Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Brian?

As a thought exercise, let's pretend I agree. The protesters should be stopped interfering with speakers. How do we stop them? Do we arrest them for protesting? What practical measures do we take?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

As a thought exercise, let's pretend I agree. The protesters should be stopped interfering with speakers. How do we stop them? Do we arrest them for protesting? What practical measures do we take?

It is similar to the question of whether the freedom of speech should protect the right to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
The best answer being that freedom of speech is not a factor in this case. The offense is against the theatre owner and patrons. Either the patron shouting fire paid to enter the theatre and the implied or explicit contract prohibits him from disrupting the performance or he entered the theatre without paying and can be reasonably ejected for that reason.
There is no need for any authority to make a value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the speaker or performance being protested or the validity of the protest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stand back and allow the protest to go ahead. Unless they become violent. What do you do?

But we're not talking about stopping protests. We're talking about preventing people from suppressing free speech by shouting down and drowning out opinions they don't like.

We are talking about stopping protests. You’re not answering my questions about what you propose we do?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That rule is entirely fair minded. I like it.

What happens when it’s broken?

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

It is similar to the question of whether the freedom of speech should protect the right to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
The best answer being that freedom of speech is not a factor in this case. The offense is against the theatre owner and patrons. Either the patron shouting fire paid to enter the theatre and the implied or explicit contract prohibits him from disrupting the performance or he entered the theatre without paying and can be reasonably ejected for that reason.
There is no need for any authority to make a value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the speaker or performance being protested or the validity of the protest.

The 2 are nothing alike. Shouting fire when there is no fire is not an expression of opinion. It’s purposely malicious.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

The 2 are nothing alike. Shouting fire when there is no fire is not an expression of opinion. It’s purposely malicious.

It applies equally to anything that is said that causes disruption.
The whole point of that argument is that it means there is no necessity for an authority to decide what is purposely malicious and what is not. The problem of disrupting speakers can be solved without any recourse to questions of protected self expression or the prohibition of certain types of speech.

DickSwiveller

Brian, lets say there was a court case ongoing in the Central Criminal Court and protesters wanted to disrupt proceedings. Do you think it would be denying them their freedom of speech to not allow them to do so?

The Legend Of Kira

I should of clarified a bit in my other post why i brought up the question of buffer zones outside abortion clinics, was to ask the other poster i was replying to about balancing peoples  right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

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?

If im at the theatre & im talking loudly,, I would be disrupting other people trying to watch the show,, if the  theatre  has security If i keep making a disruption if warned not to do security will remove me- the same should apply to those who disrupt talks at colleges/unis .
There has to be a balance with peoples right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business, usually when there is a  protest march in Dublin, the traffic is diverted to accommodate peoples right to protest & accommodate  other peoples right to go about their business.

James Brown

It's easily solved; if the University are willing, as Trinity were obviously not regarding the Israeli.
If a University has a speaker booked, on their property, they can choose what form any protest may take on their property. If people are shouting down the speaker, they can be removed as they would if shouting down Michael D. or Bill Gates.
A university backing down to protesters is the Universities choice. It's not dissimilar to a paper ditching a controversial columnist. He/she has the right to voice their opinion, but the publication doesn't have to let them.

johnp001

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's easily solved; if the University are willing, as Trinity were obviously not regarding the Israeli.
If a University has a speaker booked, on their property, they can choose what form any protest may take on their property. If people are shouting down the speaker, they can be removed as they would if shouting down Michael D. or Bill Gates.
A university backing down to protesters is the Universities choice. It's not dissimilar to a paper ditching a controversial columnist. He/she has the right to voice their opinion, but the publication doesn't have to let them.

This is where the public/private distinction becomes important. If it is a private university then they can host or not host any speakers they choose based on any criteria they like. The marketplace can decide whether a private university that capitulates to protesters is a viable business or not.
If a public university chooses to back down to protesters that is in a way analogous to a tax collector deciding to collect your taxes but relenting on attempts to collect mine because I violently resist their attempts to take my money.

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If im at the theatre & im talking loudly,, I would be disrupting other people trying to watch the show,, if the  theatre  has security If i keep making a disruption if warned not to do security will remove me- the same should apply to those who disrupt talks at colleges/unis .
There has to be a balance with peoples right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business, usually when there is a  protest march in Dublin, the traffic is diverted to accommodate peoples right to protest & accommodate  other peoples right to go about their business.

Theatres are privately owned. They make their own rules. We’re discussing public universities.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Brian, lets say there was a court case ongoing in the Central Criminal Court and protesters wanted to disrupt proceedings. Do you think it would be denying them their freedom of speech to not allow them to do so?

What case?

Also, there was is no constitutional right to free speech in Ireland. I wish there was.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They almost had me. They rely on the coercive force of a central authority to enforce their rules. No thanks.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

They almost had me. They rely on the coercive force of a central authority to enforce their rules. No thanks.

The existence of the public university relies on the coercive force of a central authority.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

The existence of the public university relies on the coercive force of a central authority.

It was a joke.

20Cent

Cops and security dragging students out of a hall so tha Nazi's can speak unopposed doesn't seem like a picture of freedom.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

Cops and security dragging students out of a hall so tha Nazi's can speak unopposed doesn't seem like a picture of freedom.

Who mentioned " Nazi's" & anything about speakers being left speak without being challenged ? always a Q &A session at the end to challenge whatever speaker is on the campus.

What,s unacceptable is some left wing groups aiming to stop meetings/debate from taking place.

( example a )

A mens rights meeting gets disrupted because someone pulled the fire alarm with the intent purpose of the stopping the meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow

( example b )

A pro life meeting is hijacked disrupted with the intent purpose of shutting down the meeting.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/Oxford/15637161.Abortion_debate_at_Oxford_college_marred_by_protestors_as_police_called/

( example c )

A mob tries to prevent a Ukip meeting from taking place, but thankfully security stepped in to  remove them, note that Nigel offered them a right to reply to put forward counter arguments to his- they ignore the offer of right to reply they continue to keep shouting hysterically so security has to remove them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhdTnRrMkYU

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Brian, lets say there was a court case ongoing in the Central Criminal Court and protesters wanted to disrupt proceedings. Do you think it would be denying them their freedom of speech to not allow them to do so?

What case?

Also, there was is no constitutional right to free speech in Ireland. I wish there was.

I think the question Dick is asking is , " should protesters have the right to disrupt court proceedings if they wanted to ? " .

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Who mentioned " Nazi's" & anything about speakers being left speak without being challenged ? always a Q &A session at the end to challenge whatever speaker is on the campus.

What,s unacceptable is some left wing groups aiming to stop meetings/debate from taking place.

( example a )

A mens rights meeting gets disrupted because someone pulled the fire alarm with the intent purpose of the stopping the meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWgslugtDow

( example b )

A pro life meeting is hijacked disrupted with the intent purpose of shutting down the meeting.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/yourtown/Oxford/15637161.Abortion_debate_at_Oxford_college_marred_by_protestors_as_police_called/

( example c )

A mob tries to prevent a Ukip meeting from taking place, but thankfully security stepped in to  remove them, note that Nigel offered them a right to reply to put forward counter arguments to his- they ignore the offer of right to reply they continue to keep shouting hysterically so security has to remove them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhdTnRrMkYU

In both cases the protesters were thrown out.
What more do you want?
You can hardly say Farage has been silenced everytime I turn on a tv or the radio I hear him.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

In both cases the protesters were thrown out.
What more do you want?
You can hardly say Farage has been silenced everytime I turn on a tv or the radio I hear him.

But you think they shouldn't be thrown out. That's the point.

20Cent

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But you think they shouldn't be thrown out. That's the point.

Nope I don't think the universities should be obliged to host Nazi's. Thats been my thing in this thread.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But you think they shouldn't be thrown out. That's the point.

Actually that’s me, not 20cent.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

Actually that’s me, not 20cent.

Brian, you haven't answered my question about the court case.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

But you think they shouldn't be thrown out. That's the point.

Nope I don't think the universities should be obliged to host Nazi's. Thats been my thing in this thread.

My post was to highlight some left wing target groups & people who aren,t nazis.  You keep mentioning nazis so much but who exactly are you referring to as nazis ?

James Brown

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

My post was to highlight some left wing target groups & people who aren,t nazis.  You keep mentioning nazis so much but who exactly are you referring to as nazis ?

It's interesting after generations of right leaning, policy driven governments, wars fought for profit and corporation destroying the planet; student protesters are being seen as a threat to our way of life for some reason. It smells to me like some people don't like their flaws being pointed out and see this current era of 'fake news' and ALT-Right rise as the perfect time to stamp it out.
I'd just add, remember the '60's? We've mild student level protests compared to then and we are not living in Hippy land, so I'd relax.
FYI: It's thanks to student protesters we are allowed buy condoms.

The Legend Of Kira

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

My post was to highlight some left wing target groups & people who aren,t nazis.  You keep mentioning nazis so much but who exactly are you referring to as nazis ?

It's interesting after generations of right leaning, policy driven governments, wars fought for profit and corporation destroying the planet; student protesters are being seen as a threat to our way of life for some reason. It smells to me like some people don't like their flaws being pointed out and see this current era of 'fake news' and ALT-Right rise as the perfect time to stamp it out.
I'd just add, remember the '60's? We've mild student level protests compared to then and we are not living in Hippy land, so I'd relax.
FYI: It's thanks to student protesters we are allowed buy condoms.

"  It smells to me like some people don't like their flaws being pointed out ""

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you watched some of the video of the Ukip meeting being targeted,, they were offered a right of reply, instead of taking up the offer of right of reply they choose to act like children by being hysterical so security had to remove them.[/font]

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Brian, you haven't answered my question about the court case.

I asked for clarification. Did I miss you clarifying the issue?

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Brian, you haven't answered my question about the court case.

You’ve yet to answer my question about why you’d do about the protests. Or who decides when the protesters are too much.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

My post was to highlight some left wing target groups & people who aren,t nazis.  You keep mentioning nazis so much but who exactly are you referring to as nazis ?

I'm refering to Nazi's as Nazi's. It's not some code. Actual Nazi's visiting a university and they have to be accommodated.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

I'm refering to Nazi's as Nazi's. It's not some code. Actual Nazi's visiting a university and they have to be accommodated.

Yes they do. Free speech covers hate speech.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

I asked for clarification. Did I miss you clarifying the issue?

Lets say a criminal trial in the U.S. Family members of one of the accused keep shouting and interrupting proceedings. What should happen?

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

You’ve yet to answer my question about why you’d do about the protests. Or who decides when the protesters are too much.

If a speaking event has been organised, and it is being repeatedly interrupted by a group of people I think they should be forcibly removed.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

My post was to highlight some left wing target groups & people who aren,t nazis.  You keep mentioning nazis so much but who exactly are you referring to as nazis ?

I'm refering to Nazi's as Nazi's. It's not some code. Actual Nazi's visiting a university and they have to be accommodated.

Dick asked you "" But you think they shouldn't be thrown out. That's the point.""

you replied "" Nope I don't think the universities should be obliged to host Nazi's. Thats been my thing in this thread.""

The 3 cases I highlighted of left wing groups targeting meetings, are you referring to any of the people/groups whose meetings were targeted as nazis ?

FreudianSlippers

This actually the dumbest thread to reach 888 posts.

There is a huge difference between the right (in the US) to freedom of speech and the obligation to allow a platform to such speech. Universities (including State universities) are within their rights to impose policies which restrict hate speech on the ground of public safety. They are also free to ban speech not on the grounds of public safety - if one wants to challenge that right by taking them to court, then so be it... they might win! But it doesn't mean the question of hate speech and the first amendment is clear-cut answered question - there has been debate in the Supreme Court over this issue since the first amendment was created.

Jcarroll07

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This actually the dumbest thread to reach 888 posts.

There is a huge difference between the right (in the US) to freedom of speech and the obligation to allow a platform to such speech. Universities (including State universities) are within their rights to impose policies which restrict hate speech on the ground of public safety. They are also free to ban speech not on the grounds of public safety - if one wants to challenge that right by taking them to court, then so be it... they might win! But it doesn't mean the question of hate speech and the first amendment is clear-cut answered question - there has been debate in the Supreme Court over this issue since the first amendment was created.

That depends on weather or not they are in receipt of tax dollars been a couple of cases on this and it's a pretty settled issue. If its a completely private University then yes they do have that freedom to restrict as a private origination, if they receive tax dollars then they do not. Not only that a number of states are taking it further by introducing bills that will proactively withdraw funds if tax funded universities to not stick to and abide by the principles of free speech. I think they were even considering something similar in the UK how far that has gotten i don't know. But luckily as I have already said on this trend this is not really an issue in Ireland. Last year Trinity College basically told people that were trying to shut down an event in that case relating to the Israeli Ambassador to effectively put up or get out which was pretty refreshing to see and welcomed by the vast vast majority of sane thinking people.

Jcarroll07

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This actually the dumbest thread to reach 888 posts.

There is a huge difference between the right (in the US) to freedom of speech and the obligation to allow a platform to such speech. Universities (including State universities) are within their rights to impose policies which restrict hate speech on the ground of public safety. They are also free to ban speech not on the grounds of public safety - if one wants to challenge that right by taking them to court, then so be it... they might win! But it doesn't mean the question of hate speech and the first amendment is clear-cut answered question - there has been debate in the Supreme Court over this issue since the first amendment was created.

Also the issue of hate speech has been addressed on multiple occasions by the USSC and they have said its a legally meaninglessly term it does not exist in the US context legally speaking. I think there have been arguments put forth that first amendment can when used in the context of "hate speech" undermine the fourteenth amendment but those are not arguments that as of yet have been accepted by the Supreme Court, looks unlikely that they will any time soon.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, (1992) the court makes clear that authorities can take issue with the mode of expression that being "inciting imminent lawless action" but can not take issue with the content of expression and because in this case the hate speech ordinance (local government regulation) was not concerned with the mode of expression, but with the content of expression, it was a violation of the freedom of speech and so unconstitutional.

The most recent case was Matal v. Tam in June 2017 which related to the Lanham Act that attempted to prohibite the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Kennedy J said "A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society." So the USSC unanimously said there is not Hate speech exception.

Sonics2k

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yes they do. Free speech covers hate speech.

Ehhh technically speaking, no it doesn't.

Free speech grants you the right to express your opinion on virtually anything. However, it doesn't cover speech that can be seen as an incitement to violence or discrimination. It's very easy for Hate Speech to lead into something illegal.

S, the sentence "The State of Israel has committed heinous crimes against Palestine and we should impose sanctions and stop buying their products" is fine, but "The Jews have been taking over the world and we need to beat them up because they're evil" is not.

Another example:
"I'm not a fan of the Islamic belief system, it makes as much sense as Christianity. It's just nonsense."
That's fine.

"I think all Muslims are terrorists and rapists, pedos and murders. We should bomb them all"
That's not so fine.

DickSwiveller

Sonics2k wrote: »

Ehhh technically speaking, no it doesn't.

Free speech grants you the right to express your opinion on virtually anything. However, it doesn't cover speech that can be seen as an incitement to violence or discrimination. It's very easy for Hate Speech to lead into something illegal.

S, the sentence "The State of Israel has committed heinous crimes against Palestine and we should impose sanctions and stop buying their products" is fine, but "The Jews have been taking over the world and we need to beat them up because they're evil" is not.

Another example:
"I'm not a fan of the Islamic belief system, it makes as much sense as Christianity. It's just nonsense."
That's fine.

"I think all Muslims are terrorists and rapists, pedos and murders. We should bomb them all"
That's not so fine.

You're confusing hate speech (Thought Crime) and incitement to violence. Incitement to violence is illegal.

The Legend Of Kira

Sonics2k wrote: »

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Yes they do. Free speech covers hate speech.

