| ▲ | adamiscool8 a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
>a handful of federal agencies confirmed earlier this month in court documents that they cut grants if researchers’ projects “expressed, or were presumed to express, viewpoints disfavored by the Administration.” Why is this bad? The Administration is democratically elected so nominally represents the viewpoints of the majority people - why should taxpayer funding go to disfavored research? >The UC researchers allege the grant terminations violated their First Amendment rights by targeting their work based on viewpoint and subject matter and have asked the federal judge overseeing the case to rule the revocations unconstitutional. More weird fascist technocratic fantasies from academia. Why would you be constitutionally entitled to continued public funding? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wtfwhateven 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>Why is this bad? I don't think anyone voted for the gov to use a crude, ridiculous keyword list with many more false positives than not to terminate the funding of any and all research that simply uttered a bad word regardless of context. I'm not sure why you're pretending they did. I suggest you actually read the first amendment. Maybe you'll understand then. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | mlrtime a day ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Read all the comments here, at this time, there are no civil conversations. It's all a echo chamber. You won't find anyone who wants to engage in actual conversation about the topic. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||