Coulter and Milo are specifically choosing any opposition side for attention and $$$. Steve Bannon is supposed to be this genius who has studied every text known to man. Apparently, his reading comprehension is lacking. His first and only interview left me thinking "we're terrified of THIS GUY?" He didn't even make sense. And of course, the only sad line the GOP ever has is the weakness of Democrats.
If you bottle all of their rhetoric, it's all the same poisoned liquid. Democrats are too weak to stand up to minorities and women when they share the idea that equal rights means all persons.
Most of the GOP misfits that rise to the top seem bitter and angry for no particular reason. They think that the're the truth tellers and the Dems are so delicate and that's why they disagree. In fact, most Americans scratch their heads and ask, "What exactly are you so mad about". Awful America who has allowed you fame and fortune with zero contribution to this country. or is it, once people heard your ideas, they weren't close to impressed. Great thinkers this trio is not.
The students should pay them zero attention because they have nothing to peddle except anger. Make them obsolete. Don't engage. Hold another rally where you collect all the whacked out statements the three of them have made and laugh at the ridiculousness. It would drive them nuts. That's how you need to deal with this on your campus. Let them speak but also run a projector with some of their own words.
2
Thanks to the Times, Natalie Shutler and Professor Erwin Chemerinsky for a model of clarity in the muddle of thinking today about freedom of expression. And what a good example was set by the USC dean in response to the blackboard slur. Better to educate than to punish, if it is possible to do so.
1
This article (including the headline) glosses over something very important: many of these on-campus eruptions have not been caused by serious hate speech but very reasonable disagreement. At Evergreen College is was a professor wrote a private email disagreeing with having a day when white people should be asked to stay off campus. At Yale it was because the wife of a professor wrote a letter saying that she didn't agree with the hyper sensitivity around Halloween costumes. In both cases mobs harassed faculty, were verbally abusive and demeaning. At Yale the mob was vicious and abusive to the husband of the woman who wrote the letter.
At University of Missoula a black student said someone yelled something (it was never clarified as to what it was) at them from a car while they were walking off campus. At Oberlin a black student said they looked out their dorm window at 4am and thought they saw a lone Klansman in the distance. Both these incidents caused a meltdown on campus despite neither being evidence of racism by the schools or students and in fact there is no evidence anything ever happened. Many of these meltdowns are based on vague grievances and they always involve demand for money and services earmarked specifically for certain groups. It's extortion plain and simple.
5
This misses a really big point: you are free to say what you want, but not if you are being paid to speak. If you are being paid, 'free speech rules' no longer apply. Once you expect or accept payment, you have to play by the rules set out in the terms of payment. We are not obligated to provide financial support for hate speech.
3
Characterizing speech as a weapon and as violence is the routine strategy of fascism in justifying shutting down disapproved viewpoints. It is impossible to stand for free speech unless you stand for the right of people to speak who you would prefer keep their mouths closed. That's the whole point. There is no meaning to free speech if you only support it for speech you like. Hate speech. The first time I heard that term, it was the late 80s or early 90s. You never heard it before then. It made me think of Orwell's 1984. We are all free and should be free to love, hate, or be indifferent. There is no law against any emotion. If people shut up about it but still feel hate inwardly, then that hate is secret. Do you really not want to know what people are feeling? If so, how do you know what needs to be changed? And changing people's hearts is what's important. Forcing them not to express it in reality achieves nothing. It masks reality. The answer to speech you disapprove of, is more speech. Your counter. Your rebuttal. Shutting people up is the strategy of tyranny.
3
Acknowledging that hate speech is protected under the First Amendment, the question is what is the value of provide a platform for hate speech. Even protected hate speech that does not incite violence provides little social value to anyone other than making them aware that such loathsome views are prevalent. There is unquestionably a civic value in airing differing viewpoints with which many will disagree. Yet one must still question why any public institution actually invites promoters of hate speech by providing them with a platform. Is it merely to illustrate the extent of First Amendment protections. Surely that educational function is shamefully overshadowed by the spreading of such loathsome views. I find it difficult to justify providing a platform of hate merely to show an institution's commitment to the First Amendment.
1
I generally lean toward completely unfettered free speech. But I do think there are certain people whose speech isn't about expressing ideas, but purely about provocation. Should universities sponsor such speakers? I'm not sure. While universities do have a duty to promote the expression of all serious viewpoints, I'm not sure they have a duty to enable provocateurs whose speech is intended not to express any serious idea, but only to make people angry.
1
Freedom of speech may permit hate speech, but it does not require a gold-embossed invitation, an auditorium with a sound system, or advertising to draw an audience for hate speech. Hate speech may be permitted by the Constitution, but an invitation to devote educational resources to broadcast hate's message is not required, either legally or ethically.
And really, don't people, of any age, get enough opportunity to absorb hate's message? Have you read the bumper stickers on the car you followed to work today?
Yes, say what you want. But please don't ask educational institutions to support your message morally or financially if it's one that that goes against their basic interest, the interests of a greater heterogeneous community of citizens, or the interests of their students.
1
It used to be so simple when I was in college.
People could say what ever they wanted so long as they left the body armor and the shields and clubs at home.
Why can't we go back to the way it used to be?
2
The 1st amendment restrains government.
The government may not prosecute someone for offensive speech.
However an employer or a college may forbid certain type of speech.
The carrying of guns by the Nazi /KKK types in Charlottseville was not speech but conduct.
Marching without guns is protected speech.
Carrying guns is not protected by the 1st amendment.
8
"However an employer or a college may forbid certain type of speech"
Not a PUBLIC college. The law on this is well established. A public college like UCLA or Universoty of Michigan are considered government actors.
5
The 1st amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law.
The Court ruled the 14th amendment made this prohibition binding on state legislatures.
A college in establishing codes of conduct is not passing any law. No student may be fined or jailed for violating a college’s prohibitions because those punishments must be prescribed by LEGISLATION. Such legislation is prohibited by the 1st amendment.
The Court in Cohen threw out the obscenity conviction of a young man who wore a shirt that said “ [naughty word] the draft”
{The naughty word begins with the 6th letter of the alphabet.]
Are you saying a college or a public school could not forbid students from wearing shirts carrying that obscene word.
1
A public college is a state actor for 14th Amendment purposes and is therefore covered under the 1st Amendment. Saying it only applies to legislation overlooks the fact that public agencies act pursuant to legislation and only function under a grant of legislative authority. Thus, a federal agency is bound by the 1st Amendment because it cannot apply the law that grants it its authority in an unconstitutional manner.
2
A very interesting discussion, and certainly a timely one, too. However, there seems to be a contradiction in Mr. Chemerisnky's argument: Toward the end, he maintains that "if speech is a true threat... it is not protected by the First Amendment." Yet, he later suggests that "police presence" may be necessary "in the face of danger to public safety" where such speech is being exercised. What is "danger" if not a threat of violence? Perhaps this is clarified in his book, which I am curious to read, but it's not clear here.
3
The speech itself must be the threat. So saying (I'm Jewish so I'm using this as an example) "We are going to hunt down all the Jews and killl them tonight" is a threat.
Saying " Jews will not replace us" is not. But this latter speech may bring out counter-protestors and a clash that is a danger to safety may he likely and require a police presence.
This does NOT mean that saying "Jews will not replace us" is unprotected.
7
Woody Allen's discussion of this issue, from Manhattan, is instructive:
"Isaac: Has anybody read that Nazis are going to march in New Jersey, you know? We should go there, get some guys together, you know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Man: There was this devastating satirical piece on that on the op-ed page of the Times. It is devastating.
Isaac: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point.
Woman: Oh, but really biting satire is always better than physical force.
Isaac: No, physical force is always better with Nazis. It’s hard to satirize a guy with shiny boots."
7
I like the idea of the non-violent clown counter-protests which mime and make fun of every aspect of nazi/fascism. Ridicule them instead of giving them the violence they crave. Show up in large numbers in clown costumes to every one of their demonstrations. Keep doing it.
4
There's nothing wrong with free speech- as long as it's gender neutral and doesn't offend anyone :)
2
Free speech for everyone. Enforce the laws, no violence, enforce the laws, free speech, enforce the laws, then Charlottesville, Berkley, etc. would not have happened.
3
"...if speech is a true threat--causing a person to reasonably fear imminent physical harm--it is not protected by the First Amendment."
For me, this quote of Erwin's contradicts his argument. Hate speech is by its inherent nature inciting, in the same way that hate symbols (Confederate flag, Nazi emblem) are inciting. We have drawn this line previously, and must continue to draw it and respect it. When Governor Nikki Haley took the Confederate flag down over the SC State Capitol, this was an example of removing a hateful and inciting symbol.
Hate speech is not free speech and not protected when its outcome is to incite violence and physical harm
1
Nope. The Supreme Court has said over and over that Hate Speech IS Free Speech and protected. In order for it to rise to the level of " Immediate incitement " it just be something akin "Attack those people now they are about to kill us!" Something that will cause any reasonable person to immediately act without little thought. Saying hateful things like 'Jews will not replace us' while carrying a Nazi flag , nope not incitement and yes protected.
This us well established law. You can asset all you want that Hate Speech is not free speech but the law is firmly against you ( our often very divided Supreme Court is very undivided with respect to First Amendment issues )
4
Speech must incite imminent violence and must have a probability of actually doing so. Merely being inciting isn't sufficient.
3
This is a topic I've been wondering about quite a lot - Dean Chemerinsky is very helpful with his responses.
1
Why are we even talking about this? Supreme court decisions have very clearly spelled out what the law is. Guess what? If it's against the law, you shouldn't do it.
2
This is a big beef with me.
Just when did "hateful speech" become eligible as "free speech"
Laws need to change because the far right make news when one of their hateful speakers goes to California to speak but is turned around by hostile left wing folks.
We need to make hate speech criminal, not free
1
When? When this country enacted the First Amendment. Unless we are going to change the Constitution ( a terrible terrible idea) we need to live with the fact that hateful speech is protected and the best way to deal with it is more speech. Peaceful and powerful counter -protests, calling out hate for all its dispicableness and taking pride in the ability to drown out hateful speech not by shouting it down but by bringing the masses to hear speech filled with love.
