Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

National Coalition Calls for Campus Censorship of "Offensive" Speech (washingtonpost.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the sticks-and-stones dept.

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."

18 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Censoring speech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... how very European of them.

    1. Re: Censoring speech... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are we to ask them who was killed when they migrated across the land bridge from Asia? Or about internecine warfare prior to the coming of the white man? It seems that they're as much immigrants here in the Americas as are the Europeans; the only difference is they got here before the Europeans did. There's no evidence humans evolved on this continent at all.

      What's always been surprising to me about the politically correct take on the Native American's situation is that it pays absolutely no mind to just how vicious and evil the Indians were to each other -- varied by tribe and time, of course, but still, they were all about conquer and murder and etc. before Europeans ever arrived here. Look at how the Aztec managed things, for example. You just haven't lived until you've seen the carved-out skull of a virgin, I tell ya.

      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.)

      Characterizing our Native Americans as innocents to whom evil was done doesn't seem to be even close to an accurate representation of history.

      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. That's as much of a problem -- a self-inflicted one -- as anything that actually makes the news. But of course, you can't really say that without coming under some pretty heavy criticism. Not that such a thing could happen here on slashdot, of course. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re: Censoring speech... by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Mass immigration is great! Just ask an Indian.

      I asked two. Running Deer disagreed and Mr. Patel agreed.

    3. Re: Censoring speech... by TWX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Kind of hard to talk about something that hasn't happened yet.

      The vast majority of the Syrians that have fled their country have ended up in Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. Kind of hard to holocaust White Europeans from there...

      Besides, this isn't Camp of the Saints . Pre-war, Syria had one of the best educated and least religious populations of the nominally Islamic nations. The Syrians would be much better able to integrate into the workforce to actually contribute to the countries they resettle in, and not simply drag the economy down. This isn't some mass of rural-villagers or subsistence farmers, there was an actual economy and education system in Syria before the civil war.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    4. Re: Censoring speech... by dwye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1) Very few were killed when they migrated over the land bridge, because at most very few were here, already (most evidence for a pre-Clovis population is sketchy at best - perhaps because the sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age drowned the good stuff).

      2) Europeans didn't kill the 95% of the pre-existing Indian population, European diseases that even the Europeans themselves couldn't really treat did. Most of those diseases were borne by farm animals, which the Europeans brought with them. You can see the effects from the writings from a Spanish expedition into what would become the Deep South. They brought a herd of pigs with them rather than hunting the local animals that the locals would have needed, treated the Indians with no violence (as they were explorers, not conquistadores), and by the time that they returned the locals were already dying of mysterious plagues that seemed somewhat like Europeans childhood diseases gone crazy. The local adults had never had mumps, chicken pox, measles, etc., all of which are usually relatively harmless when experienced as children and terrible when an unexposed adult catches them. There were other diseases that hit the Europeans hard (smallpox, cholera, etc.) that still hit the then-unexposed even worse, but barring an offhand comment by Lord Amherst no one would have considered using, much like no one uses chemical weapons anymore if the wind can change directions and blow it back on one.

      3) No one was very nice to anyone else in those days. If the Indians had a more extensive bacterial load than Eurasia they would have had no qualms about crossing the oceans and settling the depopulated European forests and the steppes, adopting wheat, barley,and rye to supplement their own maize and potatoes, and violating treaties with the whiteskins whenever the press of migration was too heavy.

  2. Liberals by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Liberals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wish there was a party for me.

      I don't want to see people down trodden by the system living on the streets with no food shelter or medical care. In this country of ours there should be plenty for everyone to have those basic needs met. (For those especially that are truly unable to meet those needs.)

      But the freedoms of speech, religion(and from religion), and arms are in our god damned constitution. You don't fuck with that shit, quit trying to make exceptions to them. I also want to see people that freeload off the system to have to do community work. At that point welfare becomes wages. It would be nice if we had a new civilian conservation corp. We have bridges, roads, national parks, etc that need attention and that could be provided by those unable to find otherwise gainful employment.

      I also wish both parties would quit fucking with the right to be free from warantless searches and seizures. Do any of our politicians even know what is in the bill of rights? It seems not.

    2. Re:Liberals by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Citation please. Because I haven't heard any mainstream conservative groups try to restrict free speech; and almost every mainstream liberal group supports it (or fails to condemn their brethren who do).

