Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

1…5681011…31

Comments

  • #212
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    How can you equate free speech - a person's freedom to air their views - with a brainless mob shouting someone down. You really can't see the difference?

    I do see a difference. I've said many times now, I dislike the brainless mob.

    Does that mean their right to free speech is less? I really don't think it can. Otherwise you've just put a subjective value on the right to free speech. So we've all lost a little.

    In the real world, there are already enough subjective values placed on the right to free speech. I object to the existing values, I'd prefer not to see any more.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #213
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    20Cent wrote: »
    Freedom of speech means you are free to speak without being censored by the government. It doesn't mean entitlement to a platform with no opposition or criticism.
    To confront someone like Shapiro the students would have to pay to attend the talk, hope they get picked to ask a question and then they'd only have a few seconds to ask a question which he will miscontrue and mock them anyway.
    He should be allowed speak but so should the students.

    A much more disturbing development is the president of the USA constant attacks on the media, calling for critics to be fired. Even kneeling on one knee at a football game is attacked by the president. He only does interviews with sycophantic allies. He said licences to broadcast should be taken from media He disagrees with. He even said democrats not clapping at the state of the union address is treasonous. Don't hear the freedom of speech brigade commenting on that.

    Oh for Christ sake. For the 500th time, I have no problem with people challenging a speaker. What I'm against is shouting down someone incessantly. You don't see the distinction.

    As for Trump, why are you telling me this? When did I say I agree with him? And lots of people have criticized him. You need to read outside of the guardian and you'll find them.


  • #214
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    Brian? wrote: »
    I do see a difference. I've said many times now, I dislike the brainless mob.

    Does that mean their right to free speech is less? I really don't think it can. Otherwise you've just put a subjective value on the right to free speech. So we've all lost a little.

    In the real world, there are already enough subjective values placed on the right to free speech. I object to the existing values, I'd prefer not to see any more.

    How would it ever be possible for a person to hold a talk in a university with this ridiculous logic. Every speech would be cancelled because different groups would realize that all they have to do is turn up and shout the speaker down.


  • #215
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    How would it ever be possible for a person to hold a talk in a university with this ridiculous logic. Every speech would be cancelled because different groups would realize that all they have to do is turn up and shout the speaker down.

    And yet the people this actually happens to are all right wing trolls for some reason?


  • #216
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    How would it ever be possible for a person to hold a talk in a university with this ridiculous logic. Every speech would be cancelled because different groups would realize that all they have to do is turn up and shout the speaker down.

    But every speech isn't cancelled now.

    What would you like to see done? What is your solution?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • #217
    beans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    How would it ever be possible for a person to hold a talk in a university with this ridiculous logic. Every speech would be cancelled because different groups would realize that all they have to do is turn up and shout the speaker down.

    Perhaps venues for public speaking should adopt a standardised format, like Queensbury Rules, where the speaker has time and by convention there's a public rebuttal allocation after the fact. The speaker wouldn't have to respond to public rebuttal but refusal to would speak to their intent, logical capabilities etc.

    Speakers can talk, protesters can raise points, nothing gets lost in the noise. People who shout over others get ejected.


  • #218
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Brian? wrote: »
    But every speech isn't cancelled now.

    What would you like to see done? What is your solution?

    Of all places, universities should be bastions of free speech. Provision for adequate security to ensure free access and uniterrupted speaking by invited speakers would be a good start.


  • #219
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    beans wrote: »
    Perhaps venues for public speaking should adopt a standardised format, like Queensbury Rules, where the speaker has time and by convention there's a public rebuttal allocation after the fact. The speaker wouldn't have to respond to public rebuttal but refusal to would speak to their intent, logical capabilities etc.

    Speakers can talk, protesters can raise points, nothing gets lost in the noise. People who shout over others get ejected.

    You clearly haven't read anything I've written in this thread. I'm not - for the 500th time- talking about disagreement. I'm talking about a mob shouting down speakers. Are all you people so weak and sensitive that you cant even let someone speak for a half hour/hour because it might hurt your feelings? It's embarrassing.


  • #220
    beans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read anything I've written in this thread. I'm not - for the 500th time- talking about disagreement. I'm talking about a mob shouting down speakers. Are all you people so weak and sensitive that you cant even let someone speak for a half hour/hour because it might hurt your feelings? It's embarrassing.

