House Committee: Hearing on Free Speech - IDW Member, Bret Weinstein, Testifies

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Part of the Free Speech crisis is the fact that many students and professors are cowed into silence.  This has created a chilling effect on free speech on college campuses. 

In case you missed it in past threads where it was linked, here’s a 2016 report on the topic from PEN America:
And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Free Speech at U.S. Universities

 I admire your tenacity in trying to get people to pay attention to this. 

 Thanks for your kind words.

 I think you know that wasn't addressed to you 

ml1 said:

RealityForAll said:

ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Part of the Free Speech crisis is the fact that many students and professors are cowed into silence.  This has created a chilling effect on free speech on college campuses. 

In case you missed it in past threads where it was linked, here’s a 2016 report on the topic from PEN America:
And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Free Speech at U.S. Universities

 I admire your tenacity in trying to get people to pay attention to this. 

 Thanks for your kind words.

 I think you know that wasn't addressed to you 

 Now I know.  

sprout said:

terp said:

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

Part of the Free Speech crisis is the fact that many students and professors are cowed into silence.  This has created a chilling effect on free speech on college campuses. 

In case you missed it in past threads where it was linked, here’s a 2016 report on the topic from PEN America:
And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion and Free Speech at U.S. Universities

 The link doesn't work

That link worked for me. 
Maybe try this:
https://pen.org/and-campus-for-all-diversity-inclusion-and-free-speech-at-u-s-universities/

 A counterpoint to the pen report (linked above) is the following report by Vox:  https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship

The Vox report analyzes the Pen report and illustrates some of its inconsistencies and logical failings.

terp said:
As stated on the other thread, I don't think the government is going to crack down on our 1st amendment rights.  I think its more likely that societal pressure will censor people.  

I hope you don't think that societal pressure on speech is a new phenomenon.

dave23 said:

terp said:
As stated on the other thread, I don't think the government is going to crack down on our 1st amendment rights.  I think its more likely that societal pressure will censor people.  

I hope you don't think that societal pressure on speech is a new phenomenon.
 

 every time I bring up the pervasive enforcement of a militaristic patriotism (mainly enforced by regular people and private organizations), it's pretty much dismissed.  We're like the fish who can't perceive the water we're swimming in.  The norms of our country dictate unquestioning support for the troops, and now we're coming to see an insistence on an orthodox patriotism requiring participation in pledges to the flag and the national anthem.

there is going to be testimony presented on behalf of Colin Kaepernick that will allege he's out of a job in large part because his employers feared retribution from the POTUS.  The idea that tens of millions of people are being enlisted by a political party to try and enforce patriotic displays and squelch legitimate respectful protest is pretty chilling.

Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

ml1 said:

dave23 said:

terp said:
As stated on the other thread, I don't think the government is going to crack down on our 1st amendment rights.  I think its more likely that societal pressure will censor people.  

I hope you don't think that societal pressure on speech is a new phenomenon.
 

 every time I bring up the pervasive enforcement of a militaristic patriotism (mainly enforced by regular people and private organizations), it's pretty much dismissed.  We're like the fish who can't perceive the water we're swimming in.  The norms of our country dictate unquestioning support for the troops, and now we're coming to see an insistence on an orthodox patriotism requiring participation in pledges to the flag and the national anthem.

This and so much more. History is rife with unspoken rules about who is allowed to say what. That's not a defense of PC culture (much of which I find dreary and tiring). But it's as if some people just woke up from hibernation.

ml1 said:
Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

LOL! One example.  There are thousands of professors who never had their life threatened.  I can't believe you are wringing your hands trying to convince people that this is a crisis. 

I'm not going to defend these incidents on college campuses either.  But everything needs to be put in perspective.  Sure there are colleges going overboard in efforts to try and protect what they see as oppressed groups.

But in the big picture what is the danger in that type of political correctness compared to the pervasive pressure for citizens to support and participate in a culture that glorifies continuous warfare?  Personally I don't think it's even close in terms of the damage done to our country, its citizens and the world.

terp said:

ml1 said:
Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

LOL! One example.  There are thousands of professors who never had their life threatened.  I can't believe you are wringing your hands trying to convince people that this is a crisis. 

 I knew that was coming.

There's a reason such articles don't get written and those statements don't get said.  Of course there's only one guy with the balls to write such an article.

terp said:

ml1 said:
Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

LOL! One example.  There are thousands of professors who never had their life threatened.  I can't believe you are wringing your hands trying to convince people that this is a crisis. 

You should go to a NASCAR race and remain seated and hatted for the national anthem. See how that works out for you. Heck, you don't even need to go to a car race. Any sporting event, really.

dave23 said:

terp said:

ml1 said:
Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

LOL! One example.  There are thousands of professors who never had their life threatened.  I can't believe you are wringing your hands trying to convince people that this is a crisis. 

You should go to a NASCAR race and remain seated and hatted for the national anthem. See how that works out for you. Heck, you don't even need to go to a car race. Any sporting event, really.

I dare anyone to put a "I don't support the troops" tweet on Twitter under their own name and see what kind of reaction they get.

ml1 said:
I'm not going to defend these incidents on college campuses either.  But everything needs to be put in perspective.  Sure there are colleges going overboard in efforts to try and protect what they see as oppressed groups.
But in the big picture what is the danger in that type of political correctness compared to the pervasive pressure for citizens to support and participate in a culture that glorifies continuous warfare?  Personally I don't think it's even close in terms of the damage done to our country, its citizens and the world.

One of the goals of political correctness is to use moral suasion by the majority, shaming techniques and threats to livelihood in order to force many individuals to self-censor.  Without true free speech, significant issues cannot be addressed in a meaningful way (if you are coming from the heterodox POV).  Thus, I believe the way to combat excessive militarization is with more free speech.  Political correctness inhibits such discussions regarding militarization (and other important issues).

RealityForAll said:

 Political correctness inhibits such discussions regarding militarization (and other important issues).

Go on...

Has anyone noticed that we keep on having these threads about the left's suppression of speech, and the proponents never, ever prove their contention that this is some sort of widespread, or even ahistoric, phenomenon?

dave23 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Political correctness inhibits such discussions regarding militarization (and other important issues).

Go on...

 yeah, I'm all ears too.

drummerboy said:
Has anyone noticed that we keep on having these threads about the left's suppression of speech, and the proponents never, ever prove their contention that this is some sort of widespread, or even ahistoric, phenomenon?

 I never said suppression of free speech was exclusive to the left.

ml1 said:

terp said:

ml1 said:
Virginia Tech Professor’s Life Threatened Over Article Critiquing “Support the Troops” Mantra

LOL! One example.  There are thousands of professors who never had their life threatened.  I can't believe you are wringing your hands trying to convince people that this is a crisis. 

 I knew that was coming.
There's a reason such articles don't get written and those statements don't get said.  Of course there's only one guy with the balls to write such an article.

 Eh. I couldn't help myself.  The funny thing is, I completely agree.  I'm pretty sure I'm on the record on this very board questioning the worship of all that is military.   I'm personally against the pledge of allegiance.  That is some creepy stuff we'd rip a rival nation for doing.  

drummerboy said:
Has anyone noticed that we keep on having these threads about the left's suppression of speech, and the proponents never, ever prove their contention that this is some sort of widespread, or even ahistoric, phenomenon?

 I'm somewhat curious what the point is.  Speech has been suppressed in the past, so its good?

ml1 said:
I'm not going to defend these incidents on college campuses either.  But everything needs to be put in perspective.  Sure there are colleges going overboard in efforts to try and protect what they see as oppressed groups.
But in the big picture what is the danger in that type of political correctness compared to the pervasive pressure for citizens to support and participate in a culture that glorifies continuous warfare?  Personally I don't think it's even close in terms of the damage done to our country, its citizens and the world.

I disagree.  I also wouldn't frame it in efforts to protect "oppressed groups".  If that's all it was, I'd be on board with protecting members of oppressed groups.  

 Look at the article from the WaPo. This is about targeting ire against different groups.  I'm not sure that is the best answer to the problem as it seems awfully destructive.  In addition, it seems that those who question this doctrine are increasingly victims of character assassination, career impediments, etc.   

While I'd agree that militarism is a significant problem, it seems as though tribalism rears its ugly head again.  I know this because the Dems went from protesting our FP to borderline worshiping  a nobel peace prize winner who went on to destroy societies and murder innocent poor people via drone.  You can literally get away with murder if you talk nice and are the leader of a tribe. 

drummerboy said:

dave23 said:

RealityForAll said:

 Political correctness inhibits such discussions regarding militarization (and other important issues).

Go on...

 yeah, I'm all ears too.

 I think I made my point.  Namely, that PC affects all different types of POV (including lefties, righties and in-between).

Not to mention Dems are still heartbroken the Sec. of State who cackled with the "We came. We saw. He died" isn't the president.

Here's Libya now.  Apparently, they have slave auctions now.  But she has no regrets.

RealityForAll said:

 I think I made my point.  Namely, that PC affects all different types of POV (including lefties, righties and in-between).

 Ah, so it's a broad definition of "PC," not the original. That's no different than my point that we've always had approved speech in society.

RealityForAll said:
A counterpoint to the pen report (linked above) is the following report by Vox:  https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/12/13/13931524/free-speech-pen-america-campus-censorship

The Vox report analyzes the Pen report and illustrates some of its inconsistencies and logical failings.

Thanks for the link. Other than his belief that “the report itself contributes in a small way to this confused take” — the logical failings, say, of some of its readers — Anthony Fisher expresses a lot of support for the PEN report’s nuances. It’s a counterpoint to those who’d use the report in ways that mirror the way others use outbursts like the one at Evergreen State.

terp said:

 Well on this little corner of the internet, there were probably about 10 people who upon hearing about an original hit piece and the challenge to it, ran out and tried to find cliff notes on why this person should be hated and continue to have their character assassinated.  That is really a great anecdote on how this kind of thing works. 

If you look wider, you will see that the hit pieces continue to roll in.   Lucky for people here, there was a lot to work with. 

I learned a few things, and I commented on them, conscious of my lane. Lucky for me that’s how this thing called MOL works.

ml1 said:  

I admire your tenacity in trying to get people to pay attention to this. 

I was going to thank you, but the line was getting too long.

Speaking of speech, right-wing State Media on Fox is going full Orwell on Kim, suggesting that Rubio "clarify" his criticism of the dictator.

“You’ve been tweeting a lot over the past 24 hours, and some have looked at your tweets as not only a criticism of Kim Jong Un, but some have seen them as a criticism as the president,” host Sandra Smith said. “As you just did now, you called Kim Jong Un a ‘weirdo,’ you said, ‘he’s a total weird who would be elected assistant dog catcher in any democracy.’ The president, he sits down with Sean Hannity, he’s talking about Kim Jong Un as someone who appeared to be funny, he’s smart, the president has said of him. So, could you clarify?”

Rubio responded by saying he has “nothing to clarify.”

I haven't read the entire thread so if I missed this I apologize.

It's great to see that Congress has an interest in Freedom of Speech but have they ever apologized for HUAC or the McCarthy hearings?

More recently will they look into Leader McConnell's telling Sen. Warren, basically "Sit down and shut up"?

if Congress was really concerned about free speech, they'd hold hearings on the effect of the POTUS calling journalists "enemies of the state."

LOST said:
I haven't read the entire thread so if I missed this I apologize.
It's great to see that Congress has an interest in Freedom of Speech but have they ever apologized for HUAC or the McCarthy hearings?
More recently will they look into Leader McConnell's telling Sen. Warren, basically "Sit down and shut up"?

Another what-aboutism!!!! 

PS  Senator Warren violated Senate rules AFAIK.  See https://www.npr.org/2017/02/08/514086829/a-senate-rule-silenced-elizabeth-warren-is-that-rule-so-bad  My understanding is that Senate rule 19 prohibits questioning another Senator's motives.  The apparent motive behind such a rule is to promote civil discourse.

ml1 said:
if Congress was really concerned about free speech, they'd hold hearings on the effect of the POTUS calling journalists "enemies of the state."

