Should UNCW support Dr. Adams's comments as free speech regardless of how offensive they may be?

Just for the record. I am half African American. My mom was born in a small town named Momdombe in the Heart of the Congo, that would upstream on the river that flows into the Congo at Bolenge. My dad is from Kentucky and landed on Omaha beach in the third wave on D day. Those who do not have our best interests at heart are excited at how well they are dividing us over skin color. Our Father in Heaven looks at us as individuals and has no use for anything that builds hate. Since the most amazing title we can bear is that of sons and daughters of God, why is our common enemy so sucessful at getting us to sweat the small stuff.

Nothing will change until the various governments - Federal, State, and Local - eliminate segregating us by Race. Fix that first, and then maybe you'll have a shot at undoing the harm that diversity and political correctness have imbued in our Republic.

I wanted an option that said I care less about this than I do about how many sheep Mike Adams has made sweet love to.

African Americans will someday need to come to terms with the fact that for many of them, their minds are completely closed, and they are often the biggest racists there are.

How about a second question for the poll- "Are Dr. Adam's comments even offensive?"

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "I may think that you are an obnoxious jerk (which Dr. Mike is), but I will defend to the death your right to be one."

Well said Dr. Adams. So few on campus these days have the guts to confront the bigotry masquerading as PC race based cultural centers. "Diversity" is a favorite canard of The Left intentionally meant to communicate exclusion of the heterosexual white male and conservatives of any stripe. Many in the liberal establishment entrenched on most college campuses choose to ignore the true meaning of free speech and true diversity. Keep speaking truth to power, Dr. Adams!

The very objective of the First Amendment is to protect "offensive" speech. No wars were fought, no patriots hanged, no bullets fired over whether sugar or honey was a better sweetener in tea. No, the founding fathers wrote that to protect the very speech you so casually discard as "offensive."
I find the phrasing of your question quite offensive, in fact. Your apparent ignorance of the purpose of the Constitution is shocking, and your apparently biased and subjective questions really leads to many questions about your ability as a newsperson.
But by all means, continue your work! That's what the Constitution is for.

Surely the more interesting question is, Should (whomever) support the right of WWAY reporters to express their opinions, even when, according to their own poll, 95% of Americans disagree with them?

If freedom of speech only applies as long as the speech is not "offensive", then by definition there is no freedom of speech. If what you want to say offends no one, then no one is going to make any effort to censor it. If you have the absolute right to freedom of speech, as long as it does not offend those in power, then you have no right to freedom of speech at all. Surely even the most totalitarian government allows people to speak when they agree with the government. Oh, and of course if your speech only offends those who have no political power, then by definition they are incapable of censoring it.

So ... WWAY comes out against freedom of speech! Congratulations!

Dr. Adams has a right to say whatever the hell he wants. What is really sad is that the article in question was satire. It is sad when the people who are supposed to be the brightest can't recognize satire.

What is it with liberal blacks versus the more adult conservative blacks? It seems like an episode from "Peanuts" where Charlie Brown runs into Linus who always carries a dusty ole blanket. The blanket is a "security blanket" much like all these African American centers. What blacks really need is more maturity and less of this angry passive aggressive socialist rap of trash talking everything a conservative says but they become whimpy sissy's when a white liberal says something offensive(think Dan Rather's "Obama couldn't sell watermellons by the road side"). Blacks whimped out and now this angry girl gets worked up over the failures of diversity and one man's comments that diversity is no longer needed.

Diversity does need to end because its a form of cheating and its not helping lift blacks up, its making them dependant on cheating the system to get ahead. What blacks should demand is the right to sue when they are held back but if the rules or procedures limit some blacks because they lack the smarts to get the job or get into school, well there are many many alternative schools. Letting in a few dummies dumbs down the whole purpose of equality. If blacks can make the grade, let them in, if not move on. Seriously, move on to another job or school or whatever. Stop cheating to get ahead and stand on your own laurels. Why because only the best get the job or into a school, everyone else looks elsewhere its how whites get ahead. There are many whites who would love to go to Harvard or work for Coca Cola, but they don't get to cheat the system to get ahead using diversity as a crutch. Cheating is not the future of blacks.

This angry black girl is a joke, she went so far as to harass a man at work and make a spectacle of nothing, if he did the same it would be deemed racist, catch my drift. Obviously she lacks the emotitional intelligence to cope with the fact that blacks are cheating the system with diversity and what blacks really want is equality. You can't get equality cheating the system. One standard for all and fine offenders if the law or rules are violated.............thats where liberals went wrong with the EEOC and diversity.

Juggernauzt @Twitter

I'd love to know who that black female student was who called Dr. Adams up, chewed him out, and then threatened to meet with his superiors about his attitude.

I'd really like to meet up with her and give her a piece of mind. (I've got enough to go around, I don't think she does.)

I'm white, I'm a woman, I'm proud.

Love Mike Adams' columns.

I would agree that all speech should be free regardless of how offensive it is, but stuff like the urine covered crusfix, porn etc? Is that speech? Or just sick people acting out?

The young woman in question seems to think that only speech she disagrees with should be limited. Has she forgotten the many men and women who have fought and died to give the right of free speech to all, regardless of the content. The only restriction I can see reasonable is the old one of not crying "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire and thus endangering many.

Your question is troubling. Dr. Adams' comments ARE free speech. You pose the question as if to infer that UNCW has the option of supporting free speech, as well as determining if what Dr. Adams has to say is,in fact, Constitionally protected free speech. They DON'T have that option, as it is easily recognizable as this individual's free speech. 'Regardless of how offensive they may be' assumes that there is someone on the faculty of UNCW that has an 'offensive meter' that can determine when the free speech line has been crossed. Dr. Adams, as well as everyone else, has the right to say what they please, regardless of who may be offended, and regardless of what the courts may say. The Constitutional right to Free speech is not open to interpretation, therefore, the right does not end if someone does not like what is being said.

Adams has every right to be critical of anything he pleases. So do the racial separatists who join these types of organizations.

And the question is phrased by someone who has no idea what "free speech" means, constitutionally.

UNCW doesn't have to "support" Dr. Adams's comments. The federal Congress may make no law abridging his innate right to speech, and is bound only by the contitutional statutes that apply to that state and locale.

Schoolin' much?

UNCW should support Dr Adams because he is right. Since the young man is concerned about being in the mainstream I would suggest that with a 94% approval rating Dr Adams is overwhelmingly there. ASU"76"

The totalitarians of the campus left cannot grasp the idea that the only speech that needs protecting is that which is unpopular, particularly with those in power. There is NO constitutional right to not be offended.

Let's see, "Diversity"...as in, say, Dividing? then Devisive? Oh, okay, so that leads to...categorizing...then pigeonholing...then controlling...But controlling what? Oh, of course, the properly racially organized categories of people...so now you can control each group's message to match your own!

Ah! Now I see how that works.

If deeds such as submerging a crucifix in urine and burning an American flag are considered speech, I fail to see why the act of thinking and speaking shouldn't be considered speech as well. That's not how the Constitution is interpreted, just what it says in ink on parchment. If it was good enough for Jefferson and Madison, I'm cool with that too.

is no longer trumps. I call B.S. on all black segregationists and racists.

How about they just announce that free speech is a good thing and invite everyone to have at it and suggest that they are not "umpires"

I am a post-graduate student at San Jose State University. The most intolerant, racist people I know are from the progressive left.