Defining free speech

[crimsonaudio]

 

[Its On A Slab]

School employees who knowingly want to guide minor children in ways contrary to what their parent would want are creepy to say the least.

We live in an age where many biological parents are in no way fit to bring kids into the world. And those kids end up mainstreaming in our school systems. At this point, the teacher is faced with trying to instill values that they are not getting at home.

A special ed para that I know had a kid who was having a problem coming to school. A truant. When his parents were brought in for counseling, the Dad whined, "Why do kids have to go to school in the 1st place?"

The kid was SPED not due to any lack of intelligence or handicap. He was SPED because he was allowed to languish.

 

[AWRTR]

We live in an age where many biological parents are in no way fit to bring kids into the world. And those kids end up mainstreaming in our school systems. At this point, the teacher is faced with trying to instill values that they are not getting at home.

A special ed para that I know had a kid who was having a problem coming to school. A truant. When his parents were brought in for counseling, the Dad whined, "Why do kids have to go to school in the 1st place?"

The kid was SPED not due to any lack of intelligence or handicap. He was SPED because he was allowed to languish.

That example, though sad, is an apples to oranges comparison to what we are dealing with when it comes to transitioning kids or similar things.

 

[Huckleberry]

That example, though sad, is an apples to oranges comparison to what we are dealing with when it comes to transitioning kids or similar things.

There is no mass effort to transition kids in the sense that educators are trying to influence them to choose one gender or another. That’s a conservative boogeyman that doesn’t exist. Teachers and others are supportive of children who are questioning their sexual orientation or experiencing gender dysphoria, especially those who come for help/advice because they’re afraid of what their parents might say or do. To ignore these children or set them on a course for abuse (or worse) at home would be despicably cruel.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Welp, looks like allowing anti-Semitism has claimed yet another victim....this time, the Interim President of Columbia University. Who replaced the former President who fell for similar reasons.

The news cycle is saying that it's because she "caved" to Trump administration demands.

The demands most cited on non-Fox news outlets consisted of not allowing masks at protests and having increased security and installing a monitor over two academic departments whose treatment of Jews in general and Columbia's Jewish students in particular is, to put it mildly, suspect.

Given the recent history on that very campus, none of those are particularly onerous. I've looked at the most liberal outlet I could find -- the Rolling Stone -- and found no other demands specifically referenced.

I did find citations of nine total demands, so I looked up the letter. In addition to the specific ones cited above, the rest mainly require compliance with pre-existing law.

Here's a link: 31325-letter-to-columbia.pdf

So to the presidents of universities (elite or not): How stinkin' hard is this?

Students, faculty and outsiders can protest all they want about any topic they want. What they can't do is threaten or intimidate any individuals or groups, or disrupt campus operations. They also can't shout down, disinvite, or otherwise silence speakers with whom they disagree. They can have equal time to put forward their own ideas, but don't get to squelch others.

If they do any of those things, they're subject to legal and/or academic consequences.

Apparently, if the protestor wears a mask that consists of a white hood with a pointy top and holes cut out for the eyes, it's abhorrent and the wearer deserves whatever happens....up to and including violence upon their person. But if it's a surgical mask that equally well disguises the wearer from prying eyes who would enforce consequences on threats, intimidation, actual violence or disruption of campus operations, well, banning that is several bridges too far.

Holy moly....does anybody have any common sense anymore?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

How Obama and Biden paved the way for Trump's attacks on universities

"Universities were bending over for federal funds long before Trump," writes Laura Kipnis.

reason.com

While some of the protesters at Columbia illegally occupied buildings, prevented other students from attending classes, or otherwise impeded legitimate school functions in violation of campus policy, the heavy-handed measures being imposed on the university will almost certainly lead to a crackdown on nonviolent speech. Some protesters are already facing severe sanction and even deportation. There is no question that the threat of losing funds will compel Columbia's administrators to police anti-Israel expression in a manner that is careless and inconsistent with the campus's stated commitment to academic freedom.

"Historically, there is no precedent for this," said Zimmerman. "The government is using the money as a cudgel to micromanage a university."

Zimmerman's concerns about free speech are well-founded. But he is flatly incorrect to state that this has never happened before. Trump is following the exact precedent set by his two predecessors—Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

 

[Tidewater]

Maybe this is a more productive place to discuss recent events and take the discussion in a different direction.

I have said some of this before but it bears repeating. Three problems:

• Hate speech as a concept. I believe there is such a thing as incitement, and I believe it is illegal. I do not believe in the concept of hate speech, not because people cannot say things with hate in their hearts (they can and do), but the concept is so nebulous and malleable that it can be twisted to cover too much. Too frequently, it simply means “ideas I do not believe” or “ideas I do not agree with but have no argument with which to counter or inclination to do so.”
• Speaking for your opponent. This is a rhetorical device. Paint your opponent in the worst possible light so your side appears relatively more palatable. Too frequently, we see one side paraphrasing the other (often inaccurately) and presenting their interpretation as the ideas of the other side. You cannot get an honest assessment of what the Democratic Party stands for from the Republican Party. Likewise, you cannot go to the Democrats to get an honest assessment of what the Republicans Party stands for. What you get when you do this is something that the other side would say, “No, that is not what we believe. We believe this ___.” And, unless one has compelling evidence to the contrary, what they say are their own principles should be definitive.
• Speech is violence. The guys on the other side believe X and that is violence. Once you make that leap, then the leap to actual violence is much shorter. Not inevitable, but shorter. Speech is not violence. Violence is violence.

Put all those together and it will not be difficult to do the following: In an abortion, according to “experts,” a human being is torn to bits, limb from limb. This is violence. Anyone advocating abortion is guilty of hate speech leading to violence. On that basis, any speech by a pro-abortion political figure can be banned. In fact, any advertisement advocating the election of a hate-speaker can be banned, (after all that is hate speech as well) and the advocates can be deplatformed and debanked so they can no longer engage in any financial transactions. So how easy this is? You do not want to forge a weapon that can and will be used against you.

I personally believe abortion as a means of birth control is morally worse than chattel slavery, but it is the law (Dura lex, sed lex.). For the record, I do not advocate anything like the previous paragraph. That would be a travesty. It would be unconstitutional and it would also be unjust. This category of “hate speech,” however, is fraught with the difficulties of who determines what is "hate speech" and what they will do with that determination.

So, what do we do with all this?

• If you can avoid it, do not rephrase the statements of someone with whom you disagree, or if you do, realize you are doing it. When you hear someone else do this, treat the pronouncements with extreme skepticism. Investigate, verify. Asking the other person to clarify is fine. "Clarifying" for them is not.
• We need to get away from the idea of safe zones and the idea that you have a right never to encounter ideas you disagree with or ideas that make you uncomfortable. The listener’s “safety” does not trump others’ freedom of speech.
• If you hear ideas that you don’t agree with it’s OK. The right response is to respond with evidence and argument. Get your own platform and argue back. Let the best ideas win.
• Realize that once you pick a side in a controversy, the human mind plays tricks on you. Honest inquiry largely shuts down and justification of the already-decided position swings into action. My label for this is "partisan thinking," the tendency to fit the world into an already-decided view.
• Finally, because one person on the other side expresses an extreme view, that does not mean everybody on the other side shares that view. Again, ask. clarify, and listen.

If we wish to have a country together, we need to change our path. But if you are thinking, “yeah, sure, the other side has to change it’s path and everything will be fine,” then you might be part of the problem. If enough people think that way, we should probably get a national divorce. There is no point in forcing two peoples who hate each other to live in the same country, any more than forcing two individuals who hate each other to live in the same house.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Great post, @Tidewater - thank you.

I do have one tweak:

If we wish to have a countrytogether, we need to change our path. But if you are thinking, “yeah, sure, the other side has to change its path and everything will be fine,” then you ARE part of the problem. .

 

[Its On A Slab]

Maybe this is a more productive place to discuss recent events and take the discussion in a different direction.

