Are Universities and Free Speech Compatible???

[karrie]

The man can still express himself. He is not in jailed or punished. He, like all of us, simply doesn't have the right to a university as a venue.

I find that an odd stance to take considering he, as an elected member of government, was invited to the university to speak to students who wanted to hear him.

He was granted the right to the university as a venue.

 

[EagleSmack]

When it comes to freedom of speech, in the legal sense, universities are a grey area. Anyone should have the right to express an opinion in a public space, but should the state also provide them with a microphone and a podium?

I think so and I think they do.

Universities are quasi-public space, and they invite people to come and express their opinions, provide them with venues and sound equipment etc. They don't have to do any of that.

No they do not have to but when they do shouldn't one be allowed to speak?

This man's freedom of speech was not suppressed because the university or some protesters didn't want him to speak with facilities the university provided. The man can still express himself. He is not in jailed or punished. He, like all of us, simply doesn't have the right to a university as a venue.

It most certainly was suppressed. He was surrounded and drowned out by vile mouthed hogs. Who can speak while that is going on?

 

[karrie]

I think more pertinent than him being denied free speech (and I think people are using that term as a it applies to an etiquette denial of free speech, not an actual human rights denial), is the denial to the student body, to hear a speaker they asked to hear. That strips them of educational opportunity, a chance to practice their debate skills, and a chance to hone their own critical thinking.

All because someone, literally, wanted to be a 'see you next Tuesday' about it.

 

[CDNBear]

No surprise since right wingers are always under the delusion that they are always correct and everybody else is always wrong.

And you differ from that how?

But who won the election? Which party has more registered members? Obviously these Tea Baggers are in the minority - a highly vocal and deluded one. Nothing more - which means that their self justification, like that of their defenders, was utterly baseless. Silence in the face of such delusionalism is tantamount too accession. And I'm not buying into that.

We're already aware of your lust for a single party system.

As always, apply the same standards and no one will question you.

You should try that.

 

[Corduroy]

I find that an odd stance to take considering he, as an elected member of government, was invited to the university to speak to students who wanted to hear him.

He was granted the right to the university as a venue.

By whom?

I think so and I think they do.

You think the government should provide people with podiums and microphones in public spaces to exercise their freedom of speech?

No they do not have to but when they do shouldn't one be allowed to speak?

They should, but it's not a violation of freedom of speech if he isn't.

I think more pertinent than him being denied free speech (and I think people are using that term as a it applies to an etiquette denial of free speech, not an actual human rights denial),

People are trying to make this out to be more than it is by making this a free speech issue. They simply oppose the message and the story satisfies all their stereotypes about crazy college liberals. Notice how readily they delight in insult these people. It's not about free speech. It's about opposing the message and using the moral language of rights to do so.

This should be about what you described. Universities should be places of open debate and the speaker could be given a chance to represent his views. This kind of drowning out of opposing views is common on university campuses.

 

[CDNBear]

This kind of drowning out of opposing views is common on university campuses.

That's the point.

It doesn't promote discussion or free speech.

It suppresses both.

 

[Corduroy]

That's the point.

It doesn't promote discussion or free speech.

It suppresses both.

It suppresses discussion for sure. It does not suppress free speech. Speech is still free whether people protest it or not.

 

[karrie]

By whom?.

The information is all in the hotlink in DaS's original post.

He was invited to speak to a student group on campus. An opposing group came and shouted him down so he couldn't speak as invited, and they couldn't get the presentation they wanted.

It being common is exactly the issue being discussed... is free speech compatible with university mentality?

 

[CDNBear]

It does not suppress free speech.

The kind of protest seen in that video, most certainly does.

 

[Corduroy]

The information is all in the hotlink in DaS's original post.

It was a rhetorical question. The man has no right to speak at the university. He has permission from the university. I'm obviously working with a different definition of free speech than the rest of you.

For me free speech is a legal concept. The suppression of free speech is done by those with state power. To the rest of you, free speech is merely speaking, in any situation, and being interrupted counts as suppression. Well ****, my loud mouth uncle needs to be dragged in front of a human rights tribunal.

 

[karrie]

It was a rhetorical question. The man has no right to speak at the university. He has permission from the university. I'm obviously working with a different definition of free speech than the rest of you.

For me free speech is a legal concept. The suppression of free speech is done by those with state power. To the rest of you, free speech is merely speaking, in any situation, and being interrupted counts as suppression. Well ****, my loud mouth uncle needs to be dragged in front of a human rights tribunal.

I pointed out earlier that it sounded like the context you were speaking of it in, and the context being used in conversation, weren't the same. But then, the results being discussed aren't the same either. I don't recall anyone talking about trials or tribunals or legal ramifications for the shouting down. Simply discussing the fact that a free exchange of ideas seems squashed too often.

 

[CDNBear]

It was a rhetorical question. The man has no right to speak at the university. He has permission from the university. I'm obviously working with a different definition of free speech than the rest of you.

Obviously...

No one brought up tribunals or legal consequences, just that universities should be places of open, unhindered communication.

What we've seen in the video, and other similar incidents, is an affront to free speech in that sense.

 

[Corduroy]

I don't recall anyone talking about trials or tribunals or legal ramifications for the shouting down.

No one brought up tribunals or legal consequences

Ugh...

 

[CDNBear]

Ugh...

You brought them up. For no apparent reason.

 

[Corduroy]

You brought them up. For no apparent reason.

In the context of a joke. Seriously, obstinately missing the point should be defined as suppression of free speech. Because I don't want to deal with these anymore, my speech is suppressed!*



*note the above is a joke. Wipe, flush, wash your hands.

 

[karrie]

In the context of a joke. Seriously, obstinately missing the point should be defined as suppression of free speech. Because I don't want to deal with these anymore, my speech is suppressed!*



*note the above is a joke. Wipe, flush, wash your hands.

We got that you were joking, but we were talking about the context.

Governmental suppression of free speech is a big deal. It is something that should be taken to court, etc. You cracked a quip, but if we were seriously talking about this as 'he was stripped of his charter right to free speech', then we'd be talking about it much more sternly than insulting some douchey uni students.

 

[gopher]

When it comes to free speech the left is way worse than anyone on the extreme right

Examples?

Tea Baggers disrupt town meetings.

How many leftists did the same?

When Republicans held their convention, they made racist comments on Hispanics and blacks as we discussed and documented on this forum. When Democrats held their convention, how many attacks were made on Hispanics and blacks?


With Democrats being the majority in the USA, how do you explain that just about all radio political shows are right wing?


Give very specific examples to "prove" your point.

And you differ from that how?

We're already aware of your lust for a single party system.

You should try that.

I back up my claims with proof such as the links to your Tea Baggers disrupting town halls. Notice how nobody even tried to refute that truth.

Where is your proof that I want a single party system (this should be interesting).

You should try that as well especially in regard to your comments for anyone who dares to disagree with you regarding Israel.

The last two posts are a perfect example of some ideologues propensity to deflect when others like them are caught with their pants down.

If this is directed to my reply, please point out how I did not answer the question posed to me.

 

[DaSleeper]

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.

Examples?

Tea Baggers disrupt town meetings.

How many leftists did the same?

When Republicans held their convention, they made racist comments on Hispanics and blacks as we discussed and documented on this forum. When Democrats held their convention, how many attacks were made on Hispanics and blacks?


With Democrats being the majority in the USA, how do you explain that just about all radio political shows are right wing?


Give very specific examples to "prove" your point.





I back up my claims with proof such as the links to your Tea Baggers disrupting town halls. Notice how nobody even tried to refute that truth.

Where is your proof that I want a single party system (this should be interesting).

You should try that as well especially in regard to your comments for anyone who dares to disagree with you regarding Israel.




If this is directed to my reply, please point out how I did not answer the question posed to me.

Until your first post in this thread (see above)....the first one I quoted.....Nobody had mentioned American politics...but this is your specialty building straw men....and btw... your propensity for mentioning and fascination for "Tea Bagging" is noted and so is the one you have for wrestling or "men in tights " :lol:

Didn't you also forget your constant reference to
"BLAME BUSH",

"BLAME OBAMA",

& "BLAME GOPHER"

 

[EagleSmack]

You think the government should provide people with podiums and microphones in public spaces to exercise their freedom of speech?

I was saying that universities do. If a forum or podium is given to a speaker he/she should have the right to be heard.

They should, but it's not a violation of freedom of speech if he isn't.

It is not an arrestable offense what they did, but he certainly was denied his right to be heard. And if the shoe was on the other foot and Pro-Choice folks were surrounded by Pro-Life folks screaming "C***!" there would be all hell to pay.

 

[petros]

I was saying that universities do. If a forum or podium is given to a speaker he/she should have the right to be heard.

Thursday buck o beer night is when the true opinions come out.

And that's about it.