College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

[icehorse]

Or maybe the survey methodology was wonky.

I tend to be concerned that PCness often goes too far and sometimes conflicts with our liberties. I think that protecting people from offense is often a red flag that our liberties are in danger. I think a LOT of universities are furthering "no offense" agendas and that this survey is indicative of that issue.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Both are protected.

Well that's rather the point, isn't it? Should they both be equally protected?

 

[Stevicus]

Well that's rather the point, isn't it? Should they both be equally protected?

I don't agree that both would be protected. The call for extermination presents a clear and present danger, which would not be protected under the Constitution.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Today, such a thing probably would be impossible for we no longer respect thinkers.

Tragically true. Mill had some wonderfully simple solutions and offered profoundly deep questions. Today we scoff at thinking and are too convinced of our own "self contained bubbles" to consider the communal utilitarianism that Mill espoused. We probably wouldn't have nonsense like planned obsoletion if we looked more towards Mill and less towards Friedman Milton, and without doubt we'd be more thoughtful in our resource consumption and waste disposal.

 

[Shad]

Free speech doesn't apply to Twitter and you agree to abide by their rules and policies when you agree to use their service

Never said it did. I was pointing out how something that isn't controversial results in a ban because Twitter is coddling people that require validation. Stating biological facts result in a ban. Twitter makes up rules as it goes. That is also a problem.

A media giant is playing flip/flop between platform and publisher, law, as twitter is run by ideologues.

 

[Shad]

Yes and people who get fired from at-will employment institutions initially sign contracts with the company on a contingency as well. Signing a contract means nothing it merely makes the person aware and accountable. This still doesn't guarantee that their behavior will not run counter. All students upon acceptance to any university or educational institution agree to this, but this changes nothing to the guarantee that the individual will abide by them.

Ergo a violation of an agreement one entered freely.

 

[Shad]

Yes, this is a consensus of the judiciary branch to which a consensus has been met by justices to establish a clear and definitive definition of a concept that makes it universal and legally binding. It doesn't change the fact that a consensus of opinions has been drawn to establish an agreed upon definition of something.

This does not make it subjective.

The same thing how corporations develop rules on conduct and behavior.

Nope as members of SCOTUS have been through years of experience, cases as lawyers and judges ergo a paper trial. IE a standard.

There is no objectivity in the establishment in the rule of language, there is merely a consensus of opinions that are agreed upon when it comes to the establishing of a concrete definition of something that is to be established universally.

Nope as yelling fire in a theater is based on objective facts.

 

[Shad]

I don't think it's really as vague as all that. There are certain standards regarding free speech, and something that enters the realm of "clear and present danger" would not be protected speech under the Constitution, regardless of any opinion poll of what people think should be allowed on college campuses.

The question is about speech, yet you guys are concocting scenarios of mass executions, which goes beyond the scope and premise of the question.

Extremes are always used by people when they have no regular argument to make.

 

[Augustus]

There are a couple of common situations:

- A poster makes a fallacy argument without understanding or intention.
- A poster makes a fallacy argument in bad faith.

I try to assess each situation as it comes up to determine the poster's intention. I think of you as one of the best debaters on RF. So I judged your earlier comment about bad data as being a bit of rhetoric designed not to discover what's true, but to "win" an argument.

My only argument was that such polls are not particularly accurate though

My 'complex, stats-filled example' had nothing to do with the stats, they were irrelevant. It was to do with the framing: positive/negative

Q18 Students should have the right to free speech on campus, even if what they are saying offends others.

Positive frame - rights: 75% in favour of free speech

Q19 Colleges and universities should be able to restrict student expression of political views that are hurtful or offensive to certain students.

Negative frame - hurtful/offensive: 57% support restrictions

Note, Q17 on discrimination may lead responders to think of this re Q19

Q17 In America today, discrimination against members of minority groups (ex: Black, Latino, or LGBTQ+ individuals) is a major problem.


Now add in the sample being non-representative (students from an opt-in database, paid to complete long survey), etc. Why should we trust that this is particularly accurate?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

This does not make it subjective.

It does in a way. It's an agreed upon definition amongst trusted judiciary officials, but it doesn't mean that their definition is universal to those outside that is what I mean.

Nope as yelling fire in a theater is based on objective facts.

Yelling fire in a theater or yelling fire in a crowded theater?

 

[Shad]

It does in a way. It's an agreed upon definition amongst trusted judiciary officials, but it doesn't mean that their definition is universal to those outside that is what I mean.

That does not mean it is subjective.

Yelling fire in a theater or yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Yes. The harm can be evaluated objectively.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I tend to be concerned that PCness often goes too far and sometimes conflicts with our liberties.

Keep in mind that when I hear someone use the term "PC," I interpret as "basic respect that the speaker doesn't feel like giving to a particular group or individual."

I think that protecting people from offense is often a red flag that our liberties are in danger. I think a LOT of universities are furthering "no offense" agendas and that this survey is indicative of that issue.

Exactly how do you think any university could put your "liberties" in "danger?"

The right to free speech is the right not to be punished by the government for what you say. It would be a pretty rare university that even has the power to imprison someone or levy mandatory fines.

 

[icehorse]

Keep in mind that when I hear someone use the term "PC," I interpret as "basic respect that the speaker doesn't feel like giving to a particular group or individual."

Too often it means "you might say something that offends me, so I'm going to try to keep you from talking at all."

Exactly how do you think any university could put your "liberties" in "danger?"

The right to free speech is the right not to be punished by the government for what you say. It would be a pretty rare university that even has the power to imprison someone or levy mandatory fines.

Agreed that a university couldn't put me in danger directly. But if universities have any value at all it's in shaping the minds of our future leaders, wouldn't you say. In that capacity, when universities curtail speech, they are undermining our liberties in the long run. Our liberties are under constant attack, we cannot compromise on them to avoid offending people.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Never said it did. I was pointing out how something that isn't controversial results in a ban because Twitter is coddling people that require validation. Stating biological facts result in a ban. Twitter makes up rules as it goes. That is also a problem.

A media giant is playing flip/flop between platform and publisher, law, as twitter is run by ideologues.

It's not biological fact. The brains of living transgender people have been imaged, the dead dissected, and their brains factually look more like their identity. That is a fact. People spouting "biological fact" are very frequently unaware that it does happen even that some women are xy and some men xx. Nature doesn't give us any indication it cares or coddles to those who try to rigidly fit it into a box of either or.
Or, do you feel it appropriate to point out that someone with mental deficiencies is is retarded?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Too often it means "you might say something that offends me, so I'm going to try to keep you from talking at all."

... which never happens at a university. The most a university can say is "we won't give you a platform to speak if you don't abide by our rules."

Agreed that a university couldn't put me in danger directly. But if universities have any value at all it's in shaping the minds of our future leaders, wouldn't you say. In that capacity, when universities curtail speech, they are undermining our liberties in the long run.

Examples?

Our liberties are under constant attack, we cannot compromise on them to avoid offending people.

Funny: it seems to me that the people who say things like that are the quickest to flip out at other people's free speech being focused on them. The (alt-)right sure does seem not to be fans of free speech when that free speech is used to protest them.

 

[icehorse]

Funny: it seems to me that the people who say things like that are the quickest to flip out at other people's free speech being focused on them. The (alt-)right sure does seem not to be fans of free speech when that free speech is used to protest them.

You talking to me?

I'm a classic liberal who places an extremely high value on our civil liberties. If you attribute anything more than that to me, it's your own baggage.

 

[Earthtank]

Before college students even talk about free speech they need to understand what college is for and its purpose. The problem today is they think its some safe space that's there to protect from the realities of the world.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Before college students even talk about free speech they need to understand what college is for and its purpose. The problem today is they think its some safe space that's there to protect from the realities of the world.

Oh, pray enlighten us, O great and wise guy who doesn't know the difference between cells and atoms, what is the purpose of college?

 

[icehorse]

Oh, pray enlighten us, O great and wise guy who doesn't know the difference between cells and atoms, what is the purpose of college?

On this issue @Earthtank is correct.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

On this issue @Earthtank is correct.

He hasn't made a positive claim yet to be considered correct about.