Polling on Free Speech in the US

[leibowde84]

At what point does advocating violence become the equivalent to 'falsely shouting fire' in a crowded theater'?

When you encourage violence to a population known for acting violently would be one circumstance. That is the same thing as yelling fire in a crowded room. There is a reasonable expectation of causing bodily harm.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Clearly there has to be a limit. For the sake of law and order.
Any speach that that encourages any one to break the law should be restricted and be an offence.
However any speach in support of a change in the law should be allowed.
A law needs to be changed before it can be acted upon.

For instance it should be legal to speak in favour of changing the law on discrimination.
However not to encourage people to discriminate.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

All those would seem to be legal except perhaps no 2.
There is a difference between having a policy to allow such speakers, however contraversal, and another group having the power to stop them.

I rather suggest that student bodies should be involved in decisions to invite speakers, and such decisions should then be final. No speaker should be imposed on the student body.
No one is forced to listen to a speaker. Students do not have to attend.
Students should be free to protest or support any speaker and let their view be known publicly.

 

[pearl]

That is the same thing as yelling fire in a crowded room.

Didn't the Supreme Court state that was not to be considered protected free speech?

 

[Revoltingest]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

You know.....you're flirting with the dark side by reading Cato Institute stuff.
(I'm OK with it.)

I'd allow all speakers except for the ones who:
- Advocate illegal violence <--- Illegal
- Would release names of illegals <--- Such speech doesn't need a public venue.

 

[Stevicus]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

Considering that this is in the context of a speech at a college or university, then it's not strictly a "free speech" issue in terms of what kind of speech is acceptable. In general, I tend to agree with the basic principle behind the "clear and present danger" rule. Even discussions about violently overthrowing the government would be allowed, as long as it remains abstract and hypothetical, not someone openly calling for and enjoining others to violence.

At a college, I'm not really sure. It's been a while since my college days, so I'm not clear on how much they can allow or disallow. If a tenured professor employed by the university said any of these things, then there may be a matter of academic freedom where they might have to allow it even if it's offensive to some people. If it's just an outside speaker who's only visiting, then they might have more discretionary power.

Of course, on the matter of academic freedom, one might well wonder why a university or some other institution of higher learning would even have to consider the question of what they should "allow" or "not allow." Is it no longer possible to have an open discussion about a controversial topic without people going off screaming like a bunch of wild banshees?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The link below makes some interesting reading. The poll was conducted by the CATO institute in collaboration with Yougov and surveyed 2,300 people.

America's Many Divides Over Free Speech

Rather than copy the whole thing, I'll include this section so you get a flavour of what came up:

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:

• A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
• A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
• A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
• A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
• A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
• A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
• A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
• A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
• A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
• A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
• A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
• A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
• A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Do you think any of the above viewpoints should not be allowed? Is free speech too restricted now or does it need greater restrictions?

Universities don't guarantee free speech. They merely provide one venue for individuals to express themselves, and then, at their pleasure.

Free speech refers to the government not being free to squelch intellectual freedom in the marketplace of ideas, not individuals or private institutions, neither of which are required to allow any form of expression which they can legally prevent. The corner church is not required to give the uninvited atheist a platform on Sunday morning.

 

[esmith]

Universities don't guarantee free speech. They merely provide one venue for individuals to express themselves, and then, at their pleasure.
.

And at whose pleasure would that be?