just google it you can see tons of stories and the administrative response and pull back…seems like you have a personal view of how you want it to be. it is not in question…not sure why you keep pushing some alternative account or exaggeration by “certain types of news outlets” or some other agenda driven angle. these spoiled kids pushed to far and the administration initially acted in a creepy embarrassing manor. accept it (or don’t)
even bill maher gave a verbal lashing to the special snowflakes.
When I google I get all kinds of articles with false (and already debunked by snopes no less) info, like about emergency counseling and such.
If you have an actual source that you are basing " special snowflakes demanded the president of the school act against the chalk people and he agreed until the story got national attention and the creepy administrative response was no longer going to be pursued." on, please share it.
Otherwise I’ll stay with the facts I’ve found in the sources I’ve shared here.
》》As for the protest, he [Alexius Marcano, president of Young Democrats of Emory] said, “it’s really not advocating for censorship … They weren’t protesting support of the candidate, they weren’t trying to ban any campaign activism for Trump, they were just using their free speech to express their concerns about the circumstances.” It wouldn’t happen if someone wrote another Republican candidate’s name, he said. “Trump represents something different, that’s threatening."《《
This is an argument for the fear and backlash. This guy is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says that they don’t advocate censorship, then says that any other candidate’s name would have been fine - someone, please hand him a dictionary and ask him the definition of censorship. Not everyone agrees that Trump is racist, sexist, yadda yadda. A lot of that is media hype and them blowing things out of proportion (IMO). The fact is that every candidate running has a position that would make someone upset. Trump is not really that special - he’s just louder and more obnoxious than everyone else and those who dislike him do so vehemently. But people still have the right to support him (stupid as it may be.)
I can’t help but think, what if these kids ever had to face real trouble? People are getting killed by terrorists around the world, and they think they’re threatened by some chalk?
ok–I give credit where credit is due! the president of emory did a 180…and has made me proud!
I guess going down the original rabbit hole was a lose lose for him and the school!
appeasement of the cry bullies just feeds their lunacy and is just wrong.
In this editorial, two law professors argue for the importance of teaching free speech principles on campus. Students come into college advocating for trigger warnings and bans on ‘hate’ speech and leave the class understanding that free speech cuts both ways and that the remedy for speech one doesn’t agree with is more speech.
censorship
: the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc.
<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship">http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship</a>
censor.
: a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.
Nothing that happened at Emory meets that definition.
So because the definition technically says censorship must “remove things” you claimed nothing happened? LOL
You are unreal, OHmomof2…
Any reasonably intelligent person would make the connection between censorship and one person’s disagreement with another person’s writing to the point where they sought the help of an authority figure in hopes to shut down said person’s writing, or prevent another writing from happening in the future.
I wasn’t saying that censorship happened. I was examining the argument of one of the people saying that the university should commit censorship, which Emory should not and did not.
@albert69 pointed us to the dictionary so I followed her there. No, censorship did not happen at Emory.
But let’s say someone said "we shouldn’t allow people to chalk “Trump build a wall” or whatever. So what? That person is exercising his or her right to free speech. It’s up to his/her peers and the college to say “no, we’re not doing that and here’s why but let’s talk about your concerns and why you feel that way” which IMO is a decent summary of the worst of what actually happened.
