Free Speech and Rules of Conduct Inside Establishments

[Debater Slayer]

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.

 

[Viker]

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?

No and no.

 

[Watchmen]

The free speech analysis will be different for the three entities, but there are also anti discrimination and harassment laws to consider.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The free speech analysis will be different for the three entities, but there are also anti discrimination and harassment laws to consider.

Are anti-harassment laws inside such establishments a violation of free speech rights? If not, should those laws also cover deliberate, repeated misgendering of trans people?

 

[Watchmen]

Are anti-harassment laws inside such establishments a violation of free speech rights? If not, should those laws also cover deliberate, repeated misgendering of trans people?

No and they do (at least the ones I’m aware of).

 

[Alien826]

The "she", "he" and "kids" examples are so obviously incorrect that I doubt anyone would pay too much attention to it. The "false Christians" accusation is freely used (here!), but maybe not so much within a given church. Maybe that should not be allowed.

The Trans thing is not so firmly established in people's minds. Many firmly believe that we should stick to the gender assigned at birth. I'm not taking sides here, but I don't think this case is so clearly established as the other examples, and may fall under the heading of "free speech", at least in the USA, where free speech is very broadly protected.

 

[F1fan]

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.

If he is that far off the reservation I'm not sure it would be offensive so much as disruptive. Communication works because there is an accepted set of words that are appropriate and flow through the mind as they are heard. When a word is misspoken it is like a speed bump. If this professor isn't menally off somehow and is deliberate, that would be something to challenge. What is the motive and intention?

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 think it would be a matter if the speech is too disruptive of the operation of the school and classes. Otherwise it might just be a quirk. Schools exist as a service to students and if the behavior is causing problems for students and faculty it would be grounds for dismissal.

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.

I think it depends on what the contracts are for professors, if there are limits on speech and conduct. I think the collective has rights too that can place a limit on personal rights, and that is an obligation for any member of a social or professional group that collaborates for certain goals and purposes.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The "she", "he" and "kids" examples are so obviously incorrect that I doubt anyone would pay too much attention to it. The "false Christians" accusation is freely used (here!), but maybe not so much within a given church. Maybe that should not be allowed.

In many cultures, especially many of the ones originating from the eastern hemisphere, deliberately and repeatedly referring to a man as "she" or a woman as "he" would usually be seen as a major form of disrespect, so much so that it could lead to physical altercation in some situations if it were pushed hard enough.

Accusations of being a "false" member of a religion are also heavily frowned upon in many communities, especially in some countries where there are various religious sects and such accusations could incite sectarian conflict. Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon are a few examples of such societies—and the accusations still abound, but I wouldn't expect them to occur peacefully in a setting where people from different sects were present at the same time.

 

[Orbit]

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.

I can speak to what happens in a university, with an adjacent example. Around 2009 I was a visiting professor at a large university in the South, in the department of Sociology and Criminal Justice. One of the Criminal Justice professors was fond of offending the students by saying racist things. The students complained to the department chair, who asked him to tone it down. The next thing you know the Criminal Justice professor is suing the department for "infringing on his free speech". I left soon after that so don't know how the lawsuit went, but it's the kind of thing you can expect with professors (and others) who go out of their way to offend.

 

[YmirGF]

I can speak to what happens in a university, with an adjacent example. Around 2009 I was a visiting professor at a large university in the South, in the department of Sociology and Criminal Justice. One of the Criminal Justice professors was fond of offending the students by saying racist things. The students complained to the department chair, who asked him to tone it down. The next thing you know the Criminal Justice professor is suing the department for "infringing on his free speech". I left soon after that so don't know how the lawsuit went, but it's the kind of thing you can expect with professors (and others) who go out of their way to offend.

Doesn't such behaviour fly in the face of "codes of conduct" at the college, that staff and students, theoretically, have to adhere to?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Here, free speech is protected from government censorship.
Private parties may restrict it in venues under their control.
On my property, I exercise control over others' speech at
times for various reasons. This is legal & good.

 

[Orbit]

Doesn't such behaviour fly in the face of "codes of conduct" at the college, that staff and students, theoretically, have to adhere to?

Well, it's tricky in a university setting because professors have what's called "academic freedom", that is their speech is theoretically protected from political censorship. It's a tradition designed to keep politics out of the university (think forcing professors to teach Creationism) but it can be abused by the unscrupulous. You would think it would fly in the face of just common decency. As far as codes of conduct, I don't actually remember any, though they may have existed.

 

[YmirGF]

Well, it's tricky in a university setting because professors have what's called "academic freedom", that is their speech is theoretically protected from political censorship. It's a tradition designed to keep politics out of the university (think forcing professors to teach Creationism) but it can be abused by the unscrupulous. You would think it would fly in the face of just common decency. As far as codes of conduct, I don't actually remember any, though they may have existed.

After I wrote that, I realized that situations like what you recounted may very well give rise to a "code of conduct" reviews, as well, when no such policies were in place.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, it's tricky in a university setting because professors have what's called "academic freedom", that is their speech is theoretically protected from political censorship. It's a tradition designed to keep politics out of the university (think forcing professors to teach Creationism) but it can be abused by the unscrupulous. You would think it would fly in the face of just common decency. As far as codes of conduct, I don't actually remember any, though they may have existed.

When the university is a government operation,
this does impose some protection for speakers,
unlike for a private school.

 

[Yazata]

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."

A problem there is deciding who in our contemporary culture-wars is doing that.

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.

If Christianity is to be anything more than "anything goes" and "believe whatever you want", then some interpretations of it might arguably be called "false".

I guess that part of the issue there is rudeness. I believe that people should be attentive to the feelings of others and should try to avoid gratuitously angering people and being unnecessarily divisive, whether for sport or out of an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. The difficulty with that is that it hands power to the easily angered. If people are supposed to avoid provoking others, then power to shape conversations flows to the most easily "triggered". "You can't say that! It provokes me!" ("Microaggressions")

My suggestion is that people should post about controversial and divisive subjects as if they intend to convince their opponent. One is never going to bring an opponent around to agreement if one's posts are nothing but insults and misrepresentations of the opponent's views. That just hardens others against us. Success in rhetoric typically involves finding some common ground with one's opponent, some position of agreement from which to develop one's position.

We will never convince opponents unless we can somehow make them want to agree with us. (Rule #1 of rhetoric.)

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?

Yes arguably, in some cases. But in some cases it might have to be done. My own suggestion would be to allow expression of diverse points of view on controversial issues (allow atheists to continue arguing against religious belief, for example), while moderating trolling, lies and insults, gratuitous attempts to anger others and perhaps preaching to the choir when its used to justify those kind of things.

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.

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

If you emphasize moderating rudeness and *******ism as opposed to thoughtful expression of opinion that moderators personally disagree with, you will probably be in the strongest position. One of the best features of RF in my opinion is the wide diversity of views that people express here, often intelligently and well. Please don't abandon that.

Moderators should perhaps emphasize pushing people to raise their rhetorical game so to speak, rather than silencing unwanted points of view. Push participants to present thoughtful well-reasoned arguments for whatever their position is, and avoid ridicule, misrepresentation and insults.

 

[Debater Slayer]

A problem there is deciding who in our contemporary culture-wars is doing that.



If Christianity is to be anything more than "anything goes" and "believe whatever you want", then some interpretations of it might arguably be called "false".

I guess that part of the issue there is rudeness. I believe that people should be attentive to the feelings of others and should try to avoid gratuitously angering people and being unnecessarily divisive, whether for sport or out of an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. The difficulty with that is that it hands power to the easily angered. If people are supposed to avoid provoking others, then power to shape conversations flows to the most easily "triggered". "You can't say that! It provokes me!" ("Microaggressions")

My suggestion is that people should post about controversial and divisive subjects as if they intend to convince their opponent. One is never going to bring an opponent around to agreement if one's posts are nothing but insults and misrepresentations of the opponent's views. That just hardens others against us. Success in rhetoric typically involves finding some common ground with one's opponent, some position of agreement from which to develop one's position.

We will never convince opponents unless we can somehow make them want to agree with us. (Rule #1 of rhetoric.)



Yes arguably, in some cases. But in some cases it might have to be done. My own suggestion would be to allow expression of diverse points of view on controversial issues (allow atheists to continue arguing against religious belief, for example), while moderating trolling, lies and insults, gratuitous attempts to anger others and perhaps preaching to the choir when its used to justify those kind of things.


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

If you emphasize moderating rudeness and ********* as opposed to thoughtful expression of opinion that moderators personally disagree with, you will probably be in the strongest position. One of the best features of RF in my opinion is the wide diversity of views that people express here, often intelligently and well. Please don't abandon that.

Moderators should perhaps emphasize pushing people to raise their rhetorical game so to speak, rather than silencing unwanted points of view. Push participants to present thoughtful well-reasoned arguments for whatever their position is, and avoid ridicule, misrepresentation and insults.

This thread is not about RF moderation at all, nor did I have that in mind when I created it. It's mainly about the issue of speech regulation within specialized and private institutions and venues, such as the ones I used as examples in the OP. RF moderation is still the same as before.

