Talk:Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

	This Law related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

The wingnuts are deeply aggrieved

Patrick Popehat got the wingnuts and Gamergaters roused. Can we fact-check, polish up and extend this one? - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see why we need to bother; no matter what we do with it, Clark and Patrick (and probably Ken) will still poo-poo it because of fan-boyism. --Castaigne (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Because it'd be nice to have an obviously good article when idiots like that go off at it - David Gerard (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, sugartits...

Because apparently some asshole shouting "Hey, sugartits!" at a female classmate is just as worthy of First Amendment protection as students peacefully protesting their college's choice of commencement speaker. Actually, the point of First Amendment law is to keep the power to keep that kind of value judgment out of the hands of officialdom at every level. (And let's not confuse First Amendment law with the broader topic of freedom of speech, either.) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 00:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly correct on all counts. The question isn't whether it's desirable, ethical, or socially worthy to say stupid or offensive things; the question is whether it's acceptable for the government to judge the desirability, ethical nature, or social worthiness of speech based on its content. 172.7.49.82 (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about the McAdams Case

I was looking at the Claims of Conservative Bias section and I noticed that it said that McAdams allegedly violated FERPA. Is there a citation for this? All I've seen from FIRE and AARP is that Marquette violated their disciplinary procedures and never mentioned the FERPA violation. - AmericanExceptionalism2016 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking into that contention, it seems unverified. The section on the McAdams case has been edited to just briefly mention that contention as a contention and flesh out FIRE's contention of a violation of due process.

Seriously‎

Seriously, you've dedicated most of the article to a witchhunt about how they might be secretly conservative?

Looking through their site, they've defended professors who mocked religion, showed a documentary about porn, or advocated marijuana. They've defended students for forming a chapter of the NAACP, or trying to start a gay and lesbian group on campus, or celebrating Roe vs Wade. They claim in their letters to unite "civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum", and claim to be "consistently nonpartisan" and secular. The main guy is an atheist and their staff includes people who worked with Democrats, AIDS Law Project, Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund, ACLU, LGBT & AIDS Project, Foundation for AIDS Research, and someone who identifies as genderqueer.

Yup, that sounds pretty conservative to me. Hmmph (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and they have an article explicitly about it, too: https://www.thefire.org/fire-increasingly-ideological/ Hmmph (talk) 04:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, this article is damn weak and it's been that way for a long time. I'd be fine with a Hmmph makeover. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I don't even know where to start. And if someone comes along and starts revert-warring I'm just going to get stressed out and abandon ship. :/ Hmmph (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope you meant that even with the two sections of criticism, they still aren't enough to express their absurd skew?
To be 100% fair they still side correctly when it comes to the craziest ass shit, but aside of that their regressivity is mindblowing. From wack surveys and methodology (designed by ethno-traditionalist) to defending the coercive praying coach and the outright lying of judges. --Mirh (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Claim that conservative speech is more likely to need defending

Given that left-leaning professors are more often disciplined for their speech than conservative professors, the defense against claims of conservative bias ought to be reworked. Some mention should be made of the influence of large donors or more conservative-leaning administrations to challenge the idea that conservatives are more likely to be targeted. ^{— Unsigned, by: 130.126.255.239 / talk 01:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)}