Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Mutant z

The time has come to uphold democracy and freedom of speech at Universities who are refusing platforms to opposing views. A safe space SJW environment has been created at university campuses where only those with opinions that are pro open borders, pro islam, pro EU, pro feminism, gender neutral, anti Trump, anti Brexit are permitted. Hopefully the recent announcement from the UK about fining universities for deny platforms is enforced because this pathetic SJW childish behaviour has been allowed to continue for far too long. College debating societies are supposed to be places where robust debate of all views and ideas are had not just those that comform to a certain world view, so any university not living up to democratic ideas should be fined and have all funding cut until they uphold the principles of freedom of speech and expression which is a cornerstone in any free democratic society.

Lux23

Are you currently in University?

Jcarroll07

Mutant z wrote: »

The time has come to uphold democracy and freedom of speech at Universities who are refusing platforms to opposing views. A safe space SJW environment has been created at university campuses where only those with opinions that are pro open borders, pro islam, pro EU, pro feminism, gender neutral, anti Trump, anti Brexit are permitted. Hopefully the recent announcement from the UK about fining universities for deny platforms is enforced because this pathetic SJW childish behaviour has been allowed to continue for far too long. College debating societies are supposed to be places where robust debate of all views and ideas are had not just those that comform to a certain world view, so any university not living up to democratic ideas should be fined and have all funding cut until they uphold the principles of freedom of speech and expression which is a cornerstone in any free democratic society.

Dont think the no platforming or anti free speech is really a thing in Ireland when compared to the UK or US. E.g Last year Trinity had that episode with students blocking the israeli ambassador and they got no support from the administration if fact they were pretty much told put up or get out. Most of the opposition is from students themselves and they are few enough in number and often ridiculed for it by fellow students which is heartening to see. Most recent example I have seen is with Nigel Farage's visit tomorrow to trinity. The university is it seems doing every thing it can to accommodate him while its just a few nobody students with nothing better to do that are actually trying to shut it down or advocate that he be no platformed/censored. Not a huge issue in Ireland IMO.

FreudianSlippers

Mutant z wrote: »

The time has come to uphold democracy and freedom of speech at Universities who are refusing platforms to opposing views. A safe space SJW environment has been created at university campuses where only those with opinions that are pro open borders, pro islam, pro EU, pro feminism, gender neutral, anti Trump, anti Brexit are permitted.

For example...

Hopefully the recent announcement from the UK about fining universities for deny platforms is enforced because this pathetic SJW childish behaviour has been allowed to continue for far too long.

Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam, anti-Black, pro-Nazi, etc. groups which would argue that they have a "right" to hate-speech.

College debating societies are supposed to be places where robust debate of all views and ideas are had not just those that comform to a certain world view

I have to take it that you've not been in college or other debating societies or competitions. I was never a fan of them myself, but in my education as a lawyer both undergraduate, post-graduate and King's Inns it's not escapable; I'd suggest that your rosy view of them as a place where valid views are debated against fringe, conspiracy or racist/xenophobic viewpoints is off piste at best.

so any university not living up to democratic ideas should be fined and have all funding cut until they uphold the principles of freedom of speech and expression which is a cornerstone in any free democratic society.

This is just pure nonsense tbh.

Jcarroll07

[QUOTE=FreudianSlippers;106029353


This is just pure nonsense tbh.[/QUOTE]

That last bit is actually the more realistic statement. Fact is the UK and the US in the form of state legislators have already implemented or are beginning to implement such laws.

I think your slippery slow argument is backwards in that once you ban certain groups its only a matter of time until other who simply hold a different view point are banned under the same argument. Ben Shapiro in the US is a perfect example he a conservative orthodox jew and was the number one recipient of anti Semitic hate online in 2016 according to the Anti defamation League yet he is called a Nazi in order to prevent him speaking at certain universities. People are no platformed because they may be supportive of the state of Israel the idea that it only applies to racists and bigots ect has been proven to be false time and time again.

There is no "slipper slope" of free speech only the other way around. In fact the "soldiery slope" of free speech sounds incredibly Orwellian. But getting back to my previous point this regressive behaviour thankfully is not really an issue in Ireland.

