• 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!

Campus Insanity vs Freedom of Speech

Okay, I read up on it and you're right and I am wrong. Thanks for the correction. I'm not eager to admit that I'm wrong, but I think it's dishonorable to not admit when one is in obvious error. I also believe in thanking the person who corrected me, for he has helped me remove some of my ignorance. So again, thank you!

That being said, one wonders if those on the Right who want white supremacists to be able to make speeches on campus are as courageous when it comes to allowing the burning of the American flag.

Nice. Good show.

There are most certainly hypocritical conservatives.
 
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.

I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?

In other words, there are - as SCOTUS found a long time ago - limits to the freedom of speech. We must defend freedom of speech when that speech does not advocate committing felonies...but if that speech does advocate the commission of felonies, especially if the speech calls for those felonies are committed on a grand scale, then yes, it really is constitutional to refuse to allow the speech on campus...or anywhere else, for that matter.

A list of false equivalencies.

Pedophiles do have freedom of speech, what they don't have is the freedom to act to harm anyone.

Child porn is not free expression, as the children are not capable of informed consent (like adult porn stars) and are being exploited, often through fear, coercion, bribery, or deceit.

Islamist's can speak in the name of jihad, the speech is only restricted if the crowd being spoken to is actually incited.

No one stopped Madonna saying she "thought about" blowing up the White House.

The difference between speech/expression and actual violence is the key.

Hate speech should be protected, because the idea behind censorship can be extended to ANY speech as long as enough people decide it is "Hate speech."
 
You mean that you're not aware of what is or has been going on in one of the most prominent colleges in the country? Really?

Correct. I have no idea what is happening there...
 
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.

I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?

In other words, there are - as SCOTUS found a long time ago - limits to the freedom of speech. We must defend freedom of speech when that speech does not advocate committing felonies...but if that speech does advocate the commission of felonies, especially if the speech calls for those felonies are committed on a grand scale, then yes, it really is constitutional to refuse to allow the speech on campus...or anywhere else, for that matter.

Paedophilia is a crime and if they advocate that then there is no obligation to give them access. White Supremacists aren't criminals because they say things you disagree with. For ****s sake. Oh and btw, espousing physical violence? Also illegal. Paedophilia is illegal in every circumstance. Slavery? That institution of the Democratic Party? Now illegal. We had an entire Civil War dedicated to stopping Democrats from tearing this nation in two. You're a progressive so I don't expect you to be familiar with laws. Indeed our prisons are dominated by progressives.
 
Last edited:
This is the most robust advocacy I have seen on behalf of campus free speech. It has never been more needed.

Campus insanity versus freedom of speech

Posted on October 21, 2017 | 220 comments
by Judith Curry
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Continue reading

The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer

Campus craziness
In case you haven’t been following this issue, there have been some disturbing events and trends in the ivory tower. For an overview, see:

Two particular articles motivated this post:
Class struggle: how identity politics divided a campus. At Reed College, a freshman named Hunter Dillman who had been branded a racist after asking the organiser of a Latina student group an innocent question. He was ultimately hounded off campus.
Take Back the Ivory Tower. Alice Dreger, author of Galileo’s Middle Finger, describes her travails as a researcher and public speaker with a non-‘politically correct’ perspective on intersex and transgendered persons. She resigned her faculty position at Northwestern University over censorship issues. Unfortunately the article is behind paywall, you can read the intro here.
My concern is that without viewpoint diversity where everyone is heard, research and scholarship suffers. Further, students cocooning in safe spaces will be ill-prepared for dealing with the moral and political controversies and ambiguities that they will face throughout their lives. . . .


I remember being in Florida U all those years ago, and not worrying about a single issue like this.

Now they have the college republicans getting beaten over the head with the hammer of political correctness for some time now. Not to mention dragging their own through the mud when they dare to side with the fact that the other party has just as much a right to speak.

Its sad times we live in today.
 
Your constitutional analysis is incorrect. You can talk about and even advocate illegal activity all you want. The only permitted limit is speech that is likely to incite imminent lawless action, and that is narrowly construed to err on the side of free speech.

In any case, why is the "progressive" first instinct when it comes to these things so often to try to limit free speech? Or any other right, for that matter?

I don't think anyone really knows the limits of free speech anymore when it comes to a vast majority of the left.

You think they would have the idea to look it up from time to time.

"Those are fighting words" actually has a meaning in such a ruling.
 
Okay, I read up on it and you're right and I am wrong. Thanks for the correction. I'm not eager to admit that I'm wrong, but I think it's dishonorable to not admit when one is in obvious error. I also believe in thanking the person who corrected me, for he has helped me remove some of my ignorance. So again, thank you!

That being said, one wonders if those on the Right who want white supremacists to be able to make speeches on campus are as courageous when it comes to allowing the burning of the American flag.

You're missing the point again, and I had this problem with your first post.
This is not about allowing white supremacist to speak, but its stems to the fact that everyone has a right to speak no matter their lean.

If Hamas funded college groups are allowed to bring actual extremist speakers onto campus, then college conservative groups should be allowed to have someone like Milo come out to speak.
 
When the Constitution was written, only men were allowed to vote. Those men were mostly of European Christian ancestry; England, France, Germany, etc. They lived in the new world and had the pioneering spirit. They were very self reliant in many ways. Women and children were not allowed to vote. It is very possible the original traits of the founding fathers were needed for freedom of speech. Freedom of speech was an ideal that only a very select group could muster, with the hope other could evolve. Freedom of speech was never for the weak and sickly of mind. The sick need medicine and a restricted diet.

In modern America, rugged masculine Christian European individualism has been replaced, in leadership, by the big government feminized dependency. Also there is more immigration from second and third world cultures, who move into the dependency cycle of big government. It is possible, there may have been a watering down, so fewer people are capable of freedom of speech. The left is far more vulnerable because the left has drifted too far from the original sweet spot for free speech.

These newer demographics appear to be easily duped, and vote, not based on gathering all the evidence, from free speech. Instead it is more based on sentiment and one sided thinking due to propaganda. They need to restrict free speech so the propaganda is more effective. Doubt appears makes their brain have work, which caused head aches.

Loss of freedom of speech is a good litmus test for a dumb down of leadership due to unqualified voters.
 
I understand the argument for allowing white supremacists to speak - it's a freedom of speech thing, right? So when it comes to freedom of speech, why not allow the pedophiles to speak? Yes, child porn is a heinous crime...but so is segregating businesses or cities or schools on basis of race or ethnicity. So is ethnic cleansing.

Indeed, why not? The crime is pedophilia, not talking about it.

I don't have to compare it to child porn, either. How about allowing Islamic extremists giving speeches on campus calling for violent Jihad? How about allowing speeches advocating slavery?

The magic words in that statement are "calling for violent jihad."
 

We just moved here in June, and have been fully occupied getting the house up to speed. After we're settled I plan to take classes, which I can do for free given my senior citizen status.
 
I am disappointed that the default position for so many is to make this a partisan or left-right issue. I don't see it that way. You are either for free speech, inquiry and debate, or you are not, regardless of your place on the political spectrum.
 
Sure. That's why the linked articles include pieces from noted RW bastions like the New York Times, the LA Times and the Huffington Post.

post-25810-nevermind-gif-it-crowd-imgur-yvca.gif
 
This whole thing is so overblown.

Does that mean we place way too much value on the spirit of the First Amendment and free speech? Should we pretend the First has gone the way of the Fourth?
 
A list of false equivalencies.

Pedophiles do have freedom of speech, what they don't have is the freedom to act to harm anyone.

Child porn is not free expression, as the children are not capable of informed consent (like adult porn stars) and are being exploited, often through fear, coercion, bribery, or deceit.

Islamist's can speak in the name of jihad, the speech is only restricted if the crowd being spoken to is actually incited.

No one stopped Madonna saying she "thought about" blowing up the White House.

The difference between speech/expression and actual violence is the key.

Hate speech should be protected, because the idea behind censorship can be extended to ANY speech as long as enough people decide it is "Hate speech."

I already admitted my error - back in #23. And as you probably recall, I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong.
 
This is the most robust advocacy I have seen on behalf of campus free speech. It has never been more needed.

Campus insanity versus freedom of speech

Posted on October 21, 2017 | 220 comments
by Judith Curry
The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer
Continue reading

The aim of education is to make people think, not spare them from discomfort.– Robert Zimmer

Campus craziness
In case you haven’t been following this issue, there have been some disturbing events and trends in the ivory tower. For an overview, see:

Two particular articles motivated this post:
Class struggle: how identity politics divided a campus. At Reed College, a freshman named Hunter Dillman who had been branded a racist after asking the organiser of a Latina student group an innocent question. He was ultimately hounded off campus.
Take Back the Ivory Tower. Alice Dreger, author of Galileo’s Middle Finger, describes her travails as a researcher and public speaker with a non-‘politically correct’ perspective on intersex and transgendered persons. She resigned her faculty position at Northwestern University over censorship issues. Unfortunately the article is behind paywall, you can read the intro here.
My concern is that without viewpoint diversity where everyone is heard, research and scholarship suffers. Further, students cocooning in safe spaces will be ill-prepared for dealing with the moral and political controversies and ambiguities that they will face throughout their lives. . . .


Bravo. I wish I wrote it. But since I didn't next time I'm in Chicago I'll buy University of Chicago President Zimmer a beer. Or more likely have one in his honor.
 
This whole thing is so overblown.

I have a niece in Wellsley and another in Georgetown. If they're any indication it's far from overblown. Though my own daughter - who is thankfully going to be a research scientist - speaks her mind and doesn't care if people don't like what she says. She takes after her father. :)
 
Professors like me can’t stay silent about this extremist moment on campuses


In dealing with differing points of view, nuance is not oppression.





  • Lucía Martínez Valdivia

At Reed College in Oregon, where I work, a group of students began protesting the required first-year humanities course a year ago. Three times a week, students sat in the lecture space holding signs — many too obscene to be printed here — condemning the course and its faculty as white supremacists, as anti-black, as not open to dialogue and criticism, on the grounds that we continue to teach, among many other things, Aristotle and Plato.
In the interest of supporting dissent and the free exchange of ideas, the faculty and administration allowed this. Those who felt able to do so lectured surrounded by those signs for the better part of a year. I lectured, but dealt with physical anxiety — lack of sleep, nausea, loss of appetite, inability to focus — in the weeks leading up to my lecture. Instead of walking around or standing at the lectern, as I typically do, I sat as I tried to teach students how to read the poetry of Sappho. Inadvertently, I spoke more quietly, more timidly. . . . .



 
Back
Top Bottom