    I think my point agrees with you. I don't think speakers should be shouted down. I was very naively suggesting something to enable this, and allow room for objections to be raised.


  • #221
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Of all places, universities should be bastions of free speech. Provision for adequate security to ensure free access and uniterrupted speaking by invited speakers would be a good start.

    Uninterrupted speaking for one side or both?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Brian? wrote: »
    Uninterrupted speaking for one side or both?

    For anyone who has been invited to speak and from the audience if there is a Q&A .


  • #223
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    You clearly haven't read anything I've written in this thread. I'm not - for the 500th time- talking about disagreement. I'm talking about a mob shouting down speakers. Are all you people so weak and sensitive that you cant even let someone speak for a half hour/hour because it might hurt your feelings? It's embarrassing.

    You realise you're the only one talking about hurt feelings?

    Also, no one is saying the mobs should interrupt speakers or deny them the right to speak. No one is supporting their methods. All I am saying is that you cannot champion free speech whole shutting down opposition.

    Mr Shapiro is no paragon of free speech either. He happily see the "liberal mainstream media" and "homosexual entertainment industry" censored to promote "family values", i.e. conservative christian values.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #224
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    For anyone who has been invited to speak and from the audience if there is a Q&A .

    What if there isn't a Q&A?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #225
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Brian? wrote: »
    What if there isn't a Q&A?

    Then everyone goes home.


  • #226
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    Brian? wrote: »
    You realise you're the only one talking about hurt feelings?

    Also, no one is saying the mobs should interrupt speakers or deny them the right to speak. No one is supporting their methods. All I am saying is that you cannot champion free speech whole shutting down opposition.

    Mr Shapiro is no paragon of free speech either. He happily see the "liberal mainstream media" and "homosexual entertainment industry" censored to promote "family values", i.e. conservative christian values.

    Your last paragraph is just complete waffle, based on no facts or logic. If someone is roaring during a speech they are impinging on a person's freedom to speak and should be removed from the venue. Again, your logic is completely ridiculous. When a person is invited to give a talk they are given a platform by dint of being invited and there right to express themselves should override the right of people to shut them down.


  • #227
    beans
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,886 ✭✭✭beans


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Then everyone goes home.


    That was why I proposed a standard format where there would be allotted time for counter-argument. Gives room for both sides to talk, encourages debate etc. Seems so obvious a solution that I'm sure I'm being daft proposing it.


  • #228
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    beans wrote: »
    That was why I proposed a standard format where there would be allotted time for counter-argument. Gives room for both sides to talk, encourages debate etc. Seems so obvious a solution that I'm sure I'm being daft proposing it.

    This happens during a q and a anyway


  • #229
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Your last paragraph is just complete waffle, based on no facts or logic. If someone is roaring during a speech they are impinging on a person's freedom to speak and should be removed from the venue. Again, your logic is completely ridiculous. When a person is invited to give a talk they are given a platform by dint of being invited and there right to express themselves should override the right of people to shut them down.

    Any chance you could be polite? Repeatedly describing someone's logic as ridiculous is not polite. It lowers the standard of discussion.

    Now. My last paragraph about Ben Shapiro entirely based in facts, I'm not sure what logic has to do with it.

    I've answered you enough. This is going in circles. It's not even productive as a thought exercisr because you are refusing to debate the points I am making, in favour of filling in the gaps in my posts with your own bias. Good luck to you.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #230
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Then everyone goes home.

    So you want the University authorities to ensure one side is allowed to speak uninterrupted and without challenge.

    Thus creating a central authority for the censorship of debate on University campuses. Isn't it preferable to tolerate a few loud mouths?

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #231
    kaymin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,552 ✭✭✭kaymin


    Brian? wrote: »
    So you want the University authorities to ensure one side is allowed to speak uninterrupted and without challenge.

    Thus creating a central authority for the censorship of debate on University campuses. Isn't it preferable to tolerate a few loud mouths?

    Let the mob organise their own session to de-bunk the views they disagree with.

    Everyone's opinion should be heard but at the appropriate time.

    People who refuse to allow scheduled speakers speak should be thrown out.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Brian? wrote: »
    So you want the University authorities to ensure one side is allowed to speak uninterrupted and without challenge.

    Thus creating a central authority for the censorship of debate on University campuses. Isn't it preferable to tolerate a few loud mouths?

    Did I say that? You're drawing your own conclusions and attributing them to me.

    Many controversial speakers have been uninvited solely for security reasons. Mostly, these concerns have been as a result of student protests. These protests should not be allowed to interfere with free speech.


  • #233
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    Brian? wrote: »
    Any chance you could be polite? Repeatedly describing someone's logic as ridiculous is not polite. It lowers the standard of discussion.

    Now. My last paragraph about Ben Shapiro entirely based in facts, I'm not sure what logic has to do with it.

    I've answered you enough. This is going in circles. It's not even productive as a thought exercisr because you are refusing to debate the points I am making, in favour of filling in the gaps in my posts with your own bias. Good luck to you.

    I've answered every point and you keep deflecting and repeating the same stuff ad nauseam. You're right, this is a complete waste of time. Slán leat.


  • #234
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,279 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    I think it's unrealistic to expect universities to micromanage the activities of college societies to such an extent. If legally obliged to do so, they'd probably just ban societies from inviting guest speakers, or insist that if they do so, it needs to be off-campus.


  • #235
    VonZan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 319 ✭✭VonZan


    Brian? wrote: »
    Uninterrupted speaking for one side or both?

    Are you deliberately missing the obvious here? It’s not very hard...


  • #236
    Brian?
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 23,065 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Did I say that? You're drawing your own conclusions and attributing them to me.

    It's an inevitable conclusion imo. You want Universities to enforce certain rules around speaking occasions. You're making them the authority.
    Many controversial speakers have been uninvited solely for security reasons. Mostly, these concerns have been as a result of student protests. These protests should not be allowed to interfere with free speech.

    They shouldn't. You are correct. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed protest. Which is all I am saying. You can't champion free speech and silence protests at the same time.

    they/them/theirs


    The more you can increase fear of drugs and crime, welfare mothers, immigrants and aliens, the more you control all of the people.

    Noam Chomsky



  • #237
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    Brian? wrote: »
    It's an inevitable conclusion imo. You want Universities to enforce certain rules around speaking occasions. You're making them the authority.



    They shouldn't. You are correct. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed protest. Which is all I am saying. You can't champion free speech and silence protests at the same time.

    Shouting down a speaker is not, I repeat, is not 'protest'. It is an attempt to shut down an opposing view.Please see the distinction! Please!


  • #238
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Baron de Charlus wrote: »
    I think it's unrealistic to expect universities to micromanage the activities of college societies to such an extent. If legally obliged to do so, they'd probably just ban societies from inviting guest speakers, or insist that if they do so, it needs to be off-campus.

    No it is not unrealistic. It's what they should do - support societies and free speech. Whether governments will fund universities to provide adequate security is another question but the principle remains.


  • #239
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    Brian? wrote: »
    It's an inevitable conclusion imo. You want Universities to enforce certain
    rules around speaking occasions. You're making them the authority.
    No, it's your conclusion. I want universities to facilitate free speech which is the polar opposite to censorship.
    They shouldn't. You are correct. That doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed
    protest. Which is all I am saying. You can't champion free speech and silence
    protests at the same time.

    I never suggested that there shouldn't be protests. I'm suggesting that any invited speaker (subject to law) should be able to speak uninterrupted in a university and anybody who wishes to hear that person should be able to do so unhindered and free of harassment.


  • #240
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Shouting down a speaker is not, I repeat, is not 'protest'. It is an attempt to shut down an opposing view.Please see the distinction! Please!

    Of course it is a protest. It is a most effective protest.

    Similar to a sit-down protest which prevents bulldozers demolishing something, or a protest which prevents an eviction or an arrest - a protest does not have to consist of a politely phrased request which has zero effect, it can include some direct action to prevent the thing being protested.

    It may even include coming ready for physical confrontation and violence if violent opposition or heavy handed police action are expected.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I'm suggesting that any invited speaker (subject to law) should be able to speak uninterrupted in a university and anybody who wishes to hear that person should be able to do so unhindered and free of harassment.

    You are welcome to suggest that, but if you invite a holocaust denier, your suggestion will be ignored by protestors. And if you have the University deploy enough security to protect the holocaust deniers speech, you can expect cracked heads, blood on campus, arrests, video on the 9 o'clock news of young people being beaten to let a holocaust denier speak without interruption.

    Which is not a good look for a University.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement