Free Speech and Rules of Conduct Inside Establishments

[wellwisher]

Suppose a university professor, an employee, or a church attendant deliberately and repeatedly referred to men at university, in the workplace, or at church as "she," to women as "he," or to adults in one of those establishments as "kids." Further suppose that a person at the church made it a habit to call other congregants "false Christians." This would almost certainly offend many of them, and it could lead to altercations or conflict where it happened.

In any of those cases, would the establishment or institution in question have any obligation to allow the person causing the discord to enter its premises and keep engaging in the activity that caused the discord? Would the institution be in violation of that person's free speech rights if it removed them from the premises for refusing to abide by its conventions and rules of conduct?

I would like to know what people think about these questions and whether they believe any of the above situations would be different from deliberate, repeated misgendering of a trans person in a professional, educational, or private setting.

The big problem is the political Left has too many speech restrictions designed to give them an advantage. The Political Right has way fewer speech restrictions. This is why Twitter, in 2020, only censored the Right, since the Left had way more taboo words it could use to game the free speech system, against the Right.

How many genders are we supposed to tip toe around? There are now 107 genders defined for 2023. Why do I need to work so hard trying to figure who is who, so I don't insult someone? This is how the game works. I am supposed to stayed tied up in silence, unable to be spontaneous, if one or more of the107 different genders are present, plus all the other Lefty group, who each have their own set of pet word restrictions. It is hard to do comedy anymore.

How about each political party get the same amount of censored word restrictions? The word denier is designed to be derogatory, so I pick that one. The object of the game is to place certain people, from the other side, in a straight jacket. If we take away that word, denier, how many from the Left will not be able to discuss climate change?

The word does not bother me, but a game is a game, The Left is not used it it applying to them. The white, Christian, natural male has the fewest word restrictions, so you can have free speech around them. But as we add people from opposite side, then you better watch your tongue. Notice who is better set up for censorship?

How about both sides make a list and both lists have to be the same size? If the Right cannot reach 107, then the Left has to pear back among all their groups, to make it even. In terms of gender, I want to be called natural male. Anything less is needs a straight jacket. Does any other Conservative have Lefty words, they want to be made taboo, so we can catch up to the Left in censorship, within the taboo word game?

Commandeering language was alway part of the Lefty strategy. It may come from the Anarchist Cookbook. Controlling language allows you to control minds; constrain and contain. I prefer freedom of speech with no word game restrictions designed to tie you up. There are mean things people often say in the heat of passion, so we can agree on a set of mean words that allow you to express angry emotions, while agreeing among us not to take it too personal.

 

[Orbit]

The big problem is the political Left has too many speech restrictions designed to give them an advantage. The Political Right has way fewer speech restrictions. This is why Twitter, in 2020, only censored the Right, since the Left had way more taboo words it could use to game the free speech system, against the Right.

How many genders are we supposed to tip toe around? There are now 107 genders defined for 2023. Why do I need to work so hard trying to figure who is who, so I don't insult someone? This is how the game works. I am supposed to stayed tied up in silence, unable to be spontaneous, if one or more of the107 different genders are present, plus all the other Lefty group, who each have their own set of pet word restrictions. It is hard to do comedy anymore.

How about each political party get the same amount of censored word restrictions? The word denier is designed to be derogatory, so I pick that one. The object of the game is to place certain people, from the other side, in a straight jacket. If we take away that word, denier, how many from the Left will not be able to discuss climate change?

The word does not bother me, but a game is a game, The Left is not used it it applying to them. The white, Christian, natural male has the fewest word restrictions, so you can have free speech around them. But as we add people from opposite side, then you better watch your tongue. Notice who is better set up for censorship?

How about both sides make a list and both lists have to be the same size? If the Right cannot reach 107, then the Left has to pear back among all their groups, to make it even. In terms of gender, I want to be called natural male. Anything less is needs a straight jacket. Does any other Conservative have Lefty words, they want to be made taboo, so we can catch up to the Left in censorship, within the taboo word game?

Commandeering language was alway part of the Lefty strategy. It may come from the Anarchist Cookbook. Controlling language allows you to control minds; constrain and contain. I prefer freedom of speech with no word game restrictions designed to tie you up. There are mean things people often say in the heat of passion, so we can agree on a set of mean words that allow you to express angry emotions, while agreeing among us not to take it too personal.

