Jump to content

Safe Zones and Political Correctness


Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

Slander, libel, obscenity, inciting violence, and a handful of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the expression of an opinion and how it might hurt someone's feelings. Censorship of that nature is a breach on one of our most fundamental rights, and has no place in a free society.

Oh, of course, I was talking mainly about hate speech, not stuff like micro aggressions or any other PC bullshit.

because the world is not a liberal arts college campus?

but how do you limit language?

The way I see it, public speech calling for violence against any group of people should be banned. So for example, it should be fine to say "I hate Muslims" but not fine to say "I hate Muslims and we should kill them all."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, how dare people ask for a safe haven away from all the bullying and discrimination they may face throughout their lives. [/sarcasm]

Look, the way I see it, there's enough bad stuff in the world as it is. What's wrong with a place folks can feel safe in?

Because explicitly, they're attempting to create this "safe haven" through no-platforming people who have done nothing other than voice a contradictory opinion. If people want to create tolerant organizations where bullying and discrimination aren't tolerated and Germaine Greer isn't allowed to speak, they're entitled to do so, but what they're not entitled to do is to try and no-platform Germaine Greer and prevent her from speaking anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the record, and because raven brought it up, posts like this are exactly why you're toxic to discussions. you essentially put your hands over your ears and create an image in your mind of what you see as the general essence of whoever's arguing against you, which you also lump in with everything you don't agree with. you don't argue against people and the points they bring up, you argue against the intangible feminist SJW golem who literally hates you and only ever talks in simple, irrelevant one-liners. you literally just typed out a conversation you had in your head with the golem.

eventually you have a small breakdown and renounce everyone in the thread as a bully and possibly blow up and say something like "Ok, whatever. I'm literally the worst person ever for these things. I'm going to stop posting now seeing as everyone hates me for being white, male, christian, and anti-SJW." it's a predictable pattern, and i'm posting this even as i know you're bound to do it. if you have any shred of self-respect, please try to understand what people are saying to you, and not what you lie to yourself into believing they are saying to you. at least before you blow up.

i'm gonna make this a one-off post because it has absolutely nothing to do with the thread at hand and was actually brought up multiple times in the thread raven linked, but i just felt like laying it out. i don't want this to get out of hand, so feel free to respond, but don't expect a reply from me.

What's got me miffed is that it seems no one even bothered to read what I wrote before jumping down my throat about what I said about the issue. Namely that my problem is not with racism in America or anything like that but that the comic is simply poorly laid out. I understand being subtle and the like but there is a big, HUGE, difference between being 'subtle' and 'being intentionally vague'. I GET that the comic is trying to show racism and the like and how some people don't realize it (and I can get into a discussion on that, but that's not the point), but the issue is that it does this through a series of example that can be taken multiple ways that ARE valid. That housing mortgage, for example, is IMPLIED to be racist but there are multiple ways it can be taken that would lead to vastly different conclusions as to what, exactly, happened of which some would NOT be racist.

I get and understand the authors point. I just think they didn't do a good job conveying it with that comic and feel they opted for vagueness over subtlety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get and understand the authors point. I just think they didn't do a good job conveying it with that comic and feel they opted for vagueness over subtlety.

IF you got and understood the author's point then how the fuck did it do a bad job of conveying what it wanted to convey?

This is exactly why people are accusing you of being needlessly obtuse, and you aren't doing us any favors by basically admitting that you understood the author's point but you wish it could've been a story instead of a comic strip.

Edited by Lord Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That housing mortgage, for example, is IMPLIED to be racist but there are multiple ways it can be taken that would lead to vastly different conclusions as to what, exactly, happened of which some would NOT be racist.

This is a comic conveying what white privilege is and how Bob is oblivious to it.

That is it. And it is obvious. You could choose to take it another way but that's clearly not the direction the author intends to take you.

You're free not to like it, but the author succeeds in relaying his message as far as I can tell.

Edited by Crysta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inciting to violence should obviously be illegal.

But expressing an opinion, as stupid it is, should be allowed.

If Trump didn't open his mouth most people wouldn't even know that he is an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's got me miffed is that it seems no one even bothered to read what I wrote before jumping down my throat about what I said about the issue. Namely that my problem is not with racism in America or anything like that but that the comic is simply poorly laid out. I understand being subtle and the like but there is a big, HUGE, difference between being 'subtle' and 'being intentionally vague'. I GET that the comic is trying to show racism and the like and how some people don't realize it (and I can get into a discussion on that, but that's not the point), but the issue is that it does this through a series of example that can be taken multiple ways that ARE valid. That housing mortgage, for example, is IMPLIED to be racist but there are multiple ways it can be taken that would lead to vastly different conclusions as to what, exactly, happened of which some would NOT be racist.

I get and understand the authors point. I just think they didn't do a good job conveying it with that comic and feel they opted for vagueness over subtlety.

it wasn't even particularly subtle, in fact it was heavy handed even for a political cartoon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inciting to violence should obviously be illegal.

But expressing an opinion, as stupid it is, should be allowed.

If Trump didn't open his mouth most people wouldn't even know that he is an idiot.

That's not what I was saying, although Trumps declaration that he planned to force all Muslim immigrants in the US to leave could be interpreted as inciting someone to violence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I was saying, although Trumps declaration that he planned to force all Muslim immigrants in the US to leave could be interpreted as inciting someone to violence.

Firstly, that's not what he said. What Trump called for is a ban on all Muslim immigration. That's not the same thing as deporting all existing immigrants.

Secondly, how is that an incitement to violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's got me miffed is that it seems no one even bothered to read what I wrote before jumping down my throat about what I said about the issue. Namely that my problem is not with racism in America or anything like that but that the comic is simply poorly laid out. I understand being subtle and the like but there is a big, HUGE, difference between being 'subtle' and 'being intentionally vague'. I GET that the comic is trying to show racism and the like and how some people don't realize it (and I can get into a discussion on that, but that's not the point), but the issue is that it does this through a series of example that can be taken multiple ways that ARE valid. That housing mortgage, for example, is IMPLIED to be racist but there are multiple ways it can be taken that would lead to vastly different conclusions as to what, exactly, happened of which some would NOT be racist.

I get and understand the authors point. I just think they didn't do a good job conveying it with that comic and feel they opted for vagueness over subtlety.

Unfortunately, since you managed to understand the points they were trying to make, it does imply that it was conveyed in a manner that let you understand it. I'd recommend sitting down for a while and thinking about why you've posted your response. You might find some interesting answers!

I think there's political correctness, which can be OK as far as being relatively civil, and there's also where it goes too far. Criticism can be given in a less inflammatory way, which is great, but I disagree with not wanting to hear it preventing things from being said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, that's not what he said. What Trump called for is a ban on all Muslim immigration. That's not the same thing as deporting all existing immigrants.

Secondly, how is that an incitement to violence?

Didn't he say something about deporting all the migrants from Syria once he's President? I could be remembering wrong, in which case my bad. And it is dealing with the state using force on its people; it's arguably inciting violence, but I mainly said it to be argumentative, and do not care enough to get into a debate about it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't he say something about deporting all the migrants from Syria once he's President? I could be remembering wrong, in which case my bad. And it is dealing with the state using force on its people; it's arguably inciting violence, but I mainly said it to be argumentative, and do not care enough to get into a debate about it.

Then all calls for state action are "inciting violence", since all state action implicitly carries the threat of force. People don't pay taxes because they want to, it's because the police will come into your home and arrest you if you don't, and if you resist that arrest they could kill you. Does that mean that anyone who wants to raise taxes is inciting violence, because they're implicitly saying that people who don't pay that tax should be arrested and sent to jail? Of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it's a threat or you're giving away a closely kept secret that will put people's lives at risk(like exposing an undercover spy, leaving him to die), everything should be legal to say. Censorship of speech is one of the first steps in establishing a totalitarian government.

