If the left is suppressing free speech they must have learned that from the Tea Baggers who disrupted many meetings all over the USA. It's the old story - what goes around, comes around.
Are Universities and Free Speech Compatible???
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
We went over this previously but if you Google you'll get plenty of links such as these which were covered on late night news:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclie...40,d.aWM&fp=b1fee2a396897a33&biw=1280&bih=630
Well considering that it was a Canadian University and a Canadian Member of Parliament, I really don't think there is any direct correlation to Tea Baggers disrupting meetings all over the USA.
As far as "what goes around, comes around", that sounds like making a lame excuse for behaviour that is unacceptable. And let me be really, really clear here, it is unacceptable no matter who is perpetrating it.
I'm going to hell I guess; I couldn't help but laugh at the stupidity of this. "What about the safety of our uterus'?"
How do you even respond to that other than laughing?
How do you even respond to that other than laughing?
Well, if we are going to get all teary eyed about the safety of uterus', what about the safety of p e n i s e s? Sexual equality is a two way street. Why is always the guys fault? My left nut is starting to hurt just thinking about the inequity of all this. Or... was that my right nut?
I guess some people need to grab the spotlight at any cost.
Comparing apples and oranges again..
Disrupting a University "Speaker"
Compared to a town hall meeting where back and forth is not only expected but encouraged....or do Liberal voters sit there like lemmings at those meetings...
What a stupid straw man!
I'm not making any excuses for anyone. But all too often on this forum there is too much of an emphasis on what are supposed leftist attacks on free speech while right wing attacks and thought control all over the news media and internet are ignored. Just adding some balance to the forum's slant.
It is not adding balance if you're adding to the back and forth, to the melee. You're just keeping the ruckus going when you do that, and to be clear, it's not just you, there are several people here on this forum alone that do that. Adding balance to an issue such as this, the attempted shutting down of free speech/expression, would be to acknowledge that irrespective of the acceptance of this speakers viewpoint or the acceptance of the opposing view, it was wrong to disrupt in this manner. In fact it wasn't just wrong, it was completely unacceptable.
It is not a betrayal of personal philosophy to acknowledge or even to stand up for what is right in a particular situation, such as one like this. Bad behaviour, poor choices, occur on both sides of the political spectrum. There are morons and idiots on the left, and there are morons and idiots on the right. Not for what they believe, but for how they behave. Behaviour is what should be judged, not opinions, not thoughts.
I think everything you are saying is sensible, except for the last sentence, which I think is a commonly uttered sentiment that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
If everyone is entitled to their opinion then I am entitled to my opinion that you are not entitled to your opinion and should be locked up for having it.
That paradox aside, we constantly judge people for their beliefs and opinions. Would you ask your neighbour to babysit your children after they confess to being attracted to children, claim that there is nothing wrong with it, but they have never abused a child before? I'd be nervous.
Simultaneously, if I was inviting a gay couple over to a party, I think I would refrain from inviting the couple that told me how immoral they think homosexual marriage is. If our beliefs affect our behaviours, it is natural to judge a person for their professed beliefs.
True enough. But we do need to at least attempt to draw a line somewhere. Of course we do judge people on their opinions, we support those who agree with us and it informs our opinions about them as much as the opposite is true. Every human being has prejudices and bias.
And I would categorize expressing beliefs and opinions as behaviour. In reference to the post that I made the comment about and to the OP, my point was that even if one supports the viewpoint expressed by the speech disrupters one can still condemn the behaviour. Human beings are not by nature, I don't think, fair and impartial beings but we can make a concerted effort to try and meet those standards. I'm certainly not always fair and impartial, I have flaws, prejudices, biases. Nobody's perfect. But that certainly doesn't mean that we don't or shouldn't try.
There are certainly people who think that criminalising abortion is an unjust misogynistic action. It would be natural for such people to want to deny such people from trying to spread their idea around. In this case, the minute they did so, they should have been (and probably were) asked to leave.
But why would they? Campus security was there to protect the MP probably, and the organizer of the talk probably had no ability to sanction the students who showed up. I have given presentations at universities before, invited in the exact same manner that this MP was, and if someone decided I was a jerk and just started yelling at me, what could I do? Pretty much nothing. Especially since my lack of importance didn't merit security guards being present.
I can ask them to leave, I can ask the organizer to ask them to leave. If they don't, do I try to coerce them? Do I really want to use force against someone for disrupting an extracurricular activity of the Mathematics society? In Woodworth's case, an extracurricular activity of the Students for Life club.
When you give unpopular presentations in what is essentially the public, you should expect hecklers. To expect otherwise is naive. People ask questions during presentations at university. That is the free exchange of ideas. When you have a hostile audience, it may prevent you from getting your message across. Heck, when you have an interested audience sometimes you will get bogged down in technical discussions. I have been to presentations where the speaker had to ask an overly enthusiastic audience member to stop asking questions because of the delay. I have seen physics presentations break down halfway through so that the speaker could have an argument with an audience member about the existence of black holes.
That physicist accepted the antagonism as a normal form of debate. Universities are precisely the sort of place where this sort of direct dialogue can occur. When you talk about something controversial, you will be challenged.
Of course they would want to deny such people from spreading their idea around. I want to deny Neo Nazi's (just as an example) from spreading their message of hatred but I don't do it.
I think being challenged and being accosted by a man dressed as a giant v*a*g*i*n*a* are two different things. I think being questioned or having the free exchange of ideas is very different from being pushed from the podium. Having someone physically take over the microphone and prevent someone from stating their views in order to state your own views, your own self-expression is hypocrisy at it's finest. There has to be lines, there has to be rules or there will be chaos.
May I add that what I saw in the video was not a debate or an exchange of ideas....It was a forceful attempt at silencing, shutting down an idea that the group was against, without consideration to those that had invited him.
Such a thing is tantamount to book burning, as is absolutely against freedom of speech!
In this case there was no microphone. In this case he was not using the podium. He was using a projector attached to his Mac sitting on the front desk and speaking in a small classroom. Also, it is not hypocrisy to use your own voice to talk over someone else, it is rude. It would only be hypocritical if they were talking over someone to say how wrong it is to talk over someone.
Do you want to forbid people from showing up to club events dressed up strangely? Do you want to forbid people from showing up to club events with signs? Do you want to forbid people from talking up during a club event? These are all very normal things in a university club event. This was not a formal presentation organized by the university. This was a club event and the club openly invited members of the university at large to show up to hear and speak to Woodworth.
At my old physics department, we routinely received requests from intelligent design groups for them to give us presentations. Finally, they let one guy come one day, and that guy was immediately destroyed. I don't think the audience let him get off the first content slide. If you expect to show up to an unquestioning audience at a university, you are beyond naive. They will interrupt you. They will continue to interrupt you if you don't acknowledge their objection. Was the ID presenter's freedom of speech infringed? No. People just had far too many questions about his very first premise.
Are you really going to be that literal? In the video there is young woman in red dress speaking very loudly into a microphone attached to a podium. Does she have to physically shove him aside in order to completely overtake the proceedings? Also the brain trust in the Halloween costume says "Who do you think you are to impose your views on society?", but is not Mr. V*A*G*I*N*A imposing his views over the people assembled by taking over the event? That strikes me as rather hypocritical.
How the hell do you get that I want to forbid anyone anything from what I've said?
So? Completely different set of circumstances. This group in this video completely overtook the presenter and the entire meeting for the purpose of shutting him down and silencing him.
Shutting down free speech is wrong. But when does the right wing ever acknowledge that its side does it more often than anyone else? Even Walter wasn't aware of the Tea Bagger misconduct even though it was done all over the country. Why wasn't this reported in every media outlet so that everyone would know and be outraged by it?
Go to any right wing radio show - the moment anyone dares to disagree with their opinions they get called every manner of insult imaginable. If it is true that Democrats have more registered members than Republicans, shouldn't that majority be reflected on radio shows?
It is most unfortunate that anybody got shut down in that meeting reported in the OP. But that is only one of the few times the right wing got suppressed. The other side gets suppressed on air and all over this country every day. I don't know the situation in Canada so I won't even try to argue one way or the other there. Was that suppression ''unacceptable'' as you say? Of course it was. As is the same type of suppression we see every day all over the USA.
Therefore, let us apply the same level of outrage against all forms of suppression - the types you see every day on radio as well as these isolated events. A uniform standard is the best solution to this problem rather than selectivity.