November 17, 2017
His name is Robert C. Post, a Jew at Yale (where racial nepotism has ensured 28% of the students are Jewish) who is using his institution’s prestige and personal credentials to assert that students on public college campuses are not protected by the First Amendment. His source? Robert C. Post.
This man, as a “legal scholar,” knows full well what the law is. Which makes him a liar.
This is pure meme Kabbalah, where Jews exploit their positions using their higher platform (the mainstream media, like Jew-run Vox) to try and influence society in the direction Jews want to go.
Even many non-Jewish minorities have respect for free speech: 85% of people in America believe the First Amendment is more important than Talmudic correctness, yet this sentiment is apparently not reflected at the highest levels of (((legal academia))).
This is because it’s Jews – despite their interests being against what the majority want – who have all the privileges. Post’s father was a connected movie director, so snaking to the top wasn’t hard.
The Jew writes for Vox:
We are witnessing an escalating chorus of complaints that modern universities are trampling on the First Amendment. Universities stand accused of catering to the weakness of students with “fragile egos,” in Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s words, who cannot bear to be offended by ideas that they oppose.
“Freedom of thought and speech on the American campus are under attack,” Sessions said at Georgetown last month, in a speech that referred to several incidents that have become touchstones for free speech advocates — including the the controversy that erupted at Berkeley when right-wing columnist Ben Shapiro spoke, and the shouting down of The Bell Curve author Charles Murray at Middlebury College last spring. Especially deplorable was the fact one of Murray’s hosts, a professor, was injured in a post-speech scuffle.
Seen in its best light, the controversy about free speech in American universities bespeaks fear that the next generation of Americans will not have been educated to engage in public debate, which necessarily entails encounter with alien and frequently outrageous perspectives. That is a problem well worth addressing, especially as our politics grows more diverse and more polarized. Universities do have a great responsibility to educate students for citizenship in a country violently split along lines of ideology and identity.
The language and structure of First Amendment rights, however, is a misguided way to conceptualize the complex and subtle processes that make such education possible. First Amendment rights were developed and defined in order to protect the political life of the nation. But life within universities is not a mirror of that life.
The Supreme Court has often observed that the First Amendment is the “guardian of our democracy.” By guaranteeing that all can participate in the formation “of that public opinion which is the final source of government in a democratic state,” the First Amendment lies at the foundation of our self-governance.
The noted legal scholar Alexander Meiklejohn once said that the First Amendment created an “equality of status in the field of ideas.” It prevents the state from excluding persons from public discourse on the basis of what they have to say. It extends to each citizen the promise that they will enjoy the equal right to influence the development of public opinion.
There are many arenas in which all ideas are not considered equal.
Another “bedrock principle” of the First Amendment is that “the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Yet no competent teacher would permit a class to descend into name-calling and insults. Even if the object of classroom education is to expose students to ideas that they might find disturbing or threatening, it is nevertheless inconsistent with learning for students to experience this encounter in settings where they are personally abused or degraded.
You get the idea. And you know from intuition and implication that when the Jew Post talks about protecting students from personal abuse, he’s not talking about the white students who (no matter what major they take) usually have to take mandatory classes on “race sociology” and “white privilege.” These courses say nothing good about white people, but individual students are blamed for the catastrophic and universal black murder rate or the low IQ of aboriginals.
Being of European descent is considered an ipso facto pathology on the American (and most Western) university campus. Jews want to make sure people like Richard Spencer and others aren’t allowed to defend white people’s honor from Jewish defamation.
Jews are behind almost all the gun-grabbing schemes (including “conservative” Jews!) and want erode the First Amendment so they can rampage against the popular will. The only reason the German government can get away with force-feeding little towns 3 million random black and brown people that rape and kill them, and then imprison people who tell the outside world they’re being raped and killed, is because Germans don’t have guns. The only thing Germans had was the internet, and now thanks to the Berlin Firewall that’s gone too.
When you see someone trying to chip away at free speech – one of the last political freedoms semi-consistently upheld in courts – flip a coin. If it’s heads it’s a Jew. If it’s tails, it’s a career climber doing the bidding of a Jew, like professor Post at Yale Law.
Someone who abuses his legal credentials to push for the overthrow of Constitutional law should be disbarred!