Private colleges certainly have the right to maintain safe spaces much to my dismay. They only have to answer to the donors and the kids giving them tuition money.

It's disheartening though. College is a place where all ideas can and should be challenged right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it's a threat or you're giving away a closely kept secret that will put people's lives at risk(like exposing an undercover spy, leaving him to die), everything should be legal to say. Censorship of speech is one of the first steps in establishing a totalitarian government.

Actually, there are still plenty of things that can and should be illegal to say. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic legal example of unprotected speech in the United States. Although it has been restricted almost to the point of disappearing, "fighting words" are also still considered a restricted form of speech (for reasons similar to the "incitement to violence" standard). There's also libel and slander. "Free" speech is a very broad category nowadays, but even today there are still plenty of forms of speech which are not permitted--and shouldn't be.

Also, never forget that MANY countries do not actually have a true analogue of the First Amendment to the US Constitution in their own constitutions. Nothing of the kind exists in the United Kingdom, for instance, and following the Murdoch case, an actual body (using a Crown Charter, which hasn't been done in centuries AFAICT, so it's TECHNICALLY not a government agency) has been created to regulate journalistic speech. In Germany, while their constitution claims to allow unrestricted freedom of speech ("there shall be no censorship"), only to IMMEDIATELY follow it up with "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws..." So they've said there won't be any censorship, except where the law censors things...

Private colleges certainly have the right to maintain safe spaces much to my dismay. They only have to answer to the donors and the kids giving them tuition money.

Correct. Private spaces have always benefitted from this right--and they should. It's precisely the same legal justification for why you can tell a bunch of protesters to get off your land, even if they aren't breaking any laws and you don't have a fence or some other way of preventing people from entering. Private spaces are places that non-owners are invited into, and they may be dis-invited at the owner's leisure. (Though if there is an economic situation involved, that is an exchange of goods or services or money, there may be a valid platform for a discrimination case.)

It's disheartening though. College is a place where all ideas can and should be challenged right?

That is an ideal which many believe institutions of learning should aspire to, yes. Not all believe it, though. A student writing for the Harvard Crimson, for example, specifically thinks that academic institutions are morally wrong for putting "academic freedom"--the doctrine that professors and students have the right to hold whatever opinions they wish, even if they are unpopular, "backward," offensive, or hateful--ahead of what the student termed "academic justice"--a doctrine which says, and I quote, "When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." Or, phrasing it slightly differently: if someone is doing research which could demonstrate factual support for some form of oppression, it should be eliminated before it can be published or even conducted; it alleges that we not only can, but should stifle any inquiries which support, or even could support, unacceptable views.

College claims to be a place where people can acquire an education. We would like such places to be highly effective at doing so. What, precisely, "acquire an education" and "highly effective" mean, in this context, tends to be a question influenced as much by politics as it is by data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there are still plenty of things that can and should be illegal to say. Shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic legal example of unprotected speech in the United States. Although it has been restricted almost to the point of disappearing, "fighting words" are also still considered a restricted form of speech (for reasons similar to the "incitement to violence" standard). There's also libel and slander. "Free" speech is a very broad category nowadays, but even today there are still plenty of forms of speech which are not permitted--and shouldn't be.

True I forgot about that one, another common one is yelling "bomb" in an airport. I think fighting words fall under threats though most of the time.

As for libel and slander, it is indeed against the law but isn't it different than threatening someone or yelling "fire" in a crowded place? It's a civil court issue so the one who's been slandered must press chages themself and you can't go actually go to jail for it(the police don't get involved usually).

Also, never forget that MANY countries do not actually have a true analogue of the First Amendment to the US Constitution in their own constitutions. Nothing of the kind exists in the United Kingdom, for instance, and following the Murdoch case, an actual body (using a Crown Charter, which hasn't been done in centuries AFAICT, so it's TECHNICALLY not a government agency) has been created to regulate journalistic speech. In Germany, while their constitution claims to allow unrestricted freedom of speech ("there shall be no censorship"), only to IMMEDIATELY follow it up with "These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws..." So they've said there won't be any censorship, except where the law censors things...

This is why I think a constitution(outlining some basic human rights(right to own property, freedom of religion...etc) of some sorts that garuntees things like this should be a neccessity for all democratic states. A constitution should very much be a thorn in the side of a democratic government and it should take a whole lot of effort to overule an ammendment. If you want to take something like the right to own private property away, it should be at least one step harder than just getting a simple majority vote. But that's a discussion for another time.

Correct. Private spaces have always benefitted from this right--and they should. It's precisely the same legal justification for why you can tell a bunch of protesters to get off your land, even if they aren't breaking any laws and you don't have a fence or some other way of preventing people from entering. Private spaces are places that non-owners are invited into, and they may be dis-invited at the owner's leisure. (Though if there is an economic situation involved, that is an exchange of goods or services or money, there may be a valid platform for a discrimination case.)

And I agree they should absolutely have that right. I say it's a shame because you have many people going to some of the finest schools in the world(almost all of them private) being shown only one side of an issue. No matter how solid the idea, it's important to show the opposite of it in a fair light(with the exception of math and maybe hard science where's there's possibly only one conclusion). If nothing else it teaches you how to address the flaws in your own and the opposition's argument(something we don't do well in today's world).

If many of the things I thought when I was younger went unchalleged, I would beleive in a lot of crazy shit today. In my oppinion, that should be part of a college's job.

That is an ideal which many believe institutions of learning should aspire to, yes. Not all believe it, though. A student writing for the Harvard Crimson, for example, specifically thinks that academic institutions are morally wrong for putting "academic freedom"--the doctrine that professors and students have the right to hold whatever opinions they wish, even if they are unpopular, "backward," offensive, or hateful--ahead of what the student termed "academic justice"--a doctrine which says, and I quote, "When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue." Or, phrasing it slightly differently: if someone is doing research which could demonstrate factual support for some form of oppression, it should be eliminated before it can be published or even conducted; it alleges that we not only can, but should stifle any inquiries which support, or even could support, unacceptable views.

College claims to be a place where people can acquire an education. We would like such places to be highly effective at doing so. What, precisely, "acquire an education" and "highly effective" mean, in this context, tends to be a question influenced as much by politics as it is by data.

Isn't that a dangerous precident to set though? That student is arguing that we should only allow research that supports their predetermined hypothesis and that the conclusion of said research can be inherently offensive. Good research(if done as faily as possible, I'm ok with it being eliminated if it's not) mearly comes to a conclusion that reflects the results of the study.

For example: a study states that "X people do Y activity more frequently than others within the group we tested". Unless it was done maliciously or claims something they can't based on the information given, this isn't inherently racist, it's just stating information. The way you interpretate the research can be racist or oppressive, like "that's because X people are inferior" OR it can be something productive like "that's because X people are systematically oppressed, here's how to fix it".

If you don't allow the study to continue because someone thinks the conclusion is inherently "racist", then you're not allowing potentially valuable information about how we treat certain people differently to be availiable to anyone. Allowing anyone to determine their own conclusions is a neccessary evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then all calls for state action are "inciting violence", since all state action implicitly carries the threat of force. People don't pay taxes because they want to, it's because the police will come into your home and arrest you if you don't, and if you resist that arrest they could kill you. Does that mean that anyone who wants to raise taxes is inciting violence, because they're implicitly saying that people who don't pay that tax should be arrested and sent to jail? Of course not.

I concede, I concede, I was just playing devil's advocate. And I will say that more often than not freedom of speech has actually initially at least led to totalitarianism. If people like Jean Paul Marat, Hitler, and Lenin had been censored, a lot of lives would have been saved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete: Since the posts are getting a little long, I'm not going to make a direct quote, but respond in order to the things you said.

