Context matters.
A university allowing a controversial political speaker invited by a college group to speak. Fine
A university allowing a speaker who encourages harassment campaigns against people they disagree with. Not fine.
There are varying degrees of responsibility for any action. Just because reasonability varies, doesn't mean you only focus on the most responsible person.
There are supreme court cases that set a precedent for shutting down free speech. Public threat of violence is one such case. The violence doesn't even have to be perpetrated by the speaker to be shut down. Sometimes that is a good thing, and sometimes its a bad thing. However, the publics safety is the most important issue to consider in public places. The only recourse in these instances, is to plan a counter protest after your free speech has been chilled.
"Shutting down free speech" in accordance with those unnamed supreme court cases is the job of the DoJ, not public universities.
Side note, thank you to the contributors in this thread. It's definitely helping me get through an otherwise extremely slow Friday. I raise a styrofoam coffee cup to you all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Universities, even publicly funded ones, aren't public spaces in the same way roads and public parks and the like are public spaces. Different rules apply. Universities control access to...
Yes. I was very surprised when we showed up at Nashua Community College for a Bernie appearance when he was shilling for Hillary and being approached by security and kicked off the property for standing around in the parking lot with Jill Stein signs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he wants to speak publicly, there are plenty of street corners he could stand at. I don't think any institution is obligated to give him a stage, especially if the clientele of said institution are not interested in his words.
If he wants to speak publicly, there are plenty of street corners he could stand at. I don't think any institution is obligated to give him a stage, especially if the clientele of said institution are not interested in his words.
The clientele isn't unanimous in its interests though, as evidenced by the fact that members of the clientele paid for him to be there. Plus, I'm arguing that publicly paid-for street corners should be treated similarly to publicly paid-for auditoriums, in which case they would be obligated to give him a stage if the group inviting him pays for it and isn't breaking the law.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for free speech...well it has its limits. Our country allows you to say whatever you want (almost), but that doesn't mean people have to listen to you or host you. If Milo wants to speak on college campuses maybe he should be less of a a troll.
I would argue that there aren't limits (or shouldn't be) on free speech - no-platforming is not limiting it, its just not enhancing it. Obviously, immediately dangerous speech ("fire!" in a crowded theater) is an exception.
I think colleges should try to grant platform even to views they find reprehensible, at least occasionally. If people are never challenged in their college careers, they won't know how to appropriately handle challenges to their worldviews outside of college.
Though it is public universities responsibility to keep people safe; even at the expense of free speech.
Is it? I think I disagree here. Speech cannot actually, physically harm people. Sure, if they're threatening someone, kick 'em out, but threats are explicitly not protected speech - they are a way of shutting free speech down. I'd say the Berkeley protesters - or at least the ones who stayed involved once it got violent - are completely, 100% in the wrong.
If he wants to speak publicly, there are plenty of street corners he could stand at. I don't think any institution is obligated to give him a stage, especially if the clientele of said institution are not interested in his words.The clientele isn't unanimous in its interests though, as evidenced by the fact that members of the clientele paid for him to be there. Plus, I'm arguing that publicly paid-for street corners should be treated similarly to publicly paid-for auditoriums, in which case they would be obligated to give him a stage if the group inviting him pays for it and isn't breaking the law.
I think there's an important difference between street corners and universities in terms of being publicly funded. Street corners don't charge people $30k to stand on them annually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Captain,
Should a Hamas apologist also be allowed access to universities? Should a member of NAMBLA?
Yes, so long as what they're doing is not illegal, just as people should be allowed to protest their speeches so long as what they're doing remains non-violent and legal.
|
Though it is public universities responsibility to keep people safe; even at the expense of free speech.Is it? I think I disagree here. Speech cannot actually, physically harm people. Sure, if they're threatening someone, kick 'em out, but threats are explicitly not protected speech - they are a way of shutting free speech down. I'd say the Berkeley protesters - or at least the ones who stayed involved once it got violent - are completely, 100% in the wrong.
I agree violent protest is wrong, however, it wont stop the university (which by the way was going to allow Milo to speak right up until the protests got out of control) from calling off Milo's speech because it was inciting a riot. Also, Milo employs doxxing at these speeches which seems to fall under threatening.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hamas apologists? I believe there's already a wide-ranging controversy that crosses the Atlantic, I think, about campus BDS activists being Hamas apologists and there have been, as I understand it, various attempts to shut them down.
Of course they should have access to universities.
NAMBLA, from my understanding, has been inactive since the Curley case in Boston bankrupted them two decades ago.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