I have said some of this before but it bears repeating. Three problems:

• Hate speech as a concept. I believe there is such a thing as incitement, and I believe it is illegal. I do not believe in the concept of hate speech, not because people cannot say things with hate in their hearts (they can and do), but the concept is so nebulous and malleable that it can be twisted to cover too much. Too frequently, it simply means “ideas I do not believe” or “ideas I do not agree with but have no argument with which to counter or inclination to do so.”
• Speaking for your opponent. This is a rhetorical device. Paint your opponent in the worst possible light so your side appears relatively more palatable. Too frequently, we see one side paraphrasing the other (often inaccurately) and presenting their interpretation as the ideas of the other side. You cannot get an honest assessment of what the Democratic Party stands for from the Republican Party. Likewise, you cannot go to the Democrats to get an honest assessment of what the Republicans Party stands for. What you get when you do this is something that the other side would say, “No, that is not what we believe. We believe this ___.” And, unless one has compelling evidence to the contrary, what they say are their own principles should be definitive.
• Speech is violence. The guys on the other side believe X and that is violence. Once you make that leap, then the leap to actual violence is much shorter. Not inevitable, but shorter. Speech is not violence. Violence is violence.

Put all those together and it will not be difficult to do the following: In an abortion, according to “experts,” a human being is torn to bits, limb from limb. This is violence. Anyone advocating abortion is guilty of hate speech leading to violence. On that basis, any speech by a pro-abortion political figure can be banned. In fact, any advertisement advocating the election of a hate-speaker can be banned, (after all that is hate speech as well) and the advocates can be deplatformed and debanked so they can no longer engage in any financial transactions. So how easy this is? You do not want to forge a weapon that can and will be used against you.

I personally believe abortion as a means of birth control is morally worse than chattel slavery, but it is the law (Dura lex, sed lex.). For the record, I do not advocate anything like the previous paragraph. That would be a travesty. It would be unconstitutional and it would also be unjust. This category of “hate speech,” however, is fraught with the difficulties of who determines what is "hate speech" and what they will do with that determination.

So, what do we do with all this?

• If you can avoid it, do not rephrase the statements of someone with whom you disagree, or if you do, realize you are doing it. When you hear someone else do this, treat the pronouncements with extreme skepticism. Investigate, verify. Asking the other person to clarify is fine. "Clarifying" for them is not.
• We need to get away from the idea of safe zones and the idea that you have a right never to encounter ideas you disagree with or ideas that make you uncomfortable. The listener’s “safety” does not trump others’ freedom of speech.
• If you hear ideas that you don’t agree with it’s OK. The right response is to respond with evidence and argument. Get your own platform and argue back. Let the best ideas win.
• Realize that once you pick a side in a controversy, the human mind plays tricks on you. Honest inquiry largely shuts down and justification of the already-decided position swings into action. My label for this is "partisan thinking," the tendency to fit the world into an already-decided view.
• Finally, because one person on the other side expresses an extreme view, that does not mean everybody on the other side shares that view. Again, ask. clarify, and listen.

If we wish to have a country together, we need to change our path. But if you are thinking, “yeah, sure, the other side has to change it’s path and everything will be fine,” then you might be part of the problem. If enough people think that way, we should probably get a national divorce. There is no point in forcing two peoples who hate each other to live in the same country, any more than forcing two individuals who hate each other to live in the same house.

The people who screamed the loudest about "cancel culture" are today trying to get private citizens fired for stuff they post on social media. Which they cried about in the past whenever stuff was said that they supported.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The people who screamed the loudest about "cancel culture" are today trying to get private citizens fired for stuff they post on social media. Which they advocated in the past whenever stuff was said that they supported.

I’ve been told here multiple times “free speech does not mean freedom from consequences”.

 

[Tidewater]

The people who screamed the loudest about "cancel culture" are today trying to get private citizens fired for stuff they post on social media. Which they cried about in the past whenever stuff was said that they supported.

For the record, I think celebrating this guy's murder is tacky in the extreme, but I am not calling for anyone to lose his or her job over that. Their employers, however, might have a different view if the employer is identifiable on whatever platform they are using.

 

[Its On A Slab]

For the record, I think celebrating this guy's murder is tacky in the extreme, but I am not calling for anyone to lose his or her job over that. Their employers, however, might have a different view if the employer is identifiable on whatever platform they are using.

Yep. All true. But I am seeing public teachers getting axed for stuff like this. I would think that falls into the 1st amendment. Government cannot proscribe free speech.

If it's a private/parochial school, that all goes away.

But I am of the tribe that believes that, if you say something obscene or in bad taste in a public place, you deserve to get your ass kicked. You are free to say what you want to say, but you are not immune to the consequences.

Let me be clear to the incoming walkers: I do not support political violence of the sort that happened in Utah. But I would shake the hand of the person who punches a Nazi. Take that forever its worth.

 

[Tidewater]

Yep. All true. But I am seeing public teachers getting axed for stuff like this. I would think that falls into the 1st amendment. Government cannot proscribe free speech.

How do you know they are public school teachers?

 

[Its On A Slab]

How do you know they are public school teachers?

The report I heard indicated as much. If not, there is no issue.

South Carolina teacher fired for comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination

"We remain committed to upholding the values of professionalism and respect for our students, families, colleagues, and community."

www.wbtv.com

Laconia teacher put on administrative leave due to online post about Charlie Kirk's death

A Laconia teacher has been placed on administrative leave amid community backlash about comments she made regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

fox11online.com

Klein ISD fires employee over ‘senseless’ remarks about Charlie Kirk killing

Klein ISD has announced the dismissal of an employee for remarks on the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, days after his untimely passing.

www.houstonchronicle.com

I would surmise a public school to be a governmental entity. If not, I'm going to stop paying that part of my property taxes. . (Famous last words)

 

[Bodhisattva]

Yep. All true. But I am seeing public teachers getting axed for stuff like this. I would think that falls into the 1st amendment. Government cannot proscribe free speech.

If it's a private/parochial school, that all goes away.

But I am of the tribe that believes that, if you say something obscene or in bad taste in a public place, you deserve to get your ass kicked. You are free to say what you want to say, but you are not immune to the consequences.

Let me be clear to the incoming walkers: I do not support political violence of the sort that happened in Utah. But I would shake the hand of the person who punches a Nazi. Take that forever its worth.

Real Nazis? Or anyone just anyone who disagrees with the extreme left POV?

 

[Its On A Slab]

Real Nazis? Or anyone just anyone who disagrees with the extreme left POV?

Real Nazis. Not even sure what "extreme left POV" means. It's like "woke"....anything the extreme right and folowers of unicorn economic theory doesn't like.

 

[Tidewater]

The report I heard indicated as much. If not, there is no issue.

South Carolina teacher fired for comments on Charlie Kirk’s assassination

"We remain committed to upholding the values of professionalism and respect for our students, families, colleagues, and community."

www.wbtv.com

Klein ISD fires employee over ‘senseless’ remarks about Charlie Kirk killing

Klein ISD has announced the dismissal of an employee for remarks on the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, days after his untimely passing.

www.houstonchronicle.com

Klein ISD fires employee over ‘senseless’ remarks about Charlie Kirk killing

Klein ISD has announced the dismissal of an employee for remarks on the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, days after his untimely passing.

www.houstonchronicle.com

I would surmise a public school to be a governmental entity. If not, I'm going to stop paying that part of my property taxes. . (Famous last words)

My point was you would not know if the person had not announced it.
My standard (if I was an employer) would be if on a platform you announce "I work for X," and then you say something untoward that would reflect poorly on my business, we would have a chat.
If, on the other hand, you say something egregious, but my business is not readily discernible, have at it. I might think less of you personally, but no harm, no foul.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Real Nazis. Not even sure what "extreme left POV" means. It's like "woke"....anything the extreme right and folowers of unicorn economic theory doesn't like.

Are there any real Nazis then? Good thing libertarians are neither extreme right (in spite of what some leftists on here seem to think) nor followers of unicorn economic theory, which is something more aligned with the Bernie Sanders/AOC retarded "government is awesome" wing of the Dems.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I see we cannot resist the temptation to slide back into the personal. Maybe we just don't need this thread at all...

 

[AWRTR]

Yep. All true. But I am seeing public teachers getting axed for stuff like this. I would think that falls into the 1st amendment. Government cannot proscribe free speech.

If it's a private/parochial school, that all goes away.

But I am of the tribe that believes that, if you say something obscene or in bad taste in a public place, you deserve to get your ass kicked. You are free to say what you want to say, but you are not immune to the consequences.

Let me be clear to the incoming walkers: I do not support political violence of the sort that happened in Utah. But I would shake the hand of the person who punches a Nazi. Take that forever its worth.

Define Nazi.