You could save on auto insurance when you complete the AARP Smart Driver course! Get a free phone charging set with promo code AARP6.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
127
Views

Re: Free Speech

127 Views
Message 91 of 101

@sp362 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.


Fine out in the park let the people all scream at each other - megaphones and all. But in an environment involving a speaker, in an auditorium and an audience there to hear the speaker, to me that is a different set of circumstances.

 

What is interesting is that you see it as "one side". It isn't "one side" it is the invited speaker (regardless of point or position) vs the audience members.


Yes, it is a different set of circumstances since it is a PRIVATE venue.  Universities have always had the authority to remove any disrupters from an auditorium.  What I find interesting is the number of Universities who are now choosing to remove a speaker instead of the Students causing a problem.  It may just be that in this day and age they are afraid of violence breaking out and the lawsuits that will be involved.  And, as I have said, I think they are setting up their students to have problems later in life. 

 

As far as the PUBLIC venue, everybody has the same rights.  Freedom for one, is freedom for all.  If a speaker does not want to let others exercise their rights in public, then they need to rent their own facility so they have the right to remove any disrupters.


I think we are in agreement.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
127
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
149
Views

Re: Free Speech

149 Views
Message 92 of 101

@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


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
149
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
164
Views

Re: Free Speech

164 Views
Message 93 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 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.


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.


Fine out in the park let the people all scream at each other - megaphones and all. But in an environment involving a speaker, in an auditorium and an audience there to hear the speaker, to me that is a different set of circumstances.

 

What is interesting is that you see it as "one side". It isn't "one side" it is the invited speaker (regardless of point or position) vs the audience members.


That stuff has been known to occur for over two centuries...

 

The moral, ethical, and intellectual dumpster fire that is trump has managed to use the hiring of private venues to eliminate dissent at his bogus rallys - Putin undoubtedly approves - but the majority of Honest, Honorable, Patriotic American Citizens do not approve.

He is useless on top of the ground - he should be under it - inspiring the cabbages... Mark Twain 1894
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
164
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
172
Views

Re: Free Speech

172 Views
Message 94 of 101

@rk9152 wrote:

@sp362 wrote:


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.


Fine out in the park let the people all scream at each other - megaphones and all. But in an environment involving a speaker, in an auditorium and an audience there to hear the speaker, to me that is a different set of circumstances.

 

What is interesting is that you see it as "one side". It isn't "one side" it is the invited speaker (regardless of point or position) vs the audience members.


Yes, it is a different set of circumstances since it is a PRIVATE venue.  Universities have always had the authority to remove any disrupters from an auditorium.  What I find interesting is the number of Universities who are now choosing to remove a speaker instead of the Students causing a problem.  It may just be that in this day and age they are afraid of violence breaking out and the lawsuits that will be involved.  And, as I have said, I think they are setting up their students to have problems later in life. 

 

As far as the PUBLIC venue, everybody has the same rights.  Freedom for one, is freedom for all.  If a speaker does not want to let others exercise their rights in public, then they need to rent their own facility so they have the right to remove any disrupters.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
172
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
178
Views

Re: Free Speech

178 Views
Message 95 of 101

@sp362 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.


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.


Fine out in the park let the people all scream at each other - megaphones and all. But in an environment involving a speaker, in an auditorium and an audience there to hear the speaker, to me that is a different set of circumstances.

 

What is interesting is that you see it as "one side". It isn't "one side" it is the invited speaker (regardless of point or position) vs the audience members.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
178
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
180
Views

Re: Free Speech

180 Views
Message 96 of 101

@Snoopy48 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".


So to protect freedom of speech we need to remove some people’s right to freedom of speech? Who gets to decide who has the right to freedom of speech and who doesn’t?


If everyone can be shouted down, how do we have an exchange of ideas?? This is particularly bad at universities where minds are supposed to be opened, not closed.

 

As far as in the situations that is the topic, I'd say the speaker on the stage has the right to speak.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
180
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
193
Views

Re: Free Speech

193 Views
Message 97 of 101

@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.


As I said, colleges seem to be teaching their students that they can go through life without ever being offended (college campuses are one place that discussion should be carried out and not stifled). 

As far as freedom of speech in a PUBLIC venue, everybody has the right to show up and saw their peace.  With microphones and loud speakers, I don't think 10% could shut it down and if those 10% resort to violence, then they should be arrested, just as anybody trying to stop them from having their say by violence should be arrested.  It is interesting that you think denying one side of an argument their free speech rights isn't the same thing.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
193
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
190
Views

Re: Free Speech

190 Views
Message 98 of 101

@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".


So to protect freedom of speech we need to remove some people’s right to freedom of speech? Who gets to decide who has the right to freedom of speech and who doesn’t?

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
190
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
190
Views

Re: Free Speech

190 Views
Message 99 of 101

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
190
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
202
Views

Re: Free Speech

202 Views
Message 100 of 101

@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).

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
202
Views