5
Not too many years ago, advocating for civil rights was criminalized as 'hate speech" because it incited whites to violence. What is tolerable and intolerable shifts with the wind and anyone who bans speech as harmful is sure to have their principles banned i be banned in the future.
3
A guiding philosophy that is needed more than ever today:
"... the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John Stuart Mill
"... the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John Stuart Mill
4
There is one aspect of free/hate speech I do not see addressed here.
Children. They are sponges, and anyone who has ever worked with elementary school kids will have been struck by the fact that bigoted children - have bigoted parents. Before they start thinking - they absorb what they hear, and the great majority will identify, tribal fashion, with what their parents say. And what they hear on their parents' favorite news casts.
This is a core cause of the intractable nature of hate- children grow up with it, and believe they are true, honest, righteous, and just- without thinking.
Sheer repetition of hate - is harmful. For generations. Add that, please, to the discussions.
1
This is a good point, and worth emphasizing. Repeat an opinion often enough and it starts to look like fact.
Maybe you weren't calling for a government solution, but I don't think outlawing hate speech is the answer. Laws have a way of backfiring--it only takes one election.
I think the best solution is generational--exposure to new cultures, ethnicities, languages, and ways of thinking. Tolerance tends to track with cosmopolitanism; the more people live, work, and play together, the more they see each other as human instead of "others". We help the process along by giving children new experiences and different perspectives. The understanding heart is inoculated against hatred.
2
The hard thing, but the most effective response to someone with whom you disagree is to ignore them. If a speaker shows up and there are only 10 people in the audience, they will get the message. Unfortunately, this isn't as satisfying as protesting and displaying your self-righteousness. Also, I wonder how many college protesters actually read the speaker's works?
JD
JD
3
" Also, if speech is a true threat — causing a person to reasonably fear imminent physical harm — it is not protected by the First Amendment."
Unless you are a candidate for the Presidency, right? It probably has to do with having lots of money too, and it probably helps a lot to be white (not to mention surrounded by your own security), but yep, some people can stand in an extremely crowded room and say "... I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you that."
I suppose a good lawyer would argue that he didn't say it directly to the guy, there was no "reasonable fear" of "imminent physical harm".
No, you just have a potential President saying he'd like to be violent. Nothing wrong with that, eh? Nothing wrong with inciting a bit of violence, assuming you know the right people, have some money, perhaps a good lawyer in your pocket.
You know, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who'd like to threaten to punch any number of politicians in the face, from the local ranks all the way up to the Prez. But, presuming they are not rich, they'd probably be arrested, and if non-white, well, you might as well just put on the cuffs, baby.
Free speech does not apply to All People in this country, so with respect, Mr Chemerinsky comes across as a bit disingenuous to me.
This article has great timing. I am in a snail mail discussion with the Vice Provost of the Faculty at UC Berkeley. My rant du jour had to do with my request that the Board of Regents fire Berkeley law professor John Yoo. It seems the right-wing conservatives in Washington look to him to find legal loopholes needed to give legitimacy to nefarious plans in government, including torture.
The Vice Provost suggests that it is the responsibility of a university to provide an open forum for the left, right, and center. I agree. However, Yoo was the go-to lawyer chosen by the Bush43 team (led by VP Cheney and National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice) to create a green light for torture.
They sought out Yoo because with the intent to use torture and needed someone to write the loophole language to authorize it, despite the fact that it was violating the rule of law in the Geneva Conventions which specifically names torture techniques physically and emotionally harmful to a prisoner. Mr. Yoo should have been aware that hundreds of prisoners were handed over as "suspects" to our military and the CIA by tribal family members and village neighbors to rake in the cash rewards offered by the CIA to turn over "terror suspects."
Yoo apparently ignored the evidence to assist the administration's intent to violate the Geneva Conventions. In the case of John Yoo, neither liberal nor conservative free speech is at risk here; neither is the First Amendment nor Yoo's use of it.
The Vice Provost suggests that it is the responsibility of a university to provide an open forum for the left, right, and center. I agree. However, Yoo was the go-to lawyer chosen by the Bush43 team (led by VP Cheney and National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice) to create a green light for torture.
They sought out Yoo because with the intent to use torture and needed someone to write the loophole language to authorize it, despite the fact that it was violating the rule of law in the Geneva Conventions which specifically names torture techniques physically and emotionally harmful to a prisoner. Mr. Yoo should have been aware that hundreds of prisoners were handed over as "suspects" to our military and the CIA by tribal family members and village neighbors to rake in the cash rewards offered by the CIA to turn over "terror suspects."
Yoo apparently ignored the evidence to assist the administration's intent to violate the Geneva Conventions. In the case of John Yoo, neither liberal nor conservative free speech is at risk here; neither is the First Amendment nor Yoo's use of it.
4
Freedom of speech is very important. But it makes no sense to allow Nazis to march on the street in front of an office building, while inside it, a business is pressured by threats of civil litigation to fire someone because he expresses doubt that racial or sexual differences in representation at his employer are the result of discrimination alone. Almost every public place is now someone's workplace, even if it is just the janitor or gardener. Freedom of speech cannot survive the "hostile environment" theory workplace discrimination test, unless the courts do their job and explicitly limit it to verbal conduct unrelated to the legitimate discussion of social or political realities or human needs.
The simple answer is: A speaker has to have an audience. If you show up at a hate speech rally, you are validating that some part of the diatribe has a kernel of truth. Don't show up.
2
I don't get the reasoning used by those who would suppress hate or any kind of speech that they disagree with. Setting aside for a moment that free speech is fundamental to our system and clearly protected by the constitution, what is it that is feared? Knowledge? Insight into how people you disagree with think? Fear that you will be swayed? Fear that others will be swayed? Fear that those to whom the hate is directed will be further harmed by hearing words and understanding what they represent?
We know these thoughts, beliefs, words, and actions exist now and have existed in the past. History is a great teacher - it shows us what ideas have been interesting, novel, useful, and admired as well as those that are alarming, dangerous, and to be feared and discouraged. Banning hate speech is the equivalent of banning current and past history solely because it is objectionable. No rational person would ban the writing and maintaining of freely researched and written histories of past and present times.
Know your enemies so that you can live informed better lives and so your children can learn in the starkest terms the meaning of right and wrong.
We know these thoughts, beliefs, words, and actions exist now and have existed in the past. History is a great teacher - it shows us what ideas have been interesting, novel, useful, and admired as well as those that are alarming, dangerous, and to be feared and discouraged. Banning hate speech is the equivalent of banning current and past history solely because it is objectionable. No rational person would ban the writing and maintaining of freely researched and written histories of past and present times.
Know your enemies so that you can live informed better lives and so your children can learn in the starkest terms the meaning of right and wrong.
3
When handing out power, don't think of what will happen when the people you like have it. Think of what can happen if your sworn enemy gets to use it. Do you want Donald Trump deciding what hate speech is and deciding what to ban? Think you will like his idea for it? Then don't give anyone the power to ban speech he deems "hate speech."
3
The Times seems to be caught using dog whistle headlines again here, an historic issue for the paper.
These events need to be looked at under the lens of harm reduction, not constitutionality. By beginning these discussions with the specter of "free speech", we're agreeing to abandon any and all progressive goals on campus.
Centering this debate around free speech is a fundamentalist right-wing/libertarian approach to addressing a much more significant issues: campuses inviting people to abuse, intimidate, and incite students. Violence and force are, ironically, also tenets of the American libertarian. We would do well to focus on the fire, rather than the smoke.
Besides, do American campuses really owe British nationals a platform for hate speech, even if it results in deaths? I think we're in a dangerous position if we have to ask this question.
2
Not every speech can be protected. Armed people shouting their hate to other groups are after hurting those groups, not expressing their views through speech. If hate-speech is protected, what is wrong with letting ISIS activists have demonstrations on American campuses to express their views too. To me, there is no difference between what hate groups did in the past and what ISIS is doing today - killing innocent people. These hateful people is trying to create the conditions under the protected speech today to kill the groups they hate when the time is right in future.
1
Thank God for the emergence of reason at our liberal think tanks. Free speech does not mean that only liberals get the right to speak or that conservatives "own" all forms of intolerance. Intolerance is part of human nature, this is why have laws to protect free speech and to provide a fair playing field, for all. Thank you for your wisdom and insight... Erwin and the founding fathers.
Afro-centrism is similar to other ethno-centrisms that we have seen. It delights the insiders and alienates everyone else.
6
Speech is strictly regulated near voting booths based in part on the history of intimidation of polls. We value voting so much, that we sacrifice free speech for it, and we even do so based on content. Why can't we say the same thing about certain parts of college campuses? Isn't education important enough to sacrifice free speech in these limited areas, particularly for those vulnerable populations that have historically faced intimidation in the pursuit of their educations? I learned a lot at college, almost all of it in a classroom taught by tenured professors. Let's stop pretending that student group selected speakers (from anywhere along the ideological spectrum) play integral role in the education system.
The anti-electioneering rules are viewpoint-neutral. Barring, say, Ann Coulter, isn't.
1
This is really good, and really challenging. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and an open, progressive society is dependent on it. This means people with ideas i consider abhorrent have the right to their speech in the public sphere. I'm concerned that major corporations are taking up the role of being arbiters of what is considered acceptable speech. We are in dangerous territory!
1
The only legal and constitutional response to speech is more speech.
Does hate speech even exist in a constitutional democracy? Were we to remove statues of ll men whose speech resulted in raw hatred and denial of freedoms on the basis of race, even statues in the U.S. Capitol would have to be removed, beginning with that of Woodrow Wilson.
Whenever a one-sided political institution decides to limit or ban anything, you can probably make a strong public impact on behalf of freedom by suing that change out of existence.
The most illiberal, liberty-killing gulags are constructed by people who think themselves liberal - not the classical definition of the word, but those on the Left since the beginning of the progressive era in the early 1900's.
And, Yes, that is the time when all the Civil War statues started showing up. Did you even have to ask?