While you're correct that defamation--the over-arching category that includes both slander and libel--is almost always a civil wrong, that fact doesn't contradict anything I said. I was speaking of prohibited speech, which includes both illegal speech (such as the "shouting fire/bomb/etc." which creates an unjustified panic) and liable speech (such as defamation). Just because there's no crime associated with a particular speech act doesn't mean it's a legally permitted speech act. A civil wrong (called a tort in the United States, or a delict in most of Europe) is still a violation of the law--it's just handled differently. Defamation is a type of tort, and therefore a violation of the law--just civil law, rather than criminal law.

Fighting words, however, has nothing to do with "threats." Fighting words is where you say or do something that is so egregiously, intentionally, obviously offensive, that a violent reaction is likely to result. The doctrine has been limited over and over so many times that it's basically defunct, now. Threats are where a person says they'll personally commit violence (and have the capacity to do so); incitement to violence is essentially the same, but the speaker is trying to get *others* to do the dirty work. Both of these tend to be addressed as criminal, rather than civil, offenses--and, IIRC, the "fighting words" concept was meant to be applied to criminal cases.

Pretty much all countries have a constitution, though, even if it isn't specifically called by that name (or a translated equivalent). It's a necessity for the modern idea of what it means to be an independent, sovereign nation-state--having "the rule of law" means you need an ultimate law, a highest authority, a sign that formally says "the buck stops here." I don't necessarily think that the constitution of a nation needs to be "a thorn in the side of" its government--particularly since such constitutions are usually what defines the scope of services that that government provides its people. Most people understand that government power must be well-defined to reduce abuse, though, and I think I may be having a disagreement about the terms used, not the ideas behind them.

Even saying "not seeing both sides" is kind of a problem though. Many questions don't have two sides, they have dozens of sides, and any given professor (or even institution as a whole) must necessarily select, or opt into, particular guidelines about which sides get the "privilege" of being discussed. And it goes even deeper than that--consider that the vast majority of college textbooks are published by only a tiny handful--perhaps three or four--different companies in the United States. Reforming math education (especially calculus) in the 80s and 90s, for example, ended up happening not *so* much because of the efforts of teachers or policymakers, but because the textbook-makers finally paid someone to write books in the new style so they could be sold widely. Teachers and policies were definitely an important factor, but it's somewhat telling that things were very slow to change up until the new textbooks started coming out, at which point the change became pretty rapid.

I also am not sure it's fair to tar all institutions of higher learning for this kind of stuff. Yes, there are people at some prestigious schools--students, professors, and administrators--pushing for the removal of "problematic" opinions or subjects. Consider the widely-cited article by Jeannie Suk, a Harvard law professor, where she noted that a dozen new law professors she knew were considering not teaching rape law in their classes because they were afraid of student backlash for being "triggering" or "insensitive." But that very article--and the many references to it--illustrate that people are concerned by this situation. And numerous professors (of law, in this case) have spoken out about how they would not acquiesce to these strident demands, but instead try to understand why they're being made, and thus teach difficult subjects with reasoned respect paid to both their intellectual difficulty and their emotional difficulty.

You're right to suggest that it is good, healthy, and important for our beliefs to be challenged--even when those beliefs are right. But we have to be careful not to be alarmist about this stuff. Concerned, very much yes! But immediately leaping to "woe unto us, for the college is dead" serves little purpose.

I certainly agree with you that I think the "academic justice instead of academic freedom" doctrine is a very dangerous precedent. But I am willing to hear what they have to say--and willing to share their thoughts with others, striving to be fair and unbiased as I do so, because that, too, is an example of having my beliefs challenged.

