- 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:
Got that? Restricting speech a "public good."
He goes on:
So, according to him, because the Internet is available to all, campus speech can be restricted.
A particularly pernicious passage:
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:
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.
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: