Private Censorship: An Issue of Free Speech or of Other Considerations?

[icehorse]

What are your thoughts?

I agree that the remedy for hate speech is not censorship, but strong, public rebuttals.

I have no idea what the laws are concerning free speech in private universities. That said, my understanding is that if an acknowledged student group wants to invite a speaker, they should be allowed to host that speaker. Sometimes we see people opposing controversial speakers using the "heckler's veto", shouting so loudly that the speaker cannot be heard. This should never be allowed.

If a private university censors speech, I think that action should be made public. Even if they have the law on their side, people should understand that school's policies. If I was considering going to a private university, I would would want to know their stance and history on censorship, and if they have a history of censorship, that would dissuade me from going there.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I agree that the remedy for hate speech is not censorship, but strong, public rebuttals.

Unfortunately, that's a convenient perspective that renders the targets of hate speech maximally vulnerable in the absence of such strong, public rebuttals.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately, that's a convenient perspective that renders the targets of hate speech maximally vulnerable in the absence of such strong, public rebuttals.

But if government is handed control of defining
& enforcing hate speech, then in many places,
eg, Florida, advocating for Palestinian human
rights would be criminal.
And next year, control might be granted to
Trump. Do you trust him with such power?

 

[icehorse]

Unfortunately, that's a convenient perspective that renders the targets of hate speech maximally vulnerable in the absence of such strong, public rebuttals.

Censorship is far more dangerous.

 

[libre]

For example, if a private entity claims to promote "absolute free speech," like Elon Musk's X (formerly Twitter), but violates its own stated principles, I think it is reasonable to treat the censorship as a free speech issue due to this inconsistency.

I hadn't thought of this previously, it is a good observation.
I think having a platform like twitter claiming claim to be free speech absolutists when violent white-supremacists are the targets of deplatforming, but treats the word 'decolonization' as a violent threat and restricts usage is incredibly dangerous and in violation of journalistic ethics.

 

[Stevicus]

Censorship is far more dangerous.

That could be. One thing that always comes to mind is how the Unabomber was finally identified, located, and captured. When his manifesto was published, his brother recognized the writing style and determined that it was him and notified authorities. If they had censored the Unabomber's manifesto, then it could have been years or never before he was finally caught.

That could be one of the best reasons to avoid censorship, since the more people are aware of something, the more people are available to stop it.

 

[icehorse]

That could be one of the best reasons to avoid censorship, since the more people are aware of something, the more people are available to stop it.

Indeed! I agree with the people who say that sunlight is the best disinfectant. On other words, it's a good thing to see bad arguments out in public so that they can be publicly defanged.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Censorship is far more dangerous.

Always? What about hate speech / incitement?

 

[icehorse]

Always? What about hate speech / incitement?

As I understand it, free speech does NOT protect speech that calls for imminent violence. That seems like a fine boundary to maintain.

Most of what I see branded as "hate speech" these days should be protected speech, and yes, it's far less dangerous than censorship.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Censorship is far more dangerous.

It's the death of freedom and the boon of totalitarianism.