FreudianSlippers

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

Jcarroll07

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

Well it depends, America is has the most "puritan" or progressive laws in regards to speech thats just an objective fact and there are very limited restriction. When it comes to Europe then yes we have various degrees of restriction that are regrettable and hard to defend so your right. The idea exists but the practical implementation is no really there unfortunately.

But I would take serious issue with those that spend most of their time advocating restriction, rather then more liberal progressive laws like the have in the US. It a proven historical fact, free speech is good, censorship is bad, if you dont know that read a history book. In many ways criminalising speech is not far of the idea of a thought crime. What is speech a verbalisation of ones thoughts and opinions if you think criminalisation of that is good or acceptable, to put it simply your a regressive. Its also totally unenforceable how can you police private conversations without implementing a world akin to Orwell's 1984 or North Korea to give it a modern example of the logical conclusion.

granturismo

Mutant z wrote: »

The time has come to uphold democracy and freedom of speech at Universities who are refusing platforms to opposing views.

Please give an example from an Irish University.

Mutant z wrote: »

A safe space SJW environment has been created at university campuses where only those with opinions that are pro open borders, pro islam, pro EU, pro feminism, gender neutral, anti Trump, anti Brexit are permitted.

Please give an example from an Irish University of a 'safe place' created by and sanctioned by an Irish University.

donaghs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For example...


Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam, anti-Black, pro-Nazi, etc. groups which would argue that they have a "right" to hate-speech.

If you wish to criticize the ideas of religion, or even one specific religion, that automatically equals hate speech?

Mutant z

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

Well you have made your stance perfectly clear.

Mutant z

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For example...



Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam, anti-Black, pro-Nazi, etc. groups which would argue that they have a "right" to hate-speech.


I have to take it that you've not been in college or other debating societies or competitions. I was never a fan of them myself, but in my education as a lawyer both undergraduate, post-graduate and King's Inns it's not escapable; I'd suggest that your rosy view of them as a place where valid views are debated against fringe, conspiracy or racist/xenophobic viewpoints is off piste at best.


This is just pure nonsense tbh.

The you dont agree with me you're a bigot variety this is exactly what im talking about only views that concur with your own the fact is college campuses have become a cesspit for leftist opinions and those who counter that get protested against such as Ben Shapiro who exposes those sjws for the intolerant twats they are, why are those with non left wing views being verbally attacked and assaulted by those idiots why are only those with open border pro feminist pro islamic views being allowed to speak isnt debate supposed to be about representing all political views not just those that represent your own world view.

Widdershins

Sometimes I think Irish people see all this as American issues. It's rife in the UK and creeping in here so it's at least worth a discussion.

Franz Von Peppercorn

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For example...



Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam, anti-Black, pro-Nazi, etc. groups which would argue that they have a "right" to hate-speech.


I have to take it that you've not been in college or other debating societies or competitions. I was never a fan of them myself, but in my education as a lawyer both undergraduate, post-graduate and King's Inns it's not escapable; I'd suggest that your rosy view of them as a place where valid views are debated against fringe, conspiracy or racist/xenophobic viewpoints is off piste at best.


This is just pure nonsense tbh.

The trite phrase “free speech is not absolute” could ban anything you disagree with. Political speech which isn’t incitement should be absolutely protected.

Franz Von Peppercorn

donaghs wrote: »

If you wish to criticize the ideas of religion, or even one specific religion, that automatically equals hate speech?

Extremely scary stuff

Mutant z

Also the attempt to block the Israeli ambassador whatever your views on Israel he should have a right to air his opinions like everyone else would they have done the same with the Turkish or Pakistani ambassador or indeed the ambassadors of any muslim majority country which arnt known for their strong human rights records not to mention the praise they have for Cuba and Venezuela which certainly aren't beacons of human rights. Dont forget how our own president greatly embarrassed this country with his praise of a mass murdering tyrant like Castro and his support for Venezuela where innocent protesters have been shot on the streets this is the type of ultra leftist mindset which is inflicting universities.

sameoldname

Widdershins wrote: »

Sometimes I think Irish people see all this as American issues. It's rife in the UK and creeping in here so it's at least worth a discussion.

Are there any notable cases of opposing opinions being denied a platform in Irish universities? Not being contrarian, just genuinely don't know.