    3. Re:Liberals by NostalgiaForInfinity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds

      They aren't "liberals" in the traditional political science or European sense. They are, however, "liberals" in the modern American sense, which means that they are a mix of progressives, right wing populists, and neo-Marxists.

    4. Re:Liberals by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

      your point proves his point to a T

      ad hom attacks? - check

      nothing but rambling? check

      posting AC while shouting down others? - check

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Liberals by kenai_alpenglow · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

    6. Re:Liberals by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democrats are Opposite People. Whatever they are saying is always the opposite of what they actually do in practice.

      Sort of like how Republicans for smaller government?

      You can bash democrats all you want. They probably deserve it. What I can;t stand is the implication that republicans are somehow better. And this goes for republican bashing as well.

      If you think either side of the republicrat party is any good, you need to have your head examined.

  3. The coddling of the american mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
    goes into more details...

  4. Oh sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. Campuses Used to be Free Speech Havens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During the 1960s college and university campuses were the birth places of free speech for students. Times have certainly changed with students demanding censorship.

  6. Re:Dear National Coalition by dmaul99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's "intents and purposes", not "intensive purposes"

  7. Re:How is this not harassment? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may not be, but when it's super easy to expand the definitions of 'harassment' to include criticism, suddenly the law becomes a tool to censor speech.

  8. Re:Leftists are insane by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be fair, anyone who identifies themselves as leftist or rightist are utter idiots. Intelligent people evaluate each issue individually and make choices (if necessary) to address those issues based on what they believe is the most productive and constructive (or in some cases, the easiest) option.

    The real problem isn't the left or the right... it's the left AND the right and every other damn option out there.

    While I am entirely aware I risk making the same mistake, you apparently have a gift of making impressively stupid comments without applying thought or reason to what you say and instead simply spout some populist nonsense that is little more than finger pointing.

    Take responsibility for yourself, this article identifies a REAL problem. The problem is, we've (I am not even in America, yet I recognize "WE" is accurate) have established a "civilization" that contains some very clear and identifiable problems.
    1) There are knuckle-draggers in our higher education system that clearly are in desperate need of an education but are also clearly not likely to obtain one as they have shown they're as ignorant as you by stereotyping based on some trait they believe makes another person less than they are... based on a group... which generally has no actual genuinely common characteristics.
    2) There are fools in the higher education system who lack the intelligence to simply ignore the knuckle-draggers and steer clear of them if needed. While I can't identify from the article if the targets of the hate-speech are those who are complaining, I will assume at least a few of them are. The fools (like yourself and likely me for rising to the bait) making the hateful comments are a waste of time, food and air. What they say has utterly no relevance to anything. These fools who take offense to knuckle-draggers making such comments are a major problem.
    3) There are fools who seem to believe the solution to the problem is to try and hide it. People who I don't believe are left, right, lib, conservative, etc... but instead are truly the most dangerous people I know, the PC enforcement crowd have identified a long list of causes they "feel strongly about". They want to the be the mommies of us all and instead of attempting to identify and resolve the issues progressively... devising an intelligent solution, they instead want to make us cover our ears and eyes and pretend like it will go away if we just sweep it under the rug and come up with punishments for people who say naughty things.

    Fact 1) Thank goodness for the Internet... Racism is 100x better today than it was 10 years ago. Racists who talk on Facebook and Twitter have been learning that they have lots in common with all those people they used to hate for skin color and religion and now have learned that they can hate people no matter what their skin color or religion. So as a result, now a formerly racist person who desperately needs to believe that some group of people must be responsible for why their lives aren't better... they can point fingers at all kinds of other groups of people. It's like Christmas in July.

    Fact 2) We don't need mommies and we really don't need PC enforcers. It's better to simply avoid/ignore people who we find offensive. Which leads us to...

    Fact 3) People like you are a waste of time to make any effort on. It's just simply built into your system to pick some group to blame without actually even taking the time to identify whether those people are in fact a group or not. There is nothing me or any other person could say to teach you to think intelligently and objectively about each scenario and then make productive recommendations. Which leads us to ....

    Fact 4) Finger pointers really aren't a necessity and are actually generally not even wanted. We have Fox, CNN, ABC and BBC to do that for us... we don't need anyone else to do it. I tend to find the shows on the news networks tend to spend a lot of time constructing groups of people who agree with e