Slashdot Mirror
National Coalition Calls for Campus Censorship of "Offensive" Speech (washingtonpost.com)
schwit1 writes with this opinion piece from Eugene Volokh, who teaches free speech law at UCLA School of Law, about the push to ban "offensive" speech and censor websites on campus. He writes: "A large coalition of advocacy groups has asked the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights to pressure colleges to (1) punish students for their speech and (2) block student access to certain Web sites — especially sites such as Yik Yak, which allow students to anonymously post their views..... Yet another example of today's Anti-Free Speech Movement for American universities — unfortunately, one that fits well into the Education Department's attitudes. Fortunately, courts have firmly rejected these kinds of calls to restrict college student speech, though the OCR and the college administrations it pressures can get away with a lot of restrictions until the lawsuits are actually brought."
... how very European of them.
STFU. What was that? Rights. Well...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I don't understand how they can function.
If they don't like free speech they should leave the country and go live in north korea.
Liberals are all about freedom, expression, tolerance, etc. until you do or say something that they don't like.
Tolerance and acceptance only apply to those they tolerate and accept. Everyone else gets branded a bigot hate monger, racist, misogynist, etc. the instant they exercise their own right to speak their mind or utter any un-PC truths. This behavior by liberals, of course, is the very definition of bigotry.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
goes into more details...
This is the worst possible thing to do, not just for the basic liberties. The Atlantic published an article explaining why.
We can't cocoon people and then let them out into the world. This is elementary-school treatment at a University Level.
Free speech only means anything if it's the freedom to say things that are dangerous or unpopular.
It shouldn't mean the freedom to only say what is benign, acceptable, trivial, or politically correct.
During the 1960s college and university campuses were the birth places of free speech for students. Times have certainly changed with students demanding censorship.
political correctness offends me.
I wouldn't really call this a "site", as it's used primarily as a phone app, and I'm not sure how you are going to block this on personal phones.
Fight the hate not the speech.
OMG, if we let people say whatever they want, they might say something that conflicts with my worldview and gives me a boo-boo or a tummyache.
Wah Wah Wah!
SJWs, please help protect me from hearing anything I don't like!!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Now wait, I'm not saying don't get offended, you can go ahead and do that and it's even reasonable. But the WP article is inventive, inflammatory bullshit, shock amazement. For instance, this little snark-shit:
In fact, the quote "[African-Americansâ(TM)] entire culture just isnâ(TM)t conducive to a life of success" was not provided as an example of behavior deserving of disciplinary proceedings, only of harassment:
Frankly though, if you look at this from the no news is good news perspective, it looks mostly like a press release for YikYak: "The use of Yik Yak to threaten and harass students is of particular note because the application is so pervasive on college campuses." [...] "Yik Yak has grown quickly since launching in 2013. Using a business model focused on marketing to college students, Yik Yak now has millions of users. It is on about 1600 college campuses with around 50 to 80 percent of each student body using the application. In the fall of 2014, Yik Yak experienced about 100,000 downloads per day"[...]
Oh, really? Tell me more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What is your "offensive" speech is perhaps my "justified" and/or "rational" speech. Who will be the arbiter of what is allowed and what is not? You do not have a right to avoid being "offended".
It's as if all progress in the humanities has ended by fiat.
You know, I was just struck with how like vaccination this whole thing is - these students grew up in a much more 'free speech' era than, say, the 1960s. As such, they aren't used to seeing the harm that anti-free speech laws and regulations cause.
Much like anti-vaxxors today who feel free to refuse vaccination because they haven't experienced the outbreaks and plagues that happened in history.
I mean, I understand because I'm old enough to have a grandfather who was permanently affected by polio. So I grew up with that. But those much younger than me?
I don't read AC A human right
I think someone should send a letter to the DoJ requesting an investigation into the groups that wrote this letter for their conspiracy to deprive students of their civil rights.
What I think is the dumbest aspect of this is the complete cluelessness about consequences. It's all fun and games until someone else's jack booted thugs are in power and they instead of your are deciding which websites to block and which college-based political opponents to punish. Why push so hard for something that is sure to blowback on you?
