55 years after the Free Speech Movement on California college campus, nine other than Donald Trump has to issue an executive order to protect free speech rights on campus. So ironic that it’s liberals who are trying to prevent opinions different from their own from being voiced,or written.
Walk into one of these liberal campuses, and voice an opinion that supports the right to life, or supports building a wall to secure our border,or even, God forbid, wear a red hat that liberals don’t like, and you may be met with violence, almost certainly with hatred and hysteria.
Thank you, Trump for trying to protect our Bill of Rights.

You fools can’t be this much in a trance. He bans media members if he doesn’t like the question. He doesn’t like anyone that disagrees with him. Freedom of the press, remember. Who is the hypocrite? Oh, trump zombies are

Dumbest post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fools can’t be this much in a trance. He
> bans media members if he doesn’t like the
> question. He doesn’t like anyone that disagrees
> with him. Freedom of the press, remember. Who is
> the hypocrite? Oh, trump zombies are


In 2009 the Obama White House intentionally excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from participating in a round of interviews pertaining to the president’s push for healthcare reform. Later that same year, the administration officials tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House initially lied about this, and many in the press went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that the public learned the truth of the Feinberg episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009, showed the White House director of broadcast media told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d prefer if you skip Fox please.”

The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only administration official to have his network appearances limited by the White House.

The Obama White House communications director, Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to determine whether the reporter was the recipient of leaked CIA information. In February 2011, federal investigators were revealed to have spied on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's credit reports and his personal bank records. The feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.

Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from a White House conference call pertaining to the terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.

In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917. And all because the reporter used a State Department contractor as a source for a story. Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."

The Justice Department seized the records of at least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The federal law enforcement agency even seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.

In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had secretly collected two months' worth of personal and work-related phone calls made by AP reporters and editors.

Federal officials secretly obtained records on incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP journalists, as well as general news staff, the news group reported, potentially compromising many sources totally unrelated to the investigation. Federal investigators even collected data on calls made by AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery.

In 2014, the Obama administration set the record for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests of any administration. It topped this feat in 2015.

You beat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> In 2009 the Obama White House intentionally
> excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from
> participating in a round of interviews pertaining
> to the president’s push for healthcare reform.
> Later that same year, the administration officials
> tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing
> “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg.


Double standards and hypocrisy are long and well-established hallmarks of the Left.

You beat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumbest post Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You fools can’t be this much in a trance. He
> > bans media members if he doesn’t like the
> > question. He doesn’t like anyone that
> disagrees
> > with him. Freedom of the press, remember. Who
> is
> > the hypocrite? Oh, trump zombies are
>
>
> In 2009 the Obama White House intentionally
> excluded Fox News’ Chris Wallace from
> participating in a round of interviews pertaining
> to the president’s push for healthcare reform.
> Later that same year, the administration officials
> tried to block Fox reporters from interviewing
> “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. The White House
> initially lied about this, and many in the press
> went along with it. It wasn’t until 2011 that
> the public learned the truth of the Feinberg
> episode. An internal email dated Oct. 22, 2009,
> showed the White House director of broadcast media
> told Treasury officials specifically, “We’d
> prefer if you skip Fox please.”
>
> The bigger point is that Feinberg was not the only
> administration official to have his network
> appearances limited by the White House.
>
> The Obama White House communications director,
> Anita Dunn, said at the time, “We’re going to
> treat them the way we would treat an opponent. As
> they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama
> and the White House, we don’t need to pretend
> that this is the way that legitimate news
> organizations behave.”
>
> In 2010, the Obama administration renewed the
> bogus Bush-era subpoena against the New York
> Times' James Risen in a prolonged attempt to
> determine whether the reporter was the recipient
> of leaked CIA information. In February 2011,
> federal investigators were revealed to have spied
> on Risen. Federal investigators pored over Risen's
> credit reports and his personal bank records. The
> feds even tracked his phone logs and movements.
>
> Later, in 2012, Fox was mysteriously excluded from
> a White House conference call pertaining to the
> terrorist attacks on the U.S. consulate in
> Benghazi, Libya. Fox was also excluded from an
> all-network CIA briefing regarding the attacks.
>
> In 2013, the Obama Justice Department labeled
> then-Fox News reporter James Rosen a “criminal
> co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act of 1917.
> And all because the reporter used a State
> Department contractor as a source for a story.
> Rosen was also labeled a "flight risk."
>
> The Justice Department seized the records of at
> least five phone lines connected to Fox News. The
> federal law enforcement agency even seized the
> phone records of Rosen’s parents. The FBI also
> got a warrant to search Rosen's emails from 2010.
>
> In May 2013, the Associated Press revealed that
> the Justice Department had secretly collected two
> months' worth of personal and work-related phone
> calls made by AP reporters and editors.
>
> Federal officials secretly obtained records on
> incoming and outgoing calls made by specific AP
> journalists, as well as general news staff, the
> news group reported, potentially compromising many
> sources totally unrelated to the investigation.
> Federal investigators even collected data on calls
> made by AP reporters in the House of
> Representatives press gallery.
>
> In 2014, the Obama administration set the record
> for denying the most Freedom of Information Act
> requests of any administration. It topped this
> feat in 2015.


