Free speech and the American University Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

But trying to prevent you from speaking if your views are abhorrent to me *is* my speech. Just like boycotting chick FIL a for their stance is my right. Now I may not be successful. You can laugh at me when my pathetic protest does no good. But I am free to do it and by speech, convince others to join me.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. Boycott all you want. What you're not entitled to do is interrupt a speaker or prevent others from hearing a speaker. And when it's turned around on you, you're the first one to bray about "free speech"!

You are conflating decorum with speech. The govt has to let you speak. Individuals do not. They can shout you down if they don’t like what you are saying. Your options are to give up and whine, shout over them, speak at a location where you control the audience, ask people to sign some kind of rules of engagement when entering the private event etc. But if you want to speak in public, you have to live with the consequences. Now if the protesters start doing things that are illegal, agitate to throw the book at them if you want. Like if they start doxxing people or threatening them with violence or brandishing a gun or whatever.

The civil rights protesters in the 60’s were actually breaking the law and decided to take the consequences (arrested) but they decided to do it anyway. Their cause was just, but they took risks (including with their lives) to protest. That is their right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So organize against the “left” like people did in the Va elections. The only weapon against speech is more speech. Why expect the “left” to behave when they feel strongly about something?

[Anonymous]

lifelong Democrat, and pretty liberal (by previous standards) b ut I would have liked to hear Ann Coulter speak at U.C. Berkeley - but protestors gathered and opposed even letting her speak - and the feckless (useless) college administrators sat back and did nothing. This is really the problem. Multiple examples of this on college campuses.

If you don't like what someone has to say just don't attend the speech.

[Anonymous]

I know that this has been said before on these threads but this issue will most likely cost Democrats elections. I have been a lifelong Democrat but for local elections, I sometimes vote Republican. This is a secret that I do not share. I imagine that there are a lot of people similar to me.


It really scares me how crazy some of these people have become. They are filled with so much hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know that this has been said before on these threads but this issue will most likely cost Democrats elections. I have been a lifelong Democrat but for local elections, I sometimes vote Republican. This is a secret that I do not share. I imagine that there are a lot of people similar to me.


It really scares me how crazy some of these people have become. They are filled with so much hate.

I haven’t yet voted for a republican, but I totally agree with you.

[Anonymous]

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.

+100. I would love to see if the same people talking about free speech on college campus believed in free speech for the NFL players that kneeled during the Anthem to bring attention to police brutality. I’m learning that’s it’s only a free speech issue when it is a conservative cause else it’s every excuse in the world - “not the right time/right place”, it’s practically Anti-American, it’s being “woke”, it’s an indoctrination, it’s making my kids feel bad about themselves, “what you don’t like it, move to another country”, “Why should my tax money/tuition money go towards this, that isn’t right” and the list of reasons go on. Until you tell me that the person all for free speech would welcome and even donate money to a speaker that says hateful things about them, I’m not buying that’s it about any lofty goals or ideals that would apply for all.

[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.

DP - it’s not as simple as you make it sound. In my experience the person that is opposing defund the police loudly, is saying they are justified in killing unarmed black people, will throw in crime statistics, and say it’s a tough job so they can’t be held accountable even for outrageously biased and racist behavior. I see a lot of the “I know people will call me a racist …” followed by a lot of racist bs. The line between questioning and hate speech IMO isn’t that close if you are starting from actually caring about the people involved and not partnering with people that don’t believe in their right to exist and have equal power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP - it’s not as simple as you make it sound. In my experience the person that is opposing defund the police loudly, is saying they are justified in killing unarmed black people, will throw in crime statistics, and say it’s a tough job so they can’t be held accountable even for outrageously biased and racist behavior. I see a lot of the “I know people will call me a racist …” followed by a lot of racist bs. The line between questioning and hate speech IMO isn’t that close if you are starting from actually caring about the people involved and not partnering with people that don’t believe in their right to exist and have equal power.

I think the way you view this is scary. Just because a person does not support Defund the Police does not make them a racist who thinks others don't have a right to exist. BTW, the te are many people of color who do not support that movement.

Your rapid response to label them racists is very troubling. You wAnt to shut down opposing views. Why not have a civil discussion about it. At the end If you don't to see the other side then fine.

Have you personally gone into communities affected by gun violence to ask them how they feel? Or do you live in a wealthy liberal bubble? Serious question. The issue is complicated.

