First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Free Speech and Higher Education
qwueri 
22874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:

He's saying there are laws control people's behavior already because it protects the lives of dogs and cats and kids.

Anyway that's not what the topic is about. It's about free speech.

A common tactic is to get your opponent to shut up. Either through fear or shame. When a group on the forums argued for the the sexual molestation of children people would gladly join a chorus in condemning such talk as unacceptable. Needless to say some speech is more tolerated than others but in a college setting if someone wanted to argue for lowering the age of consent there would have to be a proper debate. The same disgust will be felt by those opposed to it I'm sure but that is the place to have a discussion where all sides can express their ideas and rationale.


For some reason I'm picturing your description of college like some weird version of a kid's dueling anime, where one person walks up to another, throws down a challenge, and they have to pick a topic. Even in a debate club, it's not as if students are required to treat a debate any more seriously than any other idea someone may say on the street. Unless a professor specifically assigns a topic, a college kid is just as likely to tell someone arguing something that disgusts them to 'shut up'.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

qwueri wrote:


MysticGon wrote:

He's saying there are laws control people's behavior already because it protects the lives of dogs and cats and kids.

Anyway that's not what the topic is about. It's about free speech.

A common tactic is to get your opponent to shut up. Either through fear or shame. When a group on the forums argued for the the sexual molestation of children people would gladly join a chorus in condemning such talk as unacceptable. Needless to say some speech is more tolerated than others but in a college setting if someone wanted to argue for lowering the age of consent there would have to be a proper debate. The same disgust will be felt by those opposed to it I'm sure but that is the place to have a discussion where all sides can express their ideas and rationale.


For some reason I'm picturing your description of college like some weird version of a kid's dueling anime, where one person walks up to another, throws down a challenge, and they have to pick a topic. Even in a debate club, it's not as if students are required to treat a debate any more seriously than any other idea someone may say on the street. Unless a professor specifically assigns a topic, a college kid is just as likely to tell someone arguing something that disgusts them to 'shut up'.


You have a point, which is kind of the problem here. The free exercise of thought may be getting snuffed out by those who want hive-minded indoctrination. It's reminds of the election where Will Ferrel was trying to convince people to vote because people can see your voting records. Peer pressure is an effective tool.

There was a member on here who use be in a think tank. I wonder if they had certain taboos or guidelines.
17165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/3/17

MysticGon wrote:
He's saying there are laws control people's behavior already because it protects the lives of dogs and cats and kids.

Anyway that's not what the topic is about. It's about free speech.

A common tactic is to get your opponent to shut up. Either through fear or shame. When a group on the forums argued for the the sexual molestation of children people would gladly join a chorus in condemning such talk as unacceptable. Needless to say some speech is more tolerated than others but in a college setting if someone wanted to argue for lowering the age of consent there would have to be a proper debate. The same disgust will be felt by those opposed to it I'm sure but that is the place to have a discussion where all sides can express their ideas and rationale.


College isn't the grand environment you are making it out to be. You would be surprised how fast ideas get shot down by people. Especially by your own college professors.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

descloud wrote:


College isn't the grand environment you are making it out to be. You would be surprised how fast ideas get shot down by people. Especially by your own college professors.


Save it. There are clubs, group discussions and assignments that let you express yourself.
17165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:


descloud wrote:


College isn't the grand environment you are making it out to be. You would be surprised how fast ideas get shot down by people. Especially by your own college professors.


Save it. There are clubs, group discussions and assignments that let you express yourself.


Do you even go to college? You don't need to join any clubs or group discussions to express yourself. Or did you just build up this unrealistic perception of how the college environment works?
qwueri 
22874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 5/2/17

MysticGon wrote:

You have a point, which is kind of the problem here. The free exercise of thought may be getting snuffed out by those who want hive-minded indoctrination. It's reminds of the election where Will Ferrel was trying to convince people to vote because people can see your voting records. Peer pressure is an effective tool.

There was a member on here who use be in a think tank. I wonder if they had certain taboos or guidelines.


Group think is a thing you run into anywhere. Even on "free speech" forums you could easily get drowned out by a mob of voices calling you "cuckservative", "libtard", etc. There is no platform where people are required to be polite and listen to your ideas, outside of those directly moderated by a professor or professional moderator with specific rules set up to facilitate civil debate. Being civil and listening to people is a great way of building rapport with a person (and a great skill for generally not being seen as a social troglodyte), but it's hardly a requirement of free speech.

