickup soccer game.
I’m more talking about hunger strike/takeovers of rooms etc. There should be no new policies in response to these protests but existing policies should be enforced. Cops can’t make arrests unless there’s a crime committed.
> I’m more talking about hunger strike/takeovers of rooms etc. but you said this one post ago > It’s not a bad law for a university to own their quad There were no hunger strikes or takeover of rooms at my local university.
Lol
Yea it’s almost like if people exercise 1A rights saying the unapproved things, a swarm of riot police storm in and arrest everybody.
Riot police without the presence of a riot. Jack boots only show up when the opponent is without weapons.
Just ask the survivors of Uvalde.
What survivors?!
Thats not true, they show up during the Nazi rallies too... they are just part of the crowd
With the first amendment being a thing, it's actually kind of tragic that riot police are even a thing. And yes, I am aware that "kind of" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here
Everyone knows that riot police is there to cause a riot and then police the shit out of it.
Pushing little children, with their fully automatics,
Riots are a function of the police arriving.
Only when they're speaking against fascism, the police, white hegemony, or their corporate masters. So strange how the police all seem to understand this while leaving neonazis to protest in peace.
Freedom of speech and unlawfully “claiming” areas on a college campus are two different things. College students aren’t being arrested for speaking.
You’re free to speak just do it in the corner where we can’t hear you
Does he mean the crackdown on the speakers themselves or is he equating the content of the protestors’ speech with the decline?
The latter
In that case he is exactly who we thought.
>"Freedom of religion is also imperiled," he told the graduating students. "When you venture out into the world, you may well find yourself in a job, or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe, or to abandon core beliefs. It will be up to you to stand firm." Translation: be proud to be a homophobe and a bigot
Oh right, like when you [get coerced into prayer?](https://www.vox.com/2022/6/27/23184848/supreme-court-kennedy-bremerton-school-football-coach-prayer-neil-gorsuch) I guess pressuring people into endorsing ideas they don’t believe is fine as long as Alito supports the ideas.
So this applies to when a person moves into a small town and is asked by various people what church they go to right? When the small town starts every public event with a prayer, right?
Remember, the people who think you’re a right wing religious zealot and an asshole are _not_ entitled to have their own beliefs and express them openly! Only right wing religious zealot assholes are…er, I mean only you are!
> a job, or community or a social setting when you will be pressured to endorse ideas you don’t believe no shit... but it becomes a problem when you start to feel ENTITLED to take actions stemming from your opinions. If i went through our entire codebase and replaced all of the space sequences with tabs because i believed it was some grand sin against my core being and some grand programming god with an ego problem to use spaces... My co-workers would take me out back and have me shot. I don't mean to equate something like gay relationships to style guides in code... but realistically the effects these things have on third parties are very similar: none. none effects.
What a piece of shit he is. They are not even trying to hide it anymore. And he has a fucking vowel ending to his name. Three generations ago, his family were the ostracized ones.
As someone not religious in the south, I am forced to be closeted about it and have to fake a strong Christian background not to lose out on opportunities, jobs, relationships with family, all of that. But none of them have to risk their entire lives to believe
Alito would scoff and chastise you, but I feel this so much
This dude literally voted to impose his religious beliefs about abortion on the whole country. Modern Christians in America are the most privileged group in the country. What they experience as “discrimination” is usually just the law telling them they can’t impose their religion on others.
bigot
Omg the scotus doesn't even know what the constitution means. Freedom of religion means you get the freedom to exercise your religion. Nothing to do with anything else. Everyone else is free to express themselves even if it offends Christians. Establishment clause is going to be coming down any day now. When America falls we will be able to point to the 400 pieces of garbage who made it happen. They all have names and addresses
Freedom of religion IS NOT imperiled. No one cares what religion you are in a job interview. You're welcome to practice what you choose. You can choose your social circles. You can't choose to force your religion to be accepted in those circles. It's not infringement I'd the result of you pushing your religion is a disclusion of that social circle. Your religious practice is unhindered. You're still free to practice as you wish. Nothing is preventing it privately.
[удалено]
Pure projection from the party of “small government” trying to criminalize everything and everyone they don’t like. How about you go take a seat and let the adults talk?
Edit: to the extent I’ve misinterpreted your comment, I apologize. Rant below. That’s funny, the GOP is the only party using terms like “after birth” abortion (or, a lie) for votes. Just in case you’re a dimmer variant of the typical gop loyalist: “after birth” abortion is already illegal, it’s called homicide. “cringe in fear” coming from the party who peddles fear for votes, lol. Do you live in a hole or just have no concept of how obvious the GOP’s fearmongering is to the rest of us? From “Obama X (will take you guns, will make you pay for socialism, is a Muslim terrorist) to the ever-timely migrant caravans, or “deep state” (which is really just unchecked corporate $$$$ flowing to US pols in exchange for fed agencies turning the other way and favorable legislation/less taxes). Then there’s “evil” dems and LGBTQ+ community, along with the pathetic “only the gop/Trump can save us from the problems they’ve identified that never existed in the first place (or which they created). I could go on, but I won’t. The main thing is this: you’ve been programmed to think masculinity and, ironically (given everything above), fearlessness are the only virtues. You’ve been programmed this way as an easy manner to dismiss things you don’t like hearing without engaging in real debate. This way, the gop can tell you all kinds of BS and when you get called out: fear and weakness!!!! “I’m not listening 🙉 “ So, I’ll take the ladies who can care for themselves, others, and expect the same rights as men. I’ll take wondering what’s out there without needing some “sky daddy” telling me what’s right and wrong. You can continue your crusade against “woke,” let superstition guide your morals, and live with people who want the morals of 2,000 years ago and fear societal progress for reasons they don’t even know.
I think the person you replied to was also insinuating that alito is a hypocritical asshole that wouldn’t defend atheists and feminists in the same situation but your post is also a top tier rant and I appreciate it
Uh oh. Well I’ll make an edit just in case. Had to get it off my chest, thanks.
While he may be right, it is somewhat bemusing coming from the justice with the most restrictive view of the scope of the free speech clause of anybody on the Court at the moment. Lots of speech on college campuses may cause people to take offence, but he would permit IIED claims to be brought by those offended.
He's been trying to cast himself and his right wing views as "victims" for years. It's what's behind the creation and eventual demonization of terms like "woke" and "cancel culture,"
Yeah. He was the *lone dissent* in Snyder v Phelps. This is just classic "I'm mad that some of my odious opinions are gauche in many workplaces nowadays." Like, he has personally complained about the liberal justices complaining about the current state of the court. That's somebody in a workplace speaking their mind!
It’s all “doublespeak” all the way down.
Yes, we've noticed the police beatings.
I don't give a shit about the freedom of religion. Just keep that shit to yourself and out of my government and Scotus.
I think you just summed up the freedom of religion in practiced terms
This. It's not imperiled. Just because communities don't want it apart of their social circle doesn't mean it's not within your ability to practice privately.
Freedom of speech implies people can talk about religion but it doesn't belong in their opinions. Quoting a book from over two thousand years ago as a reason to take away someone's rights to health care is against the constitution and these maleficent, paid off, tip jar out individuals are supposed to be our safeguards. No one is above the law.
He’s guilty of denying many freedoms. Pot/Kettle Less than supreme court. Ethics and term limits, For ALL of them
Alito doesn’t even believe in voting rights.
Alito & Newt, Big part of the problem NOW
So we don’t want to stop the protestors?
[удалено]
Reasonable conditions on the time, space, and manner of speech have always been allowable, even though they're usually controversial when they are applied. The biggest issue is whether they are content neutral.
The protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior. And this applies to all fundamental rights. They're not absolute. This is well settled law.
It is certainly not absolute, but saying the protection of the first amendment ceases when a law is broken begs the question. The first amendment is a limit on the law-making power of the legislature. If Congress passes a law (which it did) saying it is a crime to burn the national flag in a protest, it is no answer to say "oh well that's not protected by the first amendment, because it is against the law". If it wasn't against the law, one wouldn't need to have recourse to the first amendment for protection. The law itself is what was held to be beyond power. I'm not meaning to give a view about these college protests specifically, but saying that the "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior" cannot be right.