2
" It is important to recognize that a public university has no choice but to allow speakers on campus even if their message is regarded as hateful or racist."
The proposition that a public university must provide a speaking venue for any group or individual is absurd. There are multiple off-campus locations for such activities. On campus speakers should contribute to the general purpose of university, namely education (academically speaking). They should not consist of anyone and all of those seeking 15 minutes of notoriety, pursuing potential converts, or simply propagandizing.
1
The notion of "hate speech" has driven liberalism off the rails.
The problem is that one person's "hate speech" can be another person's important message. There is no way of defining "hate speech" that is consistent across the numerous interest-groups that make up a democracy.
I will describe one issue which I believe is important that has been undiscussed because liberals seem to believe that it is motivated by racism or hatred.
The problem is population growth.
China tackled this problem after it suffered a huge famine under the rule of Chairman Mao, which killed from 20 to 43 million people.
Mao's successors, Deng Xiaoping and others, introduce a one-child program.
Women were required to use IUD's after having one child to cut down population growth.
This policy is often characterized as a human rights abuse by Americans. But the argument can be made that having multiple children in an overpopulated world is a human rights abuse itself, and far more devastating than restricting the number of births.
US population has also been exploding. US population grew by 36% during the period 1980-2010. Mostly it is due to immigration.
We have some choices. To keep population growth under control, we could adopt a one-child policy like China. Or cut illegal immigration to zero as Trump suggests.
Liberals seem to regard both policies as racist, and have effectively censored discussion.
Yet global warming is caused by population growth, so we need to discuss the topic.
The problem is that one person's "hate speech" can be another person's important message. There is no way of defining "hate speech" that is consistent across the numerous interest-groups that make up a democracy.
I will describe one issue which I believe is important that has been undiscussed because liberals seem to believe that it is motivated by racism or hatred.
The problem is population growth.
China tackled this problem after it suffered a huge famine under the rule of Chairman Mao, which killed from 20 to 43 million people.
Mao's successors, Deng Xiaoping and others, introduce a one-child program.
Women were required to use IUD's after having one child to cut down population growth.
This policy is often characterized as a human rights abuse by Americans. But the argument can be made that having multiple children in an overpopulated world is a human rights abuse itself, and far more devastating than restricting the number of births.
US population has also been exploding. US population grew by 36% during the period 1980-2010. Mostly it is due to immigration.
We have some choices. To keep population growth under control, we could adopt a one-child policy like China. Or cut illegal immigration to zero as Trump suggests.
Liberals seem to regard both policies as racist, and have effectively censored discussion.
Yet global warming is caused by population growth, so we need to discuss the topic.
3
Whether or not restrictions on free speech end up hurting the people they're supposed to protect is beside the point. Free speech is simply non-negotiable. And what I find most absurd about recent events is that so many of the speakers being protested aren't engaging in anything resembling hate speech. It's fascinating to watch the Q&A sessions with Milo Yiannopoulos, where he will be asked "Why are you a racist? Why do you hate gay people?" To which he responds "I'm not a racist, I don't hate anyone, I just have conservative views." When protesters enter the room and drown out his speeches with angry, meaningless chants, he always tries to engage them in polite conversation, to ask them basic questions, and they always refuse, preferring to shout slogans into the wind. It's pretty hard not to conclude that the protesters are frustrated mostly because they can't find good arguments to use against him, and pull out the Hate Speech accusation to try to win the argument without ever listening to a single one of his ideas or making a logical case of their own. That's not only dishonest and sleazy, it's the antithesis of what higher education is for.
2
I would like to see the New York Times engage more seriously with the far-left perspective on this issue, and the ideas about how speech and power actually interact in different contexts.
Every analysis I have seen is a reiteration of the old-guard perspective, framed around the idea of the Civil Rights Movement. This is a bit disingenuous, given who tends to benefit from these free speech defenses.
It's also a bit dated -- it's easy to see why, for older generations who fought to be rid of taboos, the idea of limits on speech seems like backsliding. But there seem to be plenty of countries who limit hate speech, for example, who don't appear to have slide down the slippery slope towards fascism.
As with many Constitutional issues, it seems that there is both an unbending rigidity of the text at the same time as a paradoxical fluidity in interpretation which both always seem to work for the benefit of those in power. We can't change the text to accommodate our feelings about hate speech, but somehow we can read in all sorts of things about campaign finance.
Every analysis I have seen is a reiteration of the old-guard perspective, framed around the idea of the Civil Rights Movement. This is a bit disingenuous, given who tends to benefit from these free speech defenses.
It's also a bit dated -- it's easy to see why, for older generations who fought to be rid of taboos, the idea of limits on speech seems like backsliding. But there seem to be plenty of countries who limit hate speech, for example, who don't appear to have slide down the slippery slope towards fascism.
As with many Constitutional issues, it seems that there is both an unbending rigidity of the text at the same time as a paradoxical fluidity in interpretation which both always seem to work for the benefit of those in power. We can't change the text to accommodate our feelings about hate speech, but somehow we can read in all sorts of things about campaign finance.
2
The very idea that it is possible to protect people from distasteful information is delusional, whether it be hate speech on campus or fake news on Facebook. The whole idea of universities is that students are going to learn how to think for themselves and distinguish pure hatred from constructive information. Non students also, must cease to expect that the nanny state will filter out "acceptable" information. People must make their own informed decisions as to what is right and what is lies.
To reemphasize, this article points out clearly that there is no one, other than perhaps a deity, that can make the pretense of filtering information so that other people will only be exposed to the "correct" information. The First Amendment wisely anticipated that there are those that would put themselves up on that pedestal of filtering the "correct" information. It -- the First Amendment -- says NO, there is no one that can do that.
People also tend to forget that the First Amendment is all about prior restraint. There is nothing in the Amendment to preclude lawsuits for illegal speech after the fact. It simply protects the right to say it in the first place, in almost all cases.
3
Kudos to the professor for educating readers of the NYT about an issue vitally important to our Republic. Unfortunately, the lack of basic understanding and appreciation of the First Amendment is widespread because our educational system from K-college rarely teaches basic civics to anyone anymore. Now we reap what we've sowed - widespread ignorance about the core principles that made this country the land of opportunity.
4
These arguments repeat a piece of accepted wisdom that is pure nonsense - that protest and demonstrations were important in ending the Vietnam War. Any objective look at events shows that the US prolonged and expanded its military intervention in Indochina for exactly as long as it wanted to, and to exactly the extent it thought it could get away with, before finally giving up and admitting defeat - not by internal disapproval, but by external circumstances. It is true that domestic loathing of the Vietnam War (especially the draft) had huge political effects on this country, but there's no reason to believe it shortened the actual war by one minute.
People who are wasting their time on symbolic "resistance" to right-wing domination of US politics now, with no effect whatsoever, should take a closer look at cause and effect in the real world. Power talks; money talks; talk in and of itself is worthless.
A Trump supporter shot and almost killed an anti-Trump protestor at a Milo event at the university here. As usual, Milo came at the invitation of the university student Republican group. Anti-Trump protestors also came, from the university community and from outside the university community. The outside folks included the extreme anti-fascist groups. Outside of the event, an anti-Trump protestor was shot--a life threatening injury. The shooters (a married man and woman) initially said they were anti-Trump protestors. That was a lie. They were verifiable Trump supporters. They claimed self-defense. That was in all likelihood a lie, too; video shows that they were not threatened. Milo's aim was provocation. That is protected free speech. The stated aim of many of the pro-Trump people there was the standard white supremacist junk. That is also protected free speech. Our university president has steadfastly supported free speech even after the shooting. The Republican Trump story that universities are not supporting free speech is nonsense. Attending this protest was clearly dangerous. On the other hand, simply ignoring what such speakers are advocating has also proven to be altogether unacceptable. Trump supporters showed up with concealed guns. The need for law enforcement to check all participants for weapons seems clear.
2
Besides Chimerinsky's points, there's just the simple, basic, practical problem that all laws restricting speech are double-edged swords. If you have a law restricting "hate speech," sooner or later you will find your own views categorized by your opponents as hate speech. Left-wing attempts to ban "hate speech" is especially short-sighted in the current political climate. Given who is in the White House, the DOJ, and Congress, the instant courts find it constitutional for government and government-funded entities to ban "hate speech," you will find liberal viewpoints labeled "hate speech' and banned.
2
Martin Skreli was just thrown in jail for offering to pay people to yank out someone's hair. A judge concluded that was a true threat. Of course Skreli claimed he had been joking, but the judge wasn't buying it and it looks like Skreli will be wearing orange for the foreseeable future for his many crimes.
That's the kind of protection we deserve. If each of us could be confident that any true threat would result in swift incarceration, all this talk of hate speech and safe spaces would go away. Our whole society would be a space safe from violence, and we could openly debate public policy and morality as vigorously as we liked, confident that the line between discourse and assault would be respected and enforced. And when the cell door slammed behind Skreli, he'd see Donald Trump in the next cell.
Well - it's generally their fees paying for things, so....
Since the first amendment was adopted, the law has been that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. This issue is not really that hard.
I wonder if students today even understand the origins of our First Amendment. Is this something they still cover in school?
If they understand that the right to protest is part and parcel of the right to speak out, even if it offends people.
You can't restrict rights to protect one group without affecting the rights of everyone.
8
The freedom of speech means that people are free to say what they feel as well as what they think, and that means freedom to offend anyone who disagrees, which means subjecting people to an upsetting experience where they expected to enjoy a civil and peaceful one. The only circumstances where what people express would not offend anyone would be where everyone feels and thinks the exact same things about every experience which they encounter. If you want that to happen, limit the human race to one strain of clones and make them live in the same place under the identical same conditions with continual indoctrination and re-indoctrination to assure that they are all exactly alike.
It is very possible to discuss disagreeably with others while avoiding most of the kinds of behaviors that lead to fights and deep resentments but it requires the ability to confront each other without feeling personally threatened or psychologically damaged. The college campus is the ideal environment to confront very sensitive issues and to learn how to address the kinds of words and arguments which cause resentments and angry responses so that they do not.
6
This opinion piece spins the facts. The students don't need protection from hate speech.
First, there is very little hate speech. Mostly is it non-alt-left speech that they are afraid of.
Second, the non-alt-left speech mostly takes place in lecture halls outside of class time. So the students who don't voluntarily attend the lecture, don't here the non-alt-left speech.
The most likely place to hear hate speech on campus is at the lunch table or in the classroom when students and professors are dissing on white people.
First, there is very little hate speech. Mostly is it non-alt-left speech that they are afraid of.
Second, the non-alt-left speech mostly takes place in lecture halls outside of class time. So the students who don't voluntarily attend the lecture, don't here the non-alt-left speech.
The most likely place to hear hate speech on campus is at the lunch table or in the classroom when students and professors are dissing on white people.
13
Yes, white conservative people. The real victims. Despite the irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
Sorry Voice of Reason, but I can't figure out what you're talking about. Are you a student or a teacher? I've been both recently and I don't know what non-alt-left speech is or where I should go to get it. Honestly, I have heard exactly zero dissing of white people in my neck of the woods.
1
This form of hate speech is now promoted on the first network to supposedly focus on non-political issues, ESPN. A class of political officers take the place of the old Soviet political officers today.
Jemele Hill and other commissars can't be considered any sort of sports commentators, but work at ESPN to uphold the network president's and Disney-ABC's CEO's political hatreds.
While the company's crashing financial picture causes actual sports people to be laid off in the 3 figures, these political officers will have an increasing role of maintaining the elites' political views. I wonder if every talk situation, even Mike & Mike, will eventually have a non-sports person there to hold up dogmatic progressivism and suspicion of white supremacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar
Jemele Hill and other commissars can't be considered any sort of sports commentators, but work at ESPN to uphold the network president's and Disney-ABC's CEO's political hatreds.
While the company's crashing financial picture causes actual sports people to be laid off in the 3 figures, these political officers will have an increasing role of maintaining the elites' political views. I wonder if every talk situation, even Mike & Mike, will eventually have a non-sports person there to hold up dogmatic progressivism and suspicion of white supremacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar
2
As a minority, I agree that hate speech should be protected. Without hate speech, how would I know who the Nazis are. Come on out, have a rally, let me see your face. That way I know. Self identification is good. If I don't know who they are, how do I protect myself?
23
Things work differently now that most interactions are online, with pseudonym-wielding users targeting peoples careers. Most actions can be boiled down to free speech. It doesn't mean that they should be.
"I have heard from many students that they are frustrated with the idea that people of color and other vulnerable demographic groups are responsible for staying nonviolent and peaceful when aggressive demonstrators march on their colleges. It’s not that they want violence, but that they feel that they are being told to respond to aggression with passivity. Could you comment on that?"
This is either a candid question by a 6th-grader, or a purposely misleading question by someone with an agenda.
What are aggressive demonstrations? People chanting and carrying picket signs conveying opinions you disagree with, or skinheads (or Antifa: same types, different ideologies) swinging baseball bats or shooting at you? Arguably, not exactly the same situations.
Nobody's putting the onus on "people of color and other vulnerable demographic groups" not to fight back if they're physically attacked: this is not what has been going on. What they're being asked is to not physically attack members of other racial or political groups (other than in self defense) just because they don't agree with them, that's it.
Natalie seems convinced that offensive speech and ideas are akin to physical assault, and that preemptive physical assault on people with offensive ideas is therefore somehow warranted. I'm sure the concept can be found in the neo-Nazi playbook as well.
This is either a candid question by a 6th-grader, or a purposely misleading question by someone with an agenda.
What are aggressive demonstrations? People chanting and carrying picket signs conveying opinions you disagree with, or skinheads (or Antifa: same types, different ideologies) swinging baseball bats or shooting at you? Arguably, not exactly the same situations.
Nobody's putting the onus on "people of color and other vulnerable demographic groups" not to fight back if they're physically attacked: this is not what has been going on. What they're being asked is to not physically attack members of other racial or political groups (other than in self defense) just because they don't agree with them, that's it.
Natalie seems convinced that offensive speech and ideas are akin to physical assault, and that preemptive physical assault on people with offensive ideas is therefore somehow warranted. I'm sure the concept can be found in the neo-Nazi playbook as well.
24
Chris, some speech is precisely akin to physical assault. If self proclaimed nazis are marching - with torches - around a synagogue shouting "Kill the Jews," one would have to ignore a great deal of history to view such "speech" as NOT akin to physical assault. Indeed, one would have to be a fool not to recognize that such behavior is intended to result in some sort of physical assault, either from the marching nazis or the threatened Jews intent on self defense. You write from Paris. You are presumably aware that the French and German governments (which are far more intimate than we in the US with the sort of "free speech" exhibited at Charlottesville) have very clear laws on hate speech, and enforce those laws. Is it also true that notwithstanding the tendency of some in our country to crow about the supposed uniqueness of American democracy, the French and German versions are no less (and these days, perhaps more) robust than ours; particularly given the fact that our Supreme Court has legalized what in other times and/or places would be illegal political bribery. First Amendment absolutism is not responsible for the survival of our democracy (to the extent it still survives). Indeed, it may be our downfall.
1
Chris--As I said after Charlottesville, I don't believe anyone should be required to stand there and let someone whack them with a baseball bat, in order for their point of view to be taken seriously.
She is playing devil's advocate. She is raising all the arguments that university students and others might object to.
We must define free speech as that which does not cause harm to anyone. It's not censorship, in the strictest sense; it is protection for the vulnerable. There is still broadcasting, and publishing, where the audience must make the effort to seek it out. Kind of like porn, and socially unacceptable language. You can still do it, and listen to it, and read it, but you'll have to find it, first. Seems fair to me.
1
I understand your defense ChesBay, but the particular words you use to defend freedom of speech do matter. Really, if free speech did not hurt your opponents, why would it be dangerous? Or, valuable?
Free speech is protected exactly because it hurts people. It is intended to expose criminals, bury dictators, embarrass local wanabees before they can extract power by un-democratic means.
Free speech allows ordinary citizens the right to correct powerful liars.
Free speech permits bad ideas to face the light of day before infecting an entire dimly lit population.
I'm with you for protecting the vulnerable, but when you exercise your right to free speech, I hope you consider taking the time to hurt someone badly--there are so many needs for this right now.
Otherwise, it is a right that is wasted.
Free speech is protected exactly because it hurts people. It is intended to expose criminals, bury dictators, embarrass local wanabees before they can extract power by un-democratic means.
Free speech allows ordinary citizens the right to correct powerful liars.
Free speech permits bad ideas to face the light of day before infecting an entire dimly lit population.
I'm with you for protecting the vulnerable, but when you exercise your right to free speech, I hope you consider taking the time to hurt someone badly--there are so many needs for this right now.
Otherwise, it is a right that is wasted.
2
It is precisely this protectionist attitude that is the catalyst for the debate. Since when does anyone have a right to be free from emotional harm? And how does the writer come to the legal or even moral authority to tell me that I am prohibited from expressing my views in public because someone might be "hurt" by what I have to say? Life is not an extension of the womb; things are tough and a college campus is a place where one should be learning how to respond rather than being a place to hide.
2
The speech that the Constitution was intended to protect was political speech. Hurling ethnic slurs in most cases does not fit the bill. Nor does denying climate change unless you are using your denial to further a political aim.
Why is free speech so often invoked to protect those who need to shut up?
1
Yes - I am in favor of free speech for those I agree with!
1
Because if nobody wants you to shut up, you don't really need the protection of free speech laws.
3
Something very relevant that is seldom brought up is how any dissent from the lefts favored groups (blacks, Muslims, illegal immigrants, transgendered) is considered hate speech. Hispanics having to follow immigration law- hate speech! Questioning affirmative action- hate speech! Feeling that Political Islam is violent- hate speech! Feeling uncomfortable that people can use whatever locker room corresponds with whatever gender they "feel" they are- hate speech!
But actual hate speech and demonization against Jews is openly exposed, particularly in relation to the Palestinian cause. It does not garner consequences or the same condemnation as if it was directed towards blacks or Muslims. It's often committed by the same people who want to "shut down hate speech".
So lets be clear- many leftists use false accusations of "hate speech" to silence any dissent no matter how reasonable. They are fine with actual hate speech and even violence when it's committed by their favored groups or directed towards their least favored groups.
But actual hate speech and demonization against Jews is openly exposed, particularly in relation to the Palestinian cause. It does not garner consequences or the same condemnation as if it was directed towards blacks or Muslims. It's often committed by the same people who want to "shut down hate speech".
So lets be clear- many leftists use false accusations of "hate speech" to silence any dissent no matter how reasonable. They are fine with actual hate speech and even violence when it's committed by their favored groups or directed towards their least favored groups.
25
It seems like you're casting a pretty wide net. Any dissent from lefts favored groups is hate speech? That's a bit extreme. I think we probably agree that there is much interpretation when it comes to categorizing hate speech. But the way you describe dissenting views is laughable. You make it sound like genteel folks are just sitting around asking innocent questions about immigration law or having intellectual discussions about the merits of affirmative action. Even if they were (and they're not) then you're making sense of those questions or discussions in a very superficial way. There's more going on there, Tara. Also, let's be clear, just about anybody you'll meet is more accepting of talk and action if/when it aligns with their interests. That includes you and me. Our job is to reflect and recognize when we do this and, in the cases of hate speech and violence, speak out against it.
Not "the left's favored groups"; groups of human beings. As such, they should be protected from assault. "Hate speech" is not prohibited, by the left or anybody else. But it should be deplored by everyone, right and left. It's easy to recognize hate speech, isn't it? You have a distorted view of leftists, who are, after all, a group of people who dissent from your views.
1
So, what you consider hate speech is hate speech, but what "lefts" consider hate speech is not hate speech.
Yeah, okay.
Yeah, okay.
"plenty of students don’t see value in hosting more of the same on their campuses"
THEIR campuses? Pure distilled arrogance.
THEIR campuses? Pure distilled arrogance.
14
In terms of the students who are paying tuition, paying fees, and otherwise financially supporting the university then yes, their campus. It is public but the public does not have untrammeled rights to the use of the campus.
As such, I would hardly call it arrogance but a simple reflection of reality.
As such, I would hardly call it arrogance but a simple reflection of reality.
1
Students have an ownership stake in their campus the same way citizens do in their country and residents do in their neighborhoods and local communities. How is this arrogance?
3
The crux of the matter is the phrase "hate speech." I don't think we have an agreed-upon definition of "hat speech." We need to separate speech about difficult topics which does not aim to provoke acts of hatred and violence and the speech that does aim specifically to do that. So, if a Christian says that he or she believes marriage to be a covenant between a man and a woman, that statement of belief is not aiming at anything other than expressing the person's belief. However, anyone who expresses that belief and then says something (probably in an enraged and violent manner) along the lines of "down with all same-sex couples," would have crossed the line from expressing a belief to expressing his or her hatred of those who are different AND calling on others who are also filled with that same hatred to go out and act on it. Or, someone who expresses agreement with the biblical view but then goes on to stigmatize same sex couples with nasty names also crosses the line.
Not everyone who expresses belief in the biblical view of marriage hates same-sex couples or people who don't agree with them. Non agreement cannot be the definition of "hate speech," but I fear that for many, that is the definition.
Not everyone who expresses belief in the biblical view of marriage hates same-sex couples or people who don't agree with them. Non agreement cannot be the definition of "hate speech," but I fear that for many, that is the definition.
5
But the left DOES define saying that marriage is between male & female IS hate speech -- just simply stating that. You don't have to make slurs about gay people. Just DEFINING MARRIAGE as it was, everywhere, before about 10 years ago -- is considered hate speech to the left.
1
As a veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement of the 1960s, I was pleased that some leading members of that movement have maintained their commitment to freedom of speech, no matter how odious the instance (as do I). Especially in educational institutions, it is important to be exposed to any and all opinions, even the ones we don't like.
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-might-mario-savio-have-said-about...
Incidentally, it was at that time that I first heard the term "political correctness," used as mockery of some of the extreme ideologues there, the ones who maintained that, for instance, "Sure, Stalin killed a lot of kulaks, but in a true way he was liberating them," or something like that. This was turned into comments like, during a long meeting, "Would it be politically correct to have a 10-minute break?"
https://www.thenation.com/article/what-might-mario-savio-have-said-about...
Incidentally, it was at that time that I first heard the term "political correctness," used as mockery of some of the extreme ideologues there, the ones who maintained that, for instance, "Sure, Stalin killed a lot of kulaks, but in a true way he was liberating them," or something like that. This was turned into comments like, during a long meeting, "Would it be politically correct to have a 10-minute break?"
6
The linked article in The Nation says it very well. Mario Savio, who was jailed for his free speech, argued that the way to deal with speech that may be harmful, hateful, or even stimulating to violence is to debate the issue; NOT prevent one side of the issue from exposure, no matter how abhorrent that perspective may be. In the melting pot of ideas that should be the reason for universities in the first place, the better reasoned positions should prevail, but only after open-minded consideration of all sides.
3
I find I find it interesting that people are trying to make distinctions between "free speech" and "provocative speech." When the American Revolutionaries were printing pamphlets like Thomas Paine's "Common Sense," they were engaging in the free speech/free press that they would further enshrine in our First Ammendment. Were their words provocative? Of course! They were fomenting revolution. Was this the type of speech they advocated remaining free? Without a doubt! Provocation in speech does not make it less worthy of protections. Whether we agree with speech or not, even if we find the speaker's ideas reprehensible, their protections under our Constitution are the same as our own. They have the right to state their ideas and to encourage action -- and those opposed have an equal right to argue against offensive speech, and to drown out the vitriol with their own voices. Silencing ideas we do not agree with because they are "provocative" just drives those folks to organize below the radar, and then build up stronger for feeling like an oppressed group. Better to have them where we can see and hear them to argue against the hate, than organizing militias in secret. When we prohibit certain speech, we say that our own ideas and beliefs are too weak to stand up to those we disagree with.
4
I'm always surprised when Americans discuss freedom of speech that they allow certain very substantial kimitations on freedom of speech without even thinking about it. Food libel laws exist in 13 US states with the express purpose of shielding a specific industry from public criticism. These laws are effective: The near absence of public debate about the agricultural industry and its methods in the US is directly related to the absence of effective environmental and consumer protection regulation. I wish the NYT would mention that even once when writing about free speech on campus.
8
That is not true; just a such case was made against Oprah Winfrey some years back by the cattle ranchers organization -- and she sued them, and she WON. They do not have a right to stop people from criticizing food, or the food industry.
You must not hang out in the US too much -- we have TONS of natural food stores, vitamin stores, health organizations, vegetarians and vegans -- all very critical of the American diet and food industry.
You must not hang out in the US too much -- we have TONS of natural food stores, vitamin stores, health organizations, vegetarians and vegans -- all very critical of the American diet and food industry.
Freedom of FREE speech for all - yes. Freedom of PAID speech for all - no. I don't know how the fact that most speeches at campuses that have been canceled due to outcry were paid speeches got lost in the shuffle, but it's a big, fat, juicy dintinction. In fact, it's by definition the opposite of "free" speech.
6
There may be tricky cases that do not rise to the level of a "true threat," but which will still predictably cause real harm to real people.
For example, Milo Yiannopoulos planned to speak at UC Berkeley and name individual students there who are undocumented immigrants. He would speak before an audience hostile to immigration and give names and dorm rooms of people who would therefore be harassed or attacked.
Because Mr. Yiannopoulos would not explicitly call for violent acts, legally this would not be a "true threat." But the results are easy to predict. What is the answer here?
24
Um, what would an example of him giving the names/dorm rooms personal of someone be?
1
Mr. Stadler: in frequent articles here -- too numerous to even begin to list -- ILLEGAL ALIENS come forward, with their real names -- not even a tiny bit afraid -- to claim they have "rights" and demand amnesty, the Dream Act, welfare benefits and places in colleges. There is at least one staff writer here, who is openly illegal and refuses to leave the US anyways.
So what Mr. Yiannopoulos did not was not harmful. Illegals are proud of being illegal, and encouraged in this by lefty liberals.
So what Mr. Yiannopoulos did not was not harmful. Illegals are proud of being illegal, and encouraged in this by lefty liberals.
1
No definition of "hate speech"? Or is it anything leftists disagree with?
18
The Dean's points are of course well reasoned and hard to disagree with. Free speech is unequivocal. However there is a real difference between speech that is intended to persuade and "free speech" the object of which is to provoke violence. The continual appearance of various right wing provocateurs in Berkeley is never done with the intent of persuading anyone that they are correct or have a reasoned difference of opinion. It is really more like having a KKK rally in Watts. The Dean would surely call that a free speech right. It is of course their right to have a KKK rally in Watts but I am sure we can all agree that it's intent would be to create a riot, not to persuade the residents of the truth of their message. So have these meetings. rallies or whatever someplace else less likely to provoke an angry response. Believe me as a very long time resident of Berkeley, we are not amused at having the phrase "free speech" thrown in our faces as a justification for speech intended to create violence.
13
The KKK really DID march in Skokie, IL -- in the late 70s -- which at the time, was a predominantly Jewish area. In 1977, many Holocaust survivors were still alive to see this.
And the case when to the US Supreme Court and they ruled that the KKK had a right to march, protest, carry signs and say anything they wished.
Of course, that was 40 years ago -- before the suffocating helmet of lefty liberalism and PC thought descended upon our society!
BTW: nobody rioted in Skokie. The parade came, it went and it was over.
And the case when to the US Supreme Court and they ruled that the KKK had a right to march, protest, carry signs and say anything they wished.
Of course, that was 40 years ago -- before the suffocating helmet of lefty liberalism and PC thought descended upon our society!
BTW: nobody rioted in Skokie. The parade came, it went and it was over.
1
"I think we have to be attentive to the fact that many students want to restrict speech because of very laudable instincts."
While true of many, it omits the likelihood that it's not true of all. There appear to be people who want to restrict speech on not only not-laudable instincts, but malign instincts.
And then there's the problem that students, faculty and advocates who embrace the restriction approach woefully neglect how their approach can and will likely be used against them.
A prudent rule of thumb about life in both the Western and Eastern philosophical traditions is always to consider how our goals and actions will likely be self-subverting in some way. American civil culture, so saturated in various gospels of self-realization and self-fulfillment (which always involve consuming either goods, services, experiences or ideas someone else is selling (pushing) on them), is blind and deaf to that millennia-old reality. Our pushers want us to remain so. It will only hurt us.
While true of many, it omits the likelihood that it's not true of all. There appear to be people who want to restrict speech on not only not-laudable instincts, but malign instincts.
And then there's the problem that students, faculty and advocates who embrace the restriction approach woefully neglect how their approach can and will likely be used against them.
A prudent rule of thumb about life in both the Western and Eastern philosophical traditions is always to consider how our goals and actions will likely be self-subverting in some way. American civil culture, so saturated in various gospels of self-realization and self-fulfillment (which always involve consuming either goods, services, experiences or ideas someone else is selling (pushing) on them), is blind and deaf to that millennia-old reality. Our pushers want us to remain so. It will only hurt us.
1
This only makes me advise Parents of "Prince and Princess", not to send there kids to the over-rated Berkeley and other Schools that allow for unintelligent, poorly educated speech. It isn't a Free Speech/Hate Speech problem. These are supposed to be Schools and Universities. Well-Educated, Thoughtful, Brilliant Intelligent Speech should be On Campus. The group that invited Steve Bannon is a group that will get jobs that are not at the Top Level of the Workplace. Parents who are concerned about their children's education need not apply to Schools that allow and encourage poor education, and lack of intelligence.
1
I was an administrator and adjunct professor at USC when the chalkboard incident Chemerinsky mentions occurred. I've also served at three other universities in student affairs administrative and faculty roles. I experienced a mounting surge of a political correctness culture through the years.
It has gotten to the point that everyone volunteers to be speech police. If your comment can be taken offensively, then it is. And now they have anonymous reporting. Anyone can complain about anyone else to the diversity administrator and you are put on record, and your boss has to talk to you. Talk about a damper to free speech!
I am now hesitant to even join a panel discussion or present at student groups for fear that I will be reported. I have to cleanse everything I say. Students have indeed become snowflakes who are oversensitive and expect everyone to make them feel safe.
Hate speech is awful, but the backlash is also harsh.
50
cheddarcheese - "...for fear that I will be reported"
Sounds like a call for AntiFa ...oh sorry, never mind, wrong side!
Sounds like a call for AntiFa ...oh sorry, never mind, wrong side!
2
You critique college students for their oversensitivity and yet it seems like you're a bit oversensitive to the *possibility* of being misinterpreted / misconstrued. What kind of contributions do you make where the risk is so real, and why don't you just talk about the risk with students? You avoid the issue when you withdraw from panels and refuse to present to student groups. The problem sure won't be solved through avoidance.
So, you criticize the messenger (me) trying to make a point about the problems of campus discussions and the pain it causes. If you were a student and got upset enough to report your criticism to the diversity administrator I would get counseled by my boss and it would go on my record. This is exactly the problem with an overly politically correct campus culture. They want to shut others down. My job is on the line so avoidance is sometimes the best approach. If I was a tenured professor it would not be so dangerous to speak my mind because my job would not be at stake. I hope you can appreciate my/our predicament.
I have to congratulate the NYT for finally printing two articles full of common sense, defending the protection of free speech and due process for all. This article and one by Ross Douthat on campus rape tribunals are clearly fundamental elements of society that the liberal left and movements such as BLM and Antifa have been trying to stifle under the now universal mantra of the politically correct. A balanced and fair view on both articles.
24
Let's look at who is delibertly inviting provocateers, even paying them knowing full well what will transpire. And how is this free speech when the intent is not to share ideas but to foment political strife?
And while we are on the subject I am disgusted and disappointed that the Times published "A Political Conservative Goes to Berkeley
By BARI WEISS SEPT. 12, 2017" In view of the fact that Weiss's column is dishonest in the extreme:
Weiss wrote: "Ben Shapiro is a 33-year-old who supports small government, religious liberty and free-market economics and opposes identity politics, abortion and Donald Trump. He is, in other words, that wildly exotic creature: a political conservative."
In fact Shapiro is another far right ideologue invited to speak at UCB for the single purpose of provocation, not to exercise a right to free speech. Shapiro was a Breitbart editor and is now an editor at Truth Revolt. Execute a search and anyone will see how dishonest Weiss is.
Unfortunately those baited by these purveyors of devision play into their hands by giving them their attention. Don't play their game Berkeley.
For insight into Weiss and the Times op-ed slant;
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/31/nyts-newest-op-ed-hire-bari-weiss-em...
13
Of course the motivation is to rile people up, create conflict, and foment political strife. That's the very point of it. I'm not sure why that's a problem.
3
At one time, Martin Luther King Jr was widely believed to be "provocative".
Would you have supported restricting his right to speak, based on that?
Would you have supported restricting his right to speak, based on that?
We are living in a world where hate speech is speech about anything that a small cadre of leftists who live mostly in an echo chamber hate politically. We have wonderful First Amendment protections of speech, and limits to speech when that speech is beyond the limits of ordinary obscenity, or calls for immediate and realisable violence. This is one area of the law that does not need to change.
34
Not one commentator speaks about the freedom of speech of the protestors.
These right wing commentators specifically book engagements at liberal universities to provoke angry and violence. Getting the speech canceled is actually part of their plan.
32
Well, then, what better way to annoy and frustrate them than by allowing them to speak without interruption...
13
Tibett--YUP, you got that correct (I deign to say "right.") Provocateurs. Ignore them.
2
Of course that is part of their plan. But an appropriate response would be to just ignore the speaker and not show up for the speech. They have a right to say what they want to say, but we have a right not to listen. Getting the speech canceled due to lack of interest would be the most powerful response to their tactics.
3
"There is no right to engage in violence...(a)lso, if speech is a true threat — causing a person to reasonably fear imminent physical harm — it is not protected by the First Amendment."
Mr. Erwin contradicts himself. Many states allow the use of force, including deadly force, if a person reasonably fears for his safety. So yes, in specific circumstances, people do have a right to engage in violence.
Given the violent and disgusting history of Nazi's, what minority person wouldn't be reasonably concerned for their safety if a group of thugs wearing swastikas and other Nazi apparel marched onto campus or any place for that matter?
Hate groups by their nature promote violence and their goal is to incite violence against minorities. Comparing this with the peaceful goals of the civil rights movement is atrocious.
People like Mr. Erwin need to get their intellectual heads out of the sand. Their interpretation(s) are akin to allowing guns to be carried in public without restriction so long as they are not physically pointed at anyone. Yet plenty of states do substantially limit gun rights as such. Time to get real with free speech.
7
Understandably, many folks feel under attack in the current political climate. Laws currently exist to protect against direct threats. However, the preemptive use of force for "self defense", when there's no imminent and specific threat, is an undemocratic and dangerous choice. ( I am reminded here of the justification for the invasion of Iraq, preemptive war)
Tactical use of violence by the left plays into the provocative intentions of the right. It's a strategic dead end that undermines popular resistance to bigotry. Rather than limit the platform for expression of hate, it amplifies the message. Fox News will love this drama, along with the many photo ops of intolerant Berkeley students "shutting down" speech.
Tactical use of violence by the left plays into the provocative intentions of the right. It's a strategic dead end that undermines popular resistance to bigotry. Rather than limit the platform for expression of hate, it amplifies the message. Fox News will love this drama, along with the many photo ops of intolerant Berkeley students "shutting down" speech.
13
Your whole point revolves around the false impression that a very far-fetched perceived threat found in someone's discourse can reasonably justify physical (up to lethal) violence, and that the "hate-group" denomination only applies to the Far Right.
First of all, hate speech isn't the same as a punch in the face, or a baseball bat across the head. And speech such as that which mentions racial disparities in prison populations and crime statistics, while possibly uncomfortable for those of the ethnicities concerned, isn't necessarily hate speech.
Plenty of European laws jump into the same philosophical molasses by claiming that "hate (or racism) is not an opinion but a crime" (sorry: you can make it a crime if you feel like it, but it still is an opinion by any standard), and equating "hate speech" with "incitement to hate", which, in my opinion, is PC gone way off its rockers. The implication is that if you express a negative opinion, or state ideas or statistics (for instance) that could lead someone to have a negative opinion on a racial group, you are actively responsible for that person's illegal ideas. What is illegal here is not so much possible further hate crimes, but the ideas themselves. Kafka comes to mind.
Regarding the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers were anything but "peaceful". You may believe they were justified and on the right side, but you just annihilate your whole argument by making it a Manichean, literally black-and-white thing.
First of all, hate speech isn't the same as a punch in the face, or a baseball bat across the head. And speech such as that which mentions racial disparities in prison populations and crime statistics, while possibly uncomfortable for those of the ethnicities concerned, isn't necessarily hate speech.
Plenty of European laws jump into the same philosophical molasses by claiming that "hate (or racism) is not an opinion but a crime" (sorry: you can make it a crime if you feel like it, but it still is an opinion by any standard), and equating "hate speech" with "incitement to hate", which, in my opinion, is PC gone way off its rockers. The implication is that if you express a negative opinion, or state ideas or statistics (for instance) that could lead someone to have a negative opinion on a racial group, you are actively responsible for that person's illegal ideas. What is illegal here is not so much possible further hate crimes, but the ideas themselves. Kafka comes to mind.
Regarding the civil rights movement, the Black Panthers were anything but "peaceful". You may believe they were justified and on the right side, but you just annihilate your whole argument by making it a Manichean, literally black-and-white thing.
7
Except that such measures will almost certainly be weaponized, as it were, against their erstwhile beneficiaries. That's the repeated pattern.
The law on assault, which is what you are impliedly referring to, has fairly strong boundaries that are not going to be easily expanded.
7
A very important discussion. My generation understood and supported free speech even 'filthy speech'. We were the ones in the trenches fighting Nazis (literally in the streets), homophobes, bullying etc but it was free speech that was our weapons (see Berkeley).
We were punks and/or hippies and 'society' at the time (think Nixon, Thatcher, Reagan) saw us as barbarians with filthy mouths ('no respect for authority; tradition, the military') A Sanders supporter I have always supported the right of free speech for ALL. Yes even the very worst; the Nazis.
I joined the ACLU AFTER they supported the Nazis march in Skokie Illinois in the mid 70's because I then knew that by defending the worst free speech they were true defenders. One can no more have LIMITED 'free speech' any more than one can be partially pregnant. It is the same with the media, who fail us everyday (see last election, won because the MSM GAVE Trump the coverage he needed to win (70%) leaving everyone else with little or nothing ('can WE get some oxygen in here!'; Jeb Bush mid 2016).
A media that allows its readers to silence other readers through evidence free accusations, other than having a 'wrong opinion'. The NYT lets others accuse me of being a traitor/bot/spy but won't print my response. Today's non liberal 'Liberals' are like today's undemocratic 'Democrat' Party that thinks that censorship is acceptable when the 'wrong' opinion is expressed.
We need to protect ALL the Constitution for ALL Americans!
18
My grandfather was an ardent supporter of the ACLU and civil rights. I remember his telling me when I was a kid why it was so important for the Nazis of Skokie to be allowed to march. Because when the First Amendment worked for them, it worked for everyone, which is the whole point.
I've never forgotten what he said, and it has colored my beliefs about the importance of free speech--especially offensive free speech--every since.
3
Vlad, my dad grew up in Sweden, as a child near the Lapland border and then, because his father was a Swedish Lutheran minister, lived in Stockholm before WW2. He told me that when the Nazis conducted parades in Stockholm, the Swedes cheered for Hitler because he was [wrongly] perceived as the primary defense against Stalin and the Soviet Union. Even his father stoked anti-Semitism in his church in order to support Hitler's anti-Soviet message.
