Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent on about nazi displays banned in Germany,, Id like to know his/her thoughts on a law that was passed in Poland in 2009 equating communist symbols with nazi symbols & an equal ban on communist symbols.

https://www.rt.com/politics/poland-bans-communist-symbols/

If you favour banning one,, as you referenced Germany- then surely you would agree with this Polish law equally banning communist symbols too ?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

This is a recipe for getting rebuked for dragging the thread off topic again. Did Marx envision a violent revolutionary overthrow of capitalism as the only method of social and economic revolution? I really don't think he did.


I will admit that the number of Pacifist Marxists is defintely in the minority.

Agreed entirely.

Inevitably, the definition of "hate speech" expands to incorporate virtually anything that might offend. And this is no fanciful notion: British politician Paul Weston was arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after he read out a passage on Islam from a book by Winston Churchill.

The implications of the government-controlled speech desired by 20Cent are truly Orwellian.

Do you have to bring Orwell into it? Orwell was actually a Socialist of the violent persuasion . But yes, goverment control of speech is inherently authoritarian.

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

20Cent on about nazi displays banned in Germany,, Id like to know his/her thoughts on a law that was passed in Poland in 2009 equating communist symbols with nazi symbols & an equal ban on communist symbols.

https://www.rt.com/politics/poland-bans-communist-symbols/

If you favour banning one,, as you referenced Germany- then surely you would agree with this Polish law equally banning communist symbols too ?

Seriously. Is there any need for this whataboutery? It undermines any serious point you have to make. A point I actually agree with.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I don’t argue that the majority of Marxists advocate violent revolution. My point was that Marxism isn’t a violent philosophy in itself, Marxists are a broad church. Some are pacifists, some are not.

That's my essential point. Handing control of speech to the state is an inherently authoritarian position -- and one that has never worked out especially well historically, so it's surprising to see the support for it on this thread.

How does it feel to be on the same side for once?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ireland has had incitement to hatred laws since 1989. Have we descented into an Orwelian hellhole yet? People can discuss and critique religion no problem. Same with most of Europe and Canade.

The US on the other hand are discussing if teachers should be armed and have neo nazi groups giving talks in colleges.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Perhaps it's time we had a conversation about neo-liberal economic violence and when it is morally acceptable for the exploited class to resist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

Ireland has had incitement to hatred laws since 1989. Have we descented into an Orwelian hellhole yet? People can discuss and critique religion no problem. Same with most of Europe and Canade.

The US on the other hand are discussing if teachers should be armed and have neo nazi groups giving talks in colleges.

Really? I dont hear a lot of critique or discussion on Islam on the news. Which according to some people in the world (Jews and Homosexuals) are just as bad as the Nazis.

Overheal

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Really? I dont hear a lot of critique or discussion on Islam on the news. Which according to some people in the world (Jews and Homosexuals) are just as bad as the Nazis.

Did you smash all your television screens in the year 2000 or something?

Chris_Heilong

Overheal wrote: »

Did you smash all your television screens in the year 2000 or something?

I have seen a lot of them talking about ISIS however I have not seen many discussions on Islam itself, maybe I have just missed these discussions.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I have seen a lot of them talking about ISIS however I have not seen many discussions on Islam itself, maybe I have just missed these discussions.

You’re watching the wrong programs. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are very critical of Islam.

20Cent

Still want these types talking in universities.



Finsbury Park attacker turned violent by far-right posts from Tommy Robinson and Britain First, police say


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/finsbury-park-terror-attack-tommy-robinson-far-right-britain-first-mark-rowley-speech-police-a8229936.html

“He had grown to hate Muslims largely due his consumption of large amounts of online far-right material including, as evidenced at court, statements from former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others,” he told an event in London.

Overheal

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I have seen a lot of them talking about ISIS however I have not seen many discussions on Islam itself, maybe I have just missed these discussions.

Could I interest you in the gospel of Fox News?

Red_Wake

20Cent wrote: »

Still want these types talking in universities.



Finsbury Park attacker turned violent by far-right posts from Tommy Robinson and Britain First, police say


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/finsbury-park-terror-attack-tommy-robinson-far-right-britain-first-mark-rowley-speech-police-a8229936.html

“He had grown to hate Muslims largely due his consumption of large amounts of online far-right material including, as evidenced at court, statements from former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others,” he told an event in London.

Is there an alternative possibility that if these views were engaged with publically, they could be proven wrong and discredited. 

If they're driven underground, they face no opposition and go unchallenged. I notice that the material which radicalised this individual was online rather than in a public place.

20Cent

Red_Wake wrote: »

Is there an alternative possibility that if these views were engaged with publically, they could be proven wrong and discredited. 

If they're driven underground, they face no opposition and go unchallenged. I notice that the material which radicalised this individual was online rather than in a public place.

The further underground a nazi is the better imo.

20Cent

More connections between the Florida school shooter and the far right.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/swastikas-ammunition-magazines-parkland-florida-school-shooting-suspect-nikolas-cruz/


Florida school shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz had swastikas ammunition magazines he brought into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, a federal law enforcement source with direct knowledge of the investigation told CBS News on Tuesday. Cruz has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Indeed. Back on topic, please.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's in response to the claim that speech doesn't cause any harm. These killers were radicalised by what they have heard and read. Allowing these folk to speak on campuses gives these views a legitimacy and higher profile.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sweg

20Cent wrote: »

It's in response to the claim that speech doesn't cause any harm. These killers were radicalised by what they have heard and read. Allowing these folk to speak on campuses gives these views a legitimacy and higher profile.

Who decides what speech is "acceptable"?

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I find disturbing the fact that posters can simply spew unchecked bile and hatred at the president and the 63 million Americans who voted for him, creating trainwreck thread after trainwreck thread....

Or do we decide that this isn't the kind of hate-filled rhetoric that Boards is willing to entertain?

Complete turn around for yourself in only 12 months, well done.

Jcarroll07

20Cent wrote: »

It's in response to the claim that speech doesn't cause any harm. These killers were radicalised by what they have heard and read. Allowing these folk to speak on campuses gives these views a legitimacy and higher profile.

The guy was not even un University it was a high school campus. But aren't we lucky we have people like you ready to regulate what we can and cant hear, good forbid we entertain the idea that people can actually think for themselves :rolleyes:

In fairness you are the greatest argument in favour of free speech.

Jcarroll07

Sweg wrote: »

Who decides what speech is "acceptable"?

Him or people like him. Thats what makes the idea of censorship so dangerous as has already been historically proven, but we live in an age where some aren't really into the idea of facts.

20Cent

I don't agree with what you say but I'd die for your right to say it is the most virtue signaling load of boll*x ever. Everyone has a line they don't think should be crossed. It's easy to say lets debate nazi's and show them the error of their ways when you're not the ones they want killed.
Plenty of speech is regulated and illegal already, when it involves rich people or powerful entities. Minorities not so much. Being anti fascist is self defence.
Private universities don't have to put up with these characters on their campuses it's the public ones that are targeted. Allowing them to speak suggests that their ideas have some value which is not true.

ancapailldorcha

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

The guy was not even un University it was a high school campus. But aren't we lucky we have people like you ready to regulate what we can and cant hear, good forbid we entertain the idea that people can actually think for themselves :rolleyes:

In fairness you are the greatest argument in favour of free speech.

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Him or people like him. Thats what makes the idea of censorship so dangerous as has already been historically proven, but we live in an age where some aren't really into the idea of facts.

Enough of the personal digs please.

Chris_Heilong

20Cent wrote: »

I don't agree with what you say but I'd die for your right to say it is the most virtue signaling load of boll*x ever. Everyone has a line they don't think should be crossed. It's easy to say lets debate nazi's and show them the error of their ways when you're not the ones they want killed.
Plenty of speech is regulated and illegal already, when it involves rich people or powerful entities. Minorities not so much. Being anti fascist is self defence.
Private universities don't have to put up with these characters on their campuses it's the public ones that are targeted. Allowing them to speak suggests that their ideas have some value which is not true.

I am all for anything to give an opposing view to the left wing identity politics, third wave feminism and all the dangerous Marxist ideologies that teach if your "group" is not on top then you are being oppressed :rolleyes: is a good thing. Really besides the group that might identify themselves as Nazi/alt-right how many Nazis do you actually think are out there or do you mean anyone who is not "progressive" is a Nazi?

Havockk

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I am all for anything to give an opposing view to the left wing identity politics, third wave feminism and all the dangerous Marxist ideologies that teach if your "group" is not on top then you are being oppressed :rolleyes: is a good thing. Really besides the group that might identify themselves as Nazi/alt-right how many Nazis do you actually think are out there or do you mean anyone who is not "progressive" is a Nazi?

I think it's important for Nazi's and such to out themselves, for too long they have been lurking in the shadows. Speak up now, loudly, and we can get some good old aggression going their way!

20Cent

Havockk wrote: »

I think it's important for Nazi's and such to out themselves, for too long they have been lurking in the shadows. Speak up now, loudly, and we can get some good old aggression going their way!

There is never a good time for Nazi's to "out" themselves. Shadows, underground etc best place for them. Not giving talks in Universities like thats a normal thing.

20Cent

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I am all for anything to give an opposing view to the left wing identity politics, third wave feminism and all the dangerous Marxist ideologies that teach if your "group" is not on top then you are being oppressed :rolleyes: is a good thing. Really besides the group that might identify themselves as Nazi/alt-right how many Nazis do you actually think are out there or do you mean anyone who is not "progressive" is a Nazi?

No.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No comment from yourself about your seemingly hypocritical position on this matter then so?

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Didn't say anything about books. It's pretty simple I don't think a university should be obliged to host or give a platform to people who believe other people are subhuman and need to be liquidated.
Didn't think this would be a controversial view.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear.

Firstly, I understand perfectly well. And you may protest all you like and move the goalposts around but the fact of the matter is that you are being absolutely hypocritical. It hardly matters if it's on a campus in the USA or a website in Timbucktu. It sounds to me like you like Free Speech when it suits yourself or your agenda, but apart from that you are willing to turn a blind eye and that, mon amie, is the definition of hypocrisy.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm drilling deeper here, this is way past a first amendment conversation by now. What you and I are talking about is 'Free Speech'. And in this matter you appear to have a conflicting viewpoint.

<snip>what is your stance of free speech?

Mod note: - please discuss the issues not other posters and leave matters such as the direction of the thread to the mods. In relation to your question to Permabear, he/she can answer if he/she wishes or not, and if you don't wish to reply to what he/she has said then the matter is at an end.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

He's right. We should have no right to unabashed free speech, in the same way that only an demented fool would believe that we should have absolute freedom to do whatever we want. If you don't believe that pick up a history book, we tend to believe the species has a long memory but we keep making the same mistakes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

the_syco

Havockk wrote: »

I'm drilling deeper here, this is way past a first amendment conversation by now. What you and I are talking about is 'Free Speech'. And in this matter you appear to have a conflicting viewpoint.

I have no idea how the Irish first amendment comes into play here? As the first amendment states "the state sweeping powers during a time of emergency" when Ireland is not part of the war itself.

Havockk

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Don't hide behind that public/private manure. You either believe in the freedom of speech or you don't.

You actions lead me to believe that you don't. but enjoy saying you do.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But you already said that certain types of speech should be banned!!!
How to commit crimes for example.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

A belief in free speech implies people are free to say what they like. Other people are free to listen or not.
The only place for the state to intervene is when speech becomes an immediate threat to commit physical harm to a person. There is no right to not be offended.
There is a right to self defense. The state should only intervene against speech at the point where it would be appropriate for an individual to use violence in self defense.
If we have state institutions (like public universities etc) which are funded through enforced taxation on the whole of the population they must be impartial. So if they provide a platform for one viewpoint they must also provide a platform for every viewpoint. It is only appropriate for them to discriminate between speech that does threaten immediate physical harm to others and that which does not.
Any private individual or collection of individuals can promote or discourage any type of speech they want and however they choose if they are not publicly funded.

Havockk

johnp001 wrote: »

A belief in free speech implies people are free to say what they like. Other people are free to listen or not.
The only place for the state to intervene is when speech becomes an immediate threat to commit physical harm to a person. There is no right to not be offended.
There is a right to self defense. The state should only intervene against speech at the point where it would be appropriate for an individual to use violence in self defense.
If we have state institutions (like public universities etc) which are funded through enforced taxation on the whole of the population they must be impartial. So if they provide a platform for one viewpoint they must also provide a platform for every viewpoint. It is only appropriate for them to discriminate between speech that does threaten immediate physical harm to others and that which does not.
Any private individual or collection of individuals can promote or discourage any type of speech they want and however they choose if they are not publicly funded.

So basically private institutions can do as they please, or set rules to deny free speech whilst public ones must at all times permit ALL free speech?


Why can the same rules not apply to both?

20Cent

Havockk wrote: »

So basically private institutions can do as they please, or set rules to deny free speech whilst public ones must at all times permit ALL free speech?


Why can the same rules not apply to both?

The benefits of money. The kids in the public schools can deal with Nazi skinheads on their campuses private schools and spaces can ban them.