Free speech and the American University Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said. Any dissent is considered "hate speech." The left has gone off the cliffs of insanity.

What?

Did you not see CPAC this week and what happened in Tennessee afterward?

It is not the "left" it is the REPUBLICAN PARTY OF NAZIS

I am so tired of conservatives bending this narrative

You literally are supporting Nazism with your words. Every word coming out of those speeches is from Mein Kampf spare us your utter crap.

And if you believe Alex Jones should be free to spew his garbage please enlighten those families that lost elementary school children.

Words matter. Learn the Constitution clearly you missed civics and what being an American is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wsj is a rag.

It is literally propaganda.

Tell us you're a LWNJ without telling us you're a LWNJ. A very ignorant LWNJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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/

+1
Very glad there is now a pushback. Those trying to censor anything that is not approved by the far left are going to be facing some serious backlash at the polls if they keep it up.

Hilarious, have you seen some of the R senate candidates? I bet the GOP wishes that they weren’t being given a platform to speak

Yes. Similarly, there are some wacko D candidates, who embarrass the party every time they open their mouths.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have no doubt that if you were trying to speak in public and were shouted down by protesters, you'd be outraged about your first amendment rights being violated. At any rate, we're not talking about people just randomly speaking in public. We're talking about invited speakers on campus who are then mobbed by protesters, often violently, preventing others from getting to hear their speech. Or invited speakers who are then DISinvited due to protesters pressuring the administration - because they don't agree with the speaker and want to silence them.

Have you forgotten about the YLS idiots? Middlebury? Berkeley?

I have been shouted down by protesters over an unpopular position I took (and still take). It’s not political at all and sort of esoteric in my field so you wouldn't have heard of it. I didn’t care even a little bit. Most people don’t. Would you?

Invited speakers to speak in public where all are welcome are exactly where these rules apply. I don’t condone at all any violence. But heckling them or shouting out that they are crazy, bigots, whatever is something the speaker should be prepared for. Students demonstrating to get their university to stop a speaker from coming to campus is as old as time. Seriously. Sometimes the administration listens. Sometimes they don’t.

If you want to sponsor a controversial speaker and only have positive comments, make it a private event. Give out tickets only to your supporters or whatever. Have it at your house or rent out a venue. That will keep protesters away.

If I don’t like someone my company is bringing in to talk about something, I can choose not to go or to make a fuss. Making a fuss may cost me my job. But I have seen people who chose to push forward and get people disinvited. What is this expectation that everyone must be polite and not cause any discomfort for anyone? That sounds very much like propaganda and not speech.

[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.

"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.

The Florida bill is flawed but OPs point is that it is worthwhile to have in depth conversations on these topics without silencing viewpoints by labeling them offensive or bigoted. My opinion is that most Americans believe that there is a significant difference between a teacher saying that student Larla has two moms and a teacher telling 6 year old Larla that she can decide to be either a boy or a girl or both or neither.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"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.

The Florida bill is flawed but OPs point is that it is worthwhile to have in depth conversations on these topics without silencing viewpoints by labeling them offensive or bigoted. My opinion is that most Americans believe that there is a significant difference between a teacher saying that student Larla has two moms and a teacher telling 6 year old Larla that she can decide to be either a boy or a girl or both or neither.

Exactly. This is common sense for most - but unfortunately, not all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I have no doubt that if you were trying to speak in public and were shouted down by protesters, you'd be outraged about your first amendment rights being violated. At any rate, we're not talking about people just randomly speaking in public. We're talking about invited speakers on campus who are then mobbed by protesters, often violently, preventing others from getting to hear their speech. Or invited speakers who are then DISinvited due to protesters pressuring the administration - because they don't agree with the speaker and want to silence them.

Have you forgotten about the YLS idiots? Middlebury? Berkeley?

DP. You don’t seem to understand what a constitutional amendment is. A mob shouting someone down has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the first amendment.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the relentless Republican campaign against free speech continues with the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and a raft of legislation prohibiting Americans from any reasoned debate about multi-billion dollar aid US to Israel.

Also, Republicans who cynically whine about mobs on college campuses continue their relentless campaign to expand their campaigns of armed terror against (often Republican) election officials who dare to state the obvious truth that the 2020 election wasn’t stolen by space lasers.

[Anonymous]

Here’s some information on the Republican campaign of terror to stop the most basic expression of free speech - the right to vote.

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-trump-georgia-threats/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"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.

The Florida bill is flawed but OPs point is that it is worthwhile to have in depth conversations on these topics without silencing viewpoints by labeling them offensive or bigoted. My opinion is that most Americans believe that there is a significant difference between a teacher saying that student Larla has two moms and a teacher telling 6 year old Larla that she can decide to be either a boy or a girl or both or neither.

You parent your child, try it sometime.