Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Public University Creates Super Strict Social Media Policy, Gets Worst Free Speech Rating Possible

Ouch.

Published

on

A public university in the state of Alabama has reached a milestone that every socialist marxist in the world would be pleased as punch to achieve: they have the worst possible free speech rating, all due to its brand new social media policy.

Now that, my dear friends, is what younger folk refer to as life goals.

The policy in question forbids the usage of “harsh text messages,” spreading “rumors” and posting “embarrassing” pictures of other students. The extent of this ridiculous policy makes you wonder why they just didn’t outright ban all communication between human beings.

Trending: Popularity of Avocados Leads to Staggering Increase in Emergency Room Visits

As reported by The College Fix, the University of West Alabama’s Cyberbullying and Cyber Harassment Policy received a “red light” rating from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for its free speech-threatening anti-harassment policies.

The policy forbids any form of cyberbullying or cyber-harassment, defined vaguely as “conduct that disrupts the educational environment of the university,” including “harsh text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles”:

Cyberbullying or cyber harassment by any member of the University of West Alabama community (student, faculty, staff, etc.) toward another individual constitutes conduct that disrupts the educational environment of the University.

Examples of cyberbullying and cyber harassment include, but are not limited to, harsh text messages or emails, rumors sent by email or posted on social networking sites, and embarrassing pictures, videos, websites, or fake profiles.

FIRE awarded the school’s policy the “red light” rating, which is given when an “institution has at least one policy that both clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech.”

What does the group mean by “clearly?” Well, they defined that as a restriction “that unambiguously infringes on what is or should be protected expression.”

Here’s a statement FIRE released about the rating:

“The University of West Alabama’s ‘Cyberbullying and Cyber Harassment Policy Statement’ earns FIRE’s worst ‘red light’ rating because it is a clear and substantial restriction on constitutionally protected expression,” FIRE’s Laura Beltz said in a statement reported by The College Fix.

“Online messages do not lose First Amendment protection simply because they’re subjectively viewed as harsh, embarrassing, or as an unverified rumor,” Beltz explained. “For example, a single tweet that criticizes the university administration would be punishable under this policy, but would typically be protected by the First Amendment.”

Stuff like this is why so many young kids heading out into the world today do not understand how to deal with constructive criticism, falling apart any time someone dare questions their performance or point out a flaw in their work.

How can kids succeed in a harsh world when they are made to believe that if they hear anything gruff or critical of them they should break like glass?

The answer is, they won’t and they can’t.

Source: The Daily Wire

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

BOMBSHELL: FBI Admits Hillary’s Emails Were Found In Executive Office of Obama White House

WELL, WELL, WELL!

John Salvatore

Published

on

Bill Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, has admitted under oath that the FBI found Hillary Clinton’s emails in the Obama White House, specifically, in the Executive Office of the president. Yup. No joke. From Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner. […] U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap, to be deposed or answer writer questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.” https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1120718496034324487?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1120718496034324487&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Filovemyfreedom.org%2Fjust-in-49000-of-hillary-clintons-email-discovered-obama-in-hot-water-given-where-they-were-at%2F Where’s the MSM on this one, huh? Too preoccupied with doing everything in their power to keeping the uninformed uninformed? Sounds about right. Why would anybody ask Hillary Clinton to give advice to 2020 Democrat presidential candidates on how to defeat Donald Trump? Where’s the logic? TOO FUNNY! WATCH: WATCH: Hillary Clinton gives her advice to 2020 Democrats challenging President Trump. pic.twitter.com/RWNNn5ViCG— The Hill (@thehill) April 13, 2019 Reactions: "Everything I did….? Just do the opposite….".— MoneyandtheHammer (@MoneyandHammer) April 13, 2019 “Go to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan”She didn’t say that, so she didn’t give worthy advice. There’s no reason for candidates to listen to her.— CriticOfEverything (@CriticOfEvery1) April 13, 2019 Literally the last person on earth worth asking— KaratePlops (@suicidepets) April 13, 2019 Hillary just can’t win. If it’s not one scandal for the twice-failed presidential candidate, it’s another. If it’s not email-related, it’s Benghazi. If it’s not Whitewater, it’s praising…

Continue Reading

News

HERE WE GO: Supreme Court Signals Support For Trump’s Citizenship Census Question

This is a big one, folks!

John Salvatore

Published

on

It is looking more and more likely that the Supreme Court will allow the citizenship question to be added to the 2020 census. Democrats are likely to erupt, while conservatives will stand and clap. Here’s more information about what’s going down, from Bloomberg: Key U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to let the Trump administration add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census in a clash that will shape the allocation of congressional seats and federal dollars. In an 80-minute argument Tuesday that was both technical and combative, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh directed almost all their questions to the lawyers challenging the decision to ask about citizenship. Kavanaugh said Congress gave the Commerce secretary “huge discretion” to decide what to ask on the census. Opponents say a citizenship question could result in a census undercount in areas with large non-citizen populations that could shift congressional districts and federal funds away from those communities. Far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted, “There’s no doubt that people will respond less. That’s been proven in study after study.” Stay tuned… As most conservatives are well aware, Obamacare was unconstitutional from the start considering it originated in the Senate. Now, an appeals court has ruled in the Trump administration’s favor on a major issue. What this means is the Supreme Court may wind up ruling on the Redistribution of Wealth Act’s Affordable Care Act’s legality before the 2020 presidential election. In other words, it’s kind of a big deal. https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1116474275999956992?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1116474275999956992&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftherightscoop.com%2Fbreaking-trump-just-put-the-lawsuit-against-obamacare-on-speed%2F One woman was rumored to be in the running for the SCOTUS seat that went to Brett Kavanaugh. As it stands, President Trump has nominated two judges to the Supreme Court, both of whom made it through the entire process – Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Now, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend