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

Kanedias

New member
Mar 4, 2016
16
0
0
Something Amyss said:
ThatOtherGirl said:
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.



Pluvia said:
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.
But seriously, don't argue with a creationist, unless you're a teenager with a control complex who just likes to argue past someone forever.


Therumancer said:
Kanedias said:
Therumancer said:
scorn the biomage said:
Therumancer said:
While it will take some doing, a new legal frontier the government needs to address is protecting people from private censorship, and yes that does mean removing a lot of the rights of the private owners of existing forums.

to control the speech of others. To put it bluntly, one citizen holding more power over another citizen than duly elected officials is absolutely ridiculous.
so in order to fight censorship you want to take away other people rights moderate ,ignore or decide who goes on their piece of media. I don't know about you but that sounds pretty fascist to me.
Then it's fascist, something I disagree with, but the label doesn't scare me. As far as I'm concerned freedom of speech is more important. Others of course have their own opinions. Right now liberals seem in favor of private censorship because they are holding most of the media cards, if the situation was on the other foot I think they would believe quite differently. It's always okay to see censorship in people's minds as long as it's things they disagree with that are being censored.
Couching your desire to be an autocrat in terms of freedom and censorship is nonsensical.
No, I just don't play the game of trying to slap labels like facist onto this kind of an argument when one of the first things facists do is want to limit free speech, which is something we see happening through private platforms. Given the increasingly incestuous relationship between politics and private business it's becoming harder to separate them as well.
That's about 50% word salad, 50% rant.
 

chumpo

New member
May 16, 2015
2
0
0
It's not banning free speech - the person is still able to speak. Just somewhere else. At best it is a 'restriction' of free speech.

It's not censorship - the person is still able to speak.

However it is infantile to 'no platform' these people. Let them speak. If you don;t want to listen, don't go.

In the end, the group who is actually at fault here is the university for allowing this no platforming.

Universities should be championing intellectual freedom. I think what frightens people about the extreme left is their apparent inability to compromise. To even listen, or allow others to listen, to ideas that conflict with their own.
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
I will only say this to the people who believe that these people should not be able to speak because the majority of the people do not want them to speak.

In the past, before gay, or transgender rights were a thing, before minority rights were a thing. Would you be for, or against the idea of barring people from speaking on universities because the majority of straight, white students didn't want to hear it? Or would that be horrible.

Those for no-platforming I can bet would be against it. As far as I can tell, now you are for it because it bans and silences the people you don't like. But if that's your definition of free speech and an example of how universities should be run, maybe consider moving off to China, where your ideas will fit in with society at large.
 

Yan007

New member
Jan 31, 2011
262
0
0
To add to what chumpo and Cecilo just wrote:

Proponents of no-platforming say it's okay to no-platform others because you aren't owed an audience, platform or whatever.

I call BS on this. If it were true, no-platformers would not hunt down people trying to make their own private events, at private venues. But they do. Truth is no-platformers are anti-intellectuals, barbarians and cancer of society.
 

9tailedflame

New member
Oct 8, 2015
218
0
0
The update is pretty bullshit. Not you making the update, but the situation shown in the update. While i do think that anyone who will hate someone else over a 1000-year-old book is experiencing a serious lack in judgement, i also think that any university that will rob someone of their money and education over their personal social media posts is being an intrusive piece of shit who needs to mind their own business. Personal and professional lives should always be kept separate, and you shouldn't screw up somebody's life just because they aren't towing the political line, not to mention colleges are suppose to be where crazy ideas are shared and given a chance, the fact that they're all turning into a homoginized liberal mass is bad.

Again, i think this person's opinion and post are shit, but that's his personal life, and he has the right to post dumb shit on twitter of he wants to, he's certainly not the only one doing so.
 

The Material Sheep

New member
Nov 12, 2009
339
0
0
chumpo said:
It's not banning free speech - the person is still able to speak. Just somewhere else. At best it is a 'restriction' of free speech.

It's not censorship - the person is still able to speak.

However it is infantile to 'no platform' these people. Let them speak. If you don;t want to listen, don't go.

In the end, the group who is actually at fault here is the university for allowing this no platforming.

Universities should be championing intellectual freedom. I think what frightens people about the extreme left is their apparent inability to compromise. To even listen, or allow others to listen, to ideas that conflict with their own.
Only under the barest of semantic arguments can it be stated that no one is having a loss of their freedom of speech here. Ideas and speech are being blocked from discourse in a public area due to social bullying and many seem to be deliberately ignoring that tax payer funded institutions are being allowed to filter speakers based on their ideological orthodoxy. This fundamentally is a removal of others rights to freedom of speech and qualifies by even the barest definition as censorship.
 