The idea for the thread came to mind because of arguments I have previously encountered stating that deliberately, repeatedly misgendering trans people in a university, the workplace, or other similarly specialized settings should be protected by "free speech rights." My response is that speech is already governed by multiple guidelines in most of those venues, because free speech laws protect individuals from government censorship and not from having to follow the speech rules of any given non-governmental establishment they enter.

 

[Yazata]

This thread is not about RF moderation at all, nor did I have that in mind when I created it. It's mainly about the issue of speech regulation within specialized and private institutions and venues, such as the ones I used as examples in the OP. RF moderation is still the same as before.

Thank you for that.

The idea for the thread came to mind because of arguments I have previously encountered stating that deliberately, repeatedly misgendering trans people in a university, the workplace, or other similarly specialized settings should be protected by "free speech rights."

I can imagine a crowd of atheists entering a church service and arguing with the clergyman and parishoners. And I can imagine them being physically removed, not because there is anything wrong with their atheist beliefs, but because the manner of expressing those atheist beliefs was disruptive in that particular place. The whole purpose of the church service was religious expression. The atheists could be criticized because their behavior made the church service impossible.

Similarly, a bunch of religious fundies invading an atheist organization's meeting and waving Bibles in the atheists' faces would be guilty of the same transgression and should similarly be removed.

My response is that speech is already governed by multiple guidelines in most of those venues, because free speech laws protect individuals from government censorship and not from having to follow the speech rules of any given non-governmental establishment they enter.

That kind of argument has some merit I guess. A problem is that it is basically the same argument that some lunch counters made when they refused to serve black customers. The lunch counter insisted that it was a private institution and should have the right to decide who they wanted to serve. The courts decided that by doing business, they were a "public accomodation" and had to serve all of the public. So there's that.

Universities are interesting examples. Historically there's been this ideal of "academic freedom" that opposed church or state dictating what university professors can and must teach. It's usually been justified by the idea that academics need to examine issues from all angles and seek out the truth wherever it lies.

Today, the idea of 'academic freedom' has split into two opposed concepts.

On one hand, much of the public still takes it to mean that universities need to be open to considering all points of view with some degree of intellectual objectivity. That was the thrust of 1950's style opposition to states forbidding Marxists and assorted "pinkos" from teaching. Maybe there's merit to some of the things Marxists say and that has to be considered.

But today, many university professors take 'academic freedom' to mean that professors like themselves control content and that the curricula they teach isn't dictated to them from above by church or state. But those professors also insist that professors have the right to exclude all views which they as a group oppose (much as Marxists were excluded in the 50's, except today it's conservatives and anyone who isn't "politically correct"). The idea that all sides of issues have to be considered with some degree of objectivity has been quite explicitly abandoned.

There's the complicating factor that in the United States most universities are government institutions run by the various states. So First Amendment free-speech considerations would seemingly be directly applicable to them. And I suppose that the various state boards of regents argue that the states aren't dictating what can be said inside classrooms, that's being done by the professors (who nevertheless are state employees).

It's complicated.

 

[Alien826]

In many cultures, especially many of the ones originating from the eastern hemisphere, deliberately and repeatedly referring to a man as "she" or a woman as "he" would usually be seen as a major form of disrespect, so much so that it could lead to physical altercation in some situations if it were pushed hard enough.

Accusations of being a "false" member of a religion are also heavily frowned upon in many communities, especially in some countries where there are various religious sects and such accusations could incite sectarian conflict. Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon are a few examples of such societies—and the accusations still abound, but I wouldn't expect them to occur peacefully in a setting where people from different sects were present at the same time.

No doubt. I assumed we were talking about the "Western" world, like the USA, UK and so on. On second thought, you didn't specify that.

 

[Alien826]

I guess that part of the issue there is rudeness. I believe that people should be attentive to the feelings of others and should try to avoid gratuitously angering people and being unnecessarily divisive, whether for sport or out of an overdeveloped sense of self-righteousness. The difficulty with that is that it hands power to the easily angered. If people are supposed to avoid provoking others, then power to shape conversations flows to the most easily "triggered". "You can't say that! It provokes me!" ("Microaggressions")

Yes. Take this "pronoun" thing that has become popular recently. I am open to a request to use certain pronouns when referring to someone, and may, depending on my mood, comply. On the other hand, my feeling that trying to remember exactly how everyone I know wants to be addressed is a complication that I don't need in my life, is not a good reason to get angry with me. Respect should go both ways.

 

[Secret Chief]

There's the complicating factor that in the United States most universities are government institutions run by the various states.

Wow, as a Brit this is just so .... weird....

Why on earth would they be government institutions?