INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: El on March 21, 2018, 03:43:07 PM
-
Many American pundits seem to firmly believe that the country stands at a precipice in which young, left-wing college students and recent graduates are the leading edge of a rising tide of illiberalism that comes in the form of “political correctness” and poses a clear and present danger to free speech and rational discourse.
David Brooks’s column last Friday starts with a reference to the heckling of Christina Hoff Sommers at a recent speaking engagement at a small private university in Portland, Oregon. But he swiftly pivots to broad generalizations about his “basic understanding of how citizenship is supposed to work” versus “today’s students” for whom “reason, apparently, ceased to matter” and instead “see public life as an inevitable war of tribe versus tribe.”
Eric Boehm writing in Reason, similarly but even more bombastically, refers to a climate of “cultural decay” and “authoritarian political correctness” that is leading us toward the sort of dystopia depicted in Ray Bradbury’s science fiction classic Fahrenheit 451.
Conviction that these trends are big and real is so firmly entrenched that when Bari Weiss cited a fake Twitter account as evidence for her thesis about political correctness run amok — another column built around the Summers speech — the New York Times simply removed the example and appended an editor’s note without otherwise altering the column.
It is so accepted that there is a growing climate of authoritarianism that whether or not individual examples are true is fundamentally irrelevant.
Except robust data suggests that maybe it isn’t. Overall public support for free speech is rising over time, not falling. People on the political right are less supportive of free speech than people on the left. College graduates are more supportive than non-graduates. Indeed, a 2016 Knight Foundation survey showed that college students are less likely than the overall population to support restrictions on speech on campus. Among the public at large, meanwhile, the group whose speech the public is most likely to favor stifling is Muslims.
The alarm about student protesters, in other words, though not always mistaken about particular cases, is generally grounded in a completely mistaken view of the big-picture state of American society and public opinion, both on and off campus.
What the data says about free speech
Since the 1970s, the General Social Survey has posed a question about whether five hypothetical speakers should be allowed to give a speech in your community — a communist, a homosexual, an opponent of all religion, a racist, and a person who favors replacing the elected government with a military coup.
Justin Murphy of the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom aggregated trend data about all five kinds of speakers and found that public support for free expression has been generally rising:
Now what’s true, obviously, is that public support for disallowing racist speech is not rising. Instead, it’s stayed roughly flat over the past 40 years or maybe fallen very slightly. But it’s simply not the case that anti-racist activism is just a particularly salient example of an overall trend toward less tolerance of free expression.
On the contrary, society has become dramatically more tolerant. If you want to find a disturbing trend here, you should probably look at the increased support for the coup advocate (labeled “militarist”), which is arguably a form of tolerance gone too far.
When Murphy does a breakout of the GSS’s seven-point ideological scale, you can see that the trend people think they’re seeing isn’t exactly fake — but it provides a very incomplete picture.
What you see here is that people on the moderate left really have become less tolerant of racists while growing more tolerant of all other groups. Meanwhile, the other five ideological subcategories seem to have become more tolerant of everyone.
Also note that in general, people with left-wing ideological commitments are overall more tolerant than people with right-wing ones. There’s simply no evidence for the Brooks view that left-wing politics is producing closed-minded people. Indeed, as Murphy notes, this is not really much of a surprise as there is a well-known correlation between left-wing political commitments and the personality attribute known to psychologists as Openness to Experience. Somewhat ironically, two of the best-known popularizers of this point, Jonathan Haidt and Jordan Peterson, are vocal anti-PC activists, though survey data confirms exactly what their research predicts — left-wing people are more supportive of free expression.
I would not make a big deal out of this ideological disagreement, however, because the important thing is that there’s a generally rising level of support for free speech. The United States is a big country, and it’s possible to cherry-pick examples of lots of different things happening. But to assess broad trends, we need to look at systematic data, and the data indicates a trend toward more willingness to hear from disagreeable people, not less.
One important exception, however, comes from a newer question about Muslim speech.
People want to block “anti-American Muslim clergymen” from speaking
About 10 years ago, the GSS added a new hypothetical speaker to its list — “now consider a Muslim clergyman who preaches hatred of the United States. If such a person wanted to make a speech in your community preaching hatred of the United States, should he be allowed to speak, or not?”
Most Americans say he should not be allowed to speak, and that number seems roughly constant over the past decade.
An even larger share of the population, about 66 percent, says such a cleric should not be allowed to teach in a college, and a very slight majority, about 51 percent, says such a cleric’s books should be removed from a library.
Concern about the Muslim preacher is driven, one assumes, by the fact that anti-American violence committed in the name of Islam is a real phenomenon in the world, and people see anti-American advocacy from Muslim authority figures as potentially contributing to the violence.
Americans are, however, considerably more likely to be killed by right-wing hate groups than by Islamic extremists; the Anti-Defamation League finds that right-wing extremists committed 74 percent of ideologically driven killings between 2007 and 2016, down to “only” 59 percent in 2017.
College graduates are more tolerant, not less
It’s also interesting to note that, contrary to the vision of a generation of young authoritarians brainwashed in elite universities, there is very little age polarization on these issues — 56 percent of 18- to 34-year-olds support the right of the racist to give a speech, versus 60 percent of the overall population.
Given the stark generation gaps that we see on many political issues these days, that’s a remarkably small divergence. It’s also quite possibly driven by compositional effects, since white people are moderately more supportive (62 percent) of letting the racist speak but whites are a smaller share of the younger cohort. African Americans have become more supportive over time of letting racists speak, with 56 percent saying it should be allowed in 2015 versus 47 percent back in 1975.
Last but by no means least, there is a strong correlation between educational attainment and support for allowing free speech — though it has narrowed a little bit over time.
College graduates are most likely to want to allow both the racist and the anti-American cleric to speak.
This likely reflects both college graduates’ generally higher openness to experience and probably also their greater ideological sophistication, which leaves them more likely to focus on the free speech aspect of the question rather than simply register disapproval of a bad speaker. Indeed, data from the College Senior Study appears to show a causal relationship between attending college and more open-mindedness — indicating that liberal arts education is more or less performing its expected function of exposing people to new ideas rather than serving an indoctrination function.
The PC debate would benefit from more facts and rigor
The overall debate about “political correctness” as a phenomenon tends to suffer from an excess of vagueness and ambiguity.
On the one hand, there is a fairly narrow debate about the attempted use of heckler’s veto tactics on a handful of college campuses — often in response to speaking invitations that appear to have been constructed primarily for the purpose of attracting hecklers. On the other hand, there is a fairly broad debate about a wide array of anti-racist activity that includes everything from the #OscarSoWhite hashtag to people being mean on Twitter to Bari Weiss to efforts to push the boundaries of who can be described as a “white supremacist.”
By rhetorically lumping in instances of rare, fairly extreme behavior with much more common behaviors under the broad heading of “political correctness,” it is easy to paint an alarming picture of the hecklers as a leading edge of an increasingly authoritarian political culture.
The fact that there does not appear to be any such trend — and that public desire to stymie free expression is concentrated in the working class and targeted primarily at Muslims — ought to prompt a reevaluation of the significance of on-campus dustups and perhaps greater attention to the specific contexts in which they arise.
Conversely, a clearer and more specific account of what's wrong with heckler’s veto tactics — rather than broad-brush efforts to castigate them as emblematic of a broad social crisis — might be more effective at actually persuading people not to engage in them.
If nothing else, it would be useful for writers to do a better job of distinguishing between how life feels when you participate in unmoderated online exchanges — where being on the wrong end of pile-ons can certainly create the subjective impression that vicious mobs are constantly trying to shut down anything they find disagreeable — from what we actually see in the data, which is a public that is increasingly supportive of free expression, with liberals and college graduates being especially supportive.
Linked article has pretty graphics.
-
Can you say "activist research"??
I've seen too many examples of free speech being shut down in recent years to be gaslit by manipulated statistics.
I don't believe their fabricated charts, I believe what I see on video.
I challenge you to find examples of speech being shut down prior to 2010 and I challenge you to find examples of conservatives shutting down the speech of liberals after 1970.
-
I challenge you to find examples of speech being shut down prior to 2010 and I challenge you to find examples of conservatives shutting down the speech of liberals after 1970.
Geert Wilders and Michael Savage were barred from entering the UK in 2009. Wilders was later allowed into the Lords to give a presentation of his short film. Plus these (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236730.stm) Islamic radicals were jailed. There were further examples, mainly involving Islam. Moving away from political free speech cases one could mention the endless hassle photographers got.
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps actual research. :tinfoil:
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps actual research. :tinfoil:
Clearly.
-
There do seem to be a lot of millenial snowflakes telling each other that their form of speech is wrong for whatever reason. Maybe they're not making the logical leap of "telling someone they're wrong" -> "you should shut up altogether" rather than "you should talk in the way I want you to", so it doesn't get expressed when they're asked directly whether someone should be allowed to give a speech.
-
There do seem to be a lot of millenial snowflakes telling each other that their form of speech is wrong for whatever reason.
This doesn't make much sense. Can you state this in a different way?
-
There do seem to be a lot of millenial snowflakes telling each other that their form of speech is wrong for whatever reason. Maybe they're not making the logical leap of "telling someone they're wrong" -> "you should shut up altogether" rather than "you should talk in the way I want you to", so it doesn't get expressed when they're asked directly whether someone should be allowed to give a speech.
I agree, but I'm not that certain how much this has changed over time. When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.
-
I challenge you to find examples of speech being shut down prior to 2010 and I challenge you to find examples of conservatives shutting down the speech of liberals after 1970.
Geert Wilders and Michael Savage were barred from entering the UK in 2009. Wilders was later allowed into the Lords to give a presentation of his short film. Plus these (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6236730.stm) Islamic radicals were jailed. There were further examples, mainly involving Islam. Moving away from political free speech cases one could mention the endless hassle photographers got.
Ok, so I got my timeframe off by a year. I knew it was about this time that these things started to happen, when the PC police started deciding which opinions were acceptable and which ones were heretical and should be punished.
In regards to the Islamic radicals, they were advocating violence which isn't covered by free speech laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps activist research. :tinfoil:
FYP.
Statistics are easy to fudge, video evidence? not so easy to fake.
It's ok MOSW, you might learn to think one of these days. Might. :thumbup:
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
:thumbup:
This is what ACTUAL research looks like.
The results are congruent with hundreds and thousands of videos out there showing leftists shutting down speakers that they don't like.
-
There do seem to be a lot of millenial snowflakes telling each other that their form of speech is wrong for whatever reason.
This doesn't make much sense. Can you state this in a different way?
Not sure if ironic or genuine confusion. :LOL:
-
There do seem to be a lot of millenial snowflakes telling each other that their form of speech is wrong for whatever reason. Maybe they're not making the logical leap of "telling someone they're wrong" -> "you should shut up altogether" rather than "you should talk in the way I want you to", so it doesn't get expressed when they're asked directly whether someone should be allowed to give a speech.
I agree, but I'm not that certain how much this has changed over time. When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.
:indeed:
This is exactly what's going on. The Leftists perceive that they have the cultural momentum (which to a degree they do) and can do as they please now.
It reminds me of a quote that I think may've been Schopenhauer. "All social reform movements begin as necessary and just but devolve into self destructive, hypocritical con jobs".
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps actual research. :tinfoil:
Clearly.
You really are educated beyond your intelligence, aren't you??
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
::)
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps activist research. :tinfoil:
FYP.
Statistics are easy to fudge, video evidence? not so easy to fake.
It's ok MOSW, you might learn to think one of these days. Might. :thumbup:
Or I might even learn to let my YouTube feed do my thinking for me. :hitler:
-
Ok, so I got my timeframe off by a year.
Less than a year (a matter of months) for the shock-jock and the politician.
In regards to the Islamic radicals, they were advocating violence which isn't covered by free speech laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.
The United States of America would be the nearest exception to that but as far as I know no liberal democracies have truly unregulated free speech. I would imagine in the American case it would depend on just how it was phrased given the "fighting words" doctrine.
-
Pappy's youtube feed trumps activist research. :tinfoil:
FYP.
Statistics are easy to fudge, video evidence? not so easy to fake.
It's ok MOSW, you might learn to think one of these days. Might. :thumbup:
Or I might even learn to let my YouTube feed do my thinking for me. :hitler:
Yes, heaven forbid that you allow pesky things called facts interfere with your sacred beliefs that your tribe is the "good" tribe. ::)
-
In regards to the Islamic radicals, they were advocating violence which isn't covered by free speech laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.
The United States of America would be the nearest exception to that but as far as I know no liberal democracies have truly unregulated free speech. I would imagine in the American case it would depend on just how it was phrased given the "fighting words" doctrine.
Yes, although "fighting words" arguments are losing clout in most courtrooms, it appears as if these Muslims were calling for direct violence, which isn't protected under the 1st Amendment.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.
-
When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.
That's an interesting statement, though the article I presented shows the political divide to be fairly balanced, so if it's not related to political views then what are the sides? Young vs old?
-
Yes, although "fighting words" arguments are losing clout in most courtrooms, it appears as if these Muslims were calling for direct violence, which isn't protected under the 1st Amendment.
What precisely were they saying and in what context? It could possibly fall under the "imminent lawless action" clause in the 1969 Brandenburg v Ohio judgement, although it appears most likely that the First would cover it. It all depends.
Were they calling for direct violence kind of, well, in a few minutes? Or is it just a vague call? It's all details.
Are there similar cases in the States we could refer to? Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-protests-speech-factbox/factbox-when-can-free-speech-be-restricted-in-the-united-states-idUSKCN1AU2E0) has a say on U.S. free speech cases - they give a mention to a racist preacher inciting violence there and, of course, the often-amusing Fred Phelps.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.
Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.
It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.
Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.
It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.
It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.
-
When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.
That's an interesting statement, though the article I presented shows the political divide to be fairly balanced, so if it's not related to political views then what are the sides? Young vs old?
Actually, I think it's that BOTH sides of the political spectrum feel they have significant social power within their own spheres.
May have to do with the broadening of speech platforms and/or the echo chambers.
In that sense, we are seeing something that is new.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.
Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.
It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.
It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.
I also feel like there's a semantic issue with the term "acceptable" when you're talking about free speech (including the issue of "shouting down" an unpopular campus speaker). There's acceptable as in legal (should the cops get involved?), acceptable as in permissible (should campus authorities get involved?), acceptable personally/socially (should the shouters have friendships broken or be socially shunned as punishment for norm violation?), acceptable as in good/desirable, or acceptable as in not good or desirable but also not something action should be taken against. There's some "ifs" to this component of it, but the first amendment does also protect the right to protest.
Maybe a nitpick, but that's a question I had a problem with in this particular survey, but also a broader line of thought that I think gets blurred in ways that contribute to the discussion of what free speech "means" going screwy.
-
This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/
Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.
That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.
Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.
It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.
It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.
I also feel like there's a semantic issue with the term "acceptable" when you're talking about free speech (including the issue of "shouting down" an unpopular campus speaker). There's acceptable as in legal (should the cops get involved?), acceptable as in permissible (should campus authorities get involved?), acceptable personally/socially (should the shouters have friendships broken or be socially shunned as punishment for norm violation?), acceptable as in good/desirable, or acceptable as in not good or desirable but also not something action should be taken against. There's some "ifs" to this component of it, but the first amendment does also protect the right to protest.
Maybe a nitpick, but that's a question I had a problem with in this particular survey, but also a broader line of thought that I think gets blurred in ways that contribute to the discussion of what free speech "means" going screwy.
Acceptable is a decent nitpick. The right to protest is really peaceful assembly, and it doesn't cancel out other people's rights. In a situation where someone is shouting down a speaker and the speaker can't be heard by the people who have peacefully assembled to hear them, the shouter is the one who is violating other people's rights. They should step outside and shout to people who wish to assemble to hear them. If everyone is just in the street all shouting together, then that's different.
-
Acceptable is a decent nitpick. The right to protest is really peaceful assembly, and it doesn't cancel out other people's rights. In a situation where someone is shouting down a speaker and the speaker can't be heard by the people who have peacefully assembled to hear them, the shouter is the one who is violating other people's rights. They should step outside and shout to people who wish to assemble to hear them. If everyone is just in the street all shouting together, then that's different.
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Based on a bit of research, it looks like the debate about whether heckling is free speech or not falls on the side of not, but like it has been mulled over enough that I wouldn't necessarily call college students stupid or suppressive for not knowing that. Won't link all of them, but here's a nice example of some caselaw exploring the subtleties of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/14/is-it-a-crime-to-heckle-at-a-campaign-rally/
I'll also add, the issue of what "free speech" "really means" will vary based on context. In the U.S. the debate usually defaults to picking apart what the first amendment "really means" and how it applies to a particular situation, but its scope doesn't always actually reach to any given scenario. So, someone's first amendment rights could be totally untouched but they could still feel they're not being allowed to exercise "free speech" based on other consequences (which may or may not be accurate). So there's often a lot to nitpick, even if you assume you're only talking about the U.S. (which we're not always doing on here).
-
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.
I wouldn't necessarily call college students stupid or suppressive for not knowing that.
As said before, believe people who don't understand their rights aren't aware when they're forfeiting those rights, or realize when they're trampling on the rights of others. Ignorance maybe so more than stupidity but if the result is suppression, then yes suppressive is the perfect term.
-
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.
With regard to harassment - there is a problem here. How is harassment defined? Can we define this? Some jurisdictions may have a more liberal view on what it constitutes.
-
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.
With regard to harassment - there is a problem here. How is harassment defined? Can we define this? Some jurisdictions may have a more liberal view on what it constitutes.
The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated. While local laws may differ slightly, have understood the legal definition of harassment generally involves multiple acts. Didn't really mean to imply shouting down a single speaker is harassment; that really boils down to assembly.
-
The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated.
Would you like to elaborate on that remark?
-
The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated.
Would you like to elaborate on that remark?
One of the members here is an attorney, but hasn't been a regular poster in some time.
-
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.
Was also thinking about issues like how organizations try to use the RFRA as a way to deny birth control coverage or abortion coverage, discriminate against LGBTQ+, etc.
-
Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?
Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.
Was also thinking about issues like how organizations try to use the RFRA as a way to deny birth control coverage or abortion coverage, discriminate against LGBTQ+, etc.
I see. Yes, sometimes new laws can create conflicts with existing laws and even worse, loopholes. The courts will have to button those things up. Personally think there should be no exceptions other than for non-profit religious organizations, but that doesn't seem to be the foundation that being established. one problem with the RFRA is many states have adopted their own version, so the only way to avoid conflict with federal laws is to amend the federal RFRA so these decisions aren't made at the sate level and state law can't supersede it.
-
Best response to institutionalized PC is addition of two more letters. U. and F. Not, necessarily in that order :autism: