Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 06:14PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Similarly I don't have to wait for a Nazi to tell me their opinion of Jews, Slavs, Gay people, or any of the other people they wanted to eradicate - calling youself a Nazi is enough of a giveaway.

I can support that logic, there for when some one declares to be a communist we don't need to actually hear them out just base our opinion off historical actions i.e they believe in mass murder and genocide. Coming to the tune of 100+ million in the last century.

Fair enough means we don't have to listen to the "they didn't do it properly" cr*p.

I still wouldn't restrict their ability to speak though getting back on point communist or Nazi.

Brian? · 16-02-2018 06:23PM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I can support that logic, there for when some one declares to be a communist we don't need to actually hear them out just base our opinion off historical actions i.e they believe in mass murder and genocide. Coming to the tune of 100+ million in the last century.

Fair enough means we don't have to listen to the "they didn't do it properly" cr*p.

I still wouldn't restrict their ability to speak though getting back on point communist or Nazi.

Even the worst estimates by rabid anti communists put the death toll at 94m. This includes anyone who the red army killed on their way to Berlin(a lot of German soldiers) and people who died of hunger from famine. So the 94m fugues is already highly questionable to the point of being out right incorrect. So where are you getting your +100m from? Pulling it out of thin air to make a point.

Even though communist regimes did terrible things and fascist regimes did terrible things, both should still be allowed a platform to speak imo.

The earlier infographic on how allowing the Nazis to speak was how Hitler came to power is a tab oversimplified. It was the violent counter protests he Nazis used against opponents that really did the trick. If we draw the line at violence, I think we’ll be grand.

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 06:28PM

Brian? wrote: »

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

I can agree with that specific point.

DickSwiveller · 16-02-2018 06:40PM

Brian? wrote: »

Even the worst estimates by rabid anti communists put the death toll at 94m. This includes anyone who the red army killed on their way to Berlin(a lot of German soldiers) and people who died of hunger from famine. So the 94m fugues is already highly questionable to the point of being out right incorrect. So where are you getting your +100m from? Pulling it out of thin air to make a point.

Even though communist regimes did terrible things and fascist regimes did terrible things, both should still be allowed a platform to speak imo.

The earlier infographic on how allowing the Nazis to speak was how Hitler came to power is a tab oversimplified. It was the violent counter protests he Nazis used against opponents that really did the trick. If we draw the line at violence, I think we’ll be grand.

Allow everyone their say. Including the counter protests.

It's impossible to have your say when someone is shouting you down. Throughout this entirethread, you still haven't acknowledged this simple point.

ancapailldorcha · 16-02-2018 06:40PM

Mod: Move away from the death tallies of various ideologies please. Feel free to start a new thread.

Brian? · 16-02-2018 06:47PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's impossible to have your say when someone is shouting you down. Throughout this entirethread, you still haven't acknowledged this simple point.

I've acknowledged it pages ago. You don't seem to want to hear it though. What I object to is censoring protesters name of free speech. You don't feel they are legitimate protests, that's our disagreement. Keep up.

Jcarroll07 · 16-02-2018 11:00PM

Brian? wrote: »

I've acknowledged it pages ago. You don't seem to want to hear it though. What I object to is censoring protesters name of free speech. You don't feel they are legitimate protests, that's our disagreement. Keep up.

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all in agreement on that.

Brian? · 17-02-2018 09:21AM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all in agreement on that.

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.

Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

Professor Moriarty · 17-02-2018 10:57AM

Brian? wrote: »

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.

Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

There is legislation regarding lawful assembly. If protesters adhere to the law then no problem. If they don't, then they should be arrested and charged.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-02-2018 04:39PM

Brian? wrote: »

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

I dont think anyone is taking issue (or at least I am not) with protesters per say, rather those that take it upon themselves to try and shut down rather then simply protest an event. There is a difference between protesting and shutting down I presume we are all in agreement on that.

Fundamentally we are in agreement.

Here’s the real world situation though.

Scenario A.

1. Speaker announced
2. Protestors protest
3. Threaten bigger protests at speech
4. Speaker cancelled due to security concerns.

Scenario B

1-3 Are the same as scenario A
4. Protesters march into speech and attempt to shout down speaker.

Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest. To others this is justified because everyone should be allowed to speak freely, but that really means one side gets to speak freely.

So who decides when protests go too far? Who has responsibility for implementing the censorship?

I ll reply to some parts of your post.

"" Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. ""

If the speaker is being shouted down to the point where he/she can,t speak to the audience then yes the speaker is being censored + people in attendance in the audience their rights are also being infringed on if they can,t listen to a speaker speak about something then afterwards make up their own minds if they agree or disagree with points the speaker made.

"" But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

If a mob arrives with the intent purpose of shutting down a public meeting & if they get removed by security, that,s not censorship its allowing the meeting to go ahead without it being stopped by a self appointed mob, now if people boo or jeer a speaker after he or she has made their speech I have no issue with that as the speaker has argue their case & if people in the audience want to cheer or boo afterwards I take no problem with that.

"" they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

Scenario experiment/ lets say a small mob enters a meeting at their local council with the intent purpose of stopping the council meeting from taking place & if the council gets security & the gardai to remove the small mob so the council meeting can go ahead, just because the small mob are stopped from preventing a council meeting taking place doesn,t mean that they re being censored.

On another note on a point of observation from earlier this afternoon, while I was in a local cafe earlier. I observed there was a repeal 8th stall in the street/area- a few feet away from the stall there was a silent pro life counter protest, they had non graphic banners while making their counter protest against the repeal 8th stall, while I was observing the pro life counter protesters they never interfered with the repeal 8th stall nor did they try shout down the people manning the repeal 8th stall either, goes to show that some can still make their point peacefully while not interfering with the assembly of other people with an opposing viewpoint.

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:04PM

Sounds like these speakers want a safe space for themselves.

Sitting in a lecture hall surrounded by security. Anyone who boo's, claps or even tuts to themselves is dragged out. Yay freedom.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-02-2018 06:15PM

20Cent wrote: »

Sounds like these speakers want a safe space for themselves.

Sitting in a lecture hall surrounded by security. Anyone who boo's, claps or even tuts to themselves is dragged out. Yay freedom.

"" Anyone who boo's, claps or even tuts to themselves is dragged out. ""

Are you reading what others actually wrote or are you reading what you want to hear ? what I actually said in my previous post.

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"" [/font]now if people boo or jeer a speaker after he or she has made their speech I have no issue with that as the speaker has argue their case & if people in the audience want to cheer or boo afterwards I take no problem with that. ""

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:18PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" Anyone who boo's, claps or even tuts to themselves is dragged out. ""

Are you reading what others actually wrote or are you reading what you want to hear ? what I actually said in my previous post.

[font=Open Sans, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"" [/font]now if people boo or jeer a speaker after he or she has made their speech I have no issue with that as the speaker has argue their case & if people in the audience want to cheer or boo afterwards I take no problem with that. ""

After.
So none during?

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:35PM

White nationalist Matthew Heimbach giving a "talk" in the University of Tennessee right now. No problems yet. Dunno if there are designated clapping times though. Dozens of far right skin heads in black on the campus. Guess the Jewish, black and homosexual students should just stay away today in the name of freedom.

DickSwiveller · 17-02-2018 06:41PM

20Cent wrote: »

White nationalist Matthew Heimbach giving a "talk" in the University of Tennessee right now. No problems yet. Dunno if there are designated clapping times though. Dozens of far right skin heads in black on the campus. Guess the Jewish, black and homosexual students should just stay away today in the name of freedom.

Ye, stay away. You're finally getting it.

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:45PM

Do we really want this to be a normal scene in a university?

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:45PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, stay away. You're finally getting it.

The mask slips.

ancapailldorcha · 17-02-2018 06:46PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

Ye, stay away. You're finally getting it.

20Cent wrote: »

The mask slips.

Enough of this.

20Cent · 17-02-2018 06:57PM

Hi guys,
Lets debate how I don't think you should be allowed kill me and my family.

DickSwiveller · 17-02-2018 06:58PM

20Cent wrote: »

The mask slips.

My argument is that anyone should be free to speak. That doesn't mean I support nazi's, so stop trying to associate me with with white nationalists. I dislike them as much as everyone else does. I don't think the way to deal with these people is to silence them. See my David Irving example from earlier.

20Cent · 17-02-2018 07:02PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

My argument is that anyone should be free to speak. That doesn't mean I support nazi's, so stop trying to associate me with with white nationalists. I dislike them as much as everyone else does. I don't think the way to deal with these people is to silence them. See my David Irving example from earlier.

So your ok with the scenes above. What about the kid who wants to use the library or go to a class and has all these guys on campus. What about their freedom.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-02-2018 07:12PM

Regarding Matthew Heimbach I woukdn,t be a fan of his politics too extreme right for me,, that said I wouldn,t be in favour of no platforming him or having him silenced, if he gets an invite to speak at a college/uni he can be challenged in open debate & whatever he might say or might not say its all out in the open,, vs banning such groups from speaking in public- if that happens if they get banned from speaking in public just because they may be banned doesn,t mean they re gone away you know, it just means they get driven underground instead.

With all the talk of dangerous speakers etc, when radical islamic preacher [font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Anjem Choundary spoke at Trinity years ago,, I don,t recall any left wing opposition to him speaking nor do I recall any calls to have him no platformed- funny that left wing groups are nearly always silent when it comes to radical Islamic preachers be allowed speak at a college/uni .[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171[/font]

Brian? · 17-02-2018 07:23PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Regarding Matthew Heimbach I woukdn,t be a fan of his politics too extreme right for me,, that said I wouldn,t be in favour of no platforming him or having him silenced, if he gets an invite to speak at a college/uni he can be challenged in open debate & whatever he might say or might not say its all out in the open,, vs banning such groups from speaking in public- if that happens if they get banned from speaking in public just because they may be banned doesn,t mean they re gone away you know, it just means they get driven underground instead.

With all the talk of dangerous speakers etc, when radical islamic preacher [font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Anjem Choundary spoke at Trinity years ago,, I don,t recall any left wing opposition to him speaking nor do I recall any calls to have him no platformed- funny that left wing groups are nearly always silent when it comes to radical Islamic preachers be allowed speak at a college/uni .[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171[/font]

What about the Muslims? Why won’t the left wingers challenge the Muslims? Dear lord the Muslims!

Why does it matter? The principle remains. Allow everyone to speak. Allow everyone to protest. It’s the only way everyone gets to speak without censorship. Censor the speakers and you’ve lost. Censor the protestors and you’ve also lost. Why can’t you see this.

I don’t want people shouted down. I don’t want to hear Nazis talk. But I don’t want to see the right to do either infringed. Simple.

Brian? · 17-02-2018 07:24PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I ll reply to some parts of your post.

"" Now in neither scenario is anyone being censored. ""

If the speaker is being shouted down to the point where he/she can,t speak to the audience then yes the speaker is being censored + people in attendance in the audience their rights are also being infringed on if they can,t listen to a speaker speak about something then afterwards make up their own minds if they agree or disagree with points the speaker made.

"" But some people want to implement censorship, they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

If a mob arrives with the intent purpose of shutting down a public meeting & if they get removed by security, that,s not censorship its allowing the meeting to go ahead without it being stopped by a self appointed mob, now if people boo or jeer a speaker after he or she has made their speech I have no issue with that as the speaker has argue their case & if people in the audience want to cheer or boo afterwards I take no problem with that.

"" they want the protesters forcibly removed or stopped from entering. To me this is an infringement on their rights to protest ""

Scenario experiment/ lets say a small mob enters a meeting at their local council with the intent purpose of stopping the council meeting from taking place & if the council gets security & the gardai to remove the small mob so the council meeting can go ahead, just because the small mob are stopped from preventing a council meeting taking place doesn,t mean that they re being censored.

On another note on a point of observation from earlier this afternoon, while I was in a local cafe earlier. I observed there was a repeal 8th stall in the street/area- a few feet away from the stall there was a silent pro life counter protest, they had non graphic banners while making their counter protest against the repeal 8th stall, while I was observing the pro life counter protesters they never interfered with the repeal 8th stall nor did they try shout down the people manning the repeal 8th stall either, goes to show that some can still make their point peacefully while not interfering with the assembly of other people with an opposing viewpoint.

I’m sorry. But I’ve answered all of this enough times.

20Cent · 17-02-2018 07:31PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Regarding Matthew Heimbach I woukdn,t be a fan of his politics too extreme right for me,, that said I wouldn,t be in favour of no platforming him or having him silenced, if he gets an invite to speak at a college/uni he can be challenged in open debate & whatever he might say or might not say its all out in the open,, vs banning such groups from speaking in public- if that happens if they get banned from speaking in public just because they may be banned doesn,t mean they re gone away you know, it just means they get driven underground instead.

With all the talk of dangerous speakers etc, when radical islamic preacher [font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Anjem Choundary spoke at Trinity years ago,, I don,t recall any left wing opposition to him speaking nor do I recall any calls to have him no platformed- funny that left wing groups are nearly always silent when it comes to radical Islamic preachers be allowed speak at a college/uni .[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171[/font]

Disagree, peoples right to live isn't "up for debate".

A lot of this is to normalize such scenes and intimidate. The university have a duty of care for their students inviting this lot onto the campus isn't fair.