I suppose though that we could just ban these idiots from college campuses - for their own protection, of course.
Upon considering an idea, the first question ought not to be, "Is it offensive?" but rather, "Is it true?"
...just watch what you say. It disappoints me that this sort of thing goes on. Good on the courts for smacking down these attempts.
I have found that people don't like the fact and censor "death is inevitable", so using that experience coupled with momentum, I assume that the truth will be censored. Go to university or school, ultimately receive lies. I can hear it know, "You can't tell someone the absolute truth they are going to die naturally no matter how hard they try to survive.". This may probably be censored because the Internet was and probably is available to school children. Hackers tend to learn the truth, but for them it's a catch 22 situation, because they a guilty of hacking, so can't proceed, and the death statement still applies to them. No one can become God.
What a disgrace.
Thats the true power, those who get to make the list of "Offensive" things to ban/censor. Might be the crazy reason we have a first amendment, and a 2nd to make sure we keep it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
ALL for one nation, ONE Opinion, ONE RULER!!!
Daddy says every time a left-winger advocates for censorship, a Confederate flag goes up.
I remember when it was the religious right that was trying to impose its values on society using the government (eg: abortion rights). The left was positioning itself as supporting the live and let live attitude, especially concerning sex. Now, today's left is all about campus 'rape tribunals' that model soviet show trials and pushes out tons of fear-mongering propaganda to create neurotic behavior in young people (mostly men) about sex. Now this 'coalition'... I guess like the neocons censored for jesus, the New Left censors for marx. Yay for big statists!
How about we just let individuals speak their minds and deal with the fact that not everyone will agree? That is a required cornerstone of learning, right? Free thought? Free expression that includes criticism? What a bunch of pissant crybabies this society's become.
To me, suggesting the climate is changing due to the activity of man is offensive.
Suggesting people in the US illegally should be allowed citizenship is offensive.
Supporting abortion is offensive.
Garnishing my paycheck to pay (meals, healthcare, etc) for deadbeats is offensive.
Allowing people to vote without proof of identity is offensive.
Giving students cheap loans or grants for college education is offensive.
Where do we draw the line?
STFU.
So what you are saying is that you find this idea highly offensive and would like to have the people who suggested it censored. ;-)
Mind you I think you have hit on by far the most educational response to this request which is to immediately censor the idiots who made it. This would of course trigger a huge backlash from them against the injustice of them being silenced which would be the perfect time to point out that you found their ideas highly offensive and were just giving them exactly what they asked for.
Hopefully that would teach them a valuable lesson on the importance of free speech but sadly I doubt it if they were stupid enough to come up with the request in the first place.
"What what what!" - Kyle's Mom
Knowing it all since the late 70's.
*Laughs and points*
National Organization for Women ... Beaver Valley,... ???
heh heh
bad man! bad BAD man!!
This goes to prove that American Progressives lead to Communism.
Academia in America has nothing to do with education anyway. If after learning to read, you still need a teacher, you aren't qualified to learn shit anyway. College is simply an extension of high-school anymore, and most of it is useless bullshit, so censorship is as relevant as the lack of continuity between the New Star Trek and the old. It doesn't matter because it's a made-up story taking place in a fictional universe anyway, so who gives a fuck?
The FACT is that, using the federal govt's own stats, HIV in the US is primarily a male homosexual disease. It's common in the English-speaking world to say that a bad thing affecting a particular group is a "curse" (with no witch or witchdoctor implications - it's a figure of SPEECH, which I guess the left cannot tolerate).
When ALL the stats, even those collected by people with a political agenda contrary to the results, say that a particular thing is associated with a particular subset of the population it is completely dishonest/ignorant/childish to insist that the objective stats are true. HIV prevalence in all Western societies is primarily among those who engage in male homosexual acts (both homosexual men and bisexual men). HIV affects IV drug users to a lesser extent, and to a lesser extent the sexual partners of the afore-mentioned three groups. The African continent is the outlier in having HIV as a large problem in the "normal" population because the cultural norms are very different and ignorance in many "at-risk" populations is stunning; There are ares of Africa, for example, where men believe they can be cured of AIDS by having sex with young virgin girls. That sort of stuff pushes HIV into the non-gay population in a way that simply will never happen in the Western world.
