College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You talking to me?

Not necessarily you; just the general trend with people who use the same rhetoric as you.

I'm a classic liberal who places an extremely high value on our civil liberties.

If you say so. I've seen no evidence of this.

 

[icehorse]

Not necessarily you; just the general trend with people who use the same rhetoric as you.

What kind of rhetoric are you referring to? Examples?

If you say so. I've seen no evidence of this.

Then you're not paying attention.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What kind of rhetoric are you referring to? Examples?

Like these from your posts a page or two back:

I tend to be concerned that PCness often goes too far and sometimes conflicts with our liberties. I think that protecting people from offense is often a red flag that our liberties are in danger. I think a LOT of universities are furthering "no offense" agendas and that this survey is indicative of that issue.

Too often it means "you might say something that offends me, so I'm going to try to keep you from talking at all."

It's pretty common for statements like these to be followed up with something like "... and that's why Milo/Ben Shapiro/Richard Spencer/etc. should be allowed to have a campus speaking event."

Then you're not paying attention.

Quite possible. You don't warrant that much of my attention.

 

[icehorse]

You don't warrant that much of my attention.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Now in my book, one should discuss and debate ideas, not personalities. It appears from your post #163, you take an ad hominem approach? So for example, you wouldn't think about one of Shapiro's ideas on it's own merit, you'd dismiss it out of hand because he presented it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Now in my book, one should discuss and debate ideas, not personalities. It appears from your post #163, you take an ad hominem approach? So for example, you wouldn't think about one of Shapiro's ideas on it's own merit, you'd dismiss it out of hand because he presented it?

I'll take it by the way you latched onto my mention of Ben Shapiro that my suspicions were probably correct.

 

[Revoltingest]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Now in my book, one should discuss and debate ideas, not personalities. It appears from your post #163, you take an ad hominem approach? So for example, you wouldn't think about one of Shapiro's ideas on it's own merit, you'd dismiss it out of hand because he presented it?

Others also notice that that those with the weakest arguments
will substitute insults towards the person. We should all strive
to keep it about the issues, & not decry the other poster.

 

[icehorse]

I'll take it by the way you latched onto my mention of Ben Shapiro that my suspicions were probably correct.

I frequently do not agree with Shapiro, but I take his arguments one at a time, and sometimes I agree with him. Same for all of your other boogey-men.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I frequently do not agree with Shapiro, but I take his arguments one at a time, and sometimes I agree with him. Same for all of your other boogey-men.

I'm getting a clearer picture now.

I get the sense that when you talk about "free speech," you aren't talking about actual free speech, but more about institutions like universities furnishing speakers and organizations with platforms, funding, etc.

Am I on the right track?

 

[icehorse]

I'm getting a clearer picture now.

I get the sense that when you talk about "free speech," you aren't talking about actual free speech, but more about institutions like universities furnishing speakers and organizations with platforms, funding, etc.

Am I on the right track?

No, I think you're projecting boogey-men. In the U.S. we currently have perhaps the best-ever take on free speech. It's not absolute. I think we need to defend what we've got vigorously. I feel that any incursions into free speech should be scrutinized carefully and usually resisted.

So when a controversial speaker gets de-platformed or is rendered un-hearable because of hecklers, those are instances of free speech being curtailed to some degree. This is an extremely dangerous situation.

The intention of the OP was to provide some evidence that for a significant percentage of students, not giving offense is seen as more important than free speech. This is a truly alarming fact, and we should seek to teach these kids how essential and precious free speech is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So when a controversial speaker gets de-platformed or is rendered un-hearable because of hecklers, those are instances of free speech being curtailed to some degree. This is an extremely dangerous situation.

De-platforming is not curtailment of free speech.

The right to free speech is the right not to be punished (e.g. imprisoned or deprived of property) by the government because of what you say.

Nobody's entitled to hosting a ticketed speaking event in a college lecture hall. Depriving someone of this is not an infringement of their rights.

Heckling also isn't curtailment of free speech. Protestors have just as much of a right to speak as the people they're protesting. Heckling is also individual action, not government action.

The intention of the OP was to provide some evidence that for a significant percentage of students, not giving offense is seen as more important than free speech. This is a truly alarming fact, and we should seek to teach these kids how essential and precious free speech is.

How about first you - and maybe them - educate yourselves on what free speech actually is?

 

[icehorse]

@9-10ths_Penguin

The usual policy at universities is that if a recognized student group invites someone to speak, they will be granted a platform. It's not guaranteed, but it's typically true. What has happened multiple times in recent years however is that a recognized group invites a controversial speaker, gets approval, and then later has the approval reversed due to other students complaining that they will be offended by the speaker. I'm sure this is all quite legal, but it breaks the spirit of our free speech and free assembly laws.

As for the "heckler's veto", or whatever you want to call it, my sense is that it is an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly. Both free speech and free assembly are mentioned in the 1st amendment and they are together for just such purposes - to defend the rights of people to gather and hear ideas that they are interested in.

The heckler infringes on those rights.

