College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

[icehorse]

This is the reason we should be very sceptical of opinion polls where people talk about values, the results are almost entirely dependant on question wording. As such, they are generally meaningless and are best ignored. We love polls because they have nice % figures that make us think they are 'scientific', but they are mostly worthless.

For example, do you believe that colleges should be able to punish someone for calling a black student a *n word*? If so, you agree with the latter. Or does free speech restriction make you think of 'snowflakes' and 'safe spaces', in which case you might be against restrictions.

Even with precise questions your wording makes a huge difference, with vague, fuzzy statements it means next to nothing. Also it's not just about the question, but the context. You could easily make this 57% change significantly based on the wording of the previous questions and how these 'prime' the responders.

The actual questions were listed at the end of the survey. They seem pretty clean to me.

 

[Wandering Monk]

According the to survey of 2225 U.S. college students linked to below:

- 96% think it's important to have their rights and liberties (e.g. free speech) protected on campus.
- But 57% think that "offensive" or "intolerant" views should be restricted.

Apparently, many students are unclear on the concept of free speech.

https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.n...4349/Student-Attitudes-Association-Survey.pdf

Children should be taught HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why? You favour curtailing freedom of speech to some degree too and I suspect that in practice, there isn't that wide a difference between your two positions.

A lot of us, including most of us Leftist,cringe at the idea of someone being silenced for having an opinion. As long as they aren't calling for violence or discrimination, people should be able to speak. People like Milo, they are inflammatory trolls who are best countered by being challenged in debate and thoroughly refuted. Don't silence them by not allowing them to speak, silence them with facts and by making them look like the fool they are.

 

[Shad]

A lot of us, including most of us Leftist,cringe at the idea of someone being silenced for having an opinion. As long as they aren't calling for violence or discrimination, people should be able to speak. People like Milo, they are inflammatory trolls who are best countered by being challenged in debate and thoroughly refuted. Don't silence them by not allowing them to speak, silence them with facts and by making them look like the fool they are.

At times giving people face time only encourages them. Someone can hold some lecture or whatever they want to call it with a tiny audience. No one really cares. However people flipping out makes the news so people like Milo get free press only because of the outrage.

Media has used outrage to get viewer for years. Hence why the weather channel isn't like say Fox.

"Sunny with a chance of rain" Hard to spin that.

"Corn plants outraged over the lack of rain. Drop leaflet in protest!"

 

[Stevicus]

At times giving people face time only encourages them. Someone can hold some lecture or whatever they want to call it with a tiny audience. No one really cares. However people flipping out makes the news so people like Milo get free press only because of the outrage.

Media has used outrage to get viewer for years. Hence why the weather channel isn't like say Fox.

"Sunny with a chance of rain" Hard to spin that.

"Corn plants outraged over the lack of rain. Drop leaflet in protest!"

The Weather Channel website sometimes has articles on climate change. Just yesterday I saw this article on deforestation in the Amazon: Amazon Deforestation Is Fast Approaching a 'Tipping Point,' Studies Show | The Weather Channel

 

[Augustus]

The actual questions were listed at the end of the survey. They seem pretty clean to me.

Do you think colleges should be able to punish people for racial abuse?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At times giving people face time only encourages them. Someone can hold some lecture or whatever they want to call it with a tiny audience. No one really cares. However people flipping out makes the news so people like Milo get free press only because of the outrage.

Exactly that. Controversy sells, and it's free advertisement. So many people would have died broke and in total obscurity, but people get offended and announce to the world the existence of what/who offended them. So more people, including supporters of the offender, learn about and discover this offending thing, and suddenly, like Eminem and Milo, instead of obscurity they have wealth and fame.

 

[Shad]

The Weather Channel website sometimes has articles on climate change. Just yesterday I saw this article on deforestation in the Amazon: Amazon Deforestation Is Fast Approaching a 'Tipping Point,' Studies Show | The Weather Channel

Sure. However the article does not seem to be as loaded as media with it's outrage pundits like say Hannity.

 

[icehorse]

Do you think colleges should be able to punish people for racial abuse?

You'd have to define what you mean. But I do think that racists ought to be able to speak, and be criticized, on campus. It's not easy to listen to vile speech, but it's a skill college students have to learn.

 

[Shad]

Exactly that. Controversy sells, and it's free advertisement. So many people would have died broke and in total obscurity, but people get offended and announce to the world the existence of what/who offended them. So more people, including supporters of the offender, learn about and discover this offending thing, and suddenly, like Eminem and Milo, instead of obscurity they have wealth and fame.

Yup. Milo then obviously uses the outrage as a springboard. He gets interviewed, spouts off followed by outrage /repeat.

 

[Shad]

You'd have to define what you mean. But I do think that racists ought to be able to speak, and be criticized, on campus. It's not easy to listen to vile speech, but it's a skill college students have to learn.

An issue these days is the privatization of media and academy having enabled various groups to pick which views it wants on campus. The principle is not longer being practiced by many institution only lip-service is bothered with. Media giants can easily reduce free speech to a street corner.

For example saying a man is not a woman can get you banned on Twitter.

 

[icehorse]

An issue these days is the privatization of media and academy having enabled various groups to pick which views it wants on campus. The principle is not longer being practiced by many institution only lip-service is bothered with. Media giants can easily reduce free speech to a street corner.

For example saying a man is not a woman can get you banned on Twitter.

Right, and ugh! I would hope that private schools don't have the legal right to abridge speech, but I'm not sure.

As for media like twitter, I think some of these giants need to be recategorized as providing a new form of "the commons", and therefore not be allowed to abridge speech.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right, and ugh! I would hope that private schools don't have the legal right to abridge speech, but I'm not sure.

As for media like twitter, I think some of these giants need to be recategorized as providing a new form of "the commons", and therefore not be allowed to abridge speech.

Just as we prevent economic monopolies to ensure free
markets for goods & services, so can we prevent speech
venue monopolies to ensure free markets for ideas.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't know him.

Ya know....insulting a poster can be shrugged off.
But don't ever insult or laugh at his mule.

Only if the mule smokes cigars.

 

[Shad]

Right, and ugh! I would hope that private schools don't have the legal right to abridge speech, but I'm not sure.

They do via code of conduct. Religious schools have been doing it for decades.

As for media like twitter, I think some of these giants need to be recategorized as providing a new form of "the commons", and therefore not be allowed to abridge speech.

I agree.

The problem is competition is slanted in favour of the media giants ad revenue is ad driven. A competitor with a open policy risks losing ad revenue due to public outrage.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"Ganking"?

I thought it was something like shanking. *Yikes*

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought it was something like shanking. *Yikes*

"Yoinking" would work.

 

[icehorse]

They do via code of conduct. Religious schools have been doing it for decades.

I agree.

The problem is competition is slanted in favour of the media giants ad revenue is ad driven. A competitor with a open policy risks losing ad revenue due to public outrage.

I know. I really feel sorry for those media giants trying to defend their billions of dollars of profit.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know. I really feel sorry for those media giants trying to defend their billions of dollars of profit.

If the playing field is level, they'll do well regardless of how
speech regulation or deregulation proceeds. This explains
why some call for regulation...useful regulation.

 

[Shad]

If the playing field is level, they'll do well regardless of how
speech regulation or deregulation proceeds. This explains
why some call for regulation...useful regulation.

You need to counter for the public and their whim. Look at the Betsy Ross flag. A whole product line pulled because some group used it while every ignores the myth about the flag itself.

Will people abandon the Pride flag if some nazi group uses it. Fascist and Fabulous!