Your post contains so much nonsense it is exhausting to address it all. I've spent decades working in higher education, and while it's quite fashionable to bash universities, the truth on the ground is quite different from the occasional extreme case that is then held up to be the norm (the Fallacy of Dramatic Instance).

First, as the chair of both the most liberal (sociology) and the most conservative (criminal justice) academic departments, I have observed far more student complaints about conservative professors than the other way around. For better or for worse, the current climate in education is "keep the customers (students) happy", and the last thing most professors want is student complaints standing between them and tenure, or triggering post-tenure review. So even the most personally radical professors moderate themselves in the classroom to avoid complaints, which are taken very seriously everywhere I've taught.

To your tangent about Twitter, far right groups like the Proud Boys were de-platformed because they called for violence; calls to violence are simply seen more often from far right groups, who are collectively responsible for about 70% of US domestic terror attacks, while leftist groups are responsible for approximately 7%.

 

[wellwisher]

Your post contains so much nonsense it is exhausting to address it all. I've spent decades working in higher education, and while it's quite fashionable to bash universities, the truth on the ground is quite different from the occasional extreme case that is then held up to be the norm (the Fallacy of Dramatic Instance).

First, as the chair of both the most liberal (sociology) and the most conservative (criminal justice) academic departments, I have observed far more student complaints about conservative professors than the other way around. For better or for worse, the current climate in education is "keep the customers (students) happy", and the last thing most professors want is student complaints standing between them and tenure, or triggering post-tenure review. So even the most personally radical professors moderate themselves in the classroom to avoid complaints, which are taken very seriously everywhere I've taught.

To your tangent about Twitter, far right groups like the Proud Boys were de-platformed because they called for violence; calls to violence are simply seen more often from far right groups, who are collectively responsible for about 70% of US domestic terror attacks, while leftist groups are responsible for approximately 7%.

My post was about freedom of speech and how one side of the political isle has more taboo terms, that can be used as a way to censor free speech, in favor of their own political view.

The topic began with someone speaking about people being rude by misrepresenting other people; the rude side of free speech. If you do a word count, Liberals, have more taboo words; victim mentality.

I can see how students would complain more about Conservative law and order types, since that entire occupation is about being by the book. It is not as subjective. I can also see how they will be more pampered by liberal sociology, where you are a victim of oppression, and need special words to add to the taboo list; pronouns.

The law and order types, will teach if you break the law, you committed a crime. The Liberal sociologist may teach that not all crime is the fault of the criminal, because of decades of mistreatment, a criminal can be a victim. You cannot call the criminal, a criminal, since that is a new taboo word.

 

[Orbit]

My post was about freedom of speech and how one side of the political isle has more taboo terms, that can be used as a way to censor free speech, in favor of their own political view.

The topic began with someone speaking about people being rude by misrepresenting other people; the rude side of free speech. If you do a word count, Liberals, have more taboo words; victim mentality.

I can see how students would complain more about Conservative law and order types, since that entire occupation is about being by the book. It is not as subjective. I can also see how they will be more pampered by liberal sociology, where you are a victim of oppression, and need special words to add to the taboo list; pronouns.

The law and order types, will teach if you break the law, you committed a crime. The Liberal sociologist may teach that not all crime is the fault of the criminal, because of decades of mistreatment, a criminal can be a victim. You cannot call the criminal, a criminal, since that is a new taboo word.

You misrepresent sociology in particular and the university in general. Just as an aside, Critical Race Theory came out of academic Criminology so things are not so neatly sliced as you imagine. And the demand for inclusive language originates with the students, not the professors. And I'd love to see a list of what you consider "taboo words".

Also, when students complain about conservative professors, it isn't about them being "by the book". It is most often because they make racist or sexist statements. For example we currently have a conservative Political Science professor who has a pattern of complaints from female students that he denigrates females in his lectures, won't call on women students, and when he does it is to belittle their views. This is to the point that some female students changed their majors. So it isn't really about policing language in the universities; we have problems but that one generally doesn't come up. And for each and every class there are evaluation forms at the end of the course. One of the items is "Creates an unbiased learning environment" and most professors score very well on that, even when teaching controversial subjects.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose a university professor, an employee, or a church attendant deliberately and repeatedly referred to men at university, in the workplace, or at church as "she," to women as "he," or to adults in one of those establishments as "kids." Further suppose that a person at the church made it a habit to call other congregants "false Christians." This would almost certainly offend many of them, and it could lead to altercations or conflict where it happened.

In any of those cases, would the establishment or institution in question have any obligation to allow the person causing the discord to enter its premises and keep engaging in the activity that caused the discord? Would the institution be in violation of that person's free speech rights if it removed them from the premises for refusing to abide by its conventions and rules of conduct?

I would like to know what people think about these questions and whether they believe any of the above situations would be different from deliberate, repeated misgendering of a trans person in a professional, educational, or private setting.

What many people do not realize is that the right to free speech is a political right. The government cannot retaliate for one's speech about politicians or institutions. Jobs are different. One can be fired for far lower offenses than that. So yes, a business, church or college could easily fire people for those sorts of outbursts, unless there was a protection from that sort of termination in their personal contracts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The big problem is the political Left has too many speech restrictions designed to give them an advantage. The Political Right has way fewer speech restrictions. This is why Twitter, in 2020, only censored the Right, since the Left had way more taboo words it could use to game the free speech system, against the Right.

How many genders are we supposed to tip toe around? There are now 107 genders defined for 2023. Why do I need to work so hard trying to figure who is who, so I don't insult someone? This is how the game works. I am supposed to stayed tied up in silence, unable to be spontaneous, if one or more of the107 different genders are present, plus all the other Lefty group, who each have their own set of pet word restrictions. It is hard to do comedy anymore.

How about each political party get the same amount of censored word restrictions? The word denier is designed to be derogatory, so I pick that one. The object of the game is to place certain people, from the other side, in a straight jacket. If we take away that word, denier, how many from the Left will not be able to discuss climate change?

The word does not bother me, but a game is a game, The Left is not used it it applying to them. The white, Christian, natural male has the fewest word restrictions, so you can have free speech around them. But as we add people from opposite side, then you better watch your tongue. Notice who is better set up for censorship?

How about both sides make a list and both lists have to be the same size? If the Right cannot reach 107, then the Left has to pear back among all their groups, to make it even. In terms of gender, I want to be called natural male. Anything less is needs a straight jacket. Does any other Conservative have Lefty words, they want to be made taboo, so we can catch up to the Left in censorship, within the taboo word game?

Commandeering language was alway part of the Lefty strategy. It may come from the Anarchist Cookbook. Controlling language allows you to control minds; constrain and contain. I prefer freedom of speech with no word game restrictions designed to tie you up. There are mean things people often say in the heat of passion, so we can agree on a set of mean words that allow you to express angry emotions, while agreeing among us not to take it too personal.

For someone that is supposedly conservative you do not seem have the slightest grasp on the concept of free enterprise.

 

[Ella S.]

I'll accept, for the sake of the scenario, that this behavior does cause discord. I will also treat this as a moral question rather than a legal one.

Is the professor or employee living paycheck to paycheck? If so, then I think their employers have an obligation to make sure their basic needs are met, since that makes the employee dependent on them for their basic necessities.

No matter how offensive someone is, that doesn't justify throwing them out on the street and leaving them to die. Even if they aren't living paycheck to paycheck, it might not matter if they end up blacklisted from the industry with no recourse back into it, depending on their work history and the state of employment in that area. It might simply delay them from meeting the same fate a few months later.

Unless an employee is causing so much trouble for the corporation that it could result in job loss for other current employees, I don't think it's okay to fire them. This is the only point where firing them becomes proportionate damage control.

Talk to them. Demote them. Move them to another branch that's more tolerant. Outright getting rid of them should be the last recourse, due to its severity.

As for the church, many churches consider themselves to be places where people who have gone astray can congregate so they can get right before God, so I think they would be expected to do as much as they can to reach out to this person, too.

I don't think this is quite the same scenario as with trans people. Many trans people experience severe gender dysphoria. Misgendering them isn't like other insults. It's more severe. If you catch some of them on a bad day, it might drive them to suicide.

There's also additional social pressures against minorities in general that you're normalizing and psychologically reinforcing every time you attack them on that basis, which is what misgendering trans people does. It bolsters the pre-existing stigma against them.

In that case, it might be justifiable to fire someone or isolate them from your congregation, because they're a genuine threat to people's lives.

 

[Ella S.]

Couldn't one say that "trans" people are "misgendering" themselves?

I'm sorry for not taking into account the rest of your post, but I only wanted to address this specific question.

The answer is no. "Misgendering" means that you're referring to someone by the incorrect gender. "Transgender" people are a different gender from their assigned gender.

So if a trans person is referring to themselves in accordance with their gender identity, they are not misgendering themselves, by definition.

You could ask whether gender exists or whether transgender people exist. Those are more coherent questions. I think the answer to both is a fairly straightforward "yes."

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'll accept, for the sake of the scenario, that this behavior does cause discord. I will also treat this as a moral question rather than a legal one.

Is the professor or employee living paycheck to paycheck? If so, then I think their employers have an obligation to make sure their basic needs are met, since that makes the employee dependent on them for their basic necessities.

No matter how offensive someone is, that doesn't justify throwing them out on the street and leaving them to die. Even if they aren't living paycheck to paycheck, it might not matter if they end up blacklisted from the industry with no recourse back into it, depending on their work history and the state of employment in that area. It might simply delay them from meeting the same fate a few months later.

Unless an employee is causing so much trouble for the corporation that it could result in job loss for other current employees, I don't think it's okay to fire them. This is the only point where firing them becomes proportionate damage control.

Talk to them. Demote them. Move them to another branch that's more tolerant. Outright getting rid of them should be the last recourse, due to its severity.

As for the church, many churches consider themselves to be places where people who have gone astray can congregate so they can get right before God, so I think they would be expected to do as much as they can to reach out to this person, too.

I don't think this is quite the same scenario as with trans people. Many trans people experience severe gender dysphoria. Misgendering them isn't like other insults. It's more severe. If you catch some of them on a bad day, it might drive them to suicide.

There's also additional social pressures against minorities in general that you're normalizing and psychologically reinforcing every time you attack them on that basis, which is what misgendering trans people does. It bolsters the pre-existing stigma against them.

In that case, it might be justifiable to fire someone or isolate them from your congregation, because they're a genuine threat to people's lives.

I agree that firing should be a last resort, although the question was mainly about whether there should be any consequences for causing discord in the first place (and removing an employee from the premises doesn't have to be permanent or entail firing them). What the consequences would be is a different issue.

 

[Ella S.]

I agree that firing should be a last resort, although the question was mainly about whether there should be any consequences for causing discord in the first place. What the consequences would be is a different issue.

I see.

You did ask whether these people should be allowed to continue engaging in that behavior. If they work there and it's behavior that they engage in with the people they work with or teach, then the only way to stop them from engaging in that behavior would be to fire them, thus manually barring them from any avenue to continue that behavior.

That's why I thought it was a question of terminating their work contract. I suppose there are scenarios where they could be put on paid leave or moved to a remote job with little social interaction, though.

 

[Revoltingest]

The big problem is the political Left has too many speech restrictions designed to give them an advantage. The Political Right has way fewer speech restrictions. This is why Twitter, in 2020, only censored the Right, since the Left had way more taboo words it could use to game the free speech system, against the Right.

I can't discern who's worse regarding speech restriction.
Both left & right have their desire to do it, but they
differ on content & venues.

 

[Nakosis]

Suppose a university professor, an employee, or a church attendant deliberately and repeatedly referred to men at university, in the workplace, or at church as "she," to women as "he," or to adults in one of those establishments as "kids." Further suppose that a person at the church made it a habit to call other congregants "false Christians." This would almost certainly offend many of them, and it could lead to altercations or conflict where it happened.

In any of those cases, would the establishment or institution in question have any obligation to allow the person causing the discord to enter its premises and keep engaging in the activity that caused the discord? Would the institution be in violation of that person's free speech rights if it removed them from the premises for refusing to abide by its conventions and rules of conduct?

I would like to know what people think about these questions and whether they believe any of the above situations would be different from deliberate, repeated misgendering of a trans person in a professional, educational, or private setting.

Free speech prevents the government from forbidding you from expressing yourself as long as you are doing so in a manner which doesn't disrupt the activities of others. What constitutes the "activities of others" is where it gets a bit fuzzy.

However this applies only to the Federal government. A private university or church can forbid certain speech. You go into a restaurant and start yelling obscenities, disrupting other customers, they can certainly ask you to leave.