Arctic Werewolf

New member
Oct 16, 2014
67
0
0
Im Lang said:
There isn't enough time, and there aren't enough platforms in the world to give everyone the time and platform they think that they deserve.
I don't get this argument at all. CNN doesn't give a shit what Arctic Werewolf has to say, therefore abolish free speech. I am just so baffled by the train of thought here. It seems like once you go down the no-platform rabbit hole, you forget what the whole idea of free speech was all about in the first place.
Free speech for anyone means restrictions on free speech for everyone.
Not really, unless you're referring to the usual exceptions I guess. I can't literally follow you into your home and scream at you 24/7, sure.
The issue really is, are these particular restrictions being imposed by a democratically elected or appointed body, and are they subject to future revision by a similar body? The answer here is, "Yes they are, and yes they are."

You're not objecting to an organizational decision in a vacuum, but one that's subject to electoral review in the future. That's the balance, and if you are on the side of things that lacks the numbers and the power to get your way in that future, that's because you're losing. It's not an unfair restriction on you, it's just what losing feels like.
That is not the issue. It sounds like you want speech subject to democratic review. That is incompatible with free speech on a fundamental level. You can have free speech or you can abolish free speech. You must choose which one you want.

So, 9-11 Truthers? People who think that all men are rapists? David Icke? Skinheads? Creationists, Flat-Earthers, and Anti-Vaccers... just invite everyone to talk all the time, all together until it's just a din?

Or let me guess, you agree with the current system, you just have somewhat different ideas about how it should be applied. In which case of course, you're just going to have to get yourself better representation, aren't you.
If you don't believe in free speech for people you don't like, then you don't believe in free speech. You really want to ban 9-11 Truthers and creationists? Flat-earthers and anti-vaccers? Don't you think that's a tad extreme? I expect people to at least sympathize with banning skinheads, but come on.

I don't mean to single you out Lang but I'm really disappointed at how much opposition free speech gets around here, on campus or otherwise.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,894
741
118
Cecilo said:
I will only say this to the people who believe that these people should not be able to speak because the majority of the people do not want them to speak.
Ok, show of hands.

How many people in this thread believe that? Anyone?

The Material Sheep said:
Only under the barest of semantic arguments can it be stated that no one is having a loss of their freedom of speech here. Ideas and speech are being blocked from discourse in a public area due to social bullying and many seem to be deliberately ignoring that tax payer funded institutions are being allowed to filter speakers based on their ideological orthodoxy. This fundamentally is a removal of others rights to freedom of speech and qualifies by even the barest definition as censorship.
They aren't being blocked from discourse. People can still talk about them. People can still talk about them at the university. People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.

And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
thaluikhain said:
People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.
Except that's not what is actually happening. Student unions are inviting these people to speak and the University is preventing them from being able to do so.

thaluikhain said:
And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
Uhhh... These people aren't being hired as professors, their lectures and talks do not count towards a students academic qualification.

Also it would depend on your degree.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,894
741
118
wulf3n said:
thaluikhain said:
People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.
Except that's not what is actually happening. Student unions are inviting these people to speak and the University is preventing them from being able to do so.
Surely the university gets to decide who is invited to the university, not the student union?
 

wulf3n

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,394
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Surely the university gets to decide who is invited to the university, not the student union?
The University itself has the final say, but generally the student unions do the inviting.

At least in my experience.
 

irish286

New member
Mar 17, 2012
114
0
0
wulf3n said:
thaluikhain said:
People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.
Except that's not what is actually happening. Student unions are inviting these people to speak and the University is preventing them from being able to do so.

thaluikhain said:
And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
Uhhh... These people aren't being hired as professors, their lectures and talks do not count towards a students academic qualification.

Also it would depend on your degree.
The problem isn't with people not getting invited. It's with the censorship happening with people who already are. Student groups use their rights to invite someone to speak. Then people of the opposite opinion(always far left) threaten violent protest, call in bomb threats, pull fire alarms, and attack people trying to hear the speaker.
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Cecilo said:
I will only say this to the people who believe that these people should not be able to speak because the majority of the people do not want them to speak.
Ok, show of hands.

How many people in this thread believe that? Anyone?

The Material Sheep said:
Only under the barest of semantic arguments can it be stated that no one is having a loss of their freedom of speech here. Ideas and speech are being blocked from discourse in a public area due to social bullying and many seem to be deliberately ignoring that tax payer funded institutions are being allowed to filter speakers based on their ideological orthodoxy. This fundamentally is a removal of others rights to freedom of speech and qualifies by even the barest definition as censorship.
They aren't being blocked from discourse. People can still talk about them. People can still talk about them at the university. People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.

And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
thaluikhain said:
Cecilo said:
I will only say this to the people who believe that these people should not be able to speak because the majority of the people do not want them to speak.
Ok, show of hands.

How many people in this thread believe that? Anyone?

The Material Sheep said:
Only under the barest of semantic arguments can it be stated that no one is having a loss of their freedom of speech here. Ideas and speech are being blocked from discourse in a public area due to social bullying and many seem to be deliberately ignoring that tax payer funded institutions are being allowed to filter speakers based on their ideological orthodoxy. This fundamentally is a removal of others rights to freedom of speech and qualifies by even the barest definition as censorship.
They aren't being blocked from discourse. People can still talk about them. People can still talk about them at the university. People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.

And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
So I assume that you are part of the LGBT/Black Rights/Woman's rights group. And wouldn't have been okay with your platform being no platformed then. And I can see your response now "But those were things that deserve a platform, Deserve to be spoken of. These don't" Well who the hell gets to decide that? You? No. Each person has to choose what they want to listen to, and turning a university campus into a safe space/echo chamber isn't going to do you or anyone else any favors, all its gonna lead to is an even more divided world where people are constantly on the defense because they feel like they or the way they think is under attack.
 

johnnyboy2537

New member
Nov 28, 2012
37
0
0
ThatOtherGirl said:
johnnyboy2537 said:
So let me get this straight, preventing people from speaking isn't preventing people from speaking.
More specifically, not paying them thousands of dollars and providing them with an auditorium is not preventing them from speaking. We have a right to free speech, not a right to be paid thousands of dollars for sharing our opinion.
This case says everything I need to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia#The_free_speech_claim
 

Arctic Werewolf

New member
Oct 16, 2014
67
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Cecilo said:
I will only say this to the people who believe that these people should not be able to speak because the majority of the people do not want them to speak.
Ok, show of hands.

How many people in this thread believe that? Anyone?
Well there's Slice up there. Then there is Richard Gozin-Yu who I responded to. Im Lang who I also responded to thinks it should be democratically decided who will be permitted. I've seen several people in this thread who think free speech is subject to democratic review, which is simply a failure to understand the concept. I suspect we're talking about two different things, since you knew all this, but I'm not sure where our disconnect is, exactly.

thaluikhain said:
They aren't being blocked from discourse. People can still talk about them. People can still talk about them at the university.
With you so far. That's not really free speech, but we'll get there.
People just aren't automatically entitled to be invited to talk by the university.
But that is changing the subject. I don't care if people are entitled to be invited to anything. I still want free speech on campus.

And, what's the point of a university if it's just anyone saying anything? Could I have spent a few years talking to randoms at the pub and that's as good as a degree?
I think you may be under misapprehensions concerning what free speech is about and how it works in a practical setting. You seem to envision a general pandemonium developing as a consequence of free speech, to the point where the experience of obtaining a degree is not unlike spending four years talking to randoms at the pub. You are effectively arguing against free speech on the grounds that it will ruin the university discourse. I think experience shows us that is probably not going to happen, and I don't see why it should. Somehow we have weathered the free speech storm well enough so far. There are huge problems with intellectual discourse right now, but they're not related to free speech or a consequence of it. However, it is quite true that free speech will lead to people saying things they really ought not to.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
johnnyboy2537 said:
And videos from the protesters themselves in case you don't want to take my word for it/quote]

It's interesting that you seem to be linking the wrong videos, or else you're hearing tings that don't seem to be in them.

Kanedias said:
But seriously, don't argue with a creationist, unless you're a teenager with a control complex who just likes to argue past someone forever.
I'll have you know I'm a fully grown adult with control issues, TYVM.
 

Arctic Werewolf

New member
Oct 16, 2014
67
0
0
Im Lang said:
You actually snipped, asked questions that would have been answered if you hadn't snipped. The whole "CNN" thing for instance, seems like you actually wrote when you'd only read the the first sentence. I've learned in my time on the internet, that this is the equivalent of people not really listening, while they can only think of what they're going to say next. I'll offer you the same thing I offer them.
Sorry but I don't follow. If I'm wrong then please explain why. I suspect I'm actually right though, and that's what I'm going to suppose if you don't have a counterpoint.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,894
741
118
Cecilo said:
Well who the hell gets to decide that? You? No.
The university does.

Cecilo said:
Each person has to choose what they want to listen to
But not to choose who a university invites to speak at that university.

Arctic Werewolf said:
Well there's Slice up there. Then there is Richard Gozin-Yu who I responded to. Im Lang who I also responded to thinks it should be democratically decided who will be permitted. I've seen several people in this thread who think free speech is subject to democratic review, which is simply a failure to understand the concept.
Yeah, I'm still going to wait to see if anyone puts their hands up.