The Legend Of Kira · 17-02-2018 07:40PM

Brian? wrote: »

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Regarding Matthew Heimbach I woukdn,t be a fan of his politics too extreme right for me,, that said I wouldn,t be in favour of no platforming him or having him silenced, if he gets an invite to speak at a college/uni he can be challenged in open debate & whatever he might say or might not say its all out in the open,, vs banning such groups from speaking in public- if that happens if they get banned from speaking in public just because they may be banned doesn,t mean they re gone away you know, it just means they get driven underground instead.

With all the talk of dangerous speakers etc, when radical islamic preacher [font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]Anjem Choundary spoke at Trinity years ago,, I don,t recall any left wing opposition to him speaking nor do I recall any calls to have him no platformed- funny that left wing groups are nearly always silent when it comes to radical Islamic preachers be allowed speak at a college/uni .[/font]

[font=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif]https://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171[/font]

What about the Muslims? Why won’t the left wingers challenge the Muslims? Dear lord the Muslims!

Why does it matter? The principle remains. Allow everyone to speak. Allow everyone to protest. It’s the only way everyone gets to speak without censorship. Censor the speakers and you’ve lost. Censor the protestors and you’ve also lost. Why can’t you see this.

I don’t want people shouted down. I don’t want to hear Nazis talk. But I don’t want to see the right to do either infringed. Simple.

"" What about the Muslims? Why won’t the left wingers challenge the Muslims? Dear lord the Muslims! ""

When people like 20cent go on about dangerous speakers speaking at public venues, but ignore radical islamic preachers, its nothing short of selective opposition if you re gonna say you support no platforming dangerous speakers at least don,t be selective about it .

"" Allow everyone to speak. Allow everyone to protest. It’s the only way everyone gets to speak without censorship. Censor the speakers and you’ve lost. Censor the protestors and you’ve also lost. Why can’t you see this. ""

Anyone is familar with my posts knows I fully oppose no platforming , Im not in favour of censoring speakers, when you say " censor protesters " if its context of peaceful protest I have no issue with peaceful protest, but its it context of a mob trying to stop a public meeting from taking place & security removes them so the meeting can go ahead & take place, they re not censored just because they can,t interfere with the assembly of other people .

20Cent · 17-02-2018 07:46PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" What about the Muslims? Why won’t the left wingers challenge the Muslims? Dear lord the Muslims! ""

When people like 20cent go on about dangerous speakers speaking at public venues, but ignore radical islamic preachers, its nothing short of selective opposition if you re gonna say you support no platforming dangerous speakers at least don,t be selective about it .

"" Allow everyone to speak. Allow everyone to protest. It’s the only way everyone gets to speak without censorship. Censor the speakers and you’ve lost. Censor the protestors and you’ve also lost. Why can’t you see this. ""

Anyone is familar with my posts knows I fully oppose no platforming , Im not in favour of censoring speakers, when you say " censor protesters " if its context of peaceful protest I have no issue with peaceful protest, but its it context of a mob trying to stop a public meeting from taking place & security removes them so the meeting can go ahead & take place, they re not censored just because they can,t interfere with the assembly of other people .

Excuse me don't know where you got that from not true at all.

Brian? · 17-02-2018 09:15PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

"" What about the Muslims? Why won’t the left wingers challenge the Muslims? Dear lord the Muslims! ""

When people like 20cent go on about dangerous speakers speaking at public venues, but ignore radical islamic preachers, its nothing short of selective opposition if you re gonna say you support no platforming dangerous speakers at least don,t be selective about it .

"" Allow everyone to speak. Allow everyone to protest. It’s the only way everyone gets to speak without censorship. Censor the speakers and you’ve lost. Censor the protestors and you’ve also lost. Why can’t you see this. ""

Anyone is familar with my posts knows I fully oppose no platforming , Im not in favour of censoring speakers, when you say " censor protesters " if its context of peaceful protest I have no issue with peaceful protest, but its it context of a mob trying to stop a public meeting from taking place & security removes them so the meeting can go ahead & take place, they re not censored just because they can,t interfere with the assembly of other people .

But the protesters are peaceful and non violent. Even if they shout.

DickSwiveller · 17-02-2018 10:42PM

Brian? wrote: »

But the protesters are peaceful and non violent. Even if they shout.

How is the talk supposed to go ahead of they're shouting?

20Cent · 17-02-2018 11:04PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

How is the talk supposed to go ahead of they're shouting?

How often does a talk get abandoned because the audience are shouting?

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Comments