As far as speaking on college campuses is concerned, without knowing the particular curriculum a speaker was invited to be part of, it's really hard to tell just how much impact is has on the quality of teaching. It's easy to look at a headline and assume the worst, but in most cases even the poli-sci classes tend to steer away from strict political divides.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

descloud wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


descloud wrote:


College isn't the grand environment you are making it out to be. You would be surprised how fast ideas get shot down by people. Especially by your own college professors.


Save it. There are clubs, group discussions and assignments that let you express yourself.


Do you even go to college? You don't need to join any clubs or group discussions to express yourself. Or did you just build up this unrealistic perception of how the college environment works?


I feel insulted. Taking all those humanities course in the first two years gives you plenty of opportunity to express yourself. My college experience was basically like high school with more work. You're not going to go in depth into any one thing for any amount of time unless it has something to do with your major. That's why there are clubs. To foster even more conversation about something that interests you.

Your not going to have campus democrats challenging campus republicans to showdowns everyday but you can talk about shit that you wouldn't in a classroom.
runec 
38564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/2/17 , edited 5/3/17

Ranwolf wrote:
A admirable stance OP but we can't let idealism over rule the historic precedent that letting certain people speak has caused great harm in the history of the human race.


Yeaaah....I mean, if we were talking about actual conservatives here and not professional hate mongers, attention whores, white supremacists and one dude that thinks women are just straight up less intelligent than men; Then maybe I could get onboard with the idealism. But I mean, if these awful human beings are the hill you want to die on let alone who you consider the voices of your movement than its hard to muster sympathy.

39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

Ranwolf wrote:

A admirable stance OP but we can't let idealism over rule the historic precedent that letting certain people speak has caused great harm in the history of the human race. If Hitler had been silenced in the 1930s the Third Reich might never have happened and 60+ million people wouldn't have had to die. If Lenin had been silenced Stalin might never have risen to power and 100s of millions of people wouldn't have had to die. If Mao had been silenced China might be less of a cluster fuck then it is now.

And there are literally thousands of other examples I don't have the energy to write that caused great harm. Great harm that begin with mere words. I am not allowed to freely wave around a loaded fire arm in public. So to should a citizen be careful with their words. Speech is not a given right but a privilege earned. Because words can enlighten or they can create genocide and thus are a form of power. And power can not be wielded recklessly.

You say all topics are allowed to be spoken of. I say look at all the bodies of those killed by those who abused Free Speech. It's easy to say such things in the comfort of your 1st world life. But you're not the one who has to clean the mess up when Free Speech is used to turn people into genocidal madmen.


Hitler enjoyed free speech, but his volunteer Brown Shirt volunteers shut down all dissenting opinions. They used intimidation, violence, shouting down, etc. to drown out and silence those who spoke to disagree with Hitler. In other words they were pulling an Antifa....

Same with the Communists in China. Mao started the "Cultural Revolution." in this so called revolution, Mao's supporters destroyed all of their cultural history. They also burned books with ideas counter to Mao's ideals, and they silenced Mao's critics.

Mao enjoyed freedom of speech, but his critics were murdered for saying the slightest thing against Mao.

This is what is happening in the United States. Conservatives are not silencing the extreme leftists, like Antifa. It is groups like Antifa, BAMN, and other extreme groups who are silencing the conservatives. They used violence, intimidation, slander, and labeling.

Conservatives are not racist Nazis, but they are labeled as such by the extreme leftists as a way to delegitimize what conservatives think and say.


That's called self censorship. It's what the Communist Chinese government expects its peasants and serfs to do, and they do self censor - or else.

FREE SPEECH IS NOT AN EARNED PRIVILEGE. IT IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT. It is among the rights and liberties which government, nor any other entity can take away from us.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Unalienable_rights


"[A]ll men are created equal...[and] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


Where is that quote from? It's from the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

Antifa exceeded their right to protest, when they abridged the rights of the others to speak.


Lawsuitst To protect the rights of others

Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.



Other quotes by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oliverwend125145.html


If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought, not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.


https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/o/oliverwend386774.html


I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
39169 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

qwueri wrote:

Protest is a form of free speech. So long as it doesn't turn violent (an therefore punishable by law) students and other people have just as much right to protest another person's speech. You don't have the kind of back and forth discourse that colleges are looking to initiate by inviting a controversial figure if protestors are not allowed to voice their own opinions in the process.


But not when it infringes on another person's right to free speech.

http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

Antifa exceeded their right to protest, when they abridged the rights of the others to speak.


Lawsuitst To protect the rights of others

Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the exercise of one person’s unalienable rights may not interfere with the exercise of another. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. is alleged to have said, “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” In other words, a person is free to exercise his or her unalienable rights without restraint, so long as he harms no other person, nor prevents anyone from exercising their own rights. When conflict does arise, the offended party may sue in a court of law in order to have their rights restored, or to be made financially whole, by legal process.


In other words the speaker who was infringed of their right to speak, and the students who were infringed of their rights to hear, have the right to sue, to recover their rights to speak and to hear.


qwueri wrote:

I think it's perfectly healthy for a school to decide whether or not it's worth having any particular figure come and speak. There may be free speech, but there are no free platforms for which to do that speaking. If a school doesn't have the environment to actually listen to a speaker, they're not obligated to host a nonconstructive debate. That doesn't make threats or use of violence acceptable, but neither should those threats be allowed to silence dissenting voices.


In this case, the protesters were the ones who did not allow the speaker a chance to voice their opinions. The protesters were heard loud and clear, "Shut Up! You don't have the right to speak!"

Also, the school has no right to block a speaker that was invited by the student body. By doing so, they infringe on the rights of students to hear ideas that differ from the schools' ideology.

Who decides what is nonconstructive? Who decides what is best for the students to hear?

But it's perfectly O.K. to silence the students who invited the speaker? What about their voices? Why is it O.K. to shut them down? Why don't they have the right to be heard, and why don't they have the right to hear?

19836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / B.C, Canada
Offline
Posted 5/3/17


For what it is worth mate I agree in principal with what you are saying here. But objectively speaking I have to ultimately disagree with it. Having freedom simply for freedom's sake is anarchy not a governing principal. We always at all times have to proceed with caution , life is a fire fight after all. And in a fire fight you don't go recklessly charging across open ground simply because what you want is on the other side. That is a quick way to be sent back home as cargo and not a passenger.

It's nice to say this and that but at the end of the day we have to be bigger picture. Not all ends can be seen and frankly history paints a pretty damming picture of what happens when we go all laissez faire with the rights of citizens the world round. In the end though rights are privileges. Somebody somewhere earned them and than passed them onto us to hold in trust not to carve into stone and say that is the be all and end all.

I am not necessarily saying Free speech should be utterly thrown out. I am saying opinions both foul and noble should be judged on their own merit without the protection of some charter, bill, deceleration, or whatever a country may call it. A man is no man if he must hide his nobility or his foulness underneath the legal protection of a paper signed back when a country's founders could not predicate the mess their decedents would make.

Cause and effect are not so simple as Jefferson made them out to be. People will and have abused the Rights their birth nation granted them. But by all means let them speak, but at the same time let them speak on their own. If words are what they wish to wield freely so then so should they stand freely.
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F
Offline
Posted 5/2/17

qwueri wrote:
Must be difficult being unfairly harassed by campus police for the crime of being conservative.


Unconstitutional would be more accurate.


The fact that it was necessary to cancel Ann Coulter's speech scheduled for last thursday, because the school could not guarantee her safety after the school received threats illustrates this.

Nicholas Dirks, the chancellor of the university, on Wednesday sent a letter to the university, citing violent protests that led to the cancellation of an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos in February and political clashes in the city in March and April. He said that the university’s commitment to free speech and security had to be balanced. Conservative students have filed a lawsuit claiming that the school has “systematically and intentionally suppressed constitutionally protected expression” for “conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy.”

I find it ironic that UC Berkeley touts itself as the 'home of the free speech movement'. That claim must now include an asterisk.
qwueri 
22874 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

DeadlyOats wrote:

But not when it infringes on another person's right to free speech.

http://www.ushistory.org/DECLARATION/document/

Antifa exceeded their right to protest, when they abridged the rights of the others to speak.


In other words the speaker who was infringed of their right to speak, and the students who were infringed of their rights to hear, have the right to sue, to recover their rights to speak and to hear.

In this case, the protesters were the ones who did not allow the speaker a chance to voice their opinions. The protesters were heard loud and clear, "Shut Up! You don't have the right to speak!"

Also, the school has no right to block a speaker that was invited by the student body. By doing so, they infringe on the rights of students to hear ideas that differ from the schools' ideology.

Who decides what is nonconstructive? Who decides what is best for the students to hear?

But it's perfectly O.K. to silence the students who invited the speaker? What about their voices? Why is it O.K. to shut them down? Why don't they have the right to be heard, and why don't they have the right to hear?



Someone can sue for damage in that case because the assailant committed assault. And assuming there's enough evidence or police present, they could press for legal charges as well. So nice in your flurry of red and blue to neglect the part where I specifically spoke against violence in protests.

The school has every right to decide when, where, and if their facility can accommodate a speaker. That violent assholes were threatening the campus is unfortunate in the extreme, but certainly within the school's obligation to maintain safety on their campus. Evaluating the safety of a situation is not infringing upon student's rights to speech, nor on the speaker's. The school has no authority over Coulter, nor over students' ability to discuss her, and deciding they were unable to safely give her platform silences neither her nor students.

Reading some sort of ideological narrative out of safety concerns seems false on it's face, considering the school was going along with it up until then. That the school has an interest in encouraging open dialogue is not a obligation of the first Amendment, and they are well within their right to decide whether they can safely host a speaker. They even have a right to decline hosting a speaker they feel does not reflect well upon the school (which does not appear to be the case with Berkley).

Violence is a threat to freedom of speech in general, a threat to both those wanting to listen to a speaker and those protesting that speaker peacefully.


DengekiFugu wrote:

Unconstitutional would be more accurate.


The fact that it was necessary to cancel Ann Coulter's speech scheduled for last thursday, because the school could not guarantee her safety after the school received threats illustrates this.

Nicholas Dirks, the chancellor of the university, on Wednesday sent a letter to the university, citing violent protests that led to the cancellation of an appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos in February and political clashes in the city in March and April. He said that the university’s commitment to free speech and security had to be balanced. Conservative students have filed a lawsuit claiming that the school has “systematically and intentionally suppressed constitutionally protected expression” for “conservative students whose voices fall beyond the campus political orthodoxy.”

I find it ironic that UC Berkeley touts itself as the 'home of the free speech movement'. That claim must now include an asterisk.


I'll be curious to see what's attributed to the campus systematically suppressing political expression beyond canceling events over safety concerns.
11829 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

DeadlyOats wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

A admirable stance OP but we can't let idealism over rule the historic precedent that letting certain people speak has caused great harm in the history of the human race. If Hitler had been silenced in the 1930s the Third Reich might never have happened and 60+ million people wouldn't have had to die. If Lenin had been silenced Stalin might never have risen to power and 100s of millions of people wouldn't have had to die. If Mao had been silenced China might be less of a cluster fuck then it is now.

And there are literally thousands of other examples I don't have the energy to write that caused great harm. Great harm that begin with mere words. I am not allowed to freely wave around a loaded fire arm in public. So to should a citizen be careful with their words. Speech is not a given right but a privilege earned. Because words can enlighten or they can create genocide and thus are a form of power. And power can not be wielded recklessly.

You say all topics are allowed to be spoken of. I say look at all the bodies of those killed by those who abused Free Speech. It's easy to say such things in the comfort of your 1st world life. But you're not the one who has to clean the mess up when Free Speech is used to turn people into genocidal madmen.


Hitler enjoyed free speech, but his volunteer Brown Shirt volunteers shut down all dissenting opinions. They used intimidation, violence, shouting down, etc. to drown out and silence those who spoke to disagree with Hitler. In other words they were pulling an Antifa....

Same with the Communists in China. Mao started the "Cultural Revolution." in this so called revolution, Mao's supporters destroyed all of their cultural history. They also burned books with ideas counter to Mao's ideals, and they silenced Mao's critics.

Mao enjoyed freedom of speech, but his critics were murdered for saying the slightest thing against Mao.

This is what is happening in the United States. Conservatives are not silencing the extreme leftists, like Antifa. It is groups like Antifa, BAMN, and other extreme groups who are silencing the conservatives. They used violence, intimidation, slander, and labeling.

Conservatives are not racist Nazis, but they are labeled as such by the extreme leftists as a way to delegitimize what conservatives think and say.


That's called self censorship. It's what the Communist Chinese government expects its peasants and serfs to do, and they do self censor - or else.





Absolutely spot on mate. Great post. It fucking amazes me that these leftist idiot extremists do not see that that is exactly how they're acting.
It's like they want America (the entire western world actually) to become a Communism or be ruled by dictator ship.
They call people "nazi's" but as you said, use the same tactics the brown coats used.
It's not too dissimilar to the Islamic extremists either, use death threats and violence to try to prevent people speaking against them and attack or disown anyone who dose not agree with them.
Posted 5/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


Happy reading. You need it.


So are you saying its NOT violating the 1st amendment rights of those they attempt to prevent from speaking and discriminate against in their speaking process?
Should've told this federal judge
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/
nb4 "b-but I never said that! Boxer putting words in my mouth again!"
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:


Happy reading. You need it.


So are you saying its NOT violating the 1st amendment rights of those they attempt to prevent from speaking and discriminate against in their speaking process?
Should've told this federal judge
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/
nb4 "b-but I never said that! Boxer putting words in my mouth again!"


Try looking at the links again.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.