• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In which an NYU provost seeks to dismantle free speech.

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
From today's New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/...right-about-free-speech.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

In which he argues for, what, an "affirmative action" approach to free speech? He definitely argues that censorship is way to give voice to the voiceless or somesuch. Seriously:

The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.

Got that? Restricting speech a "public good."

He goes on:

In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.

So, according to him, because the Internet is available to all, campus speech can be restricted.

A particularly pernicious passage:

The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

The entire sorry missive should be chilling and embarrassing to anyone who cherishes free speech and liberty in general.

Interestingly, though branching into a different topic, he cites with favor a writing of Jean-Francois Lyotard:

Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.

Those who consider "social justice" or "equality" more important that free speech might send up a cheer at that statement. But I wonder what they'd then say when it's pointed out that one of the go-to arguments of abortion rights activists is that the unborn, while human, are not legally "persons" and thus have no rights.
 
Last edited:
In which he argues for, what, an "affirmative action" approach to free speech?
Nope.

What he's saying is:
• Universities don't have to be a platform for hate speech
• We need to recognize that minorities are often stifled and ignored in their political expressions
• The meaning of free speech changes over time

I don't agree with everything he said, but that doesn't license taking snippets out of context, and twisting them into straw men. Such as:


Restricting speech a "public good."
That's... pretty much the total opposite of what he's saying.

He is saying that the alt-righters are the ones who are engaging in censorship, by attacking the political rights and legitimacy of minorities, particularly when their goal is to stifle those voices. I.e. he is explicitly saying that it's the alt-righters who are restricting the public good of free speech.


So, according to him, because the Internet is available to all, campus speech can be restricted.
Yup.

And you ought to agree with him.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean that every platform needs to be made available to everyone. Breitbart is not obligated to publish the writings of Barak Obama with the comments turned off. Fox News is not required to give Hillary Clinton a half-hour TV show to do what she wants. And universities are not required to provide platforms to Holocaust deniers or white supremacists.

And if anyone on campus wants to know Richard Spencer's political views, there are plenty of opportunities to do so.

This is how platforms work. They have editors; they can decide what points of view to present. The New York Times is not "against free speech" if it refuses to tolerate anti-semitism in its articles; the National Review is not "against free speech" if it declines to publish an article in defense of Karl Marx.


A particularly pernicious passage:
Whatever

He's not arguing for government suppression of specific types of speech. He's arguing that universities are entitled to protect the ability of minorities to speak, and to view racist speech as beyond the pale.


The entire sorry missive should be chilling and embarrassing to anyone who cherishes free speech and liberty in general.
It isn't.

Basically, he's saying that universities should not feel obligated to provide a platform for racists, Holocaust deniers, homophobes, and others who traffic in hatred of others.

He is not, in any way shape or form, saying that we need to change the laws. He's suggesting that college students are onto something when they reject hate speech, and make room for minorities to be treated like actual human beings, and members of the community.


Interestingly, though branching into a different topic, he cites with favor a writing of Jean-Francois Lyotard:
...which apparently you did not understand, as it's the exact same topic.

Try it this way:
• Free speech is a public good
• Racist speech is objectionable, precisely because it denies the ability of minorities to engage in the public good of free speech

He's not saying "take away the legal rights of racists." He's saying "we should stop with the nonsense that all views deserve equal time in all platforms, particularly universities.

I for one see little problem with repudiating racists, telling them that their views are not valid, and telling them to go play with each other on Stormfront.


But I wonder what they'd then say when it's pointed out that one of the go-to arguments of abortion rights activists is that the unborn, while human, are not legally "persons" and thus have no rights.
:roll:

The Abortion sub-forum is thataway --->
 
Nope.

What he's saying is:
• Universities don't have to be a platform for hate speech
• We need to recognize that minorities are often stifled and ignored in their political expressions
• The meaning of free speech changes over time

So, pushing aside some views to make way for minority views . . . isn't an affirmative action approach to free speech?

Perhaps you don't actually know what affirmative action is.

I don't agree with everything he said, but that doesn't license taking snippets out of context, and twisting them into straw men. Such as:

Didn't do any such thing. I provided the entire context, in fact.


That's... pretty much the total opposite of what he's saying.

He is saying that the alt-righters are the ones who are engaging in censorship, by attacking the political rights and legitimacy of minorities, particularly when their goal is to stifle those voices. I.e. he is explicitly saying that it's the alt-righters who are restricting the public good of free speech.