I am proud of my Swedish heritage but, even my ancestors have misread the tealeaves of history on occasion.
2
Dean Chemerinsky discusses, clearly and sensibly, the easy question about free speech: Whether people should be allowed to talk in public. The question is easy because public speaking is public. Speakers put their reputations on the line overtime they speak.
The hard question lurks behind the article: How to minimize the destructiveness of the kaleidoscopic Internet, where anonymity allows people (and a few governments) to say anything that might tear down people or ideas they disagree with.
Dean Chemerinsky talks about the power that people exert by speaking in public. More needs to be said about the potential power of listeners, if they are able filter out electronic rubbish and toxins.
It's not enough for universities to allow speakers to speak. Universities also must teach listeners how to listen.
6
Public speakers can be anonymous. They can wear disguises, and can go by alternate names.
The phrase "hate speech" came into common usage in the 1990's, and the phrase "politically correct" (Although this concept had been around for some time) came into common usage at about the same time. "Hate crimes" came into usage in the 1980's, and began to be enacted into law as an additional charge in certain criminal cases, but that phrase was likely the inspiration for creation of the concept of "hate speech," and there is a connection, IMO, because those charged with "hate speech" are presumed to be in the same category as criminals, and calling their speech "hate" is an effort to both discredit them and shut them down, i.e. to effectively bully them into silence.
In other words, the phrase "hate speech" is being used to silence anyone with a viewpoint that does not conform to the current common prejudice, or as Erwin said, the ideas "we" find noble, and the ideas "we" abhor, i.e., the stuff that is "politically correct." Therefore, the phrase "hate speech" was invented as a political tool to silence opposing points of view, enforce conformity of thought, and to thus sideline those "we" disagree with. It stands, therefore, inherantly in it's very nature, in opposition to freedom of speech.
16
"Politically correct" actually goes back to the 1970s, as a liberal mock retort to leftist/radical denunciation. Things haven't changed. We've been through a few cycles of this. And it's not helped progressivism in any instance.
5
I don't think "hate speech" is being bandied so casually around. Hate speech is annihilation, extinction. The chant of "Lock her up!" that resonated in our president's campaign rallies was ignorant cheerleading - but not hate speech. Having an effigy of Mrs. Clinton in a very real looking electric chair in your front yard? Pretty darn close. Effigies of former president Obama being lynched - or depicted as a slave in chains? Free speech? Hate speech? Public figures attract these public attacks - something our president has not learned to ignore. Then again, I have a very narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Like the organized militia part of gun ownership.
2
@a teacher: there is an eccentric local artist in my area, with a large yard on a main street. He puts up monthly displays, made out of found objects and trash -- some seasonal, some political.
From 2001-2009, he created stuffed bodies with Halloween masks of GW Bush and Cheney, which he then hung in effigy from his large maple tree in the yard. They often had signs saying stuff like "war criminal!" or "Traitor!" and other similar stuff.
This went on for YEARS. Is it OK to hang Bush in effigy -- but somehow a hate crime to hang OBAMA in effigy?
During the Bush Administration, on liberal internet forums, I heard calls to have him assassinated. Was that OK?
Can you put Bush, Cheney, Trump or even poor old dead Reagan in a display with a fake electric chair?
I am frankly shocked you are a TEACHER if you don't know that the Constitution does not ONLY protect free speech -- but political speech above ALL ELSE -- and mockery of the government and President above THAT.
During the Bush Administration, a popular cartoon reproduced many times online, depicted President Bush being sodomized by Vice President Cheney. This was considered very, very funny by liberals. Do you think that is OK, but a similar cartoon of Obama and Biden would be "hate speech" or "racist"?
Yes, your interpretation is very narrow -- and very wrong, and not upheld by SCOTUS. Which ALSO ruled on the 2nd Amendment, more than once.
Evidently "hate speech" means different things to different people. What we see happening in colleges nowadays is often the manifestation of the impression that the accusation of "hate speech" can only apply to speech coming from the opposite side; and that impression is further driven by one's self-identification with an "oppressed" identity group. The more oppressed the group believes to be, the more entitled it seems to feel to oppose speech with violence, either verbal or physical.
I tend to agree with most of what the Berkeley School of Law dean has to say, but some of his points aren't clear:
"during the years Michigan’s speech code was on the books, more than 20 black students were charged with racist speech by white students. There wasn’t a single instance of a white student being punished for racist speech, even though that was what had prompted the drafting of the Michigan speech code in the first place"
It isn't clear whether "black" hate speech was prevalent while "white" speech never applied as hateful, or if it was just that Whites filed complaints while Blacks didn't, or their complaints weren't investigated.
"As we saw in Michigan, when hate speech codes or laws are adopted, they are most often directed at the very groups they are meant to protect."
Are they actually "directed at", or does it just happen to be that "oppressed" populations tend to indulge in hate speech more easily, thus more often get caught in the cross-hairs of hate speech codes?
14
My parents were victims of the McCarthy era, when free speech was under attack by the right. Any law restricting the free speech of right-wing speakers, will be applied with equal force against the left. The only way to guarantee freedom for the left, is to guarantee freedom for the right. I'm also a son of the 60's when police and FBI infiltrators into left groups often played the role of violent provocateurs. Such actions were not only illegal, but often successful in undermining groups and destroying the focus on politics and building the mass movement. Lessons seemingly lost on today's young radicals.
28
"...many students want to restrict speech because of very laudable instincts. They want to protect other students from hate speech. They want to create an inclusive community for all.
inclusive? by interview and exam? this kindly view implies that the growth (including the development of habits of mind we associate with educated men and women) stops at the door of admission to inclusion.
and who gets to define hate speech...for example see the movies of the ww2 era for references to those we fought for our very survival and the perseverant influence therefrom even though such speech is less evident (though not gone)...not to mention the racial stuff...does inclusion permit the inclusion of say "holiday inn" with its blackface lincoln's birthday number? do we toss it or study it?
what about "gyp" or the aspersions inherent in praising jews for legal and financial skills, or a commentator who ends an interview with an italian tennis player with thanks and the suggestion that he go off now to find a plate of spaghetti ?
"But the response to hate speech can’t be to prohibit and punish it. It’s unconstitutional. We have to find other ways to create inclusive communities."
hint: restore, rather than continue to relax, rigor in studies and, so, establish the most inclusive of communities, a safe space dedicated to free inquiry in pursuit of discovery.
for today: tolerance is merely a cover for repressed intolerance: discuss.
6
Hello! dude, you are talking about LEFTY LIBERALS who are right as we speak, toppling and destroying Civil War statues in the DEAD OF NIGHT -- so nobody can stop them or protest -- because the most critical issue facing modern day liberalism and race relations is....130 year old statues of dead guys.
The First Amendment reads: "Religion and Expression. 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."
In other words, it is about stopping the government from infringing on free speech, not college campuses. If neo-nazis and KKKlers want to speak to the masses, they need to find a place where they can do that. If college campuses don't allow it, so be it.
2
As I understand it, when public money is given to a university, the first amendment protections must apply.
9
Thanks to Professor Chemerinsky for bringing us back to what defending the first amendment right to free speech is all about.
We cannot protect the right of free speech for some, while restricting it for others. We either protect free speech rights for all, or we protect them for none. There is no middle ground.
Purveyors of hate speech pretend to promote free speech rights under the Constitution in order to promote their own views and suppress the views they despise. They only champion free speech rights for themselves, being all too happy to bully, intimidate and verbally abuse others to stop them from expressing opposing views.
But those who promote banning hate speech are also willing to restrict the free speech rights of others, believing that in doing so, they are protecting those targeted by hate speech, including their right to express themselves freely.
Both groups are opposites of the same coin; they both believe that restricting the free speech rights of others will protect their own.
They are both wrong. If one group restricts the free speech rights of others, they give up those rights for themselves. Each gives the other the power to silence them.
Repudiate hate speech, not by restricting the free speech rights of those who promote it, but by rejecting it, by exposing it as the destructive, hurtful, unjust force that it is, and by practicing love.
39
Irony, humor, and ridicule are much more effective................ and fun.
1
This effort to label certain kinds of speech as "hate speech" is a dangerous path to follow, particularly here in the US where our Bill of Rights is the world standard for freedom. It's not hard to imagine the definition of hate speech slowly expanding to incorporate more and more "intolerable" expression. Let the purveyors of hate speech speak freely and greet them loudly with ridicule and condemnation. That's how free speech works.
51
These people have books, websites, cult followings, talk show bookings, entourages, press credentials, and college educations. When a person is quite literally peddling hatred while stoking intra-class partisan bickering, they should stick to the book/TV circuit, not an academic institution.
The idea that Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopolus has had their freedom of speech denied by the government is really pushing the definition of the first amendment. A publicly funded platform for speech is not the same thing as free speech. The former is a democratic or private decision, not constitutional law.
Those who have had their free speech violated are fully protected by our courts. It truly seems that there is a wide public misunderstanding about how free speech works, with everyone having a definition that aligns with their ideology.
Mr. Erwin seems to believe that the issue is excluding speakers who convey hateful messages. I'd say the issue is who gets invited to campus, by whom, and if they are paid to speak. Few of the controversies, and none of the ones at Berkeley, have been about thoughtful people expressing contrary viewpoints. They've been about people whose intent may as well be starting race riots for the fun of it. Who would invite such people, and why? And pay them to appear? Campuses could use some debates by serious thinkers with differing views, but there's no screaming (pun intended) need for one-sided lectures from hate-filled speakers.
By the way, it's not as if the average person now has the right now to simply show up at a college campus, pick a well-trafficked spot, get up on a soapbox and expound on anything we'd like. Nobody's picking on the right wing in this regard. We all need to get permits and abide by time and place regulations; the campus police have never considered the First Amendment to be absolute for ordinary campus visitors or even for students.
