Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Chris_Heilong

I dont agree at all. Just look at all the leftist ideas in tv and movies. Ben Shipiro wrote a book on the subject and went under cover as a leftist and asked many producers had they been pushing a leftist agenda and almost all of them admitted to having one. https://youtu.be/NTirUr_oJZQ

As far as the US government parties go the democrates are certainly not right leaning however when you say left pethaps you mean they dont have a socialist party.

Brian?

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

I dont agree at all. Just look at all the leftist ideas in tv and movies. Ben Shipiro wrote a book on the subject and went under cover as a leftist and asked many producers had they been pushing a leftist agenda and almost all of them admitted to having one. https://youtu.be/NTirUr_oJZQ

As far as the US government parties go the democrates are certainly not right leaning however when you say left pethaps you mean they dont have a socialist party.

This old worn out trope. Everyone in the media is peddling leftist ideas. If they are, they’re doing an absolutely shockingly poor job at it.

Ben Shapiro found evidence to support his agenda. I’m shocked.

You know the number 1 rated news channel? Foxnews.

Who controls the Senate, the House and the Whitehouse? The GOP.

If Hollywood and the media are pushing a left wing agenda, they’re failing. But they’re not. They’re doing whatever it takes to make money.

The right aren’t an oppressed minority. They’re the controlling majority.

James Brown

It's the same con we see here. The red menace, pinkos under the bed. "they think they can tell you what to do, be clever and do what we say".
The establishment is and always has been self interested money men. To distract from this they create demons, be it immigrants, the poor, the sick, SJW's, liberal elites, Hollywood and Paul Murphy.

As best spelled out by people thinking putting a self interested billionaire in charge of the US was a good idea, because, well he's a billionaire and he might do for me what he did for himself.
Selling the wealthy and self interested as the underdogs and the poor and sick, they helped create, the enemy, is a master stroke.

DickSwiveller

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's the same con we see here. The red menace, pinkos under the bed. "they think they can tell you what to do, be clever and do what we say".
The establishment is and always has been self interested money men. To distract from this they create demons, be it immigrants, the poor, the sick, SJW's, liberal elites, Hollywood and Paul Murphy.

As best spelled out by people thinking putting a self interested billionaire in charge of the US was a good idea, because, well he's a billionaire and he might do for me what he did for himself.
Selling the wealthy and self interested as the underdogs and the poor and sick, they helped create, the enemy, is a master stroke.

I agree with a lot of that. However, the elite you speak of are very much in favour of large scale immigration as it keeps wages down. The people who don't benefit are plumbers, electricians etc. Luckily for the establishment, they have a bunch of useful idiots in the media and in universities etc who rabidly defend this policy, even though it has a negative effect on a large percentage of the population. I think this explains the Brexit vote. For once, the working class cities and towns in Northern England didn't feel they had to vote labour, so decided to give a big up yours to the London establishment.

20Cent

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I agree with a lot of that. However, the elite you speak of are very much in favour of large scale immigration as it keeps wages down. The people who don't benefit are plumbers, electricians etc. Luckily for the establishment, they have a bunch of useful idiots in the media and in universities etc who rabidly defend this policy, even though it has a negative effect on a large percentage of the population. I think this explains the Brexit vote. For once, the working class cities and towns in Northern England didn't feel they had to vote labour, so decided to give a big up yours to the London establishment.

Trump and the Tories are pro mass immigration? News to me cos they are the ones in power.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Stay on topic please.

The Legend Of Kira

As I said in earlier posts certain terms become subjective when loosely used & loosely thrown around, here we have a latest example of this- An antifa group plans to target a pro life speaker under their banner of " anti fascism ".

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10753




To those who may support Antifa do you agree or disagree with the labels of " fascist " & " fascism " being applied to people who hold a pro life point of view ? genuine question .

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As I said in earlier posts certain terms become subjective when loosely used & loosely thrown around, here we have a latest example of this- An antifa group plans to target a pro life speaker under their banner of " anti fascism ".

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10753




To those who may support Antifa do you agree or disagree with the labels of " fascist " & " fascism " being applied to people who hold a pro life point of view ? genuine question .

So another example of free speech at a University. I think it’s great she’s being allowed speak and great the counter protesters are allowed protest.