Wow. No. No, he's not. You probably need to read that paragraph another 9-10 times, or however many times it takes for you get what he's actually saying.

Yup.

And you ought to agree with him.

No. As someone who deeply cherishes free speech and the free exchange of ideas, I most emphatically should not.

Freedom of speech does NOT mean that every platform needs to be made available to everyone.

Never claimed it did.

Breitbart is not obligated to publish the writings of Barak Obama with the comments turned off. Fox News is not required to give Hillary Clinton a half-hour TV show to do what she wants.

Never claimed they should.

And universities are not required to provide platforms to Holocaust deniers or white supremacists.

Universities aren't media outlets. They don't have the same purpose, they don't have the same mission, and they don't have the same Constitutional status. You make a very poor analogy.

While a private university can pretty much deny or grant whatever platform it wants, a public university is bound by the First Amendment, and as such, it cannot restrict on the basis of content of speech. If a group of students invites a speaker to campus, the university is, indeed, bound to treat the accommodation of that invitation on a content-neutral basis.

And it would be repugnant for it to be any other way.

Not to mention that the mission of a university is the free and open exchange and examination of ideas. Saying "hey, you can look it up on the Internet" doesn't serve that mission.

What you suggest is anathema to free thought.


This is how platforms work. They have editors; they can decide what points of view to present. The New York Times is not "against free speech" if it refuses to tolerate anti-semitism in its articles; the National Review is not "against free speech" if it declines to publish an article in defense of Karl Marx.

Again with comparing a university to a private media outlet. Why do you think they are the same thing? They are not.

Pt II to follow
 
Pt II

Whatever

He's not arguing for government suppression of specific types of speech. He's arguing that universities are entitled to protect the ability of minorities to speak, and to view racist speech as beyond the pale.

No one's speech prevents any minorities from speaking. No one's speech prevents anyone from thinking that content of the speech is terrible.


It isn't.

Basically, he's saying that universities should not feel obligated to provide a platform for racists, Holocaust deniers, homophobes, and others who traffic in hatred of others.

No, he's not saying that. He's using a term -- "denying humanity" -- which is pretty much tailor-made to be painted with a vast and wide brush.

Christina Hoff Sommers was supposedly "misogynist" for her talk in which she debunks the "gender wage gap," so she had to be run off campus. Heather Mac Donald was accused of questioning the "right of Black people to exist" because she said the overheated anti-police rhetoric and harassment by BLM might actually cost black lives.

Just two examples. Neither racist, neither "phobic" in any way, not "hate speech," absolutely not "alt-right," but labeled it anyway. So it's not a question of speculating that the concept might be misapplied -- it already has been -- in situations that the author MUST be aware of, and didn't distinguish, so he must have lumped them under that rubric himself. From there, it will only get worse.

He is not, in any way shape or form, saying that we need to change the laws.
I wouldn't be so confident of that. But it hardly matters; he's arguing for rethinking the entire concept of free speech to a much more restrictive model.

He's suggesting that college students are onto something when they reject hate speech, and make room for minorities to be treated like actual human beings, and members of the community.

. . . which is an affirmative-action model of free speech. Again, I guess you don't actually know what affirmative action is.


...which apparently you did not understand, as it's the exact same topic.

No, I was branching into a different topic.

Try it this way:
• Free speech is a public good
• Racist speech is objectionable, precisely because it denies the ability of minorities to engage in the public good of free speech

No, it doesn't.

He's not saying "take away the legal rights of racists." He's saying "we should stop with the nonsense that all views deserve equal time in all platforms, particularly universities.

But he is, when it comes to public universities.

And as I showed above, his ideas are hardly being applied only to "racist" speech.


I for one see little problem with repudiating racists, telling them that their views are not valid, and telling them to go play with each other on Stormfront.

Obviously, but you don't particularly cherish free speech. But that's not uncommon among "progressives" these days, who think things like "equality" and "social justice" -- their concepts of these things, anyway -- are more important than freedom.

The only position consistent with a love of free speech is the Voltairian "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Clearly, you do not find that idea to your liking.

:roll:

The Abortion sub-forum is thataway --->

And I wasn't trying to start an abortion argument, which you would know if you had understood what I wrote.
 
This NYU provost is merely a Progressive prevaricator. Freedom of thought and expression is being undermined in America by dishonest pseudo-intellectuals on the far Left. They should be outed routinely by Americans who who care about the future of their country. Good thread, Harshaw. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom