Learn how to spot and avoid common scams with AARP's Fraud Resource Center. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
204
Views

Re: Free Speech

204 Views
Message 71 of 101

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

 

 did schumer approve wall in the past

A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite (sic) with threats of violence.


I can't see your lips, a good thing.

 

Universities make their own decisions based on whatever they want. Are you against people shouting down white supremacist hate speech?

 

Is the TOS "speech suppression"?

 

Once again - A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite (sic) with threats of violence.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
204
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Free Speech

202 Views
Message 72 of 101

@MIseker wrote:
If the content of the speech isnt incendiary, there wont be a problem. You are saying, in effect, you dont want
YOUR speech to contain one bone of political correctness. Politically correct speech is used when one chooses not to inflame the emotions of a listener. If a speaker decides to promote inflamatory speech or incendiary ideas, they are shirking THEIR responsiblity to calmly bring people to their point of view,, or at least convey the message in an inoffensive manner. But then, I am talking about a real speech whose intent is to win people over. You are talking about allowing a loud mouth to make inflammatory comment, goad the crowd, or outright lie without consequence.

incendiary is in the eyes of the beholder

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
202
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
201
Views

Re: Free Speech

201 Views
Message 73 of 101

@MIseker wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

In the early '60s Ayn Rand was on a speaking tour addressing large audiences in such places as Yale, MIT, Princeton, Columbia (the home of the Frankfurt School), and many more.

 

This was before Mario Savio started the "Free Speech Movement" and yet she was "free to speak.

 

Can you imagine that today what with antifa, disinvitations, the need for police escorts, safe zones for the snowflakes, pc, etc..

 

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".


You are equating freedom of speech on a college campus with freedom of speech in a public forum.  Personally, I think colleges have gone over the edge and seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended or hearing a contradictory point of view.  As far as freedom of speech in a public forum, it is still there and it does mean that people who disagree with you do have the right to attend and have their own freedom of speech arguments.  If you want to make sure that nobody shows up to oppose you, you can always give a speech at a private event (either one you are invited to or your own).


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

As far as attending and having their own freedom of speech - do you believe in some standards or structure whereby the speaker says his piece and then opposite points of view are expressed by invited speakers and finally a Q&A period?

 

The problem with the current situation, all you have to do is bring in a mob that might be 10% the size of the number of those who came to hear the speaker or the program - and they can shut it down by shouting it down. I don't see "shouting him down" as free speech - I see it as denial of free speech.


No rk9152, you are wrong again "freedom of speech has not  become anything. It has always been legal for any private person or entity to stop anyone from speaking on their private property.  The problem with "the current situation" is that you don't understand what "freedom of speech" really is. The government cannot refuse you, any group, or anyone else the right to speak on public land. I, as a private individual can forbid you or anyone else from speaking on my property. The same goes for a  school.

 

Sorry, but what you "think" or what you "see it as" means nothing


You are missing my point but I can't tell if it is from sincere misunderstanding or merely seeking the approval of the "disagree to be disagreeable" element. I'll take the positive approach and suggest you go back to the first post and hopefully you will see that I have been pointing out how far we have gone down the road towards blocking the opening of minds in a half century - particularly in the university setting.


The Constitution allows Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their facilities.  Would you rather see universities have to allow white supremacist hate speech on their campuses?


The question isn't the ability for the university to decide. It is the ability of the mob to over-ride those decisions.

 

Yes, I believe white supremacists and black separatists and others (except preaching violence) should have a right to speak - people should have a right to listen and then make their own decisions.


Yes people have a right to listen and make their own decisions. It seems you are not happy with those decisions.


what are you taking about?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
201
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
197
Views

Re: Free Speech

197 Views
Message 74 of 101

@ChasKy53 wrote:


 


The KKK is the "mob" that ran a vehicle into a crowd killing a woman and injuring dozens.

 

Those you refer to have the right to speak on public property, like the KKK did resulting in one of their members or supporters killing a woman and injuring dozens.  A university has the right to refuse to let them speak on their property.

 

Thank goodness that right has not been taken away, or we could end up with the KKK causing the death and injury of college students.