[Anonymous]

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.

+100. I would love to see if the same people talking about free speech on college campus believed in free speech for the NFL players that kneeled during the Anthem to bring attention to police brutality. I’m learning that’s it’s only a free speech issue when it is a conservative cause else it’s every excuse in the world - “not the right time/right place”, it’s practically Anti-American, it’s being “woke”, it’s an indoctrination, it’s making my kids feel bad about themselves, “what you don’t like it, move to another country”, “Why should my tax money/tuition money go towards this, that isn’t right” and the list of reasons go on. Until you tell me that the person all for free speech would welcome and even donate money to a speaker that says hateful things about them, I’m not buying that’s it about any lofty goals or ideals that would apply for all.

You don't get out much, do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that this has been said before on these threads but this issue will most likely cost Democrats elections. I have been a lifelong Democrat but for local elections, I sometimes vote Republican. This is a secret that I do not share. I imagine that there are a lot of people similar to me.


It really scares me how crazy some of these people have become. They are filled with so much hate.

I haven’t yet voted for a republican, but I totally agree with you.

Same.

[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.

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??

If I am making you uncomfortable, you may report my post, and as moderator, Jeff would get to decide whether to delete my post or even temporarily or permanently ban me. That would be his call as moderator and owner of this space. Just like a university would have the right to decide whether to allow you in their space, or ask you to leave, or ban you. See how that works?

[Anonymous]

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.

+100. I would love to see if the same people talking about free speech on college campus believed in free speech for the NFL players that kneeled during the Anthem to bring attention to police brutality. I’m learning that’s it’s only a free speech issue when it is a conservative cause else it’s every excuse in the world - “not the right time/right place”, it’s practically Anti-American, it’s being “woke”, it’s an indoctrination, it’s making my kids feel bad about themselves, “what you don’t like it, move to another country”, “Why should my tax money/tuition money go towards this, that isn’t right” and the list of reasons go on. Until you tell me that the person all for free speech would welcome and even donate money to a speaker that says hateful things about them, I’m not buying that’s it about any lofty goals or ideals that would apply for all.

^
This

[Anonymous]

I’m a life long Republican and even I can spot a made up issue when I see one. No one is guaranteed a platform

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP - it’s not as simple as you make it sound. In my experience the person that is opposing defund the police loudly, is saying they are justified in killing unarmed black people, will throw in crime statistics, and say it’s a tough job so they can’t be held accountable even for outrageously biased and racist behavior. I see a lot of the “I know people will call me a racist …” followed by a lot of racist bs. The line between questioning and hate speech IMO isn’t that close if you are starting from actually caring about the people involved and not partnering with people that don’t believe in their right to exist and have equal power.

I think the way you view this is scary. Just because a person does not support Defund the Police does not make them a racist who thinks others don't have a right to exist. BTW, the te are many people of color who do not support that movement.

Your rapid response to label them racists is very troubling. You wAnt to shut down opposing views. Why not have a civil discussion about it. At the end If you don't to see the other side then fine.

Have you personally gone into communities affected by gun violence to ask them how they feel? Or do you live in a wealthy liberal bubble? Serious question. The issue is complicated.

No, what I actually said is that it is possible to have a conversation disagreeing about approach and it not be hate speech if we are coming from a place of caring about the people involved. I also said it can’t be a civil discussion if you are partnering with people that don’t believe in the rights for that group to exist and have equal power. I also said people that make racists statements, even when they go on the offensive with “I am sure people will say this is racist” actually are exhibiting racists behavior and when they tie it to “speaking their mind, free speech”, that doesn’t make it any less so. I never said someone that doesn’t support the movement is racist, I never actually said my race, my background, or my position about any of those issues. I just defined what I though would fall under the threshold of civil discourse and said it’s really possible to disagree on solutions and not be accused of hate speech if you are really interested in not veering into hate speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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??

If I am making you uncomfortable, you may report my post, and as moderator, Jeff would get to decide whether to delete my post or even temporarily or permanently ban me. That would be his call as moderator and owner of this space. Just like a university would have the right to decide whether to allow you in their space, or ask you to leave, or ban you. See how that works?

DCUM isn’t a government entity, but many colleges and universities are. And the government is not permitted to censor speech, but a private business or person isn’t held to that standard.
Now do you see how it works?