Ehhh technically speaking, no it doesn't.

Free speech grants you the right to express your opinion on virtually anything. However, it doesn't cover speech that can be seen as an incitement to violence or discrimination. It's very easy for Hate Speech to lead into something illegal.

S, the sentence "The State of Israel has committed heinous crimes against Palestine and we should impose sanctions and stop buying their products" is fine, but "The Jews have been taking over the world and we need to beat them up because they're evil" is not.

Another example:
"I'm not a fan of the Islamic belief system, it makes as much sense as Christianity. It's just nonsense."
That's fine.

"I think all Muslims are terrorists and rapists, pedos and murders. We should bomb them all"
That's not so fine.

"" Ehhh technically speaking, no it doesn't. ""

Dick is referring to the first amendment,, once again there is no exception for so called " hate speech " under the first amendment.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/does-the-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech.html

"" S, the sentence "The State of Israel has committed heinous crimes against Palestine and we should impose sanctions and stop buying their products" is fine, ""

" Stop buying their products" is fine " = urging a boycott of Israeli goods in other words,, here is the catch you & others think its fine but the French courts thought differently when activists calling for boycott of Israeli goods were brought before the courts- myself & some other posters have already highlighted this a few times on this thread.

The activists in their view feel their engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but the courts felt differently.

 
( please note even though I don,t agree with them- I don,t believe in trying silence them either.) 

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

20Cent

See Milo yiannalopolus went into a bar in New York. Rhe hole crowd started shouting at him to get out and he left. Free speech rocks.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

See Milo yiannalopolus went into a bar in New York. Rhe hole crowd started shouting at him to get out and he left. Free speech rocks.

Ye, bullying someone is so right on and cool. Awesome!

wes

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, bullying someone is so right on and cool. Awesome!

Hard to feel sorry for the man, getting a taste of his own medicine. He was more than happy to aim his own hate machine at people, when it suited him.

I do think they were harsh with the guy and honestly if it was someone else, who wasn't such an awful human being, I would be condemning them, but he very much lowered the tone, that has led to that sort of thing.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

See Milo yiannalopolus went into a bar in New York. Rhe hole crowd started shouting at him to get out and he left. Free speech rocks.

Milo a gay guy married to an african american being called " nazi scum " in a bar is another example of terms being loosely used & loosely thrown around,, like how does being gay & being married to an african american of the same sex make someone a nazi ?

Sonics2k

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Ehhh technically speaking, no it doesn't. ""

Dick is referring to the first amendment,, once again there is no exception for so called " hate speech " under the first amendment.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/does-the-first-amendment-protect-hate-speech.html

"" S, the sentence "The State of Israel has committed heinous crimes against Palestine and we should impose sanctions and stop buying their products" is fine, ""

" Stop buying their products" is fine " = urging a boycott of Israeli goods in other words,, here is the catch you & others think its fine but the French courts thought differently when activists calling for boycott of Israeli goods were brought before the courts- myself & some other posters have already highlighted this a few times on this thread.

The activists in their view feel their engaging in a legitimate form of protest,, but the courts felt differently.

 
( please note even though I don,t agree with them- I don,t believe in trying silence them either.) 

http://www.thetower.org/2479-french-high-court-bds-is-a-form-of-illegal-hate-speech/

Then DickSwivler should move to the US and start posting about US Universities, and not an Irish forum discussing Irish universities.

Personally I don't think people should be prevented from speaking at events either.

20Cent

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Milo a gay guy married to an african american being called " nazi scum " in a bar is another example of terms being loosely used & loosely thrown around,, like how does being gay & being married to an african american of the same sex make someone a nazi ?

It doesn't.
Don't think he's a nazi either just a shock merchant.
But the people on the bar were exercising their freedom of speech. Maybe milo should have stayed and debated them.

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

It doesn't.
Don't think he's a nazi either just a shock merchant.
But the people on the bar were exercising their freedom of speech. Maybe milo should have stayed and debated them.

Oh yes I'm sure they would be up for an open discussion. They are so tolerant, after all.