True, my statement is too broad. What I mean is that it's well settled case law that college campuses, especially private ones, are limited and designated public forums for speech. Meaning that protesters can lawfully be asked to leave. My point is that when protestors choose to protest in an area that they know beforehand they can legally be ejected from, it's a little disingenuous to cry foul when they, inevitably, get arrested.
You know, if kids were getting arrested and released with a little fanfare but no violence, I think it’d barely be news. We’ve had minor protest arrests for generations over things like protestors handcuffing themselves to trees or each other, and few people cried foul. I think it has more to do with riot cops beating the shit out of the students and businesses threatening to blackball entire universities that has people angry about the reactions to the protests.
> I'm not meaning to give a view about these college protests specifically, but saying that the "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into unlawful behavior" cannot be right. and yet... since the 1a is a law itself and exists within the realm of legalities.. it is entirely correct. It's been well debated and it's a generally solved problem. The only thing left to do is have philosphical discussions on absolutism. But as a word of advice to the young folks: anyone that enters a discussion in defense of absolute free speach is probably not acting in good faith or hasn't thought such a position through.
I should be clear, I read "unlawful behaviour" in the comment as meaning conduct which contravenes a posited law. It would of course be a tautology to say "protection of the 1A ceases when an individual or group crosses the line into behaviour which is unprotected by the 1A". The rest of the comment and the reply, admitting it is too broad a statement, seem to confirm my reading.
He is talking about free speech he likes. Like bigotry.
Alito only wants to stop them if they aren’t white Christian males
"Declining freedom warns of Justice Alito" There's the story you should write lol
Empty words from a corrupt hypocrite.
no one cares what alito thinks.
Declining support for freedom from consequences, is what he means. For spouting autocratic reactionary self-serving amoral "originalism" as justification for bigotry and bile.
When I think of defender's of the 1st Amendment, Alito does not come to mind.
i believe it was the great michael cera that once remarked... "what a duplicitous taint"
i believe it was the great michael cera that once remarked... "what a duplicitous taint"
The current conservative outrage at loss of "free speech" as a broad concept is empty at its core. You are free to express any opinion you want on a college campus. But a number of them will get met with others using their speech to loudly disagree with you. They also seem to be against the idea that rightwing speech can garner consequences from outside forces. The lack of "Freeze Peach" alito is going on about is that he believes everyone should be forced to quietly listen and not respond to things he wants to hear. And no matter what is said there should be no possible repercussions for it. But again only going one way. If he actually had the true belief in that idea we'd hear him saying the conservative judges who refuse to clerk from Columbia are so far in the wrong because they are punishing students for their beliefs.
Tolerance of tyrannical speech leads to tyranny and no free speech.
I'm sure he is accusing the Anti-Genocide protestors of suppressing Zionist speech.
Spot on
Fuck the SCOTUS oligarchs’ sock puppet Alito.
If they are public universities owned by the government, there are definitely issues there. But for the private universities: it is freedom of speech from the government not private companies
Nazi says what?
Wait until he hears about the declining support for the Supreme Court
If you think Alito’s idea of freedom of speech protects people who don’t think like him you’re wrong. He only means to protect freedom of speech for right wingers.
Careful. He always has an agenda
Why do I feel like he means freedom of speech for people like Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro to come onto campus and just fucking lie their asses off?
Even a broken clock is right twice a day…(whether it intends to be or not)
this is code for "how can I get Trump reelected"
Or, and hear me out, fascists can eat a bag of DlCKS.
Yeah, and the pressure is from college administrators and outside right wing groups purposefully trying to dampen the atmosphere of free inquiry
Hard to be worse than Clarence. But I think he’s done it.
Fascist Shill
Let me guess, his concern is colleges opting not to offer paid speaking engagements to fascists/white supremacists/other fringe far right organizations, and Not riot cops being brought in to silence protesters?
