Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Professor Moriarty

DickSwiveller wrote: »

"Despite this, The Phil have been put in a position whereby to proceed with the debate would be to risk the safety of our members. After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body – we feel we have no other responsible choice in this matter than to cancel the debate"

Did you miss this part?

Point?

DickSwiveller

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Point?

What's your point? The bit you quoted shows clearly that it had to be cancelled due to pressure from students.

Professor Moriarty

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What's your point? The bit you quoted shows clearly that it had to be cancelled due to pressure from students.

Oh! And there was me thinking it was serious security concerns expressed by college authorities, Gardaí and some students. I wonder what this line means so?

"After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body."

DickSwiveller

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Oh! And there was me thinking it was serious security concerns expressed by college authorities, Gardaí and some students. I wonder what this line means so?

"After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body."

Ye, it definitely had nothing to with student pressure. Absolutely nothing. Wait...What's this. From Trinity News, 2016:

"One autumn as I began my third year in Trinity I learned that the Phil had invited Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, to propose the motion that “immigration has gone too far.” I was one of the many students and political activists who decided to pressure the Phil into cancelling the invitation. I’m proud to say we succeeded, but at the time I argued that there had to be a large anti-racist, anti-fascist demonstration on the night of the debate. This would send a clear message that Griffin was not welcome and, if possible and if numbers were big enough, prevent him from speaking."

Professor Moriarty

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, it definitely had nothing to with student pressure. Absolutely nothing. Wait...What's this. From Trinity News, 2016:

"One autumn as I began my third year in Trinity I learned that the Phil had invited Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, to propose the motion that “immigration has gone too far.” I was one of the many students and political activists who decided to pressure the Phil into cancelling the invitation. I’m proud to say we succeeded, but at the time I argued that there had to be a large anti-racist, anti-fascist demonstration on the night of the debate. This would send a clear message that Griffin was not welcome and, if possible and if numbers were big enough, prevent him from speaking."

Yes what is it? One person posts an article five years after the event claiming to be hero? So what?

In fact, if you look at the original article, it states categorically that the only militancy was "a confrontational sit-in" by "non-students".

Let's be clear here. In a college of 18000 students, you will naturally have a cohort who will object to a far right fascist having the opportunity to spread their hate. A small minority of that cohort will be militant. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of students don't support the right to free speech. You're trying to build an argument from nothing.

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Well said. Far too many people who shouldn't be attending University treat the experience as a social club and aren't really interested in the academic side. These people invariably study sociology, politics etc. From my experience, the more open and independent minded students are found in the more difficult subjects - maths, physics, cognitive science etc.

I don't think that it's this so much as a degree is much more necessary these days and they've grown to be very expensive compared with our parents' generation. For many subjects, there's no reason why material can't be delivered online via platforms like EDX, Coursera, Udemy, Udacity and the like online to save costs. Instead, it costs many thousands for no good reason. The high costs and lack of improvement in the product means that many places are investing in luxury facilities, especially in the US. Dissent isn't something many would consider compatible with luxury so it isn't surprising to see so many students adopting the old "The customer is always right" attitude and demanding big changes in return for their tuition fees. I don't agree with it at all but it is somewhat understandable.

Brian?

Mutant z wrote: »

Be that as it may its up to the universaties to uphold free speech and overule those students and they are failing to do so they have allowed it to turn into an anti freespeech soapbox for thin skinned students who cant handle opinions different to their own.

Nothing is up to the Universities, except to educate. They are doing exactly what they should be IMO, nothing.

It’s the “thin skinned” students who need to cop themselves on.

DickSwiveller

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes what is it? One person posts an article five years after the event claiming to be hero? So what?

In fact, if you look at the original article, it states categorically that the only militancy was "a confrontational sit-in" by "non-students".

Let's be clear here. In a college of 18000 students, you will naturally have a cohort who will object to a far right fascist having the opportunity to spread their hate. A small minority of that cohort will be militant. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of students don't support the right to free speech. You're trying to build an argument from nothing.

If you read my previous comments I specifically say that it is a vocal minority. I agree with you that most students don't behave in this way.

Professor Moriarty

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you read my previous comments I specifically say that it is a vocal minority. I agree with you that most students don't behave in this way.

Fair enough. TBH, I kind of jumped into the thread, so apologies if you had to repeat yourself.

Zubeneschamali

DickSwiveller wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irving-speech-to-college-society-cancelled-1.901075

"Ross Frenett, auditor of the society, blamed the cancellation on violent threats by individuals along with a campaign of intimidation against society members."

Holocaust denier David Irving was no-platformed.

Good.

Zubeneschamali

DickSwiveller wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/activist-pulls-out-of-trinity-college-talk-due-to-restrictions-aimed-at-not-antagonising-muslims-31087977.html

And another.

She pulled out after some conditions were applied - she was free to speak as long as the audience was students only and there was a moderator.

She pulled out saying that similar conditions did not apply to other speakers - well, duh, other speakers do not get regular death threats, there is a real security issue there.

Zubeneschamali

Brian? wrote: »

That’s shocking behaviour. Really disgraceful. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe everyone should be given a platform to speak.

I absolutely disagree.

John Waters has done nothing his entire life except stand on platforms and lecture people about his masculinist traditional baloney. He's the last person on Earth who needs to be given a platform to blather at students.

DickSwiveller

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I absolutely disagree.

John Waters has done nothing his entire life except stand on platforms and lecture people about his masculinist traditional baloney. He's the last person on Earth who needs to be given a platform to blather at students.

Are you such a wimp that you can't confront ideas you disagree with? Where do we draw the line when it comes to no-platforming people? Is it anyone who dares disagree with you?

Pepefrogok

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you such a wimp that you can't confront ideas you disagree with? Where do we draw the line when it comes to no-platforming people? Is it anyone who dares disagree with you?

They just don't get it, their belief of their own self importance blinded them. Look at what happened when Nick Griffin was afforded TV time, his ideas were exposed and laid bare, he lost massive support, his hype train that was speeding along at the time derailed, if he was instead no platformed as many wanted he would have been martyred and the BNP would have had a few seats in parliament.

If you believe someone's ideas are repugnant and false best have them debated, not hidden underground where their ideas go unchallenged, unless of course you believe their ideas might actually be well received by people but just go against your agenda.

DickSwiveller

Pepefrogok wrote: »

They just don't get it, their belief of their own self importance blinded them. Look at what happened when Nick Griffin was afforded TV time, his ideas were exposed and laid bare, he lost massive support, his hype train that was speeding along at the time derailed, if he was instead no platformed as many wanted he would have been martyred and the BNP would have had a few seats in parliament.

If you believe someone's ideas are repugnant and false best have them debated, not hidden underground where their ideas go unchallenged, unless of course you believe their ideas might actually be well received by people but just go against your agenda.

Couldn't agree more. The greatest example of sinister views being challenged in an open way was when David Irving sued an American author, Deborah Lipsdadt, in 1999. At the trial, he was torn to shreds by a Cambridge historian, Richard Evans, who exposed him for the babbling idiot he is, using fact and logic. Years later, however, Irving was imprisoned in Austria and gained a huge following. Silencing dissenting views is a recipe for disaster.

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you such a wimp that you can't confront ideas you disagree with? Where do we draw the line when it comes to no-platforming people? Is it anyone who dares disagree with you?

Cut out the snide digs please.

Zubeneschamali

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you such a wimp that you can't confront ideas you disagree with? Where do we draw the line when it comes to no-platforming people? Is it anyone who dares disagree with you?

This is John Waters we are talking about. I've been seeing his byline plastered all over the media for 20 years!

Oh, let's have him in to repeat himself yet again to an audience that cannot stand him! Edgy and provocative!

No - tedious and repetitive.

DickSwiveller

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is John Waters we are talking about. I've been seeing his byline plastered all over the media for 20 years!

Oh, let's have him in to repeat himself yet again to an audience that cannot stand him! Edgy and provocative!

No - tedious and repetitive.

This is all ad hominum abuse and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

Zubeneschamali

DickSwiveller wrote: »

This is all ad hominum abuse and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

On the contrary - you are complaining that students objected to having John Waters speak, and are supposing that this is because they are too wimpy to listen to an opposing view.

But John Waters is not an edgy voice from the wilderness challenging orthodoxy - he is a man who has scarcely left his platform or put down his bullhorn in 20 years. Everyone is sick to the back teeth of listening to him.

Since his views are extremely well known, I would expect any student body to say "Christ, No!" if he was invited to speak.

DickSwiveller

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

On the contrary - you are complaining that students objected to having John Waters speak, and are supposing that this is because they are too wimpy to listen to an opposing view.

But John Waters is not an edgy voice from the wilderness challenging orthodoxy - he is a man who has scarcely left his platform or put down his bullhorn in 20 years. Everyone is sick to the back teeth of listening to him.

Since his views are extremely well known, I would expect any student body to say "Christ, No!" if he was invited to speak.

And if students want him to come?

Zubeneschamali

DickSwiveller wrote: »

And if students want him to come?

Students disagree, this is hardly news.

It is also more than possible that some students would like him to come entirely to get up the noses of the students who object.

joe40

When was this glorious era where free speech was an absolute right and all views were publicly expressed. There may be protests sometimes but I think there has never been a time in history when so many diverse views are heard. I'm no expert though so open to correction

DickSwiveller

joe40 wrote: »

When was this glorious era where free speech was an absolute right and all views were publicly expressed. There may be protests sometimes but I think there has never been a time in history when so many diverse views are heard. I'm no expert though so open to correction

Irrelevant. Sensitive students shouldn't be allowed censor speakers who have been invited. It doesn't matter how long it's been happening.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Irrelevant. Sensitive students shouldn't be allowed censor speakers who have been invited. It doesn't matter how long it's been happening.

But they’re not censoring anyone. They are expressing opposition to the speakers.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

But they’re not censoring anyone. They are expressing opposition to the speakers.

Are you talking about a specific case?

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Are you talking about a specific case?

No. Students objecting to a speaker is not censorship.

Brian?

Brian? wrote: »

No. Students objecting to a speaker is not censorship.

Just like feminists objecting to the portrayal of female characters in video games isn’t censorship.

DickSwiveller

Brian? wrote: »

No. Students objecting to a speaker is not censorship.

Objecting is fine. Trying to shut down a speaker, whether explicitly -Shouting down a speaker and interrupting a talk - or implicitly - requiring speakers to sign forms prior to speaking - is censorship, and should be condemned.

DickSwiveller

Here's an example
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/outspoken-mail-sunday-journalist-gives-13812701

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Objecting is fine. Trying to shut down a speaker, whether explicitly -Shouting down a speaker and interrupting a talk - or implicitly - requiring speakers to sign forms prior to speaking - is censorship, and should be condemned.

That's not censorship, it's protesting which is supposed to be disruptive.

DickSwiveller

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not censorship, it's protesting which is supposed to be disruptive.

Same thing. There's no difference.

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Same thing. There's no difference.

Yes there is. Protesting is expressing an opinion which is a core tenet of a free society.

DickSwiveller

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes there is. Protesting is expressing an opinion which is a core tenet of a free society.

So if I invite a speaker to my university, and a crowd turn up and start barking and roaring, that's an acceptable form of protest?

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So if I invite a speaker to my university, and a crowd turn up and start barking and roaring, that's an acceptable form of protest?

Of course it is. If you issue an invitation you should have campus security on hand to remove disruptive presences.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Yes there is. Protesting is expressing an opinion which is a core tenet of a free society.

Within the law.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Within the law.

Thought that was implied. Making noise is fine. Smacking someone you disagree with is assault.

DickSwiveller

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it is. If you issue an invitation you should have campus security on hand to remove disruptive presences.

It's not an acceptable form of protest. It's not even protesting. It's just trying to silence an alternative opinion. Once a person is given permission to speak he should be allowed speak without a mob interrupting him.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Thought that was implied. Making noise is fine. Smacking someone you disagree with is assault.

Not necessarily. For example, protesters invading an invite only talk at a university could be trespassing.

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's not an acceptable form of protest. It's not even protesting. It's just trying to silence an alternative opinion. Once a person is given permission to speak he should be allowed speak without a mob interrupting them.

Of course it's acceptable. If it weren't surely all these students would be sanctioned and/or arrested. You've just repeated your point without adding anything.

DickSwiveller

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it's acceptable. If it weren't surely all these students would be sanctioned and/or arrested. You've just repeated your point without adding anything.

They are not sanctioned because the University authorities don't want to get involved. But they should be. Just because they aren't doesn't mean it's a legitimate form of protest.

ancapailldorcha

DickSwiveller wrote: »

They are not sanctioned because the University authorities don't want to get involved. But they should be. Just because they aren't doesn't mean it's a legitimate form of protest.

A consequence of for-profit third level education. If Universities are going to be run as businesses then displeasing consumers paying many thousands or tens of thousands per year each is a pretty bad idea. If the protest was illegitimate then it's a matter for the police but simply claiming that these protests are illegitimate doesn't make them so.

VonZan

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So if I invite a speaker to my university, and a crowd turn up and start barking and roaring, that's an acceptable form of protest?

Why would you be against people protesting? The problem is that these college students aren’t intelligent enough to tell the difference between Ben Shapiro and Richard Spencer. Any non-postmodernist is treated as a Nazi. The problem isn’t the people protesting with placards it’s the people shouting and interrupting speeches becuase they simply can’t process a different viewpoint to their own. It’s quite hypocritical and dangerously stupid that these people are the same people speaking about intolerance in society too.

Protesting is a basic democratic right but I don’t believe in the right to silence others simply becuase you disagree with them.

DickSwiveller

VonZan wrote: »

Why would you be against people protesting? The problem is that these college students aren’t intelligent enough to tell the difference between Ben Shapiro and Richard Spencer. Any non-postmodernist is treated as a Nazi. The problem isn’t the people protesting with placards it’s the people shouting and interrupting speeches becuase they simply can’t process a different viewpoint to their own. It’s quite hypocritical and dangerously stupid that these people are the same people speaking about intolerance in society too.

Protesting is a basic democratic right but I don’t believe in the right to silence others simply becuase you disagree with them.

Are you disagreeing with me on something? What you just wrote perfectly sums up my position.

Overheal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So if I invite a speaker to my university, and a crowd turn up and start barking and roaring, that's an acceptable form of protest?

Do what Trump does: don't hold any public event unless its ordained as a Campaign Rally. That way, you can decide who to let in. The University could have it as a ticketed event, but good luck with that going over well with the fee-paying student body.

VonZan wrote:

Protesting is a basic democratic right but I don’t believe in the right to silence others simply becuase you disagree with them.

They aren't being silenced, the simply share the same airspace and earspace as other people. They can try and talk louder if they wish. Where free speech ends is threats of violence.

20Cent

So sick of these right wing blowhards, making a career out of being "controversial" whinging about being "silenced" and censored. If some students with placards scare you maybe the marketplace of ideas isn't for you.

DickSwiveller

Overheal wrote: »

Do what Trump does: don't hold any public event unless its billeted as a Campaign Rally. That way, you can decide who to let in. The University could have it as a ticketed event, but good luck with that going over well with the fee-paying student body.They aren't being silenced, the simply share the same airspace and earspace as other people. They can try and talk louder if they wish. Where free speech ends is threats of violence.

For Christ sake, if a person is so weak minded and sensitive that they can't bear the idea that someone with differing views should be allowed to speak then they don't have to turn up. It's very simple. If they don't approve of a person speaking they don't have to attend the event.

What is this rubbish about space? A university is a big place. Just do something else while the talk is on. It's very simple

DickSwiveller

20Cent wrote: »

So sick of these right wing blowhards, making a career out of being "controversial" whinging about being "silenced" and censored. If some students with placards scare you maybe the marketplace of ideas isn't for you.

"Right Wing Blowhards"

You mean you disagree with us. If students interrupt a talk by shouting down the speaker there is no marketplace of ideas - it's a marketplace of one idea, and all others are silenced.

Overheal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

For Christ sake, if a person is so weak minded and sensitive that they can't bear the idea that someone with differing views should be allowed to speak then they don't have to turn up. It's very simple. If they don't approve of a person speaking they don't have to attend the event.

What is this rubbish about space? A university is a big place. Just do something else while the talk is on. It's very simple

'For Christ sake, if a speaker is so weak minded and sensitive that they can't bear the idea that someone with different views should be allowed to express objection then they don't have to show up' either.

:pac:

Overheal

DickSwiveller wrote: »

"Right Wing Blowhards"

You mean you disagree with us. If students interrupt a talk by shouting down the speaker there is no marketplace of ideas - it's a marketplace of one idea, and all others are silenced.

That's hardly silence, if it's being shouted down.

DickSwiveller

Overheal wrote: »

That's hardly silence, if it's being shouted down.

Ye, you're right, it's easy to give a talk when some moron is screaming.