[Genuine Realist]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.

[Genuine Realist]

Stanford has released a statement:

"Dr. Atlas has expressed views that are inconsistent with the university’s approach in response to the pandemic. Dr. Atlas’s statements reflect his personal views, not those of the Hoover Institution or the university." https://news.stanford.edu/2020/11/16/sta...ott-atlas/

Too bad his statements reflect poorly on the university, whether or not the university wants it to. Also, let's dump the Hoover Institute.

Perfect.

If you don't act the way I want you to act; or think the way I want you to think . . . well, then . . . you should be banned.  
Good grief.

No. I made clear in my post on this topic that it's fine to have people disagree bout things. It's in fact healthy, but only when the ideas are not killing people in droves and putting the entire country and world at risk.

This isn't debating nuclear power or no nuclear power.  This isn't debating UBI.  There must be lines that can't be crossed or we stand for nothing. This isn't a free speech issue.

Do you / did you let your kids do whatever the f*ck they wanted without retribution, when they crossed certain lines? Your logic suggests we shouldn't ever punish people for doing things that harm others or put them at risk.  This is very basic stuff. It shouldn't be that hard. 

You tell everyone, where do we draw the line that can't be crossed?

Right. The First Amendment only applies to harmless ideas. Got it. The modern Blackshirt speaks.

The whole point of the Amendment is not to draw lines, or as few as possible.