Mutant z

And who cares if someone criticise islam its a disgusting ideology which has slaughtered and enslaved much of the world why wouldnt any sane person criticise it it has offered nothing but human misery to the world and its those who condemn it who are the problem according to the sjws.

fritzelly

Isn't it always the case that the few outliers shout the loudest about freedom of speech - fact is no one wants to listen to them and they don't get it

Franz Von Peppercorn

fritzelly wrote: »

Isn't it always the case that the few outliers shout the loudest about freedom of speech - fact is no one wants to listen to them and they don't get it

If it’s only a few outliers who support freedom of speech then we are all doomed.

fritzelly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

If it’s only a few outliers who support freedom of speech then we are all doomed.

It's those few outliers spouting crap that the rest of the world doesn't want to hear nor interested in

Franz Von Peppercorn

fritzelly wrote: »

It's those few outliers spouting crap that the rest of the world doesn't want to hear nor interested in

Er, who decides what the rest of the world wants to hear or not? You?

Protecting free speech has to be about minority speech.

Not that the speech is necessarily minority either. Protestors protests every speech made by farage. And yet Brexit happened.

fash

sameoldname wrote: »

Widdershins wrote: »

Sometimes I think Irish people see all this as American issues. It's rife in the UK and creeping in here so it's at least worth a discussion.

Are there any notable cases of opposing opinions being denied a platform in Irish universities? Not being contrarian, just genuinely don't know.

Borderline trinity case here: https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/activist-pulls-out-of-trinity-college-talk-due-to-restrictions-aimed-at-not-antagonising-muslims-31087977.html
Not sure if she got to speak in the end given the publicity though.

sameoldname

fash wrote: »

Borderline trinity case here: https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/activist-pulls-out-of-trinity-college-talk-due-to-restrictions-aimed-at-not-antagonising-muslims-31087977.html
Not sure if she got to speak in the end given the publicity though.

Looks like she got to speak at the Trinity Philosophical Society a few months later.

That would somewhat confirm my feelings on this subject, that various people have flirted with this kind of no platforming thing in Ireland but in general it's not really a tactic that's used very successfully here.

Not that vigilance is not required of course.

Overheal

Mutant z wrote: »

And who cares if someone criticise islam its a disgusting ideology which has slaughtered and enslaved much of the world why wouldnt any sane person criticise it it has offered nothing but human misery to the world and its those who condemn it who are the problem according to the sjws.

There it is

0byme75341jo28

When have you last been in university OP? Speaking as a current student I am almost certain this isn't happening in Ireland.

boombang

Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point.

I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.

ancapailldorcha

Mutant z wrote: »

And who cares if someone criticise islam its a disgusting ideology which has slaughtered and enslaved much of the world why wouldnt any sane person criticise it it has offered nothing but human misery to the world and its those who condemn it who are the problem according to the sjws.

And with that, I think we're done here.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And with that, I think we're done here.

Mod: I am re-opening this. Please ensure posts are constructive.

Manach

What is now worrying is the move to deny speakers a platform and use violence to enforce this. From the US campases (in the case of speakers like Ben Shapiro) it looks to started up in the UK, as per (link), scuffles that broke out against a conservative speaker. While University admins might be neutral in this ongoing kulturkampf, the extra costs for security and insurance would have a chilling effect on who gets invited to speak.

Overheal

Said expressed views are often why these exact conversations are often quick to be shutdown as done above - frankly rightly so in a lot of cases. As others have pointed out, Universities aren't a carte blanche to have an unrestricted platform to soapbox whatever inane opinion you may have - it has to be based on reason, rationale, critical thinking, research, facts, etc. - similarly the reason you won't see much debate on whether blacks are inferior to whites (anymore) is because the science has been in on that for quite some time, and it's simply untrue; for such a topic it is simply better of the person with those views to refer to the established knowledge-base - trying to instigate debate on a wholly flawed or already disproven premise is not a productive means to learn differently for either party.

By holding the view for example, "islam [is] a disgusting ideology [...] it has offered nothing but human misery to the world," you're basing your discussion of a plainly flawed premise - as it can be shown in at least several cases (if not the majority of cases) that the religion has done some good for those that place their faith in it (for an example, let's hold up Mohammad Ali). By making claims like, "[Islam] has slaughtered and enslaved much of the world," you're lying by omission. You're ignoring the fact that other nationalities (Nation of Islam) and religions have spread slaughter and enslavement around the world - see 19th Century America, the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Mongolian Empire, The Crusades, and many other examples.

The reason the door of discussion is usually shut on someone when they make claims like, "islam [is] a disgusting ideology which has slaughtered and enslaved much of the world why wouldnt any sane person criticise it it has offered nothing but human misery to the world and its those who condemn it who are the problem according to the sjws," should be patently obvious. It's a premise base on logical fallacy, omission, falsehood, emotions, political biases and feelings, and doesn't exhibit a statement made by someone who has researched the conversation enough to have it in good faith. It is an understandable measure by colleges and other forums to squelch those vapid debates before they start - it is a mess to try and have a conversation based on those premises that are so fundamentally flawed on their face, that it is a waste of academic energy to deconstruct directly. Rather, I would encourage you to go back and study the statement you've made to see if it actually holds truth, before you try and raise it for a higher level discussion as those seen in academia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It serves everyone better if we use the same set of facts: you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

Overheal

Manach wrote: »

What is now worrying is the move to deny speakers a platform and use violence to enforce this. From the US campases (in the case of speakers like Ben Shapiro) it looks to started up in the UK, as per (link), scuffles that broke out against a conservative speaker. While University admins might be neutral in this ongoing kulturkampf, the extra costs for security and insurance would have a chilling effect on who gets invited to speak.

Shapiro has exercised his free speech quite a bit - the freedom of speech isn't a blanket protection against the people he pisses off through homophobia and intellectual-bashing though. Again there, you have the problem with a viewpoint that is not based on rationality, robust facts, or critical thinking nearly as much as it is about feelings and emotions and cherry picked information and biases - so it is very difficult to respond to such by using said tools of rationality. Hate for the sake of hate will often be met in kind.

mfceiling

boombang wrote: »

Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point.

I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.

If you are protesting at Farage speaking then you are an idiot. At least listen to what he says and challenge the viewpoints you don't agree with.
Don't just stand there crying because someone you don't like is talking.

Manach

Overheal wrote: »

Shapiro has exercised his free speech quite a bit - the freedom of speech isn't a blanket protection against the people he pisses off through homophobia and intellectual-bashing though. Again there, you have the problem with a viewpoint that is not based on rationality, robust facts, or critical thinking nearly as much as it is about feelings and emotions and cherry picked information and biases - so it is very difficult to respond to such by using said tools of rationality. Hate for the sake of hate will often be met in kind.

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

sameoldname

Manach wrote: »

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

Isn't this the problem with all these discussions though... We're slowly drifting the conversation away from Ireland and into other countries.

I often wonder is this done on purpose. Drag in happenings in other countries and then conflate what's happening there as if it's just as bad here. Whether it is or isn't. Though I'm not accusing you of that Manach, just to be clear.

Jcarroll07

boombang wrote: »

Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point.

I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.

Ten people showed up for the protest. They simple made a lot of historical noise rather then actually representing a large sections of societies views.

Overheal

Manach wrote: »

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

I never asserted anyone be had a right not to be offended. In turn however you don’t have immunity from people who become offended. That’s generally when they will try to use their speech to counter yours. For reference see the fundamental concept of boycotts.

Put this in another frame; the Westboro Baptist Church needs no introduction. They have the same speech rights as other Americans. Was it wrong of counter-protestors to protest their protests? Is that liberalism gone mad, to create human shields between said protestors and events such as vigils for the Orlando shooting, the memorial of a 9 year old girl shot dead in Tucson, and countless other examples?

It’s the same concept. People don’t like what you have to say and they have a right to tell people how they feel about it. Everything past that is extracurricular: vandalism at UC Berkeley for instance doesn’t invalidate the right to free speech of others who want to protest against that which they disagree with or invalidate the right to ask those responsible for hosting such events to reconsider.

The right to free speech is not Protection to say what you want wherever you want. People can still show you the door and exercise their speech right back at you. This website itself serves as a testament to that core tenet of the extent of the law. Universities are afforded a similar degree of autonomy to decide how to run their campuses.