In theory, the best research simply asks a question, sets up a statistical test for comparison, collects data as impartially as possible, and then analyzes that data without modification. Ideal research rarely happens, even in the hard sciences, because data collection is difficult to do impartially, and analysis is very difficult to do without any modification. However, I also agree with you that the idea of throwing out data--of preventing data from even being collected in the first place--purely because you believe the party seeking that data has an agenda you oppose is a terrible thing. It wouldn't weaken all scientific study, but it certainly would push extremely important areas of science (social or otherwise) toward a place where we stop deriving conclusions from data and start making up stories to explain data. The latter is what the Soviet Union did, during the reign of "Lysenkoism," which rejected Darwinian/selection-based evolution in favor of Lamarckian/effort-based evolution--not because the data supported it, but because it served the Communist Party's political goals. (E.g.: Someone who works in a coal mine and becomes good at it will pass those good coal-mining traits on to their children; cereal grains can transform into one another through exposure to specific kinds of temperatures and moistures; etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say some of the problem can be based on "rights vs responsibilities". Freedom of Speech, is of course, the right to say anything. However, isn't the right of free speech intended to be able to voice dissent against the government of the day, without risk of persecution?

Putting it another way: Can I theoretically speak evil of a particular person through half-truths or outright lies? Can I theoretically talk trash about a particular race, sex, religious group etc? Theoretically, yes. Are they responsible use of my rights? No.

I won't say that I know where the balance should lie between free speech and restriction from. Of course the above reason should not be used as a justification for excessive censorship. (Admittedly, Pokémon BW has a really good point with the chemistry of different people and different ideas.) However, I too believe that there is a case where certain restrictions are needed to avoid abusing right of free speech. With great power(?) comes with great responsibilities, I guess.

Edited by henrymidfields
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede, I concede, I was just playing devil's advocate. And I will say that more often than not freedom of speech has actually initially at least led to totalitarianism. If people like Jean Paul Marat, Hitler, and Lenin had been censored, a lot of lives would have been saved.

This strikes me as essentially saying, "Doing totalitarian things is perfectly okay, as long as we only do them to bad people!"

But that's part of the problem--and part of why all of the people you just mentioned were bad people. Because they used rhetoric of "there are all these bad people! We HAVE to do terrible things to them because they're doing terrible things to us!" And soon, very soon, it becomes "BEFORE they do terrible things to us!" And then the definition of "bad people" gets broader. And broader. And broader.

It may never include you. You may always be able to speak your mind--perhaps you just never think thoughts that aren't approved. You may always be free to act--perhaps because you just happen to like doing government-approved things. But, as Jean-Luc Picard put it, "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." If we're censoring these dissidents, what other malcontents are we censoring? Stonewall rioters? Radical feminists? Ferguson protesters? French Moroccans? Palestinians? Kosovars? Moreover, who gets to set the rules about who gets censored and who doesn't? How do they acquire the position? How are their actions checked and overseen? How do we know how they apply their censorship without being aware of the content of the censored materials? How can we ensure they don't abuse their power when that power can be used to repress claims that it is being abused?

Also: We don't punish people because they have the capacity to do illegal things, unjust things. We punish them because they actually try to do illegal, unjust things. It is not enough to simply have mens rea (Latin: "guilty mind"). We must have actus reus ("guilty act") as well--more than that, we must establish that they both exist. Anything less, up to and including punishment for "seditious" acts, is merely asking for trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Hitler, Marat, and Lenin all were about doing bad things to people because they deserve it (the Jews, the nobility, and the bourgeoisie). And limiting speech is not a totalitarian thing, because plenty of functioning democracies limit, for example, hate speech, and have remained democracies, like virtually every EU country, and Canada. I am not calling for groups to be censored, I am calling for opinions to be censored. If a Feminist says all men should be castrated, then that should be censored. That doesn't mean that Feminism should be censored, because feminism isn't about that and we all know it. If a Palestinian declares that all Israelis should die, that should be censored. That is because it is hate speech. Wanting a Palestinian state is not hate speech. Wanting to kill all Israelis is. As long as you have specific guidelines for what will be censored in the constitution of whatever state we are talking about, you will not jump down the slippery slope, unless you want to tell me that the EU and Canada are totalitarian dictatorships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In response to amiabletemplar since quoting makes it too congested:

I see your point about defamation being prohibited speech along with everything else. I just thought I'd point out that it's a different level of severity than say giving away a goverment secret.

