The Death of Free Speech: Uber PC'ism-A further look

[steve dave]

Yeah, I’m ok with this


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kat Kid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.

Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.

“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.

“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”

I'm not sure exactly what your vague criticism is, but I imagine we agree that there's a difference between protest and interfering with someone else's speech. 

I of course have no issue with protests so long as they're non-violent and don't interfere with others' ability to listen or be heard.

Do you think this legislative agenda is a bigger threat to free speech than some college students?

[DQ12]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.

Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.

“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.

“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”

I'm not sure exactly what your vague criticism is, but I imagine we agree that there's a difference between protest and interfering with someone else's speech. 

I of course have no issue with protests so long as they're non-violent and don't interfere with others' ability to listen or be heard.

Do you think this legislative agenda is a bigger threat to free speech than some college students?

By "legislative agenda" i assume you're talking about Wisconsin's 3 strike rule.  If it's applied in a content neutral manner (which it must be under the constitution), then of course not. 

How exactly do you think the legislative agenda threatens speech?  From what I can tell, it permits more speech, not less.

[steve dave]

I mean, our president tweeted today that the free press was the worst threat to our security so I think we’ve got some bigger rough ridin' issues than this tbh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spracne]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.

Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.

“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.

“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”

Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.

And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...

There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.

On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.

I must have a different interpretation of the three strikes policy than you.  Looks content neutral to me.

[Kat Kid]

I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.

[DQ12]

I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.

my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.

[Kat Kid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.

Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.

“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.

“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”

Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.

And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...

There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.

On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Right, not disputing that.

But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.

What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?

Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?

[Kat Kid]

I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.

my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.

You didn't even read the article about the law you are already defending.

[Spracne]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/14/us/politics/campus-speech-protests.html

Finally, we can have free speech on college campuses by expelling student protestors and by compelling campuses to be open forums for Nazis and whomever else some campus organization troll wants to invite.

Incredible, no one could have foreseen this "free speech defense" rhetoric being cynically manipulated.

“You did it for underrepresented students, do it for underrepresented points of view,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. In his comments, which he made at a New York Times conference on higher education last month, Mr. Alexander said that if colleges did not prioritize political diversity, they risked graduating a generation of overly squeamish adults.

“We don’t want a whole generation of students who have to go to a safe room when they read an offensive tweet,” he said. “They need to learn how to deal with that in our society.”

Were UW-M to expel a student pursuant to a three-strikes policy, I think they'd have a pretty textbook 1st Amendment claim. Sounds like that hasn't happened, though.

And it has long been the law that speech in a public forum cannot be prevented based solely on the political affiliation of the speaker. So, yes, a Nazi is included in that definition. So-called "hate speech" is also protected speech, subject to a few exceptions that rarely apply. None of this is new or novel...

There are campus speech policies across the country--and across the political spectrum--that would likely be invalidated if suit were brought by a proper plaintiff. The problem is you need in injury in order to establish standing. So if these institutions never take punitive action pursuant to such policies, such policies are not subject to judicial review.

On balance, I think the political left is still more hypocritical when it comes to First Amendment issues at public universities. But time will tell.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Right, not disputing that.

But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.

What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?

Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?

Exactly why I think it would be void due to vagueness, despite being content-neutral on its face (@Dlew12). The problem is it can't be tested unless it is exercised. The amount of discretion given to administrators in enforcing it is also problematic.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[DQ12]

Right, not disputing that.

But this seems to deputize anyone with a campus club to invite whoever they want and then compel the University to approve the event under threat of the law and would then prevent anyone else in the campus community from protesting the event under penalty of expulsion.

What does "have been found to have twice interfered with someone’s free expression" even mean? If they silently protest are they out?

Which group is bringing the force of the state to bear to stifle free speech?

OK, here's the disconnect.

The policy (at least as i understand it) does not prevent protests.  I haven't seen the actual text so it's possible that it's impermissibly vague (@sprac).  Of course I agree that if people are silently protesting (but otherwise not preventing a speaker from speaking), then they can't be expelled.