20Cent

Generation identity are having an "international conference" in London tomorrow. It's leader Martin Sellner denied entry to the UK. Ironic they are complaining about it considering they want stronger borders.

markodaly

20Cent wrote: »

Generation identity are having an "international conference" in London tomorrow. It's leader Martin Sellner denied entry to the UK. Ironic they are complaining about it considering they want stronger borders.

The UK are certainly going down the slippery slope of denying people freedom of expression.

As has been noted Lauren Southern was banned from entering the UK in March and was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.

Anyone who values freedom of expression and liberty should be greatly concerned about abuse of this power.

I well remember the likes of Michael Moore and his ilk complaining about the Patriot Act, so why have the left gone all silent when it comes to these issues? Perhaps they like a bit of authoritarianism?

BabyCheeses

markodaly wrote: »

The UK are certainly going down the slippery slope of denying people freedom of expression.

As has been noted Lauren Southern was banned from entering the UK in March and was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.

Anyone who values freedom of expression and liberty should be greatly concerned about abuse of this power.

I well remember the likes of Michael Moore and his ilk complaining about the Patriot Act, so why have the left gone all silent when it comes to these issues? Perhaps they like a bit of authoritarianism?

She isn't British. She has no right to enter the UK.

20Cent

markodaly wrote: »

The UK are certainly going down the slippery slope of denying people freedom of expression.

As has been noted Lauren Southern was banned from entering the UK in March and was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.

Anyone who values freedom of expression and liberty should be greatly concerned about abuse of this power.

I well remember the likes of Michael Moore and his ilk complaining about the Patriot Act, so why have the left gone all silent when it comes to these issues? Perhaps they like a bit of authoritarianism?

None of these people are British. They preach about keeping foreigners out and strong borders, then they are denied entry thats funny. Also this is a Tory government doing this so nothing to do with "the left".

Brian?

markodaly wrote: »

The UK are certainly going down the slippery slope of denying people freedom of expression.

As has been noted Lauren Southern was banned from entering the UK in March and was held under the Terrorism Act and banned from entering because her actions presented ‘a threat to the fundamental interests of society and public policy of the United Kingdom’.

Anyone who values freedom of expression and liberty should be greatly concerned about abuse of this power.

I well remember the likes of Michael Moore and his ilk complaining about the Patriot Act, so why have the left gone all silent when it comes to these issues? Perhaps they like a bit of authoritarianism?

1. Hold on to your anti socialist indignation there. The UK has been run by the Tories for 10 years now.

2. What has this got to do with Universities denying free speech, you know, the subject of the thread.

wes

I would take serious the "free" speech concerns of a certain sub section of posters, if there concerns were not solely focused on White supremacists and fascists.

The Brits have been banning people for various reasons from there country for years. Islamist hate preachers being another popular group who (rightly imo) are banned from entering, and I never saw a peep from the usual suspects both on here and on the Internet in general. It is rather interesting that the only group that apparently deserve "free" speech are white supremacists and fascists it seems.

Also, interesting that I rarely see "free" speech defenders, defend people who post sexually explicit and not so explicit content only, who get banned from social media. A white supremacists or a fascist gets banned, its the end of the world, free speech is over. A women shows a bit too much shoulders gets banned and **crikets**. In fact there are entire alt right mobs dedicated to policing how Women on twitch dress, its like an online western Saudi Arabian purity police, but done by western men, so that makes it ok apparently.

Plenty of violation of free speech happen, and yet we have the same people only ever complaining when its a white supremacist of a fascist. I think that simple fact tells us all we need to know about the "free" speech concerns.

The concern has nothing to do with free speech and never has. Simply put a lot of people don't want to put up with far right racist bull**** and racist abuse (racist abuse was defended as "free" speech earlier in the thread) and people in Universities and elsewhere, are telling these people to piss off. I see no reason why any should tolerate the intolerant, be they a white supremacists or an Islamist hate preacher. Quite frankly a lot of these people have nothing useful to contribute and we are better off without them.

The Legend Of Kira

wes wrote: »

I would take serious the "free" speech concerns of a certain sub section of posters, if there concerns were not solely focused on White supremacists and fascists.

