it is true for those who treat the government as a diety



which is precisely what pale pasty privileged lefties like the op want. they yearn to return back to the days where racist jim crow was in full effect, segregationists separated people because of traits they cannot control and hated people because of traits they cannot control, and that “separate but equal” was a good idea cannot control, and where “separate but equal” was a concept.

they actually want the government to enforce this “teaching” and want the taxpayers to subsidize it! this truly is a sickness

This post was edited by excellence on Jun 30 2021 12:51pm

It isn't true, which is why I'm not arguing under those assumptions.

The government does not have an obligation to fund specific speech, but it does have an obligation to not stifle political speech, and when you cut funding for speech unrelated to what you were funding that is stifling speech by even the loosest interpretation.

The government has to follow certain standards when respecting rights. The standard for non-enumerated rights, like smoking cigarettes, is the standard that you made the law with a specific concern. I.e. High IQ police are bad police, so we don't hire police above a certain IQ. It doesn't matter if you have evidence, as long as you have some reason you followed. The right to be a police officer is not enumerated in the constitution, so it has a low standard.

When looking at specifically enumerated rights, like political speech, which teaching about the constitution or race relations falls under beyond any semblance of doubt, you have to meet a much higher standard where you show the evidence and tailor the policy as narrowly as possible to fit that goal.

The government can fund speech or research. Like, they can write a grant to study ants in south America. What they cannot do is make a blanket law against funding anybody who teaches something they disagree with regardless of if that teaching has anything to do with their funding. That would absolutely not fly under the more strict standard.

This bill, if it passed, would be absolutely uncontrovertibly illegal, and would get struck down instantly. It is not only an example of cancel culture, it flies in the face of our laws regarding what speech the government can and cannot restrict.

I appreciate that you are not American, and so our legal standards wouldn't be familiar to you (hell, they aren't familiar to most citizens) but even in the most abstract sense, this is stifling free speech. Even if you don't see it as the government's obligation to fund people they disagree with, the fact that the government would be defunding people based on disagreement with political speech should send you to it being a violation as the default.




Depends what you mean by "fundamentally". Our foundations are undeniably racist. I haven't seen anybody or anything claim that America is rotten and racist to its core. That's you editorializing.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 30 2021 01:52pm

The word itself "racism" was invented by the Soviets after WWI in order to divide the population against each other and make them easier to suppress.

Race really is the modern form of Marxism.

Government doesn't have an obligation to fund specific speech indeed. Especially speech which involves indoctrination and subversion of America and its founding ideals.
Tomorrow say I deside to enlighten the classroom with Isis or Kim jong-ung as the great leader that America needs to follow and I dont get funding going to cry on jsp.
We don't fund or obliged to fund speech which is anti American period.

Still yet to point out how and where old constitution was racist because term 3/5th unfree persons is racist? Notice how it sais Unfree persons not that black or Chinese or Mexican or Irish people. (but context Addone the context herp derp) Now, no one is stifling your discussion about derisory and inaccurate interpretation of history you are free to do that to your lil hearts content. When you fund something you promote it. Notice thor how promoting/funding =/= prohibit

Talk about bad faith entitled Karen who walks around jsp demanding things which are not obligatory.

Fixed

LOL

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

Karen Plz stop.

This post was edited by addone on Jun 30 2021 04:49pm

The bolded part is key: history lessons in school or mandatory undergrad courses on college are not, or let's rather say should not, be political speech - they should be politically neutral, sticking to the facts without spoon-feeding students an overly partisan narrative on top.

Regarding the constitutionality of such a bill, I'm out of my depth tbh.



Of course they're not saiyng so verbatim, but read pretty much any piece from Ta-Nehisi Coates or other thought leaders of wokeism and that's exactly the gist of their texts.

Even if they were totally neutral it would still be political speech dude. Even if it weren't political speech it would still fall under strict scrutiny

And even if it were totally controversial and untrue speech it would still be cancel culture as long as the content isn't overtly harmful, i.e. direct incitation to violence.

This was not a hard example. Like I said, I'm picking these because they are easy and you are still failing.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Jun 30 2021 07:24pm