 

Focus - speaking, not running down in a car.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
197
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
191
Views

Re: Free Speech

191 Views
Message 75 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



A College refusing anyone to speak on their property is their Constitutional right. Would you like to take that away from them? Those wanting to express their opinions are free to do so somewhere else.

 

Is the TOS "speech suppression?


Watch my lips carefully, I'll  say it again - slowly.

 

A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite with threats of violence.


I believe in free speech rights for all, that includes the "mob".  On private property (i.e. a university), they do not have a right to stay there and can be removed.  Universities have power over their students up to and including expulsion if they start something. 

So, while they can be removed for trying to shout down a speaker during their speech in an auditorium, they also have the right NOT to attend or use their free speech rights to demonstrate outside the venue.  They also have the right to peacefully protest inside.  A majority of the lecture hall simply standing up and walking out on a speaker says volumes.

I do have an issue with universities rescinding speaking invitations because a few students protest.  As I said, they have a right to protest outside.  I believe they even have a right to go into the hall and hold up signs, walk out, etc.

Conversely, there is no speaker who has a right to speak on a campus.  That privilege is bestowed by the administration.  If the administration deems a person or group to be too hateful, or too minimal, they have the right to keep them away.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
191
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Free Speech

176 Views
Message 76 of 101

@MIseker wrote:

The University of Michigan encourages all students to participate in free speech events, and exercise their rights.

 

the way you describe that it seems like a case of the university encouraging students to suppress free speech. it seems a university might be encouraging a diversity of thought so that the young minds can think and expand.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
191
Views

Re: Free Speech

191 Views
Message 77 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

 

 

A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite (sic) with threats of violence.


I can't see your lips, a good thing.

 

Universities make their own decisions based on whatever they want. Are you against people shouting down white supremacist hate speech?

 

Is the TOS "speech suppression"?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
191
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
176
Views

Re: Free Speech

176 Views
Message 78 of 101
If the content of the speech isnt incendiary, there wont be a problem. You are saying, in effect, you dont want
YOUR speech to contain one bone of political correctness. Politically correct speech is used when one chooses not to inflame the emotions of a listener. If a speaker decides to promote inflamatory speech or incendiary ideas, they are shirking THEIR responsiblity to calmly bring people to their point of view,, or at least convey the message in an inoffensive manner. But then, I am talking about a real speech whose intent is to win people over. You are talking about allowing a loud mouth to make inflammatory comment, goad the crowd, or outright lie without consequence.
So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
176
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Free Speech

172 Views
Message 79 of 101

@MIseker wrote:


As I said, "freedom of speech" has become "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

 

No it hasnt. there you go with your jordan peterson thinking again. 

 


no - that's rk thinking. if you disagree a bit more than dropping a name would be useful

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
172
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
174
Views

Re: Free Speech

174 Views
Message 80 of 101

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

It seems that back then "free speech" really meant "freedom to speak". Today it means "freedom to stop someone else from speaking".

 

Protest is free speech, it is why we have free speech as a right in the Constitution.

 

I don't see how stopping or curtailing protest promotes free speech, on the contrary it is defining which speech is acceptable and which is not.

 

People who have to manage public place like colleges have to deal with that and balance speech and protest.

 

That may mean the Ann Coulters of the world might have to find different venues.

 

Fortunately technology has already solved this problem, we all have unlimited free speech on social media, FaceBook, UTube,  web sites, and Twitter and the like.

 

Anyone and everyone has a soap box to stand on now.

 

We the people have more free speech then we have ever had.


Yes, we are free to shout each other down. But what about the freedom to express an opinion for others to hear and then discuss?

 

The Ann Coulter comment is approval of speech suppression.


A College refusing anyone to speak on their property is their Constitutional right. Would you like to take that away from them? Those wanting to express their opinions are free to do so somewhere else.

 

Is the TOS "speech suppression?


Watch my lips carefully, I'll  say it again - slowly.

 

A university can invite anyone they want. I am objecting to the mobs shouting a speaker down or causing a disinvite with threats of violence.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
174
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera

Top Authors