The Brits have been banning people for various reasons from there country for years. Islamist hate preachers being another popular group who (rightly imo) are banned from entering, and I never saw a peep from the usual suspects both on here and on the Internet in general. It is rather interesting that the only group that apparently deserve "free" speech are white supremacists and fascists it seems.

Also, interesting that I rarely see "free" speech defenders, defend people who post sexually explicit and not so explicit content only, who get banned from social media. A white supremacists or a fascist gets banned, its the end of the world, free speech is over. A women shows a bit too much shoulders gets banned and **crikets**. In fact there are entire alt right mobs dedicated to policing how Women on twitch dress, its like an online western Saudi Arabian purity police, but done by western men, so that makes it ok apparently.

Plenty of violation of free speech happen, and yet we have the same people only ever complaining when its a white supremacist of a fascist. I think that simple fact tells us all we need to know about the "free" speech concerns.

The concern has nothing to do with free speech and never has. Simply put a lot of people don't want to put up with far right racist bull**** and racist abuse (racist abuse was defended as "free" speech earlier in the thread) and people in Universities and elsewhere, are telling these people to piss off. I see no reason why any should tolerate the intolerant, be they a white supremacists or an Islamist hate preacher. Quite frankly a lot of these people have nothing useful to contribute and we are better off without them.

I ll reply to some parts of your post.

"" . A women shows a bit too much shoulders gets banned and **crikets**. In fact there are entire alt right mobs dedicated to policing how Women on twitch dress, its like an online western Saudi Arabian purity police, but done by western men, so that makes it ok apparently.""

As I have never used Twitch Im not sure what you refer to,, but bar face covering/ wearing masks etc- I do concur its wrong telling people how to dress.

"" Plenty of violation of free speech happen, and yet we have the same people only ever complaining when its a white supremacist of a fascist. I think that simple fact tells us all we need to know about the "free" speech concerns.""

Plenty of stuff I disagreed with in the past,, for example Im old to remember the [font=arial, sans-serif]Section 31 broadcast ban on Sinn Fein-[/font][font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]now Im not a sinn fein voter or supporter but I disagreed with banning them speaking with the section 31 broadcast ban.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I expressed disagreement before when an a repeal 8th meeting got cancelled.[/font]

[font=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"" [/font]I concur, when the meeting John Lyons was due to chair on the 8th amendment got canceled, I didn,t agree with it- he,s not a fellow I like nor have time for, but I don,t want silenced at the same time either,"".

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104818146&postcount=998

"" The concern has nothing to do with free speech and never has. Simply put a lot of people don't want to put up with far right racist bull**** ""

"" Far right " has become another term loosely used & loosely thrown around,, examples only the other day I pointed to a recent incident of people plotting to target a pro life speaker under the banner of " anti fascism " yeah that,s right some people now term people who are pro life as " fascist " aka " far right ".

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106715147&postcount=808

Have a negative opinion about Islam ? guess what you re gonna be called " far right " as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has being called in the past .

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Far-Right-Islamophobe-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali-Cancels-Australia-Tour-20170403-0015.html

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But surely when a company dominate and influencethe market like twitter and facebook, there must be some sort of rules around free speech?? Maybe not.

Your second paragraph sums up the whole situation very well. All they are interested in is shutting down people they disagree with, which is very common on the left.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I actually agree with you completely. They can ban what ever they want on there platforms.

However, I do question the self proclaimed "free speech advocates" who completely ignore sexually explicit content being removed from social media, all the while defending Nazi's etc.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Great, so both groups are biased, and yet the vast majority of news stories and posts on here and other social media is always about defending Neo Nazi's and others of there ilk. I see no one actively defending the rights of radical Islamists, and people failing to condemn something is not in the same league as actively defending them and only them. One can can conclude sympathy for Neo Nazi's for those who defend them and only them. The worst that can be said for those who fail to condemn a radical Muslim is that they are hypocrites.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

DickSwiveller

wes wrote: »

I actually agree with you completely. They can ban what ever they want on there platforms.

However, I do question the self proclaimed "free speech advocates" who completely ignore sexually explicit content being removed from social media, all the while defending Nazi's etc.



Great, so both groups are biased, and yet the vast majority of news stories and posts on here and other social media is always about defending Neo Nazi's and others of there ilk. I see no one actively defending the rights of radical Islamists, and people failing to condemn something is not in the same league as actively defending them and only them. One can can conclude sympathy for Neo Nazi ideology for those who defend them and only them. The worst that can be said for those who fail to condemn a radical Muslim is that they are hypocrites.

Strawman. The reason neo-nazis are being discussed is because a lot of the time speakers banned from universities are labelled neo nazi. I will happily defend the right of an Islamist to speak. To try to make a link between those defending the *speaking rights* of neo-nazis and sympathy with neo-nazis is pretty disingenuous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again no disagreement from me, but I do find it bizarre that some many people who complain about social media removing Neo Nazi content, only seem to care about that one thing.

I would consider sexually explicit content, objectively far less harmful than Neo Nazi or ISIS propaganda. I just find it odd that so many defend one and not the other, when one is objectively more harmful than the other. My issue is with those people.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There the only ones that seem to inspire outrage in the media and social media, and seem to get the most air time.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No disagreement there.

James Brown

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But surely when a company dominate and influencethe market like twitter and facebook, there must be some sort of rules around free speech?? Maybe not.

Your second paragraph sums up the whole situation very well. All they are interested in is shutting down people they disagree with, which is very common on the left.

Have you been following U.S. politics in the last few years? Have you heard the term 'fake news'? Or 'Alternative facts'? Or is the Trump Republican party 'left' now?
Everyone is capable of bias.
If we can choose to dislike free speech because it allows corporations sell the idea that their profit is good for all of us, we can also have issue with fascists in equal measure for the perceived or real damage they too may or may not do to society.
Hypocrisy is not owned by the left or right.
I would suggest, while right wing big business types seem to shun the spotlight in university campuses, and the 'right on' types tend to seek it, this could give rise to the common misconception that institutes of learning are churning out Trots on a yearly basis. Case in point, the rise of Trump and the ALT-Right bringing the ever present nasty elements of the 'right' out from the shadows in the belief, misguided or not, that it's okay now and they're no longer oppressed by the decent majority, (on the left and right).

johnp001

Article relating to free speech and science.
Also relevant as to the subject of Universities and Free Speech as the article is a synopsis of a speech that was cancelled by King's London as too "high risk"

The Scientific Importance of Free Speech
A quick Google search suggests that free speech is a regarded as an important virtue for a functional, enlightened society. For example, according to George Orwell: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Likewise, Ayaan Hirsi Ali remarked: “Free speech is the bedrock of liberty and a free society, and yes, it includes the right to blaspheme and offend.” In a similar vein, Bill Hicks declared: “Freedom of speech means you support the right of people to say exactly those ideas which you do not agree with”.

But why do we specifically need free speech in science? Surely we just take measurements and publish our data? No chit chat required. We need free speech in science because science is not really about microscopes, or pipettes, or test tubes, or even Large Hadron Colliders. These are merely tools that help us to accomplish a far greater mission, which is to choose between rival narratives, in the vicious, no-holds-barred battle of ideas that we call “science”.
More...

DickSwiveller

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Have you been following U.S. politics in the last few years? Have you heard the term 'fake news'? Or 'Alternative facts'? Or is the Trump Republican party 'left' now?
Everyone is capable of bias.
If we can choose to dislike free speech because it allows corporations sell the idea that their profit is good for all of us, we can also have issue with fascists in equal measure for the perceived or real damage they too may or may not do to society.
Hypocrisy is not owned by the left or right.
I would suggest, while right wing big business types seem to shun the spotlight in university campuses, and the 'right on' types tend to seek it, this could give rise to the common misconception that institutes of learning are churning out Trots on a yearly basis. Case in point, the rise of Trump and the ALT-Right bringing the ever present nasty elements of the 'right' out from the shadows in the belief, misguided or not, that it's okay now and they're no longer oppressed by the decent majority, (on the left and right).

What you say is correct, but what I am talking about is what this thread is about: Free Speech in Universities. I think it is undeniable that the majority of speakers censored are right of centre (I dislike a lot of these labels as they're not exactly models of clarity) and a lot of the students disrupting the meetings are on the left (Whatever that means).

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What you say is correct, but what I am talking about is what this thread is about: Free Speech in Universities. I think it is undeniable that the majority of speakers censored are right of centre (I dislike a lot of these labels as they're not exactly models of clarity) and a lot of the students disrupting the meetings are on the left (Whatever that means).

Again, are you equating counter protests with censorship? Students disrupting a meeting is as much an expression of free speech as much as allowing a White Supremacist speak. You can't have it one way and not the other.

Even though I despise everything White Supremacists stand for, I maintain they have a right to speak. You seem to agree on this point. Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

Again, are you equating counter protests with censorship? Students disrupting a meeting is as much an expression of free speech as much as allowing a White Supremacist speak. You can't have it one way and not the other.

Even though I despise everything White Supremacists stand for, I maintain they have a right to speak. You seem to agree on this point. Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?

Isn't the point of these counter protests (I wouldn't use this term) to censor the views of the speaker so they are not heard? What do you call that?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I've deleted a few posts. Stay on topic please.

James Brown

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Isn't the point of these counter protests (I wouldn't use this term) to censor the views of the speaker so they are not heard? What do you call that?

What they want isn't relevant, it's them being free to voice wanting it. Do you think we should get into what the ALT-Right want, some speech should be freer than others based on wants?

Personally I can take a few SJW's in the works. It's not like the world is controlled by them, despite any propaganda to the contrary.

DickSwiveller

Matt Barrett wrote: »

What they want isn't relevant, it's them being free to voice wanting it. Do you think we should get into what the ALT-Right want, some speech should be freer than others based on wants?

Personally I can take a few SJW's in the works. It's not like the world is controlled by them, despite any propaganda to the contrary.

I don't care about the Alt right and what they want. If they start attempting to censor speakers then I'll condemn them too.

20Cent

There is a difference between censorship and saying whatever you want without criticism or consequences. The two seem to get mixed up a lot.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

There is a difference between censorship and saying whatever you want without criticism or consequences. The two seem to get mixed up a lot.

What is censorship then?

James Brown

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I don't care about the Alt right and what they want. If they start attempting to censor speakers then I'll condemn them too.

They do. You earlier suggested it was more prevalent on the left. I would suggest the White house has more sway to sensor or colour speech than students protesting white supremacists or whom ever.
This new fad of looking out for the freedoms of the long down trodden under dog elitist and hard right is interesting to say the least.

20Cent

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What is censorship then?

Oxford dictionary definition.
The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Only a government can censor.

DickSwiveller

Matt Barrett wrote: »

They do. You earlier suggested it was more prevalent on the left. I would suggest the White house has more sway to sensor or colour speech than students protesting white supremacists or whom ever.
This new fad of looking out for the freedoms of the long down trodden under dog elitist and hard right is interesting to say the least.

What has that got to do with the discussion?

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Isn't the point of these counter protests (I wouldn't use this term) to censor the views of the speaker so they are not heard? What do you call that?

I call it counter protest, not censorship.

If I tell you to shut up, you’re talking nonsense, is that censorship? No, it’s me expressing myself in an impolite manner.

Censorship requires authority. The student protestors have no authority to censor people they disagree with, in the majority of cases.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But surely when a company dominate and influencethe market like twitter and facebook, there must be some sort of rules around free speech?? Maybe not.

Why?

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

I call it counter protest, not censorship.

If I tell you to shut up, you’re talking nonsense, is that censorship? No, it’s me expressing myself in an impolite manner.

Censorship requires authority. The student protestors have no authority to censor people they disagree with, in the majority of cases.

Lets say every group/society in a university adopted your logic and interrupted every talk that they disagreed with, there would be no talks given. You think that's okay?

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Lets say every group/society in a university adopted your logic and interrupted every talk that they disagreed with, there would be no talks given. You think that's okay?

No. I don’t think it’s ok. I would prefer polite discourse.

But I don’t think legally enforcing one sides right to speak over the others is morally right. Who makes the decision on who gets to speak and who doesn’t?

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What you say is correct, but what I am talking about is what this thread is about: Free Speech in Universities. I think it is undeniable that the majority of speakers censored are right of centre (I dislike a lot of these labels as they're not exactly models of clarity) and a lot of the students disrupting the meetings are on the left (Whatever that means).

Again, are you equating counter protests with censorship? Students disrupting a meeting is as much an expression of free speech as much as allowing a White Supremacist speak. You can't have it one way and not the other.

Even though I despise everything White Supremacists stand for, I maintain they have a right to speak. You seem to agree on this point. Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?

"" Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?""

Counter protesters should have the right to protest as long as the[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y inte[/font]rfere with the rights of others to assemble [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]& attend a meeting/talk, one case in example last y[/font]ear a planned talk b[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y the Israeli-ambassador to speak was at T[/font]rinity was cancelled over the actions of a small mob.

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

To me this is unacceptable for some people wanted to attend that talk & who knows there ma[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ybe being some who woulda wanted to ask ha[/font]rd questions but were prevented from doing so as the meeting was cancelled.

SNIP: Stay on topic please.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

There is a difference between censorship and saying whatever you want without criticism or consequences. The two seem to get mixed up a lot.

Criticism is one thing,, for example if someone says " I think the speaker is talking a load of BS " or " I think  certain points made by the speaker are bogus etc " that,s Criticism which is one thing, Im fine with Criticism.

"" Consequences "" is another thing altogether,, "" Consequences "" kind of suggests that people should face punishment some sort of sanction if he/she says the wrong thing or expresses the wrong opinion.

What are your views on some who try to create Consequences for other people for the " thoughtcrime " of expressing the wrong opinion by trying get people sacked from their employment as I,ve seen happen to some known Irish right wing bloggers ?

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?""

Counter protesters should have the right to protest as long as the[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y inte[/font]rfere with the rights of others to assemble [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]& attend a meeting/talk, one case in example last y[/font]ear a planned talk b[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y the Israeli-ambassador to speak was at T[/font]rinity was cancelled over the actions of a small mob.

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

To me this is unacceptable for some people wanted to attend that talk & who knows there ma[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ybe being some who woulda wanted to ask ha[/font]rd questions but were prevented from doing so as the meeting was cancelled.

It’s unacceptable to you. What would you like to see done about it? What protections would you like to be put in place?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: There are threads about abortion all over this site. This thread is about free speech at Universities, not outside abortion clinics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So who decides where the line is? Who decides what level of disruption is acceptable? How do we enforce these rules? With the above statement you've thrown the door wide open for suppression of dissent. Give those powers to a government and you've created a censorship mechanism.

We both fundamentally agree on the right to free speech. It appears we disagree on the definition of free speech.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Sounds like a case where the cure could be as bad as the problem.

I would die for free speech. Same people, no booing or talking in the auditorium.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You’re happy for Universities deciding what constitutes “attempts to silence” and decide on an appropriate punishment? But you’re unhappy with Universities deciding who’s allowed speak. Don’t you see this as a contradiction?


Again, I would like to see Universities(or any authority) encourage lively debate and welcome controversial viewpoints. I would like to see them discourage attempts at silencing opposition viewpoints. Where I draw the line is actively prohibiting or punishing free expression and I see protesting as free expression.

To use your earlier phraseology, it’s a slippery slope. Once you accept the authorities right to arbitrate on who can express their opinion you’ve accepted limitations on free speech.

We do disagree on this. I don't see efforts to prevent someone from speaking to constitute "free speech."

I don’t see what else it can be. The right to free speech is the right to speak freely without government interference. Not the right to speak unopposed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ask them politely to stop. What do you do?

I agree that protesting, or articulating an opposing viewpoint, constitutes free expression. Disrupting an event so that the speaker is shouted down or drowned out is not free expression, because the goal is not to counter the speaker's opinions but to prevent those opinions from being aired in the first place.

I understand your point and have a degree of sympathy with it. I hate seeing speakers shouted down. Peaceful dialogue is the real answer. However, I'll ask again: what do you do to stop it? Who is the decides when a protest has gone too far?

I am absolutely not advocating the types of protests Antifa, White Lives Matter etc. carry out. I just don't see how you can legislate against them in the name of free expression. I don't see how you can stop the protests and still maintain an open and free dialogue. You either have free speech or you don't.