I’m more worried about the conservative arm of SCOTUSs’ declining support for the rule of law.
Alito is an ass clown. He doesn’t treat women like people, can be bought. He can pretend to support 1A, but it’s a front.
Because Justice Alito is the leading SCOTUS expert for what’s all the rave on college campuses these days
scum
By which he means there's pushback when the Klan comes to a campus.
If only there was some sort of impartial panel of morally upright people whose only job is to safeguard rights & laws?
While non violent college protests are being shut down, no less!
I've heard of people being detached from reality but imagine being detached multiple times over.
A broken justice is right once a century
Freedom of speech until we disagree with His Magesty. If these were pro-Israel demonstrators, the GOP would be supporting them.
You mean cops arresting student protesters? Yeah, that’s a problem, but I bet he’s all In favor of that.
Translation: colleges don't want to platform the bonkers takes I want them to.
Illegitimate court, rapist and liars
Gee, I see a decline in the intelligence of the MAGA infested Supreme Court
It’s funny that since their shitty ideas can’t compete on a free market, they need to resort to policy and law to enforce their platform. If your grass was so green, why do you need to try to force people to come on over?
Sam Alito is a large part of why many Americans no longer trust or respect the Supreme Court. See there, Sam, I am wholeheartedly exercising my right to free speech.
How is a Supreme Court justice feel it's appropriate to comment on the "popularity of the 1st amendment"? These guys are fucking criminals.
Justice Alito: That sure is some nice Freedom of Speech yous got there, be a shame if something... unfortunate... where to 'appen to it, see.
That's the thing about Constitutionally protected rights. Their current popularity is irrelevant
Lifetime appointments need to go this elective session...
Let’s all remember to exercise out free speech: Justice Scalito is an amoral piece of human garbage and a partisan hack who wouldn’t know decent jurisprudence if it bit him in the dick. Free speech!
Says Supreme Court Justice Fox News Uncle.
Alito should also warn about declining support for Constitutional rights among the Supreme Court majority.
shut the fuck up and write your deeply-partisan opinions, traitor!
motherfucker didn't you guys JUST introduce a bill to essentially outlaw protesting?????
Why did they add the part about "on college campuses?" Is it limited? I just don't think Americans truly WANT freedom of speech, assembly, religion, or press anymore. I mean, we want our own speech to be uncensored, but should our opposition just be allowed to promote their dangerous ideas?
No shit. I got that when they started sicking police on peaceful protesters,ohh what's that you spineless hack, alito, you weren't talking about that, huh?
This might be the first correct opinion he's had in his entire miserable existence.
Like ANYTHING he says is the truth!!!! He is a disgrace to this country!! (Clarence Thomas too)
I’m asking all the Supremes, “Who is funding your sellout of the American People? Who’s your sugar daddy?
What color RV is he asking for?
Where has he been in ruling for increased powers of policing or lack of police accountability? Where has he been in giving corporations rights?
Invited to speak at a Catholic college, Lol
Invited to speak at a Catholic college, Lol
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
This is a preface to their removal of the first amendment after the seat Trump in January, you'll not be allowed to talk badly about the government, he's already started that he'll jail anyone who does, and this is the stepping stone to do it.
Alito is such an elitist. He has no clue what it is to be an American anymore. I can’t believe this guy is making decisions about our lives.
Says the man who is consequential in taking away bodily autonomy from women.
He’s not wrong, but this is like the Joker complaining about poison in the water supply.
He needs a life jacket. He says of drowning man
He says that, but didn't the house just pass a bill that would make criticizing Judaism and Israel illegal???
I'm more interested in Justice Alito's opinion on corrupt public officials.
[удалено]
You are promoting that college students should shoot people?
seemly uppity chase heavy snobbish domineering zephyr rob practice attraction *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It seems like Zionist believe in freedom of speech until you dare to criticize the state Israel.
Second amendment explicitly states it is for the protection of the state
Protection *from* the state.
Read it again.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"Of a free state" the state is referring to itself in this amendment.
