Well the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.Richard Gozin-Yu said:Not paying to have someone speak at your school is not "Silencing",irish286 said:Problem is this isn't just getting yelled at, boycotted, or banned. It's active interference aimed at silencing opposing views in what is supposed to be neutral public ground. You may think what someone believes makes them an a-hole but that doesn't give you the right to prevent others from listening to them. If you don't like what they have to say counter it later. Hold a counter speech, challenge the speaker to a debate after their speech, protest peacefully outside. All you do by silencing someone is prove you can't defend your Ideology.Vahir said:
Some hysteria for you:and you sound like you're aiming for hysterical when you act like it's otherwise.
The way you people think this works isn't just factually incorrect, it would actually be illegal in the U.S. to implement a system like that. Worse, it is not consistent with the values of higher education.This whole thread is just pages of people arguing semantics, or simply trying to find a way to say that they hate losing without saying it. Your views are not being represented because your views are not popular, and most people don't want to pay for the "privilege" of hearing them espoused at their university.
That's not "Silencing" though, and you do an almost criminal disservice to all of the people around the world who have TRULY been silenced.
The system that's being proposed here is not free speech at all, it's the opposite of free speech. It's majoritarian. You said it yourself, "Your views are not being represented because your views are not popular" and people don't want to pay for it. "Citation needed", but moving past that, you're effectively making the economic case against free speech on campus along majoritarian lines. Which is fine, but you can't call that free speech.
Everyone is talking about a speaking fee. But so what if there's a damn speaking fee? Using the power of the purse to destroy free speech has come up once or twice before, believe it or not. It is standard operating procedure to have viewpoint-neutral funding policies to prevent exactly that outcome. At state schools, failing to do this is against the law. At private institutions, it could well constitute breach of contract if they have a policy but don't enforce it properly. As for resources, speakers who don't charge fees also require resources, even if it's literally just the building. So you haven't gotten around the problem of making people pay for speech they don't like. But I know a way around it.
There are indeed a lot of semantics in this thread. When people won't distinguish between a system of strict ideological control and free speech, they're going to have to play a lot of word games on you to square that circle. This thread is what happens when you ask people who hate free speech what free speech is all about. And for the record, it is perfectly legal to give students a refund for money spent in a way they don't approve of. As in actually sending them a check. But we all know this is about shutting people up, not money.
In America, most people oppose censorship- even millennials. Maybe you should be banned from speaking on campus because your views are not popular. Banning unpopular views being the essence of free speech, of course.