 That is the spirit.  Finally, you are acknowledging that free speech issues exist. Albeit, in the form of a what-aboutism.  

Please ignore if long posts are a problem...but this is a complicated matter.

     Both of the referenced readings are interesting.  I don't know how many MOL Posters actually work in higher education and, thus, have recent experience in speech issues on campus vs. those who are reading partisan (aren't they all?) articles and extrapolating to all of higher education.  Speech on campus is not a monolithic dynamic. It occurs in varying dimensions and in accordance with the "rules of engagement" for each dimension and the nature of the institution.  

     At the risk of generalizing, a private institution is not subject to constitutional laws.  Rather, it is subject primarily to its own policies as set forth in its student and employee handbooks as well as some regulatory laws  (e.g. Clery, FERPA, Title IX, ADA) which have accompanying policies with which the college must comply or face a loss of public funding or fines.  A private university is free to have a policy designating certain actions as prohibited and to enforce alleged violations via the institutional conduct policies/process. Conversely, a public university is a state actor and, thus, is subject to constitutional parameters that require them to afford broader rights to students and faculty.  

     Informal peer-to-peer speech can be enforced either by social consequences or referral to the student conduct process...provided there is a clear policy on the matter...good luck with that!  Most overly broad speech codes at public institutions have been struck down and the Supreme Court has declined to define a category of hate speech that is prohibited beyond direct threats or clarion calls for violence.  This gets complicated ...for example:   Do you focus on the word itself (eg. is the N-word always a violation?)  Is it the intent of the speaker that matters? (e.g. is the N-word ok if uttered by someone who is African-American or as an artistic act?  Is it the impact on the other person that matters? (e.g. is something a violation if I personally find it objectionable even if others do not?  Should a college cancel a speech by Hillary Clinton because some students object?)    I personally dealt with a situation in which a student of color punched another student who said disparaging things about affirmative action and its recipients. Which student or students should be subject to punishment?  Again, a private college can have much more stringent policies than public institutions.  

     Controversial speaker events (such as Yannopoulos, Murray, Coulter, Spencer) at public institutions are subject to constitutional obligations.   While a private institution can simply say "no", a public college cannot.  Yes, the issue of safety typically is used to cancel or prevent such events at public colleges but there must be clear evidence of such pending violence.  And security is expensive. Last year, the U of Florida spent about a million dollars in security when Richard Spencer spoke on campus but the University was advised that cancelling the speech might have been more expensive, not only in lawsuit dollars but also the impact on academic freedom.  And, then there is the question of whether protesters who exercise the heckler's veto with the seeming cooperation/permission of the institution should be punished.   Recent court decisions have found that institutions which permit (or even encourage) counter protesters to "shout down a speaker" may be engaging in unlawful suppression of speech so colleges cannot punish speakers while allowing counter-protesters to act freely.  Another key decision ruled that charging sponsoring student organizations security fees is a form of financial suppression.   Is chalking "build the wall" or "make American great again" on sidewalks a act of aggression? Ask Emory University.  And, is any expression that is critical of Israel automatically considered to be anti-semitic as some contend?   

    Academic speech at both public and private institutions is regulated by the principal of academic freedom (which applies both to faculty and students in the classroom, by the way) and any applicable institutional rights if it's a public college.  What is happening in most cases in which faculty are accused of inappropriate speech is that the colleges are ducking the issue by settling out of court.   Brett Weinstein and his wife received about $500,000 (together) from Evergreen to go away.  Naima Lowe, another Evergreen faculty member and "self-described black queer artist and educator" who was alleged to have made abusive and racist comments to fellow faculty members received $240,000 to go away.  I suspect the "Deplorable" NYU prof Michael Rectenwald will be treated the same way.

     In essence, the matter of free speech in academia is quite complicated and nuanced.  We all just have to keep in mind that it isn't a simple matter of why doesn't the college prohibit or allow something someone finds objectionable?