Defining free speech

[Go Bama]

Rufo and Stefanik are who they are.

Correct. I was speaking of her resignation letter.
It read like a politician caught in bed with with a prostitute who says, "I'm stepping down to spend more time with my family."

For the record neither I nor (I dare say) anybody in academia thinks Claudine Gay tolerates people proposing genocide for Jews, but, I say again, I do not believe in "safe spaces" on college campuses. If someone says something you disagree with, get a better argument. We do not shut down contrary opinions because you "don't feel safe." Grow up.
If Gay had simply said, "We believe in free speech on campus, whether it makes some feel uncomfortable or not," she would have had my approval.
But if Gay feels her integrity has been impugned, that is because she is guilty of intellectual theft. She is a thief. Maybe her academic misdeeds would never have come to light if she had not made herself a lightning rod, but they did come to light. Sorry, suffer the consequences.
She is still a tenured professor at Harvard, so she'll be just fine.
And, no I do not give any of my money to the NYT. They do some exceptional work from time to time, sprinkled amongst a lot of egregiously biased ideological Igarbage, so I'll read the free stuff when I can, but they do not get a cent of my money.

I was just kidding you about the NYT. I've been reading it for years, but must have missed the egregiously biased ideological garbage, so they get my $4.00/month.

The rest you had already made clear.

 

[Tidewater]

I was just kidding you about the NYT. I've been reading it for years, but must have missed the egregiously biased ideological garbage, so they get my $4.00/month.

The rest you had already made clear.

The NYT are frustrating because they do good work from time to time, (proving that they can).

 

[92tide]

for those worried about plagiarism

Bill Ackman’s Wife Apologizes After Plagiarism Allegations

Ackman relentlessly called for the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay over her own plagiarism allegations.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[NationalTitles18]

for those worried about plagiarism

Bill Ackman’s Wife Apologizes After Plagiarism Allegations

Ackman relentlessly called for the resignation of Harvard President Claudine Gay over her own plagiarism allegations.

www.thedailybeast.com

Few will care, even if these sorts of mistakes are actually quite common and were completely overblown by the zealots and those they marshalled into their servitude.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Does A.P. really think conservatives invented plagiarism accusations?

The media response to Claudine Gay's ouster has been ludicrous.

reason.com

I thought about copy/pasting this article and taking credit for it, but I didn't want to risk being demoted from my "All-American" status on TF.

 

[92tide]

Few will care, even if these sorts of mistakes are actually quite common and were completely overblown by the zealots and those they marshalled into their servitude.

it’s the type of thing that seems to happen a lot

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Universities use DEI statements to enforce groupthink

DEI statements are political litmus tests, write Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott.

reason.com

In 2022, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) conducted a survey of 1,491 university professors to gauge their attitudes toward free expression on campus. About 50 percent said they believed DEI statements are political litmus tests that violate academic freedom. Ideological minorities on campus agree at even higher rates than that: 56 percent of moderates and 90 percent of conservatives.

 

[NationalTitles18]

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1233506273/supreme-court-social-media-laws

Volunteer moderators of a Reddit site devoted to law and the Supreme Court filed their own brief in the cases to deliver a very particular message.

Their court papers cited hateful speech and threats against the justices. Moderators said they delete those things now. But under the state laws, they might face lawsuits for yanking "trolls" who flood their chats with vulgar and racist posts.

The state laws are not about protecting speech, the moderators wrote. Instead, they're commandeering someone else's microphone to spread a message.

 

[Go Bama]

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/26/1233506273/supreme-court-social-media-laws

I don't see how a state can tell a private company how to moderate their business.

 

[NationalTitles18]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/opinions/columbia-university-protests-union-theological-jones/index.html

These experiences illuminate the core of the tragedy gripping so many corners of our country. The war has caused immense pain and turmoil among myriad groups for a host of different reasons. People are mourning the victims of Hamas’ attacks on Israel. People are agonizing over the death of tens of thousands of people in Gaza. People are grieving the loss of friends and family members overseas. People are grappling with antisemitism and Islamophobia.

But amidst all of that, people are just looking for a common humanity – a way to stop the pain and make a difference. A way to find solace, together.

Unfortunately, rather than seeking to understand one another’s perspectives and show empathy, many have claimed the moral high ground and attempted to quash any contrary opinions. University campuses have become battlegrounds.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/27/opinions/yale-student-palestinian-protests-berlin/index.html

These experiences have been deeply meaningful for me, not just on a political level, but also on a fundamentally spiritual one. To see Yale protests once again swept up in accusations of antisemitism denies this experience and invalidates the Jewishness of those calling for an end to the violence in Gaza.

