I don't get it. Free Speech Under Threat At University? (Added Extra)

[Arctic Werewolf]

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.

Not paying to have someone speak at your school is not "Silencing",

Well the Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you.

and you sound like you're aiming for hysterical when you act like it's otherwise.

Some hysteria for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia

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 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.

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.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millennials-ok-with-limiting-speech-offensive-to-minorities/

 

[wulf3n]

You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak.

In the case of "No-Platforming" it's not about the University inviting you. The students are doing the inviting and setting up the lecture. The University then intervenes and bans it.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak.

In the case of "No-Platforming" it's not about the University inviting you. The students are doing the inviting and setting up the lecture. The University then intervenes and bans it.

This is definitely my favorite anti-free speech reframing. I can literally ban every single speaker and idea from campus and I still, still, still am not violating anyone's free speech. But I take it at face value when you say you support free speech.

 

[wulf3n]

You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak.

In the case of "No-Platforming" it's not about the University inviting you. The students are doing the inviting and setting up the lecture. The University then intervenes and bans it.

This is definitely my favorite anti-free speech reframing. I can literally ban every single speaker and idea from campus and I still, still, still am not violating anyone's free speech. But I take it at face value when you say you support free speech.

That post was neither for nor anti but simply pointing out no-platforming != no-inviting.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that it's anti-free speech.

 

[Yan007]

I lived in China for almost 5 years. When I walk in a Western university or read about them, sure smells like China in there. People saying no-platforming and disinviting speakers, pulling fire alarms, that it's okay to ban speakers because the majority does not like them, that THIS is not anti-free speech, well this is exactly the rhetoric my friends working in Chinese universities used to tell me. They hated it, but this is how the Chinese system works.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not sure about that. I have had several very reasonable debates with creationists, or at least people who believe in divine creation.

Well, there's the thing. People generally are talking about those who believe in a literal creation of humankind in its current form by a divine creator (likely, but not always Christian) when they say creationist. There's probably a better, more specific version, but I'm tired and sore and can barely pay attention.

But "don't argue with a creationist" probably isn't talking about most of the people you're talking about.

Er no, not giving someone a platform doesn't mean you're preventing them from speaking. They're free to speak, they're not being censored, you're just not giving them your platform to do it from.

Or to accommodate them in any way.

It gets even weirder when you step out of universities and into the tantrums that have been thrown about over private businesses or individuals.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

The issue with no-platforming is that these people are actually going to speak at these places but then sensitive idiots freak out and protest it, often saying that these people are "a threat to their safety" like they've done multiple times with Milo.

Except for that not actually being true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86uGGkkycg
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/photos/a.594779487326617.1073741828.423006854503882/644111062393459/?type=3&theater
https://youtu.be/eckDObOlSwk?t=44m22s
And videos from the protesters themselves in case you don't want to take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIbnrae-YjbNrll6v51VBjQ

It's ironic that the crowd who has resorted so heavily to theatrics is calling other people "sensitive." I know literal drama queens who are less theatric.

So people are preventing people from speaking their mind to a crowd, in some cases attacking people for doing so( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcGFFf1uwT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o ), and you think people are being drama queens for being pissed off about that? That says a lot. If they disagreed with them, all they have to do is show up to say so and call them out. That falls under free speech.

However, that's not what I addressed. You were attempting to indicate that they were being denied the right to speak. Their free speech is still intact. Rather than address that, you shifted the argument. Unfortunately, you can't really dodge what free speech is in a free speech argument. Especially since free speech actually does allow people to say they don't want him to speak there. Weird how that part get left out when the absolutists come in talking about free speech and censorship.

Because no platforming is an attempt to ban speech that you don't like and keep people from being exposed to ideas you don't like. You're saying people with certain views are not allowed here and not allowed to speak here. It's censorship, plain and simple. Also, the Supreme Court disagrees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia#The_free_speech_claim

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak.

In the case of "No-Platforming" it's not about the University inviting you. The students are doing the inviting and setting up the lecture. The University then intervenes and bans it.

This is definitely my favorite anti-free speech reframing. I can literally ban every single speaker and idea from campus and I still, still, still am not violating anyone's free speech. But I take it at face value when you say you support free speech.

That post was neither for nor anti but simply pointing out no-platforming != no-inviting.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that it's anti-free speech.

I think "You aren't entitled for a university to invite you to speak" is an attempt to argue against free speech by reframing the issue rhetorically. And I don't find it one bit convincing. That's what I was commenting on, sorry for any confusion.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

How crazy entitled would someone have to be to think that they have a RIGHT to whatever platform they choose,

I'm not saying anyone has a right to any platform. ...But I still want free speech on campus.

even when the democratically elected body controlling that platform says no?

