The recent student demonstrations at Auburn against Spencer’s visit — as well as protests on other campuses against Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos and others — should be understood as an attempt to ensure the conditions of free speech for a greater group of people, rather than censorship. Liberal free-speech advocates rush to point out that the views of these individuals must be heard first to be rejected. But this is not the case. Universities invite speakers not chiefly to present otherwise unavailable discoveries, but to present to the public views they have presented elsewhere. When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.
In such cases there is no inherent value to be gained from debating them in public. In today’s age, we also have a simple solution that should appease all those concerned that students are insufficiently exposed to controversial views. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all. It is called the internet, where all kinds of offensive expression flourish unfettered on a vast platform available to nearly all.
The idea of freedom of speech does not mean a blanket permission to say anything anybody thinks. It means balancing the inherent value of a given view with the obligation to ensure that other members of a given community can participate in discourse as fully recognized members of that community. Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.
Lyotard shifted attention away from the content of free speech to the way certain topics restrict speech as a public good. Some things are unmentionable and undebatable, but not because they offend the sensibilities of the sheltered young. Some topics, such as claims that some human beings are by definition inferior to others, or illegal or unworthy of legal standing, are not open to debate because such people cannot debate them on the same terms.
Nope.In which he argues for, what, an "affirmative action" approach to free speech?
That's... pretty much the total opposite of what he's saying.Restricting speech a "public good."
Yup.So, according to him, because the Internet is available to all, campus speech can be restricted.
WhateverA particularly pernicious passage:
It isn't.The entire sorry missive should be chilling and embarrassing to anyone who cherishes free speech and liberty in general.
...which apparently you did not understand, as it's the exact same topic.Interestingly, though branching into a different topic, he cites with favor a writing of Jean-Francois Lyotard:
:roll:But I wonder what they'd then say when it's pointed out that one of the go-to arguments of abortion rights activists is that the unborn, while human, are not legally "persons" and thus have no rights.
Nope.
What he's saying is:
• Universities don't have to be a platform for hate speech
• We need to recognize that minorities are often stifled and ignored in their political expressions
• The meaning of free speech changes over time
I don't agree with everything he said, but that doesn't license taking snippets out of context, and twisting them into straw men. Such as:
That's... pretty much the total opposite of what he's saying.
He is saying that the alt-righters are the ones who are engaging in censorship, by attacking the political rights and legitimacy of minorities, particularly when their goal is to stifle those voices. I.e. he is explicitly saying that it's the alt-righters who are restricting the public good of free speech.
Yup.
And you ought to agree with him.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean that every platform needs to be made available to everyone.
Breitbart is not obligated to publish the writings of Barak Obama with the comments turned off. Fox News is not required to give Hillary Clinton a half-hour TV show to do what she wants.
And universities are not required to provide platforms to Holocaust deniers or white supremacists.
This is how platforms work. They have editors; they can decide what points of view to present. The New York Times is not "against free speech" if it refuses to tolerate anti-semitism in its articles; the National Review is not "against free speech" if it declines to publish an article in defense of Karl Marx.
Whatever
He's not arguing for government suppression of specific types of speech. He's arguing that universities are entitled to protect the ability of minorities to speak, and to view racist speech as beyond the pale.
It isn't.
Basically, he's saying that universities should not feel obligated to provide a platform for racists, Holocaust deniers, homophobes, and others who traffic in hatred of others.
I wouldn't be so confident of that. But it hardly matters; he's arguing for rethinking the entire concept of free speech to a much more restrictive model.He is not, in any way shape or form, saying that we need to change the laws.
He's suggesting that college students are onto something when they reject hate speech, and make room for minorities to be treated like actual human beings, and members of the community.
...which apparently you did not understand, as it's the exact same topic.
Try it this way:
• Free speech is a public good
• Racist speech is objectionable, precisely because it denies the ability of minorities to engage in the public good of free speech
He's not saying "take away the legal rights of racists." He's saying "we should stop with the nonsense that all views deserve equal time in all platforms, particularly universities.
I for one see little problem with repudiating racists, telling them that their views are not valid, and telling them to go play with each other on Stormfront.
:roll:
The Abortion sub-forum is thataway --->
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?