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."
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.
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.'"
libertarian. thats what you describe
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They are defining a false kind of freedom without respect or responsibility.
Two buzzwords often used in the arguments in favor of squelching speech that isn't "respectful" or "responsible".
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Since you're an AC and not likely to be noticed, here's a list of some of the orgs. I don't recognize any that could be considered anything but liberal: Feminist Majority Foundation, Advocates for Youth, American Association of University Women, Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Black Women’s Blueprint, Black Women’s Health Imperative, Center for Partnership Studies, Center for Women Policy Studies, Champion Women, Clearinghouse on Women’s Issues, Digital Sisters/Sistas, End Rape on Campus, GLSEN, Hollaback!, Human Rights Campaign, Institute for Science and Human Values, Jewish Women International, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Legal Momentum, Media Equity Collaborative, Muslim Advocates, National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity, National Black Justice Coalition, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Women’s Organizations, National Disability Rights Network, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National LGBTQ Taskforce, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Law Center, SPARK Movement, SurvJustice, The Andrew Goodman Foundation, Turning Anger into Change, UltraViolet, WMC Speech Project, Women’s Media Center, YWCA USA
This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds. If you look at attitudes historically, left leaning political views are very often more tolerant than right leaning views.
But as in this case usually aren't. The list consisted of dozens of left leaning multi-cultural groups mixed with a few anti-rape groups. Not a single member had anything to do with "conservative" viewpoints, unless you choose to count the handful of mildly religious-oriented groups. I think it's instructive to consider the chasm between the propaganda mentioned in your quote above and the reality of the political affiliations of the groups actually calling for suppression of free speech.
Also, it doesn't beg the question. It raises the question.
Begging the question is a logical fallacy, not a rhetorical device. It refers to circular or tautological reasoning.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Liberal literally refers to "liber" (latin for free). Even if they consider themselves liberals, they are not. Whether they are left right up or down, they sure as shit aren't liberals. There are plenty of people on all political sides trying to ban what they find to be obscene. Fuck them all.
That is simply not true, we do pollute more, that is because we have more people and are much more effective at getting resources.
But killing is just wrong while we do kill people, we probably live in the most peaceful time in human existence.
Here are murder rates:
http://marginalrevolution.com/...
if you want a citation from wars:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
also think about deaths from illness,
Also in the past remember slavery was acceptable,
I am as pessimistic as the next person but don't blind yourself with false assumptions.
I don't know if you would call the Bush Administration "mainstream conservative" or not, but...
http://www.theamericanconserva...
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Here
you
go.
> Because I haven't heard any mainstream conservative groups try to restrict free speech;
Oh, my. Have you really not paid attention to the censorship of Planned Parenthood from discussing abortion with women? Or of discussing birth control in high schools? Or of teaching evolution in science classes? Or did you ignore the attempts by the US government to censoe the Pentagon Papers, or to censor Analog science magazine from printing details of the basic physical design of a simple atom bomb? Or of ongoing restrictions on publishing cryptography or security vulnerabilities, evidenced by speeches being censored at DefCon? Or the "Comic Book Code", applied to American comc books for decades?
Look at how the Aztec managed things, for example.
Sure, but look at how the Ohlone managed things, or the Pomo. Some of these people had stable, peaceful societies for over ten thousand years. The Pomo in particular fit that description. Then Andrew Kelsey showed up, raped and enslaved them, and when they finally fought back and killed him the US 1st Cavalry showed up to change Island Village into Bloody Island with a big fat massacre. Who's the savage now?
Every taking of land -- ever, I suspect -- was done by some fairly active stomping of the locals into the ground or enslaving them, abusing them, etc. by the stronger and/or more technologically sophisticated party (but I repeat myself.)
Not necessarily. Modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Not everyone is xenophobic.
Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.
If you want to get all pedantic, "our Native Americans" doesn't even include the Azteks. That was someone else's Native Americans. They pretty much went extinct because they used up their resources. We still have some Maya, though. They're still around, they just don't have their massive culture any more.
In the area we now consider to be the continental US, the tribes' behavior pretty much matched the landscape. The desert tribes would as soon kill you as give you water. The tribes who lived where there was plenty were considerably more generous... much to their detriment.
Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.
I don't remember anyone calling them innocents. I think the idea was that they had stable societies that were often based on fairly egalitarian ideals. Nobody in the society was encouraged or enabled to amass wealth at the expense of others, and the community's first interest was the community and not just some individuals. This enabled them to build societies that persisted for literally thousands of years, some of them in peace where they didn't have too many hungry neighbors.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"