Bill Buckley was right on this, as on many other things.
Oh, and the Democrats in California passed a law in 2000 making it illegal to teach anything like this in the schools - anything that can be construed as "anti-gay" is illegal in the public schools - so much for "free speech" and liberals supporting truth and science.
1. Buckley always personally identified himself as a Libertarian, while championing both Libertarian and Conservative causes, so be careful about presuming anything about exactly where the man would stand today on anything if you do not even understand where he actually stood back then.
2. The Republican party of today is far to the left of where it was when Buckley was alive; it now takes positions to the left of where Jimmy Carter was in 1980 (like tolerating pot, much higher taxes and social spending, many GOP politicians today are supportive of gays in the military, women in combat, nationalized education and healthcare programs, etc). Even DEMOCRATS would not publicly embrace these things in 1980.
It's a modern Democrat talking point of the extreme progressives of that party to try to hide how extremely whacko their party has become by pretending the Republicans have moved to the right, when what has actually happened is that the Democrats have gone extreme left and the Republicans have gone very left, but less rapidly than the Democrats thus opening up the relative gap between the parties.
I find any public discussion of religion offensive. So can I get that banned? Seriously, trying to regulate someones speech is like trying to ban the illicit drug trade. Let those who are offended shun the offenders. I mostly ignore offensive speech. Sticks and stones and all that.
Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say "You have the right, not to be offended."
Absolutely nowhere. So all you haters of haters can just fuck off and die. Haters will be haters, and as long as it is just speech, spoken or written, it's just that, speech - protected speech, Congress may pass "NO" law that restricts this speech.
See that line "Congress may pass NO law." - Any laws written that abridge this right is unconstitutional and the people that support it are Constitutional Terrorists committing acts of Treason against our nation. Luckily it's a time of "pseudo-war", and we can round all those traitors in the Executive, Congressional and Judicial branches, former and current, arrest them for high Treason, and once found guilty, execute them.
Then we can go back to common sense. Someone says something you don't like, slam back a retort or ignore them. Someone tries to hurt you, then you can haul them away.
Words are just words, regardless of how "offensive" they are, words do not break laws. Actions break laws. Arresting someone for ideas spread via speech or writing is arresting someone for a "thought crime".
Until they've taken that action, it's nothing more than a thought.
Think of all the terrible things in religious texts - an entire city's population turned to pillars of salt or ash - volcanic eruption? Nuclear blast? who knows, but if the story of the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah were written today as a "plan" to make the "heretics" and "evil-doers" pay for their sins, the author(s) would probably be arrested and thrown in jail for life.
Most of the examples of the sins perpetrated by people in the religious texts would be horrific if they happened today. Yet nobody is arresting priests and pastors, monks or whatnot. Not for their practice of "religions" with all kinds of "hate crimes" in them.
If people believe that certain activities are wrong, and they state their belief, it's not a hate crime, the people aren't criminals, they are honest citizens who are practicing their freedom of speech. Regardless of what people think, words can never kill. People poking fun at others doesn't kill. It doesn't maim. It does nothing to anyone unless they choose to let them hurt them.
It's when people are told to "believe what we tell you", that "what we say is right".
Here's the way it is. People are rude. People are cruel. People as a "group" tend to go off the deep end. People when interacting 1 on 1 act one way, yet when in a group scenario, depending on the feel of the group, will act totally different due to the group's expectations of the people within the group.
All the Wendy Whiners talking about "We can't burst Billy's bubble, or hurt Suzy's feelings by telling them the truth" are the ones hurting the children.
