Free Speech On Campus

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Do you consider yourself as part of a group of victims?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I am reminded that Concerned Parents were demonstrating their Free Speech with School Boards and the NSBA Leader completely over-reacted and wrote a letter, with the help of the Biden Administration, calling for the FBI to intervene with these "Domestic Terrorists." In America, it almost 100% depends on your POV and nothing else. On this forum, we have multiple Whataboutisms and Strawmen daily, yet it only seems to get called on for one point of view. 

The point of view with all this is that the people acting like "The Cool Kids" today will certainly not be in the The Cool Kid's Club" a very few years from now. Shouting down anyone is just showing your immaturity. I live for the day when America wakes back up to the "I hate what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it." We have been so much failures at teaching that to our children.

So spot on DKW. These people are never happy with their life and strive to make others miserable. The anger in tone mystifying, predictable and unnecessary.   

The democratic party needs to rid themselves of these diaper wearing ankle grabbers like yesterday, but they won't. It is in their DNA.  

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I think that is incredibly naive.  This particular profession is the heart of politics, the heart of power.  They know exactly what they are doing.  The orchestrated infighting helps them thrive.  It is what makes them important, relevant. 

I disagree with the author.  This is not about the students.  This is about our culture/character, at the very top.  Free speech isn't even the primary issue.

This ^

23 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I appreciate that.  What can I clarify?

 

[DKW 86 7,426]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

Sounds like a typical narrative.  Are they always wrong?  Is the entire concept of social justice ignorant?

Do I think that SJ is wrong? Of course not. But when SJ tries run over open, frank discourse between adults, YES, it is wrong.

Edited March 19, 2022 by DKW 86

[bigbird 60,560]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

So we have hypocrites?  Why not be honest and call them out?  Why be vague about it? 

Do you consider yourself as part of a group of victims?

As if I'm the one not calling out the hypocrisy.  I've called it out routinely for 5+ years. You've facepalmed or disliked most if not all of them. Quit playing like this is new and you are some bastion of fairness and equity.

 

As far as it being vague, it was pretty damn blatant to what I thought and felt. You had to try not to understand. That's dishonest.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 minutes ago, bigbird said:

As if I'm the one not calling out the hypocrisy.  I've called it out routinely for 5+ years. You've facepalmed or disliked most if not all of them. Quit playing like this is new and you are some bastion of fairness and equity.

 

As far as it being vague, it was pretty damn blatant to what I thought and felt. You had to try not to understand. That's dishonest.

I am sorry.  I just don't care for most of your posts in this forum.

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

This ^

 

The Ivy League and the lawyers they produce are one of the primary reasons our country has these types of issues.  They are servants of the capital class.  They are producing much of the political class.  The divisions are good for business.  For them to pretend that free speech must always be respectful is somewhat disingenuous. 

I think you can condemn the tactic of the students but,,, you cannot simply dismiss their point of view.  To some extent, authority is trying to reinforce the idea that protests are not an acceptable form of speech, should not have protection of free speech.  I think this is about teaching the student a lesson in power.

I also think it is way off base to imply that because of their social protest, these students would not be able to comport themselves with decorum, professionally.

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Do I think that SJ is wrong? Of course not. But when SJ tries run over open, frank discourse between adults, YES, it is wrong.

I would agree but, I just don't see those people having that much power.

[bigbird 60,560]

49 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I am sorry.  I just don't care for most of your posts in this forum.

 

Sorry for what?

I understand fully, although I agree with a lot that you say.

A lot of people don't enjoy objectivity. It typically flies in the face of what they've fully bought into.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

I understand fully, although I agree with a lot that you say.

I greatly appreciate that.  I truly love you as a person.  Have since the AE days.

Your love for Golf tells me all I need to know about you.  Loving the unlovable is true sign of character.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

The Ivy League and the lawyers they produce are one of the primary reasons our country has these types of issues.  They are servants of the capital class.  They are producing much of the political class.  The divisions are good for business.  For them to pretend that free speech must always be respectful is somewhat disingenuous. 

I think you can condemn the tactic of the students but,,, you cannot simply dismiss their point of view.  To some extent, authority is trying to reinforce the idea that protests are not an acceptable form of speech, should not have protection of free speech.  I think this is about teaching the student a lesson in power.

I also think it is way off base to imply that because of their social protest, these students would not be able to comport themselves with decorum, professionally.

 

 

I appreciate your clarification. 
 

I didn’t dismiss their point of view. I invite them to express it in a civil fashion, using their most convincing arguments. If folks don’t practice the skills of rational discourse and persuasion while in a professional preparation setting like law school, why should we expect them to have the skills or inclination to do once they leave? If folks demonstrate they don’t even value civil discourse, why should we assume they do?

If you read the article you summarily dismissed, you’d know it didn’t even indicate that free speech must always be respectful. In the public square, opposing sides can yell at each other to their heart’s content. In a setting where a party has reserved space for the expression of ideas— in this case a panel with representatives of the left and right, they don’t have right to shut that event down.

The current generation is increasingly be taught that they need not waste their time with countering ideas they even find repugnant with persuasive argument. Functional democracies require effective persuasion. Moral societies require persuasive arguments from moral forces. MLK Jr. often protested. His civil disobedience was textbook. It was first, civil and nonviolent. It was also coupled with persuasive, moral rhetoric. As a term, Social Justice is as vague as Patriotism. I’m for both— but given the vagueness of those concepts, what have I really told you?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

I appreciate your clarification. 
 

I didn’t dismiss their point of view. I invite them to express it in a civil fashion, using their most convincing arguments. If folks don’t practice the skills of rational discourse and persuasion while in a professional preparation setting like law school, why should we expect them to have the skills or inclination to do once they leave? If folks demonstrate they don’t even value civil discourse, why should we assume they do?

If you read the article you summarily dismissed, you’d know it didn’t even indicate that free speech must always be respectful. In the public square, opposing sides can yell at each other to their heart’s content. In a setting where a party has reserved space for the expression of ideas— in this case a panel with representatives of the left and right, they don’t have right to shut that event down.

The current generation is increasingly be taught that they need not waste their time with countering ideas they even find repugnant with persuasive argument. Functional democracies require effective persuasion. Moral societies require persuasive arguments from moral forces. MLK Jr. often protested. His civil disobedience was textbook. It was first, civil and nonviolent. It was also coupled with persuasive, moral rhetoric. As a term, Social Justice is as vague as Patriotism. I’m for both— but given the vagueness of those concepts, what have I really told you?

I understand.  Still, I see it somewhat differently.  I do believe protest (non-violent) is a valid form of speech.  I believe it is also Constitutionally protected.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I understand.  Still, I see it somewhat differently.  I do believe protest (non-violent) is a valid form of speech.  I believe it is also Constitutionally protected.

I don’t disagree with that vague statement. One can attend an event with signs, turn their backs, boo statements they don’t like, etc. But once they say they are not even going to permit those they oppose to speak, even when those folks have reserved space for that purpose, that’s neither valid nor constitutionally protected. They can also have a counter protest outside the venue. No one is denying their right of expression through protest. But when they deny others, they’re being the authoritarians.

And BTW, these rules are what ultimately protect expression by those with minority views.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t disagree with that vague statement. One can attend an event with signs, turn their backs, boo statements they don’t like, etc. But once they say they are not even going to permit those they oppose to speak, even when those folks have reserved space for that purpose, that’s neither valid nor constitutionally protected. They can also have a counter protest outside the venue. No one is denying their right of expression through protest. But when they deny others, they’re being the authoritarians.

And BTW, these rules are what ultimately protects expression by those with minority views.

I don't disagree.  I just cannot imagine it started out that way.  Obviously I wasn't there.  And, it is difficult for those without microphones/amplification to drown out those who do. 

Sorry about continuing to be vague.  Doing the best I can.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

12 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I don't disagree.  I just cannot imagine it started out that way.  Obviously I wasn't there.  And, it is difficult for those without microphones/amplification to drown out those who do. 

Sorry about continuing to be vague.  Doing the best I can.

From my understanding there were about 40 attendees wanting to hear the panel and over a 100 protesters hoping to stop it. In this case, the event finally happened after delays and the associate Dean telling those disrupting to stop disrupting or leave. Several stayed and asked questions. Most took their protest outside the room.