Obama's campaign kicked 3 embedded reporters off his plane for the rest of the campaign because their newpapers endorsed the traitor McCain. That was back in 2008. He has a long history of abusing those he considers opponents in the press.

Just wait until devil worshippers or atheists show up looking to speak publicly at Liberty U., these trumptards will be singing a whole different tune. dumb stuff like this always backfires with unintended consequences.

Everybody on the right is an abusive, lying asshole.

Dumbest post Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You fools can’t be this much in a trance. He
> bans media members if he doesn’t like the
> question. He doesn’t like anyone that disagrees
> with him. Freedom of the press, remember. Who is
> the hypocrite? Oh, trump zombies are


The OP posted facts. You posted lies. Not one reporter has been banned for asking questions.

Many, many, many people have been assaulted for using their 1st amendment rights supporting America on college campuses.

Obama never had anyone kicked out. That’s fake news

you know it’ll happen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wait until devil worshippers or atheists show
> up looking to speak publicly at Liberty U., these
> trumptards will be singing a whole different tune.
> dumb stuff like this always backfires with
> unintended consequences.


Bernie spoke at liberty you dumfuq.

Trump banned ocosta and was overruled, thankfully

Accost-Her karate chopped an intern's arm when she tried to take the microphone from him. That's why he got the boot. Now, they just don't call on him, which is driving him crazy. And it ain't that far of a drive.

Ocosta didn’t touch her fuckstick

Obama never did that Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama never had anyone kicked out. That’s fake
> news


Obama Boots Reporters From Conservative Papers

Was move coincidence or does Obama camp dislike their coverage?

By RUSSELL GOLDMAN Oct. 31, 2008 — Oct 31, 2008 1:16 PM ET

Barack Obama's campaign has booted from its airplane three reporters who work for newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.

The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.

Eliminated from the plane's traveling press were the Washington Times, the New York Post and the Dallas Morning News.

"It feels like the journalistic equivalent of redistributing the wealth," said John Solomon, executive editor of the Washington Times.

"We paid all along to travel and cover Obama. This is a matter of basic fairness. We've committed a lot of resources and have been covering Obama since the beginning. By the campaign's own admission our reporter has done a fair job," he said.

"We've covered him since 2007 and paid our dues. By the numbers we've covered Obama longer and given more coverage to him than many of the other people who were given seats. Our readers are mostly from Virginia, an important battleground state. He's not punishing us, he is punishing them," Solomon said.

The Times is one of the most-read news Web sites in the country and has one of the highest circulations in Virginia, Solomon said. He said the paper would fly its reporters on its own to continue coverage.

Libs hate Americans. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Bernie spoke at liberty you dumfuq.


Yeah but it was a political speech. Not an attempt to troll and bother christians, which you know is gonna happen.

Ocosta didn’t touch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ocosta didn’t touch her fuckstick


Sure he didn't douchebag

https://youtu.be/xnkXjmvFXeQ

Check out what Obama's administration did to James Risen, an investigative reporter at The New York Times.

The Obama Justice Department spent seven years in court trying to force Risen to reveal his sources in its criminal investigation of a leak. Team Obama took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.

Seven years with the threat of jail hanging over your head seems a lot worse than being excluded from an informal briefing with the press secretary on a Friday afternoon — especially when the content of that briefing would be available from pool reporters. But I lost count of all the cable heads saying in their best ominous voices last weekend how "chilling" Trump's action was.

Risen, a Puilitzer Prize winner, doesn't need me to make his case. Read his Times article published Dec. 30, 2016, under the headline: "If Donald Trump targets journalists, thank Obama."

He didn’t touch her. Trump was afraid as usual to take pushback. He hasn’t shown up to one correspondence dinner, because, oh no, someone might make fun of him.

Hail Satan! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs hate Americans. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Bernie spoke at liberty you dumfuq.
>
>
> Yeah but it was a political speech. Not an
> attempt to troll and bother christians, which you
> know is gonna happen.


libtards have shut down dozens upon dozens of speaking events on college campuses over the past 4 years. Never any libfags, just conservatives. It's all political speech that is being censored. Some conservative at Berkley who was advocating for free speech got punched in the face for advocating for free political speech on campus. This is 100% a problem with leftist nazis. Conservatives don't censor political speech.

Criticism of Mr. Obama’s stance on press freedom, government transparency and secrecy is hotly disputed by the White House, but many journalism groups say the record is clear. Over the past eight years, the administration has prosecuted nine cases involving whistle-blowers and leakers, compared with only three by all previous administrations combined. It has repeatedly used the Espionage Act, a relic of World War I-era red-baiting, not to prosecute spies but to go after government officials who talked to journalists.

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

I experienced this pressure firsthand when the administration tried to compel me to testify to reveal my confidential sources in a criminal leak investigation. The Justice Department finally relented — even though it had already won a seven-year court battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court to force me to testify — most likely because they feared the negative publicity that would come from sending a New York Times reporter to jail.

In an interview last May, President Obama pushed back on the criticism that his administration had been engaged in a war on the press. He argued that the number of leak prosecutions his administration had brought had been small and that some of those cases were inherited from the George W. Bush administration.

“I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and the need for journalists to pursue every lead and every angle,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with the Rutgers University student newspaper. “I think that when you hear stories about us cracking down on whistle-blowers or whatnot, we’re talking about a really small sample.

“Some of them are serious,” he continued, “where you had purposeful leaks of information that could harm or threaten operations or individuals who were in the field involved with really sensitive national security issues.”

But critics say the crackdown has had a much greater chilling effect on press freedom than Mr. Obama acknowledges. In a scathing 2013 report for the Committee to Protect Journalists, Leonard Downie, a former executive editor of The Washington Post who now teaches at Arizona State University, said the war on leaks and other efforts to control information was “the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate.”

When Mr. Obama was elected in 2008, press freedom groups had high expectations for the former constitutional law professor, particularly after the press had suffered through eight years of bitter confrontation with the Bush administration. But today, many of those same groups say Mr. Obama’s record of going after both journalists and their sources has set a dangerous precedent that Mr. Trump can easily exploit. “Obama has laid all the groundwork Trump needs for an unprecedented crackdown on the press,” said Trevor Timm, executive director of the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Dana Priest, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The Washington Post, added: “Obama’s attorney general repeatedly allowed the F.B.I. to use intrusive measures against reporters more often than any time in recent memory. The moral obstacles have been cleared for Trump’s attorney general to go even further, to forget that it’s a free press that has distinguished us from other countries, and to try to silence dissent by silencing an institution whose job is to give voice to dissent.”

The administration’s heavy-handed approach represents a sharp break with tradition. For decades, official Washington did next to nothing to stop leaks. Occasionally the C.I.A. or some other agency, nettled by an article or broadcast, would loudly proclaim that it was going to investigate a leak, but then would merely go through the motions and abandon the case.

Of course, reporters and sources still had to be careful to avoid detection by the government. But leak investigations were a low priority for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. In fact, before the George W. Bush administration, only one person was ever convicted under the Espionage Act for leaking — Samuel Morison, a Navy analyst arrested in 1984 for giving spy satellite photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane’s Defense Weekly. He was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.

Things began to change in the Bush era, particularly after the Valerie Plame case. The 2003 outing of Ms. Plame as a covert C.I.A. operative led to a criminal leak investigation, which in turn led to a series of high-profile Washington journalists being subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury and name the officials who had told them about her identity. Judith Miller, then a New York Times reporter, went to jail for nearly three months before finally testifying in the case.

The Plame case began to break down the informal understanding between the government and the news media that leaks would not be taken seriously.

The Obama administration quickly ratcheted up the pressure, and made combating leaks a top priority for federal law enforcement. Large-scale leaks, by Chelsea Manning and later by Edward J. Snowden, prompted the administration to adopt a zealous, prosecutorial approach toward all leaking. Lucy Dalglish, the dean of the University of Maryland’s journalism school, recalls that, during a private 2011 meeting intended to air differences between media representatives and administration officials, “You got the impression from the tone of the government officials that they wanted to take a zero-tolerance approach to leaks.”

The Justice Department, facing mounting criticism from media organizations, has issued new guidelines setting restrictions on when the government could subpoena reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources. But those guidelines include a loophole allowing the Justice Department to continue to aggressively pursue investigations into news reports on national security, which covers most leak investigations. In addition, the guidelines aren’t codified in law and can be changed by the next attorney general.

More significantly, the Obama administration won a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in my case that determined that there was no such thing as a “reporter’s privilege” — the right of journalists not to testify about their confidential sources in criminal cases. The Fourth Circuit covers Virginia and Maryland, home to the C.I.A., the Pentagon and the National Security Agency, and thus has jurisdiction over most leak cases involving classified information. That court ruling could result, for example, in a reporter’s being quickly jailed for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the Trump administration’s Justice Department to reveal the C.I.A. sources used for articles on the agency’s investigation into Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election.

Press freedom advocates already fear that under Senator Jeff Sessions, Mr. Trump’s choice to be attorney general, the Justice Department will pursue journalists and their sources at least as aggressively as Mr. Obama did. If Mr. Sessions does that, Ms. Dalglish said, “Obama handed him a road map.”

James Risen is an investigative reporter for The New York Times and the author of “Pay Any Price: Greed, Power and Endless War.”

I’ve seen video Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He didn’t touch her. Trump was afraid as usual
> to take pushback. He hasn’t shown up to one
> correspondence dinner, because, oh no, someone
> might make fun of him.


I didn't post the video link for you. You're too far gone to even look at it, where it 100% shows Acosta's pussified karate chop. I posted it for anyone else who might not know the truth. This fool is lying. The video proves it. He loses. Again.

Everyone saw it and smart people, not trump zombies that think Mexico is paying for some wall, know he didn’t touch her. Video exists of trump lying 9000 times in 2 years. Post those.

apples and oranges Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> got punched in the face for
> advocating for free political speech on campus.

Trump’s executive order does nothing to prevent or stop something like that from happening. It’s all just lip service to console oppressed whitetards, an act that’s only gonna draw more attention for nutjobs who want to punch people and harass nazi’s.

Hail Satan! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs hate Americans. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> >
> > Bernie spoke at liberty you dumfuq.
>
>
> Yeah but it was a political speech. Not an
> attempt to troll and bother christians, which you
> know is gonna happen.


The fact is a Satan worshiping, communist spoke at liberty because civilized people are open to listen to others opinions, libs aren't.

Trump banned ocosta Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Trump banned ocosta and was overruled, thankfully


Acosta was banned for assaulting the young intern as well as harassment.

No doubt Maddow told you Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’ve seen video Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > He didn’t touch her. Trump was afraid as
> usual
> > to take pushback. He hasn’t shown up to one
> > correspondence dinner, because, oh no, someone
> > might make fun of him.
>
>
> I didn't post the video link for you. You're too
> far gone to even look at it, where it 100% shows
> Acosta's pussified karate chop. I posted it for
> anyone else who might not know the truth. This
> fool is lying. The video proves it. He loses.
> Again.


You're talking to a person that thinks Donald Trump a developer worked with Putin to coherce the electoral college to vote for him. This is how stupid libtards are.

You can get punished and expelled from Liberty for things you say. Portraying it as a civilized open-minded campus is laughable.

A developer? The guy was given 400 million by daddy and went bankrupt 4 times. No worries, Trump thinks you’re idiots for buying into him also. He really does

religious nuts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can get punished and expelled from Liberty for
> things you say. Portraying it as a civilized
> open-minded campus is laughable.


That's because it is a private Christian school and all students sign a code of conduct that includes not doing stuff that is against the teachings of the Bible. They still let commie atheists like Bernie speak there. And they don't punish anyone for their political views, unlike every ivy school and 4000 out of the 4500 other accredited colleges and universities in this country do. And they all punish conservative views, never liberal ones.

religious nuts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can get punished and expelled from Liberty for
> things you say. Portraying it as a civilized
> open-minded campus is laughable.


It's a private university and like any other university you sign an honor code. I understand you wouldn't know that.

A developer? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A developer? The guy was given 400 million by
> daddy and went bankrupt 4 times. No worries, Trump
> thinks you’re idiots for buying into him also.
> He really does


but Obama and Hillary and Bernie hate their idiots for buying into them though?

We'll believe our own eyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> religious nuts Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You can get punished and expelled from Liberty
> for
> > things you say. Portraying it as a civilized
> > open-minded campus is laughable.
>
>
> That's because it is a private Christian school
> and all students sign a code of conduct that
> includes not doing stuff that is against the
> teachings of the Bible. They still let commie
> atheists like Bernie speak there. And they don't
> punish anyone for their political views, unlike
> every ivy school and 4000 out of the 4500 other
> accredited colleges and universities in this
> country do. And they all punish conservative
> views, never liberal ones.


More truth and facts. Libs are going to riot!

We'll believe our own eyes Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And they all punish conservative
> views, never liberal ones.


that’s not the schools punishing it. it’s society punishing it.

I’ve seen video Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He didn’t touch her. Trump was afraid as usual
> to take pushback. He hasn’t shown up to one
> correspondence dinner, because, oh no, someone
> might make fun of him.


One of the very few things I like about President Trump is his refusal to participate in dopey events because 'its tradition.'

The right wing version of free speech is all about deliberate debasing and coarsening public speech to ever greater levels of abuse of disapproved populations. Nazi stuff through and through.

Don’t be fooled... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The right wing version of free speech is all about
> deliberate debasing and coarsening public speech
> to ever greater levels of abuse of disapproved
> populations. Nazi stuff through and through.


Libs are living in an alternate universe. Your entire democrat platform could be 1930's Germany.

Why do democrats hate the Constitution so much? Because it protects Americans from dems’ dictatorial ambitions!

Opposite day Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your entire democrat platform could be 1930's Germany.

Like inviting hordes of Trump-hat wearers to shout "JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US" into Charlottesville. Those pesky dems I tell ya, they're up ta no good. they are not very fine people.

you know it’ll happen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just wait until devil worshippers or atheists show
> up looking to speak publicly at Liberty U., these
> trumptards will be singing a whole different tune.
> dumb stuff like this always backfires with
> unintended consequences.


Does Liberty U. receive any Federal funds? If it does, it has to let those people speak. If it doesn't, it's a private institution, so it can do what it wants to. If it gets Federal money & is willing to give it up to keep those people from speaking it can do that, too.

Public institutions have to let those people speak regardless of them getting Federal funds or not. The courts have told the public institutions this repeatedly.

Trash pile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everybody on the righleft is an abusive, lying
> asshole.


FIFY

Asker of questions Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does Liberty U. receive any Federal funds?

Probably in some form or another but I doubt they're getting major research grants. Liberty's not known for churning out engineering and scientific talent. Definitely not a institute you'd solicit for cutting edge technical prowess.