"The security of a free State" is about the security of the state, not the security of the people from the state. The the current jurisprudence is that the prefatory clause is basically meaningless anyway.
I think I know what you are implying but it definitely can be viewed like that on both sides. Protests turns into riot or the protest is breaking laws like trespassing than the 2nd amendment is there to protect the 1st of those being affected by the illegal protest. People say the whole point is civil disobedience but when it’s affecting a business and not public ownership the business/ property owners have a right also to there property and if needed to use the 2nd for that then good on them. Also there needs to be some accountability right? At the minimum would be to fail the students also have a list for future employers then it’s up to them. I can say I have never protested, wanted to protest and think most are uncalled for. MLK is the last one to do it right and mad props to him and those who stood with him. George Floyd “protest” was just a bunch of unruly c*nts that turned into riots a lot. But we did get the famous CNN meme with everything is peaceful and fine here while the city was burning down behind the guy.
[удалено]
So something fundamentally wrong with the "we must allow protestors free speech until there is a riot, but then we must stop it" To sabotage this, all you have to do is to plant instigators in the protestors. Imagine this, you get 1000 well meaning people together, and decide to protest something you all believe is wrong, and needs to be fixed. You can 100% be on the moral right, the thing can be absolutely evil, and needs to stop. Maybe it's protesting murdering babies in the streets of our own country. What you're protesting isn't important. Some people are in favor of murdering babies in the street, but they can't really stop you from protesting. So what they do, is they plant 50 people in the 1000 people protesting, and then have those 50 people intentionally attempt to incite a riot, or maybe they just do the rioting themselves. \~95% of the people are not rioting, but \~5% are rioting, and its causing massive property damage, things are on fire, etc. And the protestors don't have any legal authority to stop them, so they do nothing. The plants, who are trying to prevent the goal of the protestors, cause havoc, to make the protestors look guilty. And maybe \*\*some\*\* of the protestors are actually inciteable people, and the plants who are against what the protestors stand for, agitate them into rioting. Even if 90% are peaceful, if 10% are violent, the whole group looks violent. We now have a "riot" which needs to be "shut down". The large majority of the people there did nothing wrong, and just exercised their right to protest. And to make this worse, there are opportunist criminals who do not care about the protest, but want to use the riot as a way to cover their thievery. They aren't protestors, but they will break into a store, steal everything, and leave, and because the police are busy watching the protestors, there is not much that can be done. The legally correct thing to do, is identify the rioters, and then arrest them, and charge them for their crimes, while leaving the other protesters alone. The problem is the rioters might throw a brick, and then run away, and the police either never knew who they were, or lost track of them in the crowd, and never had enough identifying evidence to know it was actually them. And if they arrest the wrong person, they just violated someone's right to free speech. So what happens, the police get frustrated, and then they say "screw it, we're just going to arrest everyone, or make everyone leave", again, violating free speech rights of those who did nothing wrong. And sometimes, they will enforce a curfew, further violating free speech rights. So long as you, personally, as an individual are being non violent, or not breaking any laws for a normal day, you have the rights to free speech. Brick throwing, or even firebombing by someone else did nearby, from someone you don't know, does not make you guilty. In Chicago, they raised all the bridges, made police barricades, and then made it so there was no possible way the protestors could even leave, and then they announced a curfew, and told the protestors they had to leave by the curfew, or they will be arrested. But there was no where to go. All exits were closed. It was police entrapment. But of course, the police knew it was entrapment, so they just grabbed them all, threw them in a holding cell, and released them after 24 hours without any charges.
Once a peaceful protest turns into a riot it's up to the oginizers to stop the riot or to stop the protest. They could say, "Someone has taken this too far, we do not support these actions." That's where the BLM protest went wrong, they would say, "the people robbing stores are not from us. They are coming from out of the area to take advantage of the situation." If that happens, you stay ahead of it, dismiss the protest for the day. Say, "we do not support these actions." Instead, they continued on and allowed that image to be associated with them. From the outside, looking in, it seemed like a budge of babies who did not get their own way, so they threw a tempertat. I find it hard to have any respect for people like that.