I misunderstood what you meant by fighting words and I agree now that I know what you mean. I suppose this is the same thing as provoking someone which should be illegal and the perpetrator shouldn't have a case to prosecute the victim if he/she retaliates(except maybe in extreme circumstances).

Sorry if I was unclear but I was mainly talking about the Bill of Rights(amendments to the constitution) not The Constitution(a document outlining power structures among other things) itself. The U.S. Bill of Rights was drafted because the original 13 states wanted to limit the federal goverments power and have it in writing what the central government absolutely cannot do. That's what I mean by "thorn in the side". It's a limit to federal power outlining 10(now 27) rights the federal government cannot infringe upon under normal circumstances. It was meant to stop or at least slow down a tyrranical governemnt from coming to power. This is done by drawing a line in the sand that the goverment cannot cross. They aren't untouchable of course, but it's no easy feat to overturn an amendment.

I realize there is a problem with showing both sides when there are more than 2. I don't think there's an easy fix for this either since time is limited and a certain amount of material must be covered. The best we can do is make sure a malicious or slanderous agenda isn't being pushed forward I guess.

Oh and I'm not damning all universities, I'm not even damning most. However, I do see it as a worring trend that must be addressed. Better to talk about this stuff now, while these things are realtively uncommon than ignoring it until it's done some serious damage.

I think I'm more or less in agreement with you on your last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concede, I concede, I was just playing devil's advocate. And I will say that more often than not freedom of speech has actually initially at least led to totalitarianism. If people like Jean Paul Marat, Hitler, and Lenin had been censored, a lot of lives would have been saved.

If Hitler had not been able to ban the Communist Party and use paramilitary violence to suppress and intimidate voters, a lot of lives might have been saved too. He seized power only due to the very tactics that you yourself endorse!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hitler had not been able to ban the Communist Party and use paramilitary violence to suppress and intimidate voters, a lot of lives might have been saved too. He seized power only due to the very tactics that you yourself endorse!

This is more or less what I was trying to say. "Clamp down on the speech acts of problem people" is a tactic that anyone can use--both "good" guys and "bad" guys. Does every use of it constitute horrible awful terrible abuse? No. But it is better to permit some unpleasant, uncomfortable, or dangerous speech than it is to empower officials to suppress useful, important speech.

We consider it a horrific abrogation of justice to allow "innocent until proven guilty." Better to allow some guilty people to go free than to punish the innocent (even though, yes, sometimes punishing the innocent still happens). Many European nations today are of the opinion that limited, personal drug use is no longer a crime--that criminal drug use only occurs when you're a dealer or endangering the lives/property of others. Better to allow some people to choose to harm themselves, than to place an onerous (and, they argue, ineffective) burden on "harmless" use.

Tell me, Blah: Have you ever read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty? If not, I think you really should. It's a fantastically important document in the history of political philosophy, and Mill has some very pointed, and well-argued, things to say about any form of censorship--even "for the good of the people."

Edited by amiabletemplar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Hitler had not been able to ban the Communist Party and use paramilitary violence to suppress and intimidate voters, a lot of lives might have been saved too. He seized power only due to the very tactics that you yourself endorse!

The Communists were not guilty of hate speech. Once again, you absolutely need to have a very clear line that cannot be crossed, and that line should be hate speech. Hitler was very clearly violating the German constitution, and it was the duty of the Reichstag and the German people to not let him get away with it, but they were absolutely on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Communists were not guilty of hate speech. Once again, you absolutely need to have a very clear line that cannot be crossed, and that line should be hate speech. Hitler was very clearly violating the German constitution, and it was the duty of the Reichstag and the German people to not let him get away with it, but they were absolutely on board.

there is no reliable way to keep that line from being crossed. anywhere, ever, with any government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...