We all appreciate the value of diversity. It enriches our experience with new ideas from around the globe. Not only in politics but in all sorts of cultural aspects. Family, art, religion, customs, traditions, dress, food, recipes, sports, etc.
But there is also the flip side. It means we can have large groups of people on campus from many areas. When conflicts arise (such as Israel/Hamas/Pallestine) these groups have potential to spread hate and even threaten violence. They can bring physical conflict to campus.
We need ways to encourage free discussion but violent protest must not be allowed.
YES! Discussing & promoting (non-violently) war, peace, civil order and disorder is ESSENTIAL to successful democracy and (along with freedom to discuss religion and other emotionally charged subjects [speaking as a homosexual who has been violently assaulted, multiple times threatened with arrest, and (the most dangerous moment) spat upon by leading members of a mob] is ESSENTIAL to any real rather than ersatz form of free speech.
As always with civil order, the tough part is not the rules but the necessity of politesse and civility, which need to be enforced via social and civil mechanisms rather than laws. Without politesse and civility NOTHING is possible, and that underlies the recent disorders on campus as well as in much else of our society.
That people can bring themselves to support and vote for incivil, vicious, thuggish language and behavior as valid is the brightest warning light of our trouble, and is what most enables violence, racist and sectarian hatred, and insurrection,
Free Speech at the most simple and fundamental level MATTERS (slippery slope towards authoritarianism begins a millimeter into censorship), even if for the BEST reasons.
No. Calling for genocide or even assassination of an enemy leader goes too far. But its a very sensitive issue. Saying something outrageous is a common debating tactic. When demonstrating for a cause its a common way to attract media attention. A demonstration ignored has no value. What’s the point.
This line is tough to draw. Not unlike pornography. I know it when I see it.
pauleckler and david fb have answered beautifully!
There is a lot of legal violence.
Boxing and martial arts
Speech and Free Speech are two different things. Free Speech is a restriction on government to silence the citizenry and I’m certainly in favor of restricting government. Speech itself has laws that govern it. What I’m against is weaponizing speech to the point of denaturing Civil Rights and Affirmative Action until they become instruments of virtual apartheid.
I’ve said it before, I saw the racial quota system in action in the late 1980s while in Silicon Valley and I figured it would end badly. It sure has!
Why quotas? Because Americans love magic numbers that fix everything without even thinking, specially thinking about unexpected consequences.
In some ways, that could be construed as screaming FIRE in a movie theater when there is none…something that is often offered up as an example of what is not considered protected under “free speech.”
However, to have the government get involved in how universities discipline their students felt too much to me like them trying to control how I parent. I cringe every time I see Elise Stefanic on TV, flashing back to scenes on a show set in N@zi Germany where the kids were taken over by the government, to the point where they were turning their parents in for acts and speech against the F@hrer.
I can’t live in this country without free speech, even while wishing that everyone would exercise more caution with the words they let out of their mouth and think before speaking, as well as employing critical thought before acting on what others say. The government needs to let the heads of the university run their institutions as they see fit, within the laws of the land. The brains of most college students are not yet fully formed and there will be extenuating circumstances that needs evaluation by the faculty. The government has NO LEGAL RIGHT to interfere in the running of a non-government institution, and to have a member of the house to push for the firing of university presidents because they don’t fall into step to parrot her words is abuse of power, though as a private citizen away from her office she would have the right to voice that opinion.
That said, FREEDOM OF SPEECH has become one of those buzz phrases thrown around endlessly, rendering it almost useless. There was a “news” story last night on local news, where an entrepreneur was suing the state because they insisted she get a business license to make cake pops in her home, which she sells to the tune of about $20K of income per year. She was turned down for the permit because she has dogs who cannot be kept out of the open concept kitchen. The basis for her suit? Yup…violation of free speech.
also not pleased with the mind police here at TMF that won’t allow words in post referring to historical events that took place in Germany
Just being entirely wrong is not free speech. We have seen the supply-siders shout down everything from 1981 to 2020. The supply-side folks were entirely wrong. Not a single theory of theirs proved right. Samuelson decades ago proved every single thing Friedman came up with as counter productive.
Calling it cancel culture is perverting things.
“Dumb wrong” is a better way of phrasing it. When “dumb wrong” bury it.
I am equally good when I am wrong to straight out say so. I drop the “dumb” part because when admitting I am wrong I smarten up.
The cancel culture folks need to smarten up.
This is not a difference of opinion. Like on any test in school when wrong you do not get credit for being wrong. That does not mean your answer is canceled. It means you did not study or think about what you were studying. In fact it is fantasy stuff like my way or the highway. The uncle at Thanksgiving that no one else wants at the table. He still needs to face “dumb wrong”.
US factory production and the standard of living are rising and will be rising longer term. Cancel that!
That is correct, Free Speech is a limitation of government power. Read all about it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says nothing about what people may or may not talk about. It doesn’t say that people have to be right, entirely or partially. Attaching all sorts of attributes to Free Speech is PURE NONSENSE.
So why did the supply siders shout down all comers when entirely wrong?
Why continue to shout down everything as cancel culture?
What laws have been passed that are cancel culture? Affirmative action was never cancel culture. It was to stop outright bigotry. Things are so perverse on the cancel culture side that only this last year has their been a law against lynching. Imagine if the Jewish population put up with that for over a century?
Bottom line “cancel culture” is nothing more than a new cliche. An expediency when people are wrong. When the US standard of living is rising and the old guard are becoming losers. Must say by their own hand as has been going on since 1981.
You can not vote here but at least when you are wrong know you are.
I could careless who never admits they are wrong. Internally I think if they can not admit it to themselves pretty lost human being.
Free to be lost. Is like being the village idiot.
Meanwhile, those of us who can do something about Econ in the US are raising the standard of living. The idea there is any cancel culture at all is just plain dumb.
Except in the EU which is going to the supply-siders. Captain your benefits in Portugal will be cut or more expensive over time.
The people of the ilk saying cancel culture is your problem. They will lower your standard of living. Your costs in relative terms will rise. You may even lose your life if you need medical care in the future.
The US is shedding their arguments and false claims.