What Shapiro and Milo and others are upset at is not their right to free speech being infringed but the willingness of others to listen to their quasi-carefully packaged diatribe.

Havockk

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ten people showed up for the protest. They simple made a lot of historical noise rather then actually representing a large sections of societies views.

I'm confused now. You are posting in support, now, of those ten students who decided to freely express their right to speech in protest?

Jcarroll07

Havockk wrote: »

I'm confused now. You are posting in support, now, of those ten students who decided to freely express their right to speech in protest?

No I am simply stating ten people showed up to the protest. Prior to that many had called for Farage to be no platformed. Members and former members wrote and open letter and the auditor came under a lot of pressure from some to disinvite Farage. They can protest all they like I would be a hypocrite if I said they could not, how ever that does not mean i can't criticise them or their actions. But like I said in my first post on this trend this issue in general is not really one that effects Ireland there is little support for the idea of blocking and disinviting speakers because the vast majority of people thankfully see it as idiotic. It might be a different story in the UK and the US and maybe it may even change here, but at the moment I don't think it is that big an issue, as other recent examples which i pointed out in a previous posts show, the college administration don't just not support the idea of no platooning ect, thats have actively come out against it which is a very health position to be in I think.

Havockk

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

No I am simply stating ten people showed up to the protest. Prior to that many had called for Farage to be no platformed. Members and former members wrote and open letter and the auditor came under a lot of pressure from some to disinvite Farage. They can protest all they like I would be a hypocrite if I said they could not, how ever that does not mean i can't criticise them or their actions. But like I said in my first post on this trend this issue in general is not really one that effects Ireland there is little support for the idea of blocking and disinviting speakers because the vast majority of people thankfully see it as idiotic. It might be a different story in the UK and the US and maybe it may even change here, but at the moment I don't think it is that big an issue, as other recent examples which i pointed out in a previous posts show, the college administration don't just not support the idea of no platooning ect, thats have actively come out against it which is a very health position to be in I think.

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

Jcarroll07

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

So me saying they are allowed to protest as they have a right to protest as well as saying people should be allowed to speak due to free speech is hypocritical how exactly?

I never said they could not do it (the protestors)? I did criticise the basis for them doing it but also said this is thankfully a non issue in ireland compared to other countries. You will need to exercise the brain a little and break you point down. Or maybe you find the idea of me disagreeing with people but defending their right to say things a bit strange?

Overheal

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

Jcarroll07

Overheal wrote: »

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

If someone invited them in, then fine. I don't agree with them i know they cant be reasoned with so i wouldn't go to this hypothetical lecture in fact few if any would go (not going is different to actively shutting down). But equally I'm not a nazi and i don't believe in silencing or using threats of violence to silence people, so I would not advocate that it be shut down.

In addition i don't have a paternalistic mind set towards other people, I believe they can observe and reach their own conclusions and don't need me or others to decide what they are and are not capable of hearing. That how i feel if someone tried to tell me "for my own sake" what i should or should not listen to, in case i was incapable of handling it and reaching logical conclusions i would give them a mouth full and tell them where to go. And i would expect the same reaction if i was obnoxious enough to do that to someone else.

So to answer if some one wants to host them then they have every right to do that. The whole point of "freedom of expression/speech/opinion" is that it cant be limited otherwise you have licensed speech, and you are leaving the door open as history has shown time and time again to political abuse which is far more damaging then this theory that free speech is harmful. There are no examples in history of free speech damaging society ect but their are numerous examples of how limiting speech leads to exactly that. Which makes the arguments of the anti free speech brigade all the more ludicrous.

Eric Cartman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

true, but there should be, or as a society we should strive to get as close to it as physically possible.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

Yes, I would give them a platform. Id give the KKK a platform at trinity, id give anyone a platform.
Stopping people from giving a point of view or expressing an opinion is fascism.

I don't care if its the KKK, communists, feminists or the Green Party, its not up to me to decide that the radical, frankly irrational views of many groups are 'not ok' while others are.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, I would give them a platform. Id give the KKK a platform at trinity, id give anyone a platform.
Stopping people from giving a point of view or expressing an opinion is fascism.

I don't care if its the KKK, communists, feminists or the Green Party, its not up to me to decide that the radical, frankly irrational views of many groups are 'not ok' while others are.

Would you give them the platform over others that had more merit? Given that these venues have limited resources of time and space. Would a god hates fags lecture be a more worthy use of these finite resources than a TED talk series on the latest discoveries in the sciences for instance?

Varik

Overheal wrote: »

Would you give them the platform over others that had more merit? Given that these venues have limited resources of time and space. Would a god hates fags lecture be a more worthy use of these finite resources than a TED talk series on the latest discoveries in the sciences for instance?

Do you think that's something that comes up, does the whoever is in charge of theatre bookings in a university have that choice. That they double booked or had to choose.

None of the past protest and speaker bans were due to an alternative being denied.

Overheal

Varik wrote: »

Do you think that's something that comes up, does the whoever is in charge of theatre bookings in a university have that choice. That they double booked or had to choose.

None of the past protest and speaker bans were due to an alternative being denied.

That you're aware of.

In another frame, look at the short lived Keurig boycott last year in the US. This was brought about because Keurig customers complained to the company that they were sponsoring Sean Hannity's program while he was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, against the reporting of his own network. So, they pulled the ads. In response, pro-Hannity viewers staged a boycott of Keurig and were seen on the twitterverse destroying many a coffee pod machine. Keurig ultimately decided to resume sponsorship.

Who was wrong in this situation? I would argue nobody violated the free speech of anyone else. Again, I don't see the injustice of protesting the accommodation of controversial speakers to have a platform. Nobody can silence Farage, Hannity, WBC, Milo, Shapiro, or anyone else. They don't have to give them a microphone for it to be free speech. They can all run their own blogs and write their own statements, nobody is compelled to listen nor are they barred from making their opposition known to others.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

That you're aware of.

In another frame, look at the short lived Keurig boycott last year in the US. This was brought about because Keurig customers complained to the company that they were sponsoring Sean Hannity's program while he was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, against the reporting of his own network. So, they pulled the ads. In response, pro-Hannity viewers staged a boycott of Keurig and were seen on the twitterverse destroying many a coffee pod machine. Keurig ultimately decided to resume sponsorship.

Who was wrong in this situation? I would argue nobody violated the free speech of anyone else. Again, I don't see the injustice of protesting the accommodation of controversial speakers to have a platform. Nobody can silence Farage, Hannity, WBC, Milo, Shapiro, or anyone else. They don't have to give them a microphone for it to be free speech. They can all run their own blogs and write their own statements, nobody is compelled to listen nor are they barred from making their opposition known to others.

I notice you picked a bunch of people on the same side of the aisle.
What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints. I wouldn't dare take away their platform , but in your mind you may not see their right to speak as the same as Farage say...

Overheal

That doesn’t address my question. I pick those people because that’s what I’m familiar with. As it is I don’t even recognize the names you mentioned off hand. But yes insert whatever more fitting examples you feel like depending on your leanings and please answer the question.

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t address my question. I pick those people because that’s what I’m familiar with. As it is I don’t even recognize the names you mentioned off hand. But yes insert whatever more fitting examples you feel like depending on your leanings and please answer the question.

Who was wrong - the advertiser for pulling the ad's , that was done to influence an agenda in the media, its the reason that journalism has become so populist , every title is afraid of advertisers pulling out.

If trinity or another venue feel that they should invite people to speak, then who are antifa or anyone else to deny them a platform.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Who was wrong - the advertiser for pulling the ad's , that was done to influence an agenda in the media, its the reason that journalism has become so populist , every title is afraid of advertisers pulling out.

If trinity or another venue feel that they should invite people to speak, then who are antifa or anyone else to deny them a platform.

but would you try and argue the advertiser violates anyone’s right to free speech? I should hope not.

Protesters can use their speech in counter to that of another if they wish. Protest is a fundamental form of the right to free speech. If Trinity subsequently sides with the protests and cancels a speaking event that’s not a violation of the speakers right to free speech. I would wager in the 21st century we could have a teleconference with a controversial speaker to avoid an aside security issue.