Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

The Legend Of Kira

20Cent wrote: »

There is a difference between censorship and saying whatever you want without criticism or consequences. The two seem to get mixed up a lot.

Criticism is one thing,, for example if someone says " I think the speaker is talking a load of BS " or " I think  certain points made by the speaker are bogus etc " that,s Criticism which is one thing, Im fine with Criticism.

"" Consequences "" is another thing altogether,, "" Consequences "" kind of suggests that people should face punishment some sort of sanction if he/she says the wrong thing or expresses the wrong opinion.

What are your views on some who try to create Consequences for other people for the " thoughtcrime " of expressing the wrong opinion by trying get people sacked from their employment as I,ve seen happen to some known Irish right wing bloggers ?

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?""

Counter protesters should have the right to protest as long as the[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y inte[/font]rfere with the rights of others to assemble [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]& attend a meeting/talk, one case in example last y[/font]ear a planned talk b[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y the Israeli-ambassador to speak was at T[/font]rinity was cancelled over the actions of a small mob.

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

To me this is unacceptable for some people wanted to attend that talk & who knows there ma[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ybe being some who woulda wanted to ask ha[/font]rd questions but were prevented from doing so as the meeting was cancelled.

It’s unacceptable to you. What would you like to see done about it? What protections would you like to be put in place?

ancapailldorcha

Mod: There are threads about abortion all over this site. This thread is about free speech at Universities, not outside abortion clinics.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So who decides where the line is? Who decides what level of disruption is acceptable? How do we enforce these rules? With the above statement you've thrown the door wide open for suppression of dissent. Give those powers to a government and you've created a censorship mechanism.

We both fundamentally agree on the right to free speech. It appears we disagree on the definition of free speech.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Sounds like a case where the cure could be as bad as the problem.

I would die for free speech. Same people, no booing or talking in the auditorium.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You’re happy for Universities deciding what constitutes “attempts to silence” and decide on an appropriate punishment? But you’re unhappy with Universities deciding who’s allowed speak. Don’t you see this as a contradiction?


Again, I would like to see Universities(or any authority) encourage lively debate and welcome controversial viewpoints. I would like to see them discourage attempts at silencing opposition viewpoints. Where I draw the line is actively prohibiting or punishing free expression and I see protesting as free expression.

To use your earlier phraseology, it’s a slippery slope. Once you accept the authorities right to arbitrate on who can express their opinion you’ve accepted limitations on free speech.

We do disagree on this. I don't see efforts to prevent someone from speaking to constitute "free speech."

I don’t see what else it can be. The right to free speech is the right to speak freely without government interference. Not the right to speak unopposed.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ask them politely to stop. What do you do?

I agree that protesting, or articulating an opposing viewpoint, constitutes free expression. Disrupting an event so that the speaker is shouted down or drowned out is not free expression, because the goal is not to counter the speaker's opinions but to prevent those opinions from being aired in the first place.

I understand your point and have a degree of sympathy with it. I hate seeing speakers shouted down. Peaceful dialogue is the real answer. However, I'll ask again: what do you do to stop it? Who is the decides when a protest has gone too far?

I am absolutely not advocating the types of protests Antifa, White Lives Matter etc. carry out. I just don't see how you can legislate against them in the name of free expression. I don't see how you can stop the protests and still maintain an open and free dialogue. You either have free speech or you don't.

Brian?

As a thought exercise, let's pretend I agree. The protesters should be stopped interfering with speakers. How do we stop them? Do we arrest them for protesting? What practical measures do we take?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

As a thought exercise, let's pretend I agree. The protesters should be stopped interfering with speakers. How do we stop them? Do we arrest them for protesting? What practical measures do we take?

It is similar to the question of whether the freedom of speech should protect the right to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
The best answer being that freedom of speech is not a factor in this case. The offense is against the theatre owner and patrons. Either the patron shouting fire paid to enter the theatre and the implied or explicit contract prohibits him from disrupting the performance or he entered the theatre without paying and can be reasonably ejected for that reason.
There is no need for any authority to make a value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the speaker or performance being protested or the validity of the protest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Stand back and allow the protest to go ahead. Unless they become violent. What do you do?

But we're not talking about stopping protests. We're talking about preventing people from suppressing free speech by shouting down and drowning out opinions they don't like.

We are talking about stopping protests. You’re not answering my questions about what you propose we do?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That rule is entirely fair minded. I like it.

What happens when it’s broken?

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

It is similar to the question of whether the freedom of speech should protect the right to shout Fire in a crowded theatre.
The best answer being that freedom of speech is not a factor in this case. The offense is against the theatre owner and patrons. Either the patron shouting fire paid to enter the theatre and the implied or explicit contract prohibits him from disrupting the performance or he entered the theatre without paying and can be reasonably ejected for that reason.
There is no need for any authority to make a value judgement on the rightness or wrongness of the speaker or performance being protested or the validity of the protest.

The 2 are nothing alike. Shouting fire when there is no fire is not an expression of opinion. It’s purposely malicious.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

The 2 are nothing alike. Shouting fire when there is no fire is not an expression of opinion. It’s purposely malicious.

It applies equally to anything that is said that causes disruption.
The whole point of that argument is that it means there is no necessity for an authority to decide what is purposely malicious and what is not. The problem of disrupting speakers can be solved without any recourse to questions of protected self expression or the prohibition of certain types of speech.

DickSwiveller

Brian, lets say there was a court case ongoing in the Central Criminal Court and protesters wanted to disrupt proceedings. Do you think it would be denying them their freedom of speech to not allow them to do so?

The Legend Of Kira

I should of clarified a bit in my other post why i brought up the question of buffer zones outside abortion clinics, was to ask the other poster i was replying to about balancing peoples  right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business.

The Legend Of Kira

Brian? wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Why don't you support the right of the counter protesters?""

Counter protesters should have the right to protest as long as the[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y inte[/font]rfere with the rights of others to assemble [font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]& attend a meeting/talk, one case in example last y[/font]ear a planned talk b[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]y the Israeli-ambassador to speak was at T[/font]rinity was cancelled over the actions of a small mob.

http://www.thejournal.ie/tcd-israeli-ambassador-protest-3250146-Feb2017/

To me this is unacceptable for some people wanted to attend that talk & who knows there ma[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ybe being some who woulda wanted to ask ha[/font]rd questions but were prevented from doing so as the meeting was cancelled.

It’s unacceptable to you. What would you like to see done about it? What protections would you like to be put in place?

If im at the theatre & im talking loudly,, I would be disrupting other people trying to watch the show,, if the  theatre  has security If i keep making a disruption if warned not to do security will remove me- the same should apply to those who disrupt talks at colleges/unis .
There has to be a balance with peoples right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business, usually when there is a  protest march in Dublin, the traffic is diverted to accommodate peoples right to protest & accommodate  other peoples right to go about their business.

James Brown

It's easily solved; if the University are willing, as Trinity were obviously not regarding the Israeli.
If a University has a speaker booked, on their property, they can choose what form any protest may take on their property. If people are shouting down the speaker, they can be removed as they would if shouting down Michael D. or Bill Gates.
A university backing down to protesters is the Universities choice. It's not dissimilar to a paper ditching a controversial columnist. He/she has the right to voice their opinion, but the publication doesn't have to let them.

johnp001

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It's easily solved; if the University are willing, as Trinity were obviously not regarding the Israeli.
If a University has a speaker booked, on their property, they can choose what form any protest may take on their property. If people are shouting down the speaker, they can be removed as they would if shouting down Michael D. or Bill Gates.
A university backing down to protesters is the Universities choice. It's not dissimilar to a paper ditching a controversial columnist. He/she has the right to voice their opinion, but the publication doesn't have to let them.

This is where the public/private distinction becomes important. If it is a private university then they can host or not host any speakers they choose based on any criteria they like. The marketplace can decide whether a private university that capitulates to protesters is a viable business or not.
If a public university chooses to back down to protesters that is in a way analogous to a tax collector deciding to collect your taxes but relenting on attempts to collect mine because I violently resist their attempts to take my money.

Brian?

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

If im at the theatre & im talking loudly,, I would be disrupting other people trying to watch the show,, if the  theatre  has security If i keep making a disruption if warned not to do security will remove me- the same should apply to those who disrupt talks at colleges/unis .
There has to be a balance with peoples right to protest vs other peoples right to go about their business, usually when there is a  protest march in Dublin, the traffic is diverted to accommodate peoples right to protest & accommodate  other peoples right to go about their business.

Theatres are privately owned. They make their own rules. We’re discussing public universities.

Brian?

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Brian, lets say there was a court case ongoing in the Central Criminal Court and protesters wanted to disrupt proceedings. Do you think it would be denying them their freedom of speech to not allow them to do so?

What case?

Also, there was is no constitutional right to free speech in Ireland. I wish there was.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They almost had me. They rely on the coercive force of a central authority to enforce their rules. No thanks.

johnp001

Brian? wrote: »

They almost had me. They rely on the coercive force of a central authority to enforce their rules. No thanks.

The existence of the public university relies on the coercive force of a central authority.

Brian?

johnp001 wrote: »

The existence of the public university relies on the coercive force of a central authority.

It was a joke.

20Cent

Cops and security dragging students out of a hall so tha Nazi's can speak unopposed doesn't seem like a picture of freedom.