Start teaching them the truth. Everybody is born unique, not everyone is everyone else's equal. Some are smarter, some are faster, some are stronger, some are weaker, slower, dumber. The neat part is that those that begin with that "advantage" can end up beneath someone who started with a disadvantage.
It's what people do with their gifts, or do despite their weaknesses that make them who they are. People telling children that they're all winners, all special, all wonderful are only feeding the "entitled" state that the children end up feeling, and when they go out into the real world, they expect to be handed everything they want without having to put forth any effort at all.
What the fuck does that teach them? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing.
How does that "help" society? It fucking doesn't.
Stop all the politically correct bullshit.
Stop forcing the majority to change their ways for the minority.
Stop entitling ego-maniacal groups into believing they're little minority group, because they don't like to be called out for whatever actions or choices they've made have more rights that the majority of the people who don't make those same choices.
You wouldn't make drunk drivers a prot
What I am most entertained by are all these arbitrary classifications of who they claim you are not allowed to talk shit about. race, sex, religion out of bounds.....This only leaves fat people, girls with mustaches, 4 eyes, old geezers, fugly peeplz, stupid peeplz, smart people, mean people, smelly people, racist people, gullible people, boring people, poor, rich, upppppies, weaklings, jocks, geeks, prudes, sluts, whores, and stuck up fools...... the reality is everyone is so goddamn tribal and judgmental out their minds...everyone...yes this means you too... The worst by far are paradoxically subhumans like these "dumb fucks" who feel justified working to make the system enforce their views on others by force. That right there is the definition of intolerance.
Sticks and stones bitches... really everyone just needs to get over themselves... freedom isn't free.. tolerance of assholes is required for free societies to be free. If you can't stomach freedom then please
get the fuck out of my country and don't let lady liberty bitch slap you on your ride out. (kidding you can stay but fuck you precious snowflake triggering fucks all of you get a clue, get a job and take a shower)
You are supremely ignorant of history.
Hitler's party WAS a "socialist workers' party" and no attempt at re-interpretation by a kid in mommy's basement, or a leftist college professor can change that. GO AND READ THE WRITINGS OF THE NAZI PARTY! Their films, literature, and artwork, like the artwork of the Communists, celebrated the nameless faceless worker - the cog in the great socialist machine. Their films and books celebrated the generic worker. They believed in massive centralized government super-regulating the market place and having national control over education and health, etc. Like all socialists everywhere they were content to allow people to own stuff, as long as government had a say in how the stuff was allocated and used. NAZI Germany was one giant screed of "for the workers". Anybody who denies this is simply without an atom of credibility.
And while we're on the subject: Mussolini, the father of Fascism, was also a socialist (and a leader of the socialist party there) as a matter of historical record. Denial of this is also equivalent to flat-Eartherism. People who deny the socialism of Hitler, the NAZI party, and Mussolini can only be ignorant or dishonest, there is simply no third possibility when faced with the mountain of documentation that exists in museums and archives around the world. It's understandable that a young American educated by hard-core Democrat school teachers (nearly all of them in the US are in a nationalized union that is in bed with the Democrat party) would believe the "socialism is wonderful and Hitler and Mussolini were not socialists" propaganda they've been spoon-fed.... but that's STILL just a form of willful ignorance as anybody is free to spend a little time learning the truth.
The article you linked to was about "free speech zones" - those roped-off areas ALL politicians have fallen in love with (Remember Hillary's moving rope line????). These are repugnant but are a politician's way of making sure they get good glossy PR photos without a backdrop of protesters and also avoiding lots of loud yelling. That's ALL politicians, not the ones on the left or the right.
The critical part you seem to have missed, was that people in "free speech zones" are at least still free to speak. The modern left-wing lame-brain is another critter entirely - he/she/it insists others shut up and not be allowed to speak AT ALL. Your post completely fails to identify some conservative pushing that agenda.
When has inoffensive speech ever been threatened? The only speech that needs protection is offensive, at least to someone. The key to control is to be the one who decides what is or is not offensive. The key to freedom is for nobody to have the power to decide.
Nothing to see here - budding student political types are always looking for causes to make noise about and be noticed. Some causes are valid, some just look like they are an easy option. I suspect this is the latter. Saying "be nice to each other" is so much easier than building a child care centre, sorting out transport hassles for students with the local government, or doing something for depressed students.
The fact that there is any need to restrict speech means the thoughts behind them weren't banned to begin with. By the time students enroll in higher education, they should already have been thoroughly trained in Crime Stop. Since the verbal analogies section of the SATs were removed it seems high time for there to be a Crime Stop section added as an appropriate replacement:
-- 1984
Seastead this.
then it won't exist and we can all go on with our lives. everyone wins.
If memory serves, at least one of the anti-porn crusaders found her own work being seized under the laws she'd promoted.
Yes, because, you know, truth (or lack of it) is defined by the number of people who believe relative to the number that believe something else, right? Galileo is spinning in his grave..
So, lets see, your post boils down to argumentum ad populum, and ad hominem. Your statement about universities is also wrong. While places like liberty.edu are censorious, Yale and Harvard are no better. Don't forget Duke.
https://youtu.be/im25MN5AwIc?t...
I would have used a milder tone, but what you say is all true. Volokh is an Absolutist, and a paranoid one at that.
Actually, I would have expected this piece to be hosted by Timothy, another Gun Nut. Samzenpus is known lately for just sloppy editing.
What the? Can someone please explain to me how colleges have become havens for the very net nanny's we were all sky-is-falling about back in '90s? Don't F with free speech. Period.
College is about expanding your mind (and your alcohol tolerance, if you're into that sorta thing); not growing more closed minded and intolerant. Holy crap, I fear for our future and for these nimrods coming into the workforce. As if the current brand of entitled millenials weren't bad enough. It's going to take kids of us Gen-Xers to clean up this mess (do they even have a generation name yet? let's skip it.).
FFS!
I don't know about where you live, but here in Texas gas stations are starting people at $11/hour and the mortgage on my house is $626. In other words, a teenager can damn near buy a house if they simply _show_up_to_work_on_time. Just about anyone sit behind a cash register, so the whole "living on the streets with no food" thing - not if you show up.
Maybe the party for you actually is the particular flavor that's been running Texas for the last 20 years and you just didn't know it.
The founders of the US gave us a Constitution that defines what the "normal" center of American politics is.
We are all so far to the extreme left now, WAY farther than ever before, that I would now label a large part of the population "insane"; they are certainly not culturally or politically "American" by any traditional definition. You gave NO basis for your perception of left or right so I suspect it is what most on the left seem to use: their personal preferences (i.e. nothing fixed or objective). Our founders created a country with a very small federal govt that essentially just provided for national defense, diplomats, patents and trademarks, resolved disputes between the states, and the courts for these things. The rest was left to the states themselves and the citizens. THAT is the normal political centerline of America. Both modern parties now are far left, supporting federal involvement in EVERYTHING and a federal government massively involved in wealth redistribution.
At this point, some ignorant fool usually outs himself by claiming the Constitution and our founders legitimized slavery and counted blacks as 3/5ths of a human as a tactic to say that either the country as created is bad or that anybody wanting limited Constitutional government wants slavery. These are both common lies the left uses to keep blacks on the modern Democrat party plantation. The Constitution TOLERATED slavery as a necessary evil of the initial rebellion but NEVER endorses slavery as a positive, and did not create any government structures in the new country to support it. The founders could only fight so many battles at a time and rebelling against England was the priority.
Many of the founders (like Ben Franklin) were abolitionists always strongly opposed to slavery and working to end it. Others like Washington and Jefferson were raised in a society where (like most of the planet at the time) slavery was a normal part of life and to them there was no obvious way for them to do certain things in the economy without slaves BUT they nonetheless wrote that they expected the practice of slavery to become obsolete in the near future. Some of the founders while still alive freed their slaves, others in their wills freed the family slaves, but NONE of them celebrated slavery or put any mechanisms into the Constitution to increase slavery or even guarantee its continuation.
The Constitution also NEVER says blacks are less than full persons; it labels non-free persons as 3/5ths, and then ONLY for purposes of congressional seat apportionment - not 3/5ths for any other purpose. The 3/5ths was a compromise to give the South enough seats in congress to entice them into joining the revolution but not enough to have the power to spread or increase slavery - it was an anti-slavery action. Blacks in the northern colonies were NEVER counted as only 3/5ths of a man - they were full citizens and a number of them were active participants in the revolutionary war - including one who served with Washington and is in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware river in a boat. Oh, and white slaves in the south were not counted as full persons either.
Again, if you think the Republican party is not left-of-center, you are either in Europe where EVERYBODY is some form of socialist or you are using some bizarro imaginary and completely subjective scale.
I consider any Censorship to be "Offensive".
I may not like what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.
What the Hells has happened to America?
Best professor I had, at the beginning of a History of Science course, said that some of us will be offended in his class, in fact, he HOPED we would be offended by something or he didn't do his job correctly. He stressed that university is for free thought and that even offensive thoughts should be talked about and debated, We are there to have our ideas and sensibilities challenged by a whole world of thoughts, we are not supposed to be indoctrinated in any one school of thought. Universities are not 'safe havens' they are a place that gathers ALL knowledge, no matter the politics or religions of the people there.
The entire course came back to this point over and over, showing that through history science and politics are entwined but how universities were places where offensive ideas had a way of cutting through that. Some ideas were eventually discarded, others were able to thrive. His entire last 3 hour lecture was about offensive ideas and how they should be protected in universities. Wonderful course and I hope lots more people take his course, though it's a very small class of 12 to foster discussion better.
The article refers to college administrations allowing this suppression of free speech until the courts smack them down. The solution therefore is to encourage exemplary damages against colleges that commit this restriction of political rights, with the board of governors of the institution being on the hook for some of it. Also given the ability of the FBI to charge Southern murderers with depriving people of their constitutional rights, this might also be pursued.
Beyond that we need to recognise that people who are unable to respond appropriately to challenging material are mentally ill; they would appear to be suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Therefore the core analysis is whether a tertiary education facility is able to provide an environment for such people, or whether it is inconsistent with its primary role. You don't employ blind people as truck drivers; it is surely impossible to operate a college where free speech is not fully implemented. The next step beyond that is to argue that such institutions should be deprived of their charitable / tax free status because they are no longer able to offer high quality education.
Fight Fire with Fire.
Don't ban lighters.
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise."
You can't have free speech without the means to defend it so the first and second amendments are tied together closely. There is a group that would like to get rid of the second amendment but, in order to do that, they must negate the need for it and this is clearly their first attempt at suppressing free speech. What surprises me is that it's getting traction at colleges. These institutions should be the last bastion of freedom. However, most public colleges are funded by their states and when a lawmaker gets a wild hair for something the college is doing, that funding becomes in jeopardy. I just saw it happen in my state with the university hospital and Planned Parenthood. Suddenly a relationship that had been good for years was dissolved because a politician could put enough pressure on the university to make it happen.
I'm not sure how the attempts to block websites is going to work. Given that most people have phones, and most phones have 3G or 4G access, if the school blocks websites on their LAN, the students just won't use it.
www.wavefront-av.com
If you look at how American society is going, you see a society that is embracing groupthink, and lessening respect for the individual.
I have seen in the last ten years or so(since the advent of "social media"...) a change in American culture that encourages a sort of "agree or die" mentality. Gone are the days of everyone having their own opinion.
We are heading in the direction of the political movements of the early twentieth century, only now we have an immensely more powerful way to control opionion, control behavior and in the not too very distant future, control thought itself.
This is the future you wanted, right?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
The bottom line is that whether Liberal or Conservative, people should be allowed to say whatever they want, as long as they are not directly threatening or harming others. The correct solution is for people to meet in the middle, but our US society has decided that there are only two sides...that is not the way to be. We need to be collaborating and negotiating, not opposing each other at every turn.
Now, US citizens are entitled to free speech, as long as it doesn't threaten or harm other people, even if it is incorrect speech. A law like the one mentioned in the article would not pass US Supreme Court scrutiny.
You can bet your bottom dollar that Israel supporters will try and use such censorship to call protests against Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestine hate speech or offensive....
If you follow hate speech laws, and the lobbyists involved - you can see there is one and one aim only - preventing people learning what's going on.
if you expect them to celebrate your intolerance. It might make them meta-bigots, but the intolerant are first-order bigots.
If we don't support offensive speech, then we don't support free speech at all.
Rights are given by government(any government), they are inherent to each individual. As such, no person, nor group of people, can ask permission to violate anyone's rights, or any group of people's rights. As an analogy(though not totally accurate), it would be like Person A asking Person C to use/abuse the property of Person B; the "property" being "rights"(which should be obvious). I mean, what kind of idiocy is be fostered and supported in colleges and universities(well, above what has existed over the past few decades, at least)?
This whole problem becomes even more offensive when we are talking about government funded, operated, and "owned" schools, since such an institution is just another "arm" of government(usually a state government). Speech is one of the "pesky" rights explicitly protected by the US Constitution(please remember, the US Constitution didn't create or provide rights to anyone; it simply protects certain, rather important rights which "the founders" knew, based on history(up to that point) would likely be abused by government(s). Those rights are not the only rights we have, nor would any further amendments to the US Constitution rid any of us of those explicit rights), as well as most, if not all US state constitutions. Any attempt by such state-run institutions to violate anyone's rights, including its students(which, mind you, are all adults, save, possibly, for a very few exceptions) would likely be an "under color of law" violation, depending on the circumstances(worst case scenario, most likely), or something that cannot be enforced and simply ignored(best case scenario).
In the end, people need to stop giving others, including these education centers, more power, while revoking much of the actually little power such organizations have now. These institutions exist to educate, not control. So, to them I say, "Stop it, goddamn it!"
Thus endth thy lesson.
I know plenty of Republicans and Libertarians that despise the extremism of the Tea Party. The Tea Party makes them look like idiots.
The progressive/liberal side of the spectrum has their own "Tea Party" and they are frequently referred to as "SJWs" or "Social Justice Warriors". They need a better name, though, because there are genuine social justice "warriors" that do good-- you know, like fighting against gerrymandering and police brutality. The "SJWs" that mess it all up are those that attempt to change the meanings of words. Examples:
Violence: Violence used to mean action that caused physical harm. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are trying to change the common vocabulary so that speech that makes someone uncomfortable can be described as "violence".
Triggering: Triggering is a medical term regarding the genuine overwhelming emotions and memories that come flooding to one's forethought after being reminded of an extremely traumatic experience. Today, SJWs (the bad ones) are attempting to make everything a potential "trigger" for someone because it reminds them of something bad. It's not the same.
Racism: This one's pretty bad. Racism has a very specific definition. It's the belief that one race is better than another. However, SJWs (the bad ones) are attributing racism to just about anything that touches the topic of race, ethnicity, culture, etc. People accuse things without the capability of having beliefs of racism ("Is science racist?").
The examples go on and on... these (bad) SJWs are the Tea Party of the left. They tear down anyone who isn't as extreme as they are. But here's the rub-- since they fight for things that are generally accepted as good (reducing harm, protecting people, etc.), you just can't come out as against them or their tactics. And THAT is why schools are bending over backwards to not fight them. Schools are horrifically liability averse and they will almost always give in to the extremists on their side(s) rather than fight them and risk being slandered as rape-cultured and racist organizations.
Of course I can see why DHI got into this article.. whith heads so far up a specific Area in someone elses body, not theirs..
so here is the reason this stupid shit will never fly
Like prohibition
What's the definition of offensive???
What age, or culture group can this possibily appily to??
moving past that, I remember several stories about why comics will not play universities or educational institutions,m, why
because they think they are so PC. Making brash, un-informed, stoopid claims like this one without any substance, other than, "I said so, so mommie and daddys's money will help me get my way, even though I dont know what I really want, other than ATTENTION"
It's crap like this that really pisses people off..