Indeed, Yale Jews for Ceasefire exists because of — not in spite of — our Jewish values. On the issue of divestment, for example, the Talmud teaches us that we may not sell weapons to those we suspect of using them criminally. Therefore, we have a duty to disrupt the manufacture and sale of military weapons that kill others, including those killing Palestinians.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Should free speech pessimists look to Europe?

Calls from the left and right to mimic European speech laws bring the U.S. to a crossroads between robust First Amendment protections and rising regulation.

reason.com

Free speech pessimism is on the rise among America's elites.

"Free Speech Is Killing Us," read a 2019 op-ed in The New York Times. Recently, an article in The New York Times Magazine concluded, "It's time to ask whether the American way of protecting free speech is actually keeping us free." George Washington University Law School professor Mary Anne Franks has written two books arguing that the First Amendment is "deadly" and "eroding our democracy."

These actions prompt a pivotal question: Would mimicking European free speech restrictions actually make America a more cohesive, tolerant, and just society? Let's imagine.

It's 2025. Two demonstrators burn an effigy of the newly inaugurated President Donald Trump, labeled "Death to the Dictator." They're quickly arrested and convicted for threats against the president.

Such punitive measures against symbolic speech are unthinkable under America's First Amendment protections, but it happened in Denmark. At a 2021 lockdown protest, three men burned an effigy of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen with a sign calling for her to be "put down." The men were initially arrested for high treason, a charge which was eventually downgraded to threatening a public official. After being acquitted in the first instance, they were later convicted by the High Court and sentenced to 40 days in prison.

There was no time in history where the people censoring speech were the good guys.

 

[mdb-tpet]

Should free speech pessimists look to Europe?

Calls from the left and right to mimic European speech laws bring the U.S. to a crossroads between robust First Amendment protections and rising regulation.

reason.com

There was no time in history where the people censoring speech were the good guys.

I agree that censoring speech is almost never right, but when someone is publicly advocating, or even openly calling for the physical harm, death of a citizen, destruction of someone's character (The New York Times v. Sullivan), they have crossed a line. This to me is yelling "fire" in a crowded venue (Schenck v. United States). Certainly the English language has many, many words that could be used besides "death" for getting rid of a terrible leader. If there is no outer boundary for speech that can be used to frighten and stir up mobs to kill people, then we are in big trouble as a nation. We need broad and well defined protected speech but not for speech truly intended to harm. The Jehovah's Witnesses Supreme Court cases created a lot of our free speech legal basis at great cost to themselves.

List of Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I agree that censoring speech is almost never right, but when someone is publicly advocating, or even openly calling for the physical harm, death of a citizen, destruction of someone's character (The New York Times v. Sullivan), they have crossed a line. This to me is yelling "fire" in a crowded venue (Schenck v. United States). Certainly the English language has many, many words that could be used besides "death" for getting rid of a terrible leader. If there is no outer boundary for speech that can be used to frighten and stir up mobs to kill people, then we are in big trouble as a nation. We need broad and well defined protected speech but not for speech truly intended to harm. The Jehovah's Witnesses Supreme Court cases created a lot of our free speech legal basis at great cost to themselves.

List of Supreme Court cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh, I certainly agree there are limits. I said as much in the campus protest thread elsewhere on page 1. But we must remain mindful and vigilant against allowing common-sense exceptions to be weaponized to silence normal speech. That is my biggest concern.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

From the informal/social side of "free speech", there are times I think "free" speech isn't expensive enough. Most things "free" people don't appreciate. It's the things that cost them something that they value.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

From the informal/social side of "free speech", there are times I think "free" speech isn't expensive enough. Most things "free" people don't appreciate. It's the things that cost them something that they value.

The problem with learning the value of civil protections is that it usually only occurs after you've lost them. (And no, you ain't getting them back.)

 

[NationalTitles18]

Those Who Preach Free Speech Need to Practice It

Too many leaders, on campus and in government, are failing to uphold the First Amendment rights they claim to champion.

www.theatlantic.com

Say you’re a college senior, just a few weeks from graduation. For as long as you can remember—even back in high school, before you set foot on campus—older people have talked about free speech. More specifically, older people have talked about free speech and you: whether your generation understands it, whether you believe in it, whether you can handle it.

After watching some of those same people order crackdowns on campus protests over the past few days, you might have a few questions for them.

The Republicans Who Want American Carnage

Calls for the National Guard to stop campus protests are not about safety.

www.theatlantic.com

Tom Cotton has never seen a left-wing protest he didn’t want crushed at gunpoint.

On Monday, the Arkansas senator demanded that President Joe Biden send in the National Guard to clear out the student protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war, which he described as “the nascent pogroms at Columbia.” Last week, Cotton posted on X, “I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands. It’s time to put an end to this nonsense.” He later deleted the post and reworded it so that it did not sound quite so explicitly like a demand for aspiring vigilantes to lynch protesters.