My understanding is that it's aimed at punishing students who actually disrupt a speaker e.g. by preventing a speaker or audience from entering an auditorium or effectively hijacking an auditorium by chanting or getting up on stage or whatever.

I can't believe you are this naive dlew. You are just pretending to make this argument.

my argument is consistent with the prevailing first amendment jurisprudence and rationale. yours is consistent with the prevailing views on tumblr.

You didn't even read the article about the law you are already defending.

i certainly did

[Kat Kid]

Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.

[DQ12]

Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.

yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive. 

i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.

[CHONGS]

Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs".  Let's not pretend otherwise. 

[DQ12]

Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs".  Let's not pretend otherwise.

If that's the case, then it's because SJWs are the ones who tend to engage in the behavior this is seeking to prevent. 

If the Young Republicans go and effectively block Coates' next talk at UW, then I would assume/hope the same policy would apply to them.

[Kat Kid]

Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.

yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive. 

i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.

we already do. which brings us back to the original dispute. I think giving the state more power to define what a protest is and who has the right to protest what and in what manner is bad. I also think that the people on the scene with guns and tasers will be called in to action more if this kind of law becomes wide spread. so I think that what is lost is going to be much more than whatever harms you think are occurring (Milo getting heckled out of a bar? Charles Murray getting punched? what is the test case that proves the crisis?)

[CHONGS]

Regardless of it's merit, it's intended to send a message to "SJWs".  Let's not pretend otherwise.

If that's the case, then it's because SJWs are the ones who tend to engage in the behavior this is seeking to prevent. 

If the Young Republicans go and effectively block Coates' next talk at UW, then I would assume/hope the same policy would apply to them.

It is the case.  It's called pandering for a reason.

[CHONGS]

Merit is not important, it's about striking back against an enemy. 

You can get people to support about just  anything as long as they think they're sticking it to the other side.

[DQ12]

Cops already are pretty aggressive in removing protestors, or even people that get a little long winded on the mic. I just don't think this is a problem in need of cynical legislation.

yeah i agree that the cops who tased that guy during john kerry's presidential campaign were too aggressive. 

i don't think that means we shouldn't have any laws regulating where, when and in what manner people are allowed to protest.

we already do. which brings us back to the original dispute. I think giving the state more power to define what a protest is and who has the right to protest what and in what manner is bad. I also think that the people on the scene with guns and tasers will be called in to action more if this kind of law becomes wide spread. so I think that what is lost is going to be much more than whatever harms you think are occurring (Milo getting heckled out of a bar? Charles Murray getting punched? what is the test case that proves the crisis?)

You're right, of course we already have those laws.  Crimes like trespassing and disturbing the peace prohibit us from protesting wherever/whenever/however we want.  I don't think the state (or this law) says anything about who is allowed to protest. 

This policy just gives the university the power to expel students if they protest in an improper place/time/manner and then do it again, and then do it again.  I agree with yours and spracne's concerns about the potential vagueness and discretion that this policy may (again, haven't seen the actual text) entail.

[sys]

i trust fire to judge these issues, it's their touch, their feel, it's what they do.  they have a few concerns but basically think it has promise, so i do to.  if anyone finds an updated opinion, please post it.

https://www.thefire.org/new-wisconsin-regents-policy-has-problems-and-promise/

[DQ12]

i trust fire to judge these issues, it's their touch, their feel, it's what they do.  they have a few concerns but basically think it has promise, so i do to.  if anyone finds an updated opinion, please post it.

https://www.thefire.org/new-wisconsin-regents-policy-has-problems-and-promise/

Yep.  I agree with their position 100%.

[CHONGS]

https://apnews.com/70cffc6c7de54ef5a555a1c59df619f9

[DQ12]

https://apnews.com/70cffc6c7de54ef5a555a1c59df619f9

interesting.  i don't think a twitter ban implicates the first amendment at all.

[Kat Kid]

https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1007832638353113089?s=21

Not trying to troll, but genuinely curious what you think of something like this dlew re: free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk