Free Speech On Campus

[TexasTiger 12,947]

24 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

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.

I’m not sure what tweets you’re referring to that set of the protest?

The video is a snippet of a much longer event. Who took it? What’s their angle? It’s only a few minutes that starts and ends during a period for which there is little dispute as to what happened.
 

Lat’s a lawyer/writer focused on the legal profession. Progressive is another vague term and many self-labeled progressives don’t see anyone perceived to be a millimeter to their right as worthy of it. Lat does appear to be decidedly center-left. I certainly don’t read him as wanting to sensationalize or manufacture outrage. His essay was balanced and measured, offering different perspectives. As additional information has come forward, he’s updated his essay.

Many current college/grad/law students don’t believe in free speech, although they want theirs protected. This is concerning. They are out of step with longstanding views on this shared by 9 Supreme Court justices who agree on little else. The ramifications for our republic are concerning, just as they are for many illiberal developments on the right.

State Universities and non-religious private institutions rarely, if ever, sponsor groups deemed to be “hate” groups, although the SPLC has gotten much more free with that designation in recent years. What justifies that label for you in this case, BTW?

This was a panel of two speakers on different ends of the political spectrum sponsored by a student organization, not the university. As long as student organizations stay within the rules, which generally includes following a university’s anti-discrimination policies, they have a 1st Amendment right of association to exist. This was a panel to discuss free speech. This was not a hate event by any reasonable definition of the term. Institutions should be able to host panel discussions sponsored by student organizations on legal issues without the crowd disrupting nearby classes.
 

 

[AU9377 4,960]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

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

That is a fair question and people can disagree without either being wrong.  In my opinion, there are certain things that are obscene and have no valid educational value.  Any group that has a history of disparaging the worth of any individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation has no valuable insight to be gained by being on the campus of an institution which is tasked with educating students.

Those groups have a right to exist and to express their views in public spaces in general, but not on a campus tasked with educating members of a diverse community.

I would not include any religious group, unless that group has a clear history of promoting violence toward other faith groups.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

33 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not sure what tweets you’re referring to that set of the protest?

The video is a snippet of a much longer event. Who took it? What’s their angle? It’s only a few minutes that starts and ends during a period for which there is little dispute as to what happened.
 

Lat’s a lawyer/writer focused on the legal profession. Progressive is another vague term and many self-labeled progressives don’t see anyone perceived to be a millimeter to their right as worthy of it. Lat does appear to be decidedly center-left. I certainly don’t read him as wanting to sensationalize or manufacture outrage. His essay was balanced and measured, offering different perspectives. As additional information has come forward, he’s updated his essay.

Many current college/grad/law students don’t believe in free speech, although they want theirs protected. This is concerning. They are out of step with longstanding views on this shared by 9 Supreme Court justices who agree on little else. The ramifications for our republic are concerning, just as they are for many illiberal developments on the right.

State Universities and non-religious private institutions rarely, if ever, sponsor groups deemed to be “hate” groups, although the SPLC has gotten much more free with that designation in recent years. What justifies that label for you in this case, BTW?

This was a panel of two speakers on different ends of the political spectrum sponsored by a student organization, not the university. As long as student organizations stay within the rules, which generally includes following a university’s anti-discrimination policies, they have a 1st Amendment right of association to exist. This was a panel to discuss free speech. This was not a hate event by any reasonable definition of the term. Institutions should be able to host panel discussions sponsored by student organizations on legal issues without the crowd disrupting nearby classes.
 

 

@icanthearyou
If you’re going to just head slap when someone takes the time to meaningfully and respectfully engage with you, then perhaps you should go back to that full-time.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

20 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

That is a fair question and people can disagree without either being wrong.  In my opinion, there are certain things that are obscene and have no valid educational value.  Any group that has a history of disparaging the worth of any individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation has no valuable insight to be gained by being on the campus of an institution which is tasked with educating students.

Those groups have a right to exist and to express their views in public spaces in general, but not on a campus tasked with educating members of a diverse community.

I would not include any religious group, unless that group has a clear history of promoting violence toward other faith groups.

Who gets to define what is “disparaging.”?

[I_M4_AU 7,853]

30 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Any group that has a history of disparaging the worth of any individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation has no valuable insight to be gained by being on the campus of an institution which is tasked with educating students.

The interpretation of *worth* is dubious at best. If students can be rallied to a cause because someone takes, for example, gender and sexual orientation as a subject matter they are shutdown because they don’t agree with the current narrative, even though they are trying to present a different opinion.  After all isn’t that what debate is supposed to be?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

48 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

@icanthearyou
If you’re going to just head slap when someone takes the time to meaningfully and respectfully engage with you, then perhaps you should go back to that full-time.

Sorry my form of speech offends you.

Edited March 20, 2022 by icanthearyou

[AU9377 4,960]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Who gets to define what is “disparaging.”?