Open Letter to College and University Presidents on Student Protests | ACLU

Academic freedom and free speech are essential. Universities must protect them.

www.aclu.org

Dear College and University Presidents:

We write in response to the recent protests that have spread across our nation’s university and college campuses, and the disturbing arrests that have followed. We understand that as leaders of your campus communities, it can be extraordinarily difficult to navigate the pressures you face from politicians, donors, and faculty and students alike. You also have legal obligations to combat discrimination and a responsibility to maintain order. But as you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.

 

[Tidewater]

Those Who Preach Free Speech Need to Practice It

Too many leaders, on campus and in government, are failing to uphold the First Amendment rights they claim to champion.

www.theatlantic.com

The Republicans Who Want American Carnage

Calls for the National Guard to stop campus protests are not about safety.

www.theatlantic.com

Open Letter to College and University Presidents on Student Protests | ACLU

Academic freedom and free speech are essential. Universities must protect them.

www.aclu.org

I believe that what is frequently lost in the discussion (and Will Creeley contributes to the confusion) is that protesting a government policy is as American as apple pie.
An individual can go anywhere in the public space and say almost whatever he wants.
When 5,000 people want to protest, then the local administration has an obligation to regulate ("to make regular" as in "according to the established rules") the time, place, and manner of the protest. Holding a large protest in a park requires some thought as to the desires of others to use that same space for other purposes, to orderly behavior of the crowd (so protestors do not randomly dart into traffic and get injured or killed or to separate protestors from counterprotestors so fights do not break out), and to the time of day. A loud protest in a public square at 2:00 pm is acceptable, despite with others' desires for quiet, but the same loud protest at 2:00 am is probably not. Denying protestors' "rights" to protest in violation of time, place, and manner regulation is not abridging free speech. It is maintaining the good order of society.

What I saw in the BLM riots, the January 6 mob, and today's pro-Palestinian protestors is a lack of recognition of the limits local government can and should place on protests.

If you want to carry a sign, chant slogans, deliver a speech over a PA system, fine. If you want to throw a frozen water bottle at a cop, throw a molotov cocktail, ransack a building, protest on the interstate highway, or camp on a public space where the local government says camping is not allowed, not fine.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I believe that what is frequently lost in the discussion (and Will Creeley contributes to the confusion) is that protesting a government policy is as American as apple pie.
An individual can go anywhere in the public space and say almost whatever he wants.
When 5,000 people want to protest, then the local administration has an obligation to regulate ("to make regular" as in "according to the established rules") the time, place, and manner of the protest. Holding a large protest in a park requires some thought as to the desires of others to use that same space for other purposes, to orderly behavior of the crowd (so protestors do not randomly dart into traffic and get injured or killed or to separate protestors from counterprotestors so fights do not break out), and to the time of day. A loud protest in a public square at 2:00 pm is acceptable, despite with others' desires for quiet, but the same loud protest at 2:00 am is probably not. Denying protestors' "rights" to protest in violation of time, place, and manner regulation is not abridging free speech. It is maintaining the good order of society.

What I saw in the BLM riots, the January 6 mob, and today's pro-Palestinian protestors is a lack of recognition of the limits local government can and should place on protests.

If you want to carry a sign, chant slogans, deliver a speech over a PA system, fine. If you want to throw a frozen water bottle at a cop, throw a molotov cocktail, ransack a building, protest on the interstate highway, or camp on a public space where the local government says camping is not allowed, not fine.

I have no disagreement with anything you've said here.

I do disagree with those who espouse free speech and then disparage the kind they don't like and make a ruckus about putting a stop to it, particularly when they are a government official or in general claim the mantle of free speech otherwise.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I have no disagreement with anything you've said here.

I do disagree with those who espouse free speech and then disparage the kind they don't like and make a ruckus about putting a stop to it, particularly when they are a government official or in general claim the mantle of free speech otherwise.

This is pretty common among most people. They love to say what they want under the "free speech" banner, regardless of how harsh, disrespectful, or hurtful it is. But when someone else who they fundamentally disagree with does it they want it stopped.

I know it is tempting to want to apply this to politics and a particular group of people, but it is a human nature thing that most people struggle with.

 

[NationalTitles18]

This is pretty common among most people. They love to say what they want under the "free speech" banner, regardless of how harsh, disrespectful, or hurtful it is. But when someone else who they fundamentally disagree with does it they want it stopped.

I know it is tempting to want to apply this to politics and a particular group of people, but it is a human nature thing that most people struggle with.

The only part I disagree with you on is this:

There is a particular political group of people who have repeatedly called for others to end these protests.

So in this case it does apply to them.

Maybe at other times it applies to someone else.