Whats worse the originator or the messenger??
The blind leading the Blind
(dhi)
thank you
... is to ban speech they don't agree with.
Next, they usher them off to concentration camps.
That's how liberals roll.
So all the kids going to college can be exposed to new views and ideas, right? Is there a better place where such stuff can be examined and refuted for what it is?
So wait, are you comparing not wanting people to get right next to Hillary as she marched in a parade, with being shunted off to where you cannot even see you elected official and where no press will see you as equivalent???
>The critical part you seem to have missed, was that people in "free speech zones" are at least still free to speak And the critical part of Free Speech that you fail to understand is being able to petition your government. That's really hard to do when your kept behind a fence 1/3rd of a mile away.
To say what Hillary did was as bad as What the Bush Administration did shows how strongly your political bias warps your mind.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
There's a difference between calling out someone for their ill shit online and making a law to make it illegal to be a disgusting misogynist.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
HIV can be transmitted, it's a virus.
AIDS cannot, it's a syndrome, and it cannot be passed to another person.
HIV can cause AIDS.
A regular "who's who" of the most Liberal and Progressive groups in the country are part of this new "coalition".
When I was in college, "Liberal" meant, among other things, "to believe in personal rights of individuals" with free speech first and foremost among them. Now people ask what happened to my "Liberalness". Bullshit. It's what happened to their "Liberalness" that makes me sound right-wing today.
if "Anonymous" can go after other thugs why not go after the dummies posting threats about profs? Put a name and face with the comments and see if it helps.
Anonymous information sharing is important, but for anyone who provides this, do you really mean to help idiots make anonymous threats? How hard is it to filter what people post and at least flag by keyword, maybe log the undesirable stuff. Especially easy if you can see the verizon super-cookies on the packets or whatever.
Go.... ...Fuck.... ...Yourself.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
i like info...
You know asshole this thread was about free speech not migration but your thread does prove the point. You know you do have the right to run your stupid whites lies all you want and I do support you have the right to say what you want. This right also extends to me.
It seems that they're as much immigrants here in the Americas as are the Europeans;
Well you know according to what you have to say and general science Europeans also are immigrants to Europe also since we all came out of Africa. From you view point only a black man from Africa can claim to be an "Original People" of the land. Then again maybe your Neanderthal genes are showing. Ever wonder why all other races are some shade of brown except Europeans?
Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.
First what is the Our shit?? Look here asshole I do not belong to you or to any man so cut the "our" shit. There is a truism "History is written by the victors". This is so true so you don't get an "accurate representation" from a US history book which is filled with lies hiding the truth of your genocide. Did you know when directly translated the Indian word of English is "Liars Tongue" wonder why? Just look at the marketspeak and propaganda going on today to see why we do still call it that.
Truth? You want truth? The truth is you are too blind and too stupid to realize truth even if it fell in your lap.
You just haven't lived until you've seen the carved-out skull of a virgin, I tell ya.
Wait till you have your children taken away from you and sent to Boarding School for years without seeing home again or how about sterilizing young women without their consent? These two things in just the last 60 years and don't tell me it isn't true I have seen it with my own eyes. Yea in my life time. US government did these things and many other.
3 things the US government controls by blood quantum horses, dogs, and Indians. Truth is I do much like being associated with dogs and horses than the likes of you. They are much more intelligent creatures than you.. A question just how pure white are you?
Finally, there's only just so much worship of "traditional ways" you can pursue before you've gone and shot yourself right in the foot.
Well at least I have a "tradition". What do you have white man? Mine's based on living with this Earth, respect for family, the old ones and the children. What's yours based on? Greed genocide, theft and murder and the raping of this planet. Hell it still goes on today now just all over the world instead on this land only.
Sure you have the right to make your comments but it does make me wonder exactly who really is enlightened and who is the real savage. Grow up Unega Soqua.