We can change the words, but the point is the same. There has to be some standard of what is acceptable and what isn't. Like every other right, free speech is not absolute. Free speech can't be used as a license to harm others or promote & incite others to commit violence.  Doing so can transform that speech into criminal conspiracy when some criminal act is committed in furtherance of that plan.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

11 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Sorry my form of speech offends you.

Nah. Just reminds me who you are. At first, I was glad to see you posting again. You’re an obviously bright guy who can contribute meaningfully to a conversation when you choose to. Absent you posting for so long, though, I’d forgotten how smugly arrogant you can often be, particularly when you run out valid points and arguments. I actually appreciate the reminder. I only have so much time and choose to give my best efforts at thoughtful discourse to those capable and willing to reciprocate. I actually appreciate you providing the reminder early in your return. 👍🏻

[AU9377 4,960]

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The interpretation of *worth* is dubious at best. If students can be rallied to a cause because someone takes, for example, gender and sexual orientation as a subject matter they are shutdown because they don’t agree with the current narrative, even though they are trying to present a different opinion.  After all isn’t that what debate is supposed to be?

As an example...  I would approve someone or group debating marriage equality from either perspective.  Even though that is settled law in this country, the debate is fair.  I would not approve a group like the Westboro Baptist Church group from Texas.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 minute ago, AU9377 said:

We can change the words, but the point is the same. There has to be some standard of what is acceptable and what isn't. Like every other right, free speech is not absolute. Free speech can't be used as a license to harm others or promote & incite others to commit violence.  Doing so can transform that speech into criminal conspiracy when some criminal act is committed in furtherance of that plan.

“Harm others” and “incite violence” are two very different concepts. Inciting violence has always been prohibited and there’s a body of case law to address it. We are now being told that words are actual violence and must be treated as such. For words to be actionable as causing harm under current law there’s a very high bar (actionable harassment), again with case law establishing parameters. Many folks want that to be hugely expanded based on very subjective variables the law in the USA isn’t designed to address.

[AU9377 4,960]

57 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

“Harm others” and “incite violence” are two very different concepts. Inciting violence has always been prohibited and there’s a body of case law to address it. We are now being told that words are actual violence and must be treated as such. For words to be actionable as causing harm under current law there’s a very high bar (actionable harassment), again with case law establishing parameters. Many folks want that to be hugely expanded based on very subjective variables the law in the USA isn’t designed to address.

I agree completely.  They are different concepts, but both are applicable when determining the bounds of what is acceptable and what isn't when discussing the parameters of free speech. 

I think there is a vocal minority that would like to do exactly what you propose they want to do, but the vast majority don't want any part of that.  Again, just because something isn't allowed on a college campus, doesn't mean that I would be in favor of that speech being criminalized in any way, even though it may be disgusting or vile.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

I agree completely.  They are different concepts, but both are applicable when determining the bounds of what is acceptable and what isn't when discussing the parameters of free speech. 

I think there is a vocal minority that would like to do exactly what you propose they want to do, but the vast majority don't want any part of that.  Again, just because something isn't allowed on a college campus, doesn't mean that I would be in favor of that speech being criminalized in any way, even though it may be disgusting or vile.

But speech not allowed on a state campus must not be in the bounds of protected speech. If students aren’t allowed to express it and face punishment for doing so, that’s state action just as prosecuting crimes is state action. If a student can express it across the street from the campus, they can’t be prohibited from expressing it on a state campus.

Perhaps the simplest way to say this is you can’t prohibit any expression that has First Amendment protection just because it’s on a campus. You can have reasonable time, place and manner restrictions to assure the functions of the campus are not disrupted, but they must be content neutral.

[DKW 86 7,425]

7 hours ago, AU9377 said:

That is a fair question and people can disagree without either being wrong.  In my opinion, there are certain things that are obscene and have no valid educational value.  Any group that has a history of disparaging the worth of any individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation has no valuable insight to be gained by being on the campus of an institution which is tasked with educating students.

Those groups have a right to exist and to express their views in public spaces in general, but not on a campus tasked with educating members of a diverse community.

I would not include any religious group, unless that group has a clear history of promoting violence toward other faith groups.

100% Agree with except: I would still allow them all Free Speech. If they are idiots and morons, then letting them speak openly is the best disinfectant ever invented.

Edited March 20, 2022 by DKW 86

[TexasTiger 12,947]

This thread:

[TexasTiger 12,947]

This gibberish is from one of the county’s top universities:

https://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2022/03/editorial-dangerous-rhetoric-is-not-entitled-to-a-platform

[TexasTiger 12,947]

A follow up from a Yale student:

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/free-speech-at-yale-law-school-one?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMTM3OTI1MCwiXyI6ImpOZzRjIiwiaWF0IjoxNjQ4MTgzNTgzLCJleHAiOjE2NDgxODcxODMsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yMjk5MzMiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.C0yjvTtDchR9ZgX2170I-dkKiDsiJaC9jig5OwWsK7Q&s=r