Democratic control of speech and free speech are mutually exclusive. You can have one or the other. Not both.

I think you might be the one neck deep in rhetoric, and not a very high quality of it either. Why is that? What is your agenda that you have to go about it ass backwards and upside down?

Free Speech on campus.

And reframing it as entitlements to platforms is the assbackward way, and changing the subject. My way is the traditional, conventional understanding of what free speech is. In my view, a system that allows anyone and everyone to be banned for any reason or no reason at all is not free speech. Amazing I have to say that, but here we are. No one is entitled to a platform, so I'll ban every speaker you invite. Ban you, ban you, ban you, ban everybody. And that is what free speech looks like? I don't think so.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

*sigh*

You've ruined "Free Speech on Campus" coming from you. That's all you've actually accomplished for anyone who isn't completely already on board with

If you knew why I was wrong you'd just say it. I'm leaning toward I'm actually right and you can't rebut it.

your (very obvious by the way) ideology.

What is my ideology?

 

[wulf3n]

At some point, protecting the free speech of an idiot from the consequences of that speech becomes pathetic and absurd.

No more pathetic and absurd than the attempts to stop it.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

*sigh*

You've ruined "Free Speech on Campus" coming from you. That's all you've actually accomplished for anyone who isn't completely already on board with

If you knew why I was wrong you'd just say it. I'm leaning toward I'm actually right and you can't rebut it.

your (very obvious by the way) ideology.

What is my ideology?

Do you even have an F5 key left, or is that what's left after you snipped what you didn't want to even look at?

I don't play this.

I was about to post this:

*sigh*

You've ruined "Free Speech on Campus" coming from you. That's all you've actually accomplished for anyone who isn't already completely on board with your (very obvious by the way) ideology. A church has to have the freedom to kick people out. A school and it's democratically elected bodies have to have the freedom to keep people out. That's part of freedom too. Freedom isn't just an idiot nodding and smiling at everything, that's chaos. Only the strong survive or have any freedom in a chaotic environment.

You edited your post, so I'm changing my response.

Churches aren't universities. I wouldn't expect your bridge club to have a free speech policy. That is a whole different kettle of fish. The same values, expectations and needs are not in play. Churches don't need academic freedom, or history departments for that matter. Universities do.

No, the school and it's democratically elected bodies do not have to have the freedom to keep people out. That is the opposite of free speech. Free speech means that when the school says "No, the unpopular view may not be heard", we say "Yes, let the unpopular view be heard". Free speech is not subject to democratic control, that is fundamental to the concept.

You know I was responding to your post correctly as it was originally posted. Please do not make insinuations of underhandedness that you know to be baseless. I'm sorry I responded to your post before you had a chance to edit it, but these things will happen. It doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong.

 

[wulf3n]

You know I was responding to your post correctly as it was originally posted.

No F5 key then, as I said first and originally suspected.

At some point, protecting the free speech of an idiot from the consequences of that speech becomes pathetic and absurd.

No more pathetic and absurd than the attempts to stop it.

"No it doesn't." isn't a valid argument off the playground, nor is, "Nuh Uh," "Well so are you," and of course, "I know you are, but what am I?!"

No. Everything isn't equivocal just because you say that it is.

Nor is it unequivocal just because you say that it is.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

No F5 key then, as I said first and originally suspected.

Are you seriously correcting me for responding to a post before you edited it? For the record, I am not going to be waiting around to see if you edit your posts. I'm not going to PM you to find out if it's done yet. So type fast, get it right the first time or better yet, just be reasonable about it.

 

[wulf3n]

You know I was responding to your post correctly as it was originally posted.

No F5 key then, as I said first and originally suspected.

At some point, protecting the free speech of an idiot from the consequences of that speech becomes pathetic and absurd.

No more pathetic and absurd than the attempts to stop it.

"No it doesn't." isn't a valid argument off the playground, nor is, "Nuh Uh," "Well so are you," and of course, "I know you are, but what am I?!"

No. Everything isn't equivocal just because you say that it is.

Nor is it unequivocal just because you say that it is.

There's that, "I know you are, but what am I?!" again. You need to work on that.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

If you added an actual reasoning for the "absurd and pathetic" postulation I might have had something to actually address. As it stands you have provided nothing to actually counter other than your opinion to which I can only respond with my opinion.

But rather than acknowledge this and provide something for actual discussion you continue with fallacious insinuations.