Something Amyss said:
This is a curious one to me. If you're agreeing to conduct yourself in a certain way, surely this isn't censorship.
Are group therapy sessions--hell, any therapy sessions--or AA censorship?
Note, as per the spirit of what you wrote, I am not asking "is it bad." It just seems that at this point, "censorship" has become an absurd parody of itself. Which is protected under free speech.
If an alcoholics anonymous prevents a member from encouraging others to drink more alcohol, yes, it is censorship. It is a restriction of free speech. However, it is a voluntary restriction that the person accepted by joining that group, where it is to be expected that that is what will happen - as I tried to point out continuing on in that paragraph.
It is still censorship. It still restricts your ability to say what you want. However that is acceptable in some cases. Censorship isn't inherently bad, even if some people feel to attribute it as being such. In a lot of cases it can be useful or good. However actively blocking someone's ability to say something is censorship - if you get kicked out of AA for being pro-binge drinking, its censorship. But in that case, its a good thing. If someone simply decides not to talk about things because they're a part of that group, yeah, not censorship. The groups by themselves, therefore, technically aren't censorship - however they practice censorship in actively excluding and expelling those who don't speak the way they want them to speak.
Zontar said:
Joccaren said:
Nobody has to give your opinions any credence just because you have them. Its pure arrogance to think they should.
And if that was what the issue at hand was there wouldn't be a massive discussion going on about it online and in the public sphere on the matter, but the problem is this isn't even a fraction of what the matter at hand is.
Thing is, that is the issue going on, at least from the article OP linked. Its 'censorship' because people are being denied special privileges to espouse their opinions in front of others, and force them into listening. That's not censorship. "No Platform" isn't censorship. It simply means that the university is not required to endorse every single view in the world.
Yes, students voting to ban a club based around free speech is questionable. However, one then has to question whether the club is actually interested in free speech, or whether it uses that as a guise to try and spread misogynist or transphobic, or homophobic, views, and shut down opposing views, in response to 'safe spaces' - which is honestly more likely IMO. Free speech clubs are redundant as you're able to talk about whatever you want in public as part of free speech.
Were students being expelled based on this sort of thing, sure, censorship. Were the university to single out those who are espousing certain views and actively punish them for espousing them, or actively remove their ability to say these things - not refuse to give them a platform to say such things, but actively remove their ability to talk, push them out when they try to talk, actively repress them - then sure, censorship. AFAIK, that's not what is happening. The university simply refuses to allow certain guest speakers to espouse their views on the university's platform, something it is fully within its right to do. Print out some flyers, hand them out - if the university stops you, yeah, that's a restriction of free speech. Stop people in the halls and talk about issues, that's cool too.
Also note, that people saying you're wrong and that you shouldn't be handing out flyers or W/E isn't free speech - its them exercising their right to free speech. Its only if they actively do something like take your pamphlets and burn them that it is a restriction of free speech.
And on other examples, ringing the fire alarm when you're talking about something they don't approve of isn't censorship. Yes, its interrupting your, and everyone else's, interactions, however all it really does at that point is take away your microphone. You're still able to talk about your views out at the fire evacuation exit. You're not escorted from the premises. Its certainly not acceptable behaviour, but its not censorship. You can still talk. You're just not supported for doing so. Its not a protest, generally, about your ability to talk about your opinion, more a protest of the university supporting you in doing so by giving you access to their equipment and facilities, and in some cases even paying you, to do so.
I mean, for an example, the Return of King's group. You know the one. The guys who are trying to say Rape should be legal to make women more cautious. If a handful of guys at the university want to listen to them, is the university required to give them a room, dedicated timeslot, and access to the equipment to do so?
No. And its not censorship if they don't. Depending on how they compose themselves whilst on campus, they may even be expelled from campus if they go there to talk themselves without the university's support, not due to censorship and the university not wanting them to talk, but because what they'll say will quite likely cross the line of harassment, which the university is obliged to protect its students from.
And again, if hate groups form, a university would not be required to allow a KKK club to be formed.
You'll find that the lines of where such things are drawn aren't to do with blocking free speech, preventing opposing opinions from being shared - at least from the university's perspective. On the student side it depends on each case, however by and large its rarely about closing down free speech, more often about protection from hate speech, and removal of the university supported platform for those who espouse hate speech to spread their views.