And @9-10ths_Penguin - how about you lay off the slurs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin

The usual policy at universities is that if a recognized student group invites someone to speak, they will be granted a platform. It's not guaranteed, but it's typically true. What has happened multiple times in recent years however is that a recognized group invites a controversial speaker, gets approval, and then later has the approval reversed due to other students complaining that they will be offended by the speaker. I'm sure this is all quite legal, but it breaks the spirit of our free speech and free assembly laws.

No, it doesn't even break the spirit of them.

The free speech laws in your country and mine were meant as a limit on government power, not on individuals or organizations.

As for the "heckler's veto", or whatever you want to call it,

I called it "speech."

my sense is that it is an infringement of the right to peaceable assembly.

So you think hecklers' speech can violate the peace?

Do you also think that a controversial invited speaker's speech can violate the peace?

Both free speech and free assembly are mentioned in the 1st amendment and they are together for just such purposes - to defend the rights of people to gather and hear ideas that they are interested in.

They're both given as constraints on government. You have the right to speak without being imprisoned for it. You have the right to assemble with like-minded people without your gathering being broken up by the police.

If you're in a public place, you have no right to exclude or silence people also in that place who disagree with you.

It seems you're confusing free assembly with quiet enjoyment... but quiet enjoyment is a right of tenants in the premises they rent. If you don't want hecklers, arrange a venue where they won't be allowed. Even if a university won't rent a lecture hall to you, there are plenty of other places that will.

The heckler infringes on those rights.

No, the heckler exercises the rights you claim to uphold.

And @9-10ths_Penguin - how about you lay off the slurs?

What slurs?

 

[icehorse]

So you think hecklers' speech can violate the peace?

Do you also think that a controversial invited speaker's speech can violate the peace?

I heard Christopher Hitchens describe a perspective that seems completely relevant (paraphrased): "An essential aspect of freedom of speech is the freedom to listen."

I trust Hitchen's take on this more than I trust yours. The whole point of censorship is to deny people the right to be exposed to ideas, whether written or spoken.

So while I agree that one of the intentions of free speech was to protect us from the government, it wasn't the only intention.

From that perspective, the heckler is infringing on the listeners right to hear.

 

[Shad]

It's not biological fact. The brains of living transgender people have been imaged, the dead dissected, and their brains factually look more like their identity.

A problem in the brain does not make one the opposite sex.

That is a fact.

You conclusion isn't.

People spouting "biological fact" are very frequently unaware that it does happen even that some women are xy and some men xx. Nature doesn't give us any indication it cares or coddles to those who try to rigidly fit it into a box of either or.
Or, do you feel it appropriate to point out that someone with mental deficiencies is is retarded?

Genetic issue do not make one the opposite sex. XX male syndrome happens to females only.

Androgen insensitivity syndrome does not make a man a woman

You make a lot of claims but state no facts. Heck I refuted one of your key points with little effort.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You make a lot of claims but you have no facts along with the refutation of one of your points.

I have an extensive collection of facts, based on empirical data and research, to verify my claims. In a nutshell, science and medicine do not agree with you. That's beyond this thread though. Point is, you have no rights on Twitter, and if they weigh evidence in considering if something is hateful then insisting transgender people are someone other than who they identify as is not supported by medical and scientific evidence. What is very apparent though, is nature doesn't give a damn about rigid black and white, either ors. It doesn't exist to serve your expectations that it should.

 

[Shad]

I have an extensive collection of facts, based on empirical data and research, to verify my claims.

Link it then.

In a nutshell, science and medicine do not agree with you.

Assertion

That's beyond this thread though.

Didn't stop you before.

Point is, you have no rights on Twitter, and if they weigh evidence in considering if something is hateful then insisting transgender people are someone other than who they identify as is not supported by medical and scientific evidence.

The statement isn't hateful to TG. TG just freak out if people point out the obvious.Just like you are doing now.

What is very apparent though, is nature doesn't give a damn about rigid black and white, either ors.

Assertion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Just like you are doing now.

I'm not "freaking out." I'm pointing out that science and medicine do not agree with you, and you have no rights on Twitter. They get to make the rules, and everyone on it agreed to that when they joined.

The statement isn't hateful to TG.

It's disrespectful at best, ma'am.

Link it then.

Start a thread.

 

[Shad]

I'm not "freaking out." I'm pointing out that science and medicine do not agree with you, and you have no rights on Twitter. They get to make the rules, and everyone on it agreed to that when they joined.

They make arbitrary rules as the company leans politically left. Saying a man is not a woman harms no one. You are "having a moment" as you started to babble about TGs with no evidence backing you. You just made assertions. Two of which were refuted.

It's disrespectful at best, ma'am.

Nope.

Start a thread.

Why? You objected to my point with zero evidence. Your problem not mine. Go for it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why? You objected to my point with zero evidence. Your problem not mine. Go for it.

It's called "going off topic" and it is against forum policy and rules. Because that freedom of speech thing doesn't apply here, either, and we all agreed to abide by that.

 

[Shad]

It's called "going off topic" and it is against forum policy and rules. Because that freedom of speech thing doesn't apply here, either, and we all agreed to abide by that.

Didn't stop you before. Just PM me with your "evidence"