 

I’ll add, one of the few things the entire S Ct agrees on is there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Mere content of expression that doesn’t isn’t likely to incite imminent violence cannot be prohibited. If it could, who decides what hate speech is? A highly partisan Governor? President? Attorney General?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

[icanthearyou 4,463]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

From my understanding there were about 40 attendees wanting to hear the panel and over a 100 protesters hoping to stop it. In this case, the event finally happened after delays and the associate Dean telling those disrupting to stop disrupting or leave. Several stayed and asked questions. Most took their protest outside the room.

 

I’ll add, one of the few things the entire S Ct agrees on is there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment. Mere content of expression that doesn’t isn’t likely to incite imminent violence cannot be prohibited. If it could, who decides what hate speech is? A highly partisan Governor? President? Attorney General?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/

Did you actually watch the video?

 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

38 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Did you actually watch the video?

 

That picks up where the Moderator addressed the behavior. Have you seen what lead up to this point and, if not, what does this tell you?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That picks up where the Assoc Dean addressed the behavior. Have you seen what lead up to this point and, if not, what does this tell you?

Is there another video.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, icanthearyou said:

Is there another video.

I don’t know. But this one picks up at the point the law school official determined it was necessary to intervene.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

I don’t know. But this one picks up at the point the law school official determined it was necessary to intervene.

I didn't hear or see anything on that video that looked like students were unruly.  Was the objection that they were holding up signs?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

52 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I didn't hear or see anything on that video that looked like students were unruly.  Was the objection that they were holding up signs?

As I said, the video picks up at a certain point. But if a panel discussion is supposed to happen it can hardly happen when when folks are that loud. 
 

Here’s an update from the progressive author of the essay to which I linked. The event was loud enough to disrupt multiple classes in the building:

If conservative students were behaving that way and a panel on social justice couldn’t be heard, would you perceive it differently?

[AU9377 4,960]

8 hours ago, bigbird said:

Sorry for what?

I understand fully, although I agree with a lot that you say.

A lot of people don't enjoy objectivity. It typically flies in the face of what they've fully bought into.

True objectivity is often claimed, but not often possible when discussing real issues.  Everyone uses their own life experiences and acquired personal knowledge when formulating an opinion.  An opinion, by its very nature is subjective.

[AU9377 4,960]

5 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

As I said, the video picks up at a certain point. But if a panel discussion is supposed to happen it can hardly happen when when folks are that loud. 
 

Here’s an update from the progressive author of the essay to which I linked. The event was loud enough to disrupt multiple classes in the building:

If conservative students were behaving that way and a panel on social justice couldn’t be heard, would you perceive it differently?

I have very little patience for either side acting out in this way. 

While I do support free speech on campus, I do believe that there are certain groups that have no place on a college campus.  I have no problem not allowing Neo Nazi and Klan type organizations the ability to organize in any way on campus.

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

9 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I have very little patience for either side acting out in this way. 

While I do support free speech on campus, I do believe that there are certain groups that have no place on a college campus.  I have no problem not allowing Neo Nazi and Klan type organizations the ability to organize in any way on campus.

Who gets to decide the groups that want to speak are the types allowed? 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

15 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

As I said, the video picks up at a certain point. But if a panel discussion is supposed to happen it can hardly happen when when folks are that loud. 
 

Here’s an update from the progressive author of the essay to which I linked. The event was loud enough to disrupt multiple classes in the building:

If conservative students were behaving that way and a panel on social justice couldn’t be heard, would you perceive it differently?

I don't know.  I would have to see more evidence than what was presented.  The video shows people exercising restraint.  I don't know what the tweets were that supposedly set off the protest.  They have been deleted.  I admit, I do not see any reason to legitimate hate speech by bringing it on to college campuses. 

Why do you consider David Lat a progressive? 

Just to be clear, I believe hate speech should be free.  I simply don't believe that means colleges (particularly public ones) have any responsibility to sponsor such speech.  Those who want to spread their messages of hate have plenty of other venues.

I still see this as Lat attempting to manufacture outrage.  If there were more evidence, if this were not a running narrative of Lat to begin with, I might see it differently.