Free speech and the American University Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

No, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand. The GOVERNMENT is not telling them they can’t say these things. They are experiencing natural consequences of their choice to embrace and espouse willfull ignorance. Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.

Any public university is the “government” according to the First Amendment case law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

You are the problem and your illiberal instincts are insanely stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Hate speech IS protected you stupid idiot. So is most dangerous speech. Where the hell did you idiots go to school. Not in the US I guess...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Hate speech IS protected you stupid idiot. So is most dangerous speech. Where the hell did you idiots go to school. Not in the US I guess...

Protected from the govt sure. But you’re infringing on my first amendment rights when you tell me I can’t protest it.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

"Stupid and offensive" might be read instead to mean "I don't agree, I don't like it, I don't understand it, I don't want to try to understand why others might think like that, and consequently nobody should be able to articulate it or try to make a case for it. They must be silenced at all costs lest their pernicious position be heard by those too unwise to be able to decide for themselves whether it is reasonable, makes sense, is potentially actually valid".

Wait -- this is about the Florida bill banning teachers from mentioning that families like mine exist, right? That's the kind of suppression of free speech that you are opposed to, right?

There is no such bill. Talk about propaganda. The bill simply prevents instruction of gender identity in grades K-3. That's it. No one cares if your kid has two dads/moms, or if the teacher is LGBTQ. No one. But keep on frothing at the mouth about idiotic, non-existent "suppression."
DP

So how exactly does this work then, when kids in those grades are learning about their identity? I my DC’s school, they have units on identity starting in K, as a way to start teaching the child about their broader place in the world. How they define themselves, their family, etc. (I am a sister, I am a daughter, I am a Washingtonian, I am an American, etc.) so when they talk about their family, and let’s say they have 2 moms, they how does this continue without being able to explain (i.e. “instruct”) that some families are made up of 2 same sex parents? I mean, the kids of divorced parents, or intact m/f parents, or even kids living with grandparents can all discuss this openly. I’m just not sure how this works if you can’t teach the kids what it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Why don’t you do the same. You’re making me uncomfortable: Now you just said if a professor doesn’t agree with your views, or a student complains about your views to the prof (very easy to label opposing views as insensitive and provocative afterall) they are justified in giving you a bad grade??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: There is no such bill. Talk about propaganda. The bill simply prevents instruction of gender identity in grades K-3. That's it. No one cares if your kid has two dads/moms, or if the teacher is LGBTQ. No one. But keep on frothing at the mouth about idiotic, non-existent.

Gay teachers have already been fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

I think you have a poor grasp of the sorts of things that get shouted down these days as too controversial to question:

It’s things like progressive education policy like questioning whether ending Gifted and Talented classes, or ap classes out of “equity”, is good policy. Or ending merit based, neutral testing for rigorous schools is allowable because of the disparate impacts on acceptance.

Or whether fare evasion, no bail, allowing speeders to speed and colllect thousands of dollars of tickets but keep their license because tickets “are oppression” or the youth rehabilitation act going to age 26, or basically questioning whether revising the dc criminal code to make it more equitable is a good idea.

It seems like there is this massive movement to immediately shut down anyone dissenting from new policy. Our times are shifting incredibly rapidly and the young generation seems to not be able to countenance any dissent from progressive orthodoxy. There are rigid ideological purity tests on the left and moral absolutism abounds.

That’s not to say the right isn’t insane, with Christian nationalism and trump and what have you. However, to dismiss out of hand concerns that the left is stifling free speech is wrong. They just feel the stifle speech out of altruism.

[Anonymous]

Be prepared for this rallying cry to grow louder by 2024. Conservatives are trying to promote the idea of colleges as a place of indoctrination. I’ve posted this before but my Trumpster brother was aghast that I sent my white son to college because he would “learn to hate himself” and be surrounded by “woke ideology.” He sent him some truly vile books, since he was 18 and I could no longer “censor” his reading material. I read as much as I could stomach and would be appalled if either author came to my kid’s campus. My son wasn’t interested, one had an inflammatory title, so I tore them up.

We need to start pushing back on this narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Incorrect. If you deviate from the bounds of “reasonable” conversation in class on a college campus, essentially talking as a Republican, your peers will brand you a bigot or worse.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-conservative-students-really-do-self-censor/606559/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people don’t want to take responsibility for their words. Sure, you can say them—as in the instructor won’t kick you out of the class, a gang of students won’t beat you up, the university won’t expel you. But if you say something rude, insensitive, ignorant, or deliberately provocative, the natural consequences are that other people will challenge you, they won’t want to work with you or socialize with you, and the teacher will rightly assess that you are not a productive member of the class, and that might reflect on your grade if a portion of the grade is contributions to class discussions.

So, feel free to exercise your free speech. But understand that there will be consequences. Either adjust what you say and how you interact with people, or accept the consequences.

Incorrect. If you deviate from the bounds of “reasonable” conversation in class on a college campus, essentially talking as a Republican, your peers will brand you a bigot or worse.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/evidence-conservative-students-really-do-self-censor/606559/

This article is saying it’s not the institution, but a small minority of peers. Fewer than 25% said they would limit a worker and even fewer said campus would be better w/o conservatives. Also, the part about hearing disparaging things about racial groups was less than conservatives, is there a correlation there. If a conservative says something negative about a Black or gay person, then people would hear one thing about the Black or gay person. But, the news would spread and there would be several bad mentions about the conservative. I’m sure people will dispute this, but Trump was president when this was published.

Is it a problem that students are self-censoring? They don’t have to, and can see if there are any consequences. There may or may not be. That is projection. I think the problem after 2016 is that conservatives are tied into Trump and there are issues of civil rights at stake. That makes people passionate.

[Anonymous]

* limit a speaker

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:States are prohibiting teachers from talking about the history of race in America and saying “gay,” but cancel culture bullshit is what you’re worried about. Get a grip.

Show me where this is happening.