22
"Few of the controversies, and none of the ones at Berkeley, have been about thoughtful people expressing contrary viewpoints. They've been about people whose intent may as well be starting race riots for the fun of it."
You're basically saying, in true Liberal style, that none of the speakers who were met with violent protests were "thoughtful people expressing contrary viewpoints"; in other words, not worth listening to because you don't agree with them (another traditionally Liberal concept). It seems to me if they weren't expressing contrary viewpoints, they wouldn't incite so much hatred from the progressive rioting students and activists.
Lectures, by definition, are one-sided, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. AFAIK, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, and Ann Coulter (the "evil" right-wing speakers I've researched after having read about them in the NYT) have Q&A sessions during their meetings, so while their lectures may obviously be one-sided, they are backed with arguments (which you can still disagree with), and they accept to be confronted with people who disagree with them.
"Who would invite such people, and why?"
Student organizations.
"And pay them to appear?"
Promoters, sponsors, and ticket sales.
You may have noticed that Hillary Clinton faced the same kind of questions a few years ago. Except that her speeches were paid for by Wall Street types among others, and that the expectation was that she would pay them back once president.
You're basically saying, in true Liberal style, that none of the speakers who were met with violent protests were "thoughtful people expressing contrary viewpoints"; in other words, not worth listening to because you don't agree with them (another traditionally Liberal concept). It seems to me if they weren't expressing contrary viewpoints, they wouldn't incite so much hatred from the progressive rioting students and activists.
Lectures, by definition, are one-sided, so I'm not sure where you're going with that. AFAIK, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, and Ann Coulter (the "evil" right-wing speakers I've researched after having read about them in the NYT) have Q&A sessions during their meetings, so while their lectures may obviously be one-sided, they are backed with arguments (which you can still disagree with), and they accept to be confronted with people who disagree with them.
"Who would invite such people, and why?"
Student organizations.
"And pay them to appear?"
Promoters, sponsors, and ticket sales.
You may have noticed that Hillary Clinton faced the same kind of questions a few years ago. Except that her speeches were paid for by Wall Street types among others, and that the expectation was that she would pay them back once president.
6
Indeed you and anyone else DOES have the right to go on to a public university or college and get on a soapbox and pontificate to your hearts content. No permits can be required but time and place restrictions can be legal or not, depending on the specifics.
1
The requirement for permits and published times/places is about safety, not about suppressing speech.
Frankly, college campuses should NOT be open to anyone other than the students or the faculty to book events. There are public buildings with meeting spaces for agitators who want to try to draw a crowd. What I have seen these performers doing on colleges is deliberate agitation for the purpose of getting themselves more news space. This has nothing to do with speech. This has everything to do with self-promotion and money.
Does anyone remember Orwell and his Thought Police? Am I to be eventually denied medical care arbitrarily by someone now in med school who has been indoctrinated into this nouveau-fasciste PC-speak? What hipsters are to popular culture, these college kids are to expression. One needs to remember at all times that hate speech is protected speech under the First Amendment, so long as it does not advocate violence or other criminal activity toward the object of its opprobrium. Once we step away from that standard, we adopt an arbitrary, rigid code set by--hipsters and their kids? No thanks.
26
Is blatant lying, as used by President Trump as a strategy to mislead people, protected under the 1st Amendment, even when fact checkers agree it is a lie?
2
Yes, it is. Just as the speech of the fact checkers is protected. It is up to the listener to make the distinction between truth and lie, and there are plenty of reputable sources to assist him in that determination, this very newspaper being one.
6
i think, unfortunately, misleading and intentionally-misrepresenting speech is protected. It's the responsibility of individuals to be able to recognize or research truth, which is a significant and heavy responsibility. Also, what is put forth as "common sense" is sometimes just wrong or not necessarily true.
8
Yes, it is. Countering such lies is also protected speech. Cest la vie, as per the First Amendment, and that is a good la vie.
4
"But students aren’t wrong in thinking that speech can be a weapon."
And this in a country in which one can wander at will with a semi-automatic weapon (also of course protected by the constitution).
Part of becoming an adult is learning how to deal with and face people and ideas that one does not agree with, even if one finds them odious.
Part of becoming an adult is also learning how to counter them or fight against them within the parameters and the means granted by the law.
Much of the behavior of students on US campuses is not adult behavior.
18
From Wiki,
"In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), the Court ruled that a student could be punished for his sexual-innuendo-laced speech before a school assembly and, in Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), the Court found that schools need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with their basic educational mission.In Morse v. Frederick (2007), the Court ruled that schools could, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at school-sponsored events, even events away from school grounds, if students promote "illegal drug use".".
Hate speech is not an explicit constitutional right, and until it is (how about never?), it's OK to squelch it. At some point in near future, when one-party rule is firmly established in the U.S., we'll hopefully get hate speech explicitly banned via amendment. Until then, doesn't matter what leftist Berkeley thinks, stop HS at its tracks.
Heck, there's always Wordpress. Unload there and watch sluggish click-counter until you fall asleep, nobody will bother you. Good night.
1
The problem is...who defines what is "hate speech"? We can clearly see speech that encourages violence is hate speech, but I've been told that simply saying "marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman" is now "hate speech" -- in fact, it legally IS hate speech in Canada and you can be jailed for it.
The Dean has it exactly correct, not just on the law, of course, but the public and campus policy behind it. I don't know whether Natalie was playing devil's advocate, but he "took her to school" as the kids say. Today's students miss the whole point of the First Amendment whereas the 60's Free Speech generation understood precisely that free speech is paramount over other concerns like bullying, diversity, inclusion, respect, etc. Every student should be assigned Erwin's new book for orientation rather than some of the silliness foisted on them instead.
23
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but it's my understanding that the 1st amendment guarantees protection from government restriction but not from private citizen restrictions. I would not be not be infringing on the rights of someone spouting hate speech if I were to block his/her speech-let's say by shouting him/her down, or blocking entrance to a venue- provided there is no violence or other illegal acts. And such blocking is important.
Milo Yiannopoulus, Ann Coulter and David Duke are not the equivalents of William F. Buckley, George Will. Davis Brooks or any other respected conservative thinker. Richard Spencer dresses in Khakis and polo shirts to give himself a cloak of respectability but it is a disguise. They are shallow opportunists who will say anything to help themselves gain notoriety and fortune. To use a left wing analogy they are more like Abbie Hoffman than Martin Luther King.
6
If you are blocking the speaker's entrance to a venue by remaining of private property after being asked to leave by the owner or his representatives, you are violating the law even if there is no violence. If you are on public property there is an explicit right of any member of the public to use said property and you are violating that right, so yes you are in violation of the law there as well. Would you have supported the right of the KKK to have linked arms to prevent Martin Luther King from speaking?
And, as an aside, I found Abbie Hoffman a much more entertaining speaker than Dr. King.
9
But you would be infringing on my free-speech right and my right to free association to hear what the speaker has to say. On what basis do you have a right to censor what I say and what I hear other people say?
BTW, such "private" conduct may lead to an arrest for disorderly conduct--and rightly so.
8
The universities all receive government funding, or tax breaks, of one sort or another. And thus are constrained by the Constitution.
And, do you really think that censoring Abbie Hoffman would have been the right thing to do?
2
"I think we have to be attentive to the fact that many students want to restrict speech because of very laudable instincts. They want to protect other students from hate speech."
Who the heck appointed them Protectors, who have dominion over what others may hear?
One would think Mao's cultural revolution lesson enough. Apparently not.
41
Surely an organized boycott would be a more effective response to hate speech and something that would be relatively easy to accomplish on most campuses. It seems to me that the sound of crickets rather than counter protest shouting would be much more discouraging to someone spewing hate.
4
The thing is, "controversial" conservative speakers are invited by student bodies who want to hear them, often against the will of both faculty and Left-wing organizations, and already have an idea of the expected attendance (I suppose if there were only 10 prospective attendees, the speech/conference simply wouldn't be organized, given the financial costs). A limited audience, especially in a traditionally Liberal and PC college, therefore wouldn't be a problem; it would be expected.
The opposition to conservative speakers isn't about shielding oneself from their speech: it's about keeping them from communicating and propagating their ideas; either by shouting them down, or keeping interested parties from accessing auditoriums. Forget about contradicting them in debates with credible and persuasive arguments; you need, well, persuasive arguments for that.
This is a pretty embarrassingly basic discussion of the merits of free speech. Has no one here learned American history? This would be a good pamphlet for someone arriving from China or North Korea, I suppose, but not someone with any kind of education in America. Try comparing this discussion with the wisdom of, say, Thomas Jefferson.
8
I'm often left wondering what students ARE learning these days. It doesn't sound as if many of them were ever exposed to the most basic lessons of history.
8
The best place for hate speech is out in the open where we can confront it and denounce it. Life isn't meant to be lived in protective bubbles. The only way for us to grow and learn is to be exposed to ideas that we don't agree with.
91
I agree, but the practicality is a little naive. There are numerous bubbles we live in; the church and it's discriminating tenants, racist hate groups believing in supremacy, Fox news and its spin, for some. Most of our hate stems from ignorance ie. in spite of the Human Genome findings about our equality; divisiveness promoted by the bible against innate behavior or gender. So we don't need different opinions when they're factually ignorant and wrong. A university campus is to teach and expose different ideas, not educate ignorance.
1
We used to say the same thing about fake news. Get it out there and the 'factual' news would win the day. That isn't working out so well
1
You seem to be a little mixed up here. How do we grow by being exposed to hate speech? Hate speech is not the same as "ideas that we do not agree with." In fact, having someone come to campus and say things such as "some race is inferior and inhuman, that they are a plague that is holding back humanity" may in fact inhibit growth on a college campus because people would have to take the time to respond to it rather than pursuing other intellectual activities.
I agree with other comments here that this interview should be shared with every college student, were it possible. The First Amendment is sacrosanct in our Constitution and it applies to all of us. I used to tell my history students that in order to truly understand their country, they need to study and analyze "the good, the bad and the ugly" of American History. Stephen Bannon and his ilk are the ugly, that's for sure but to stop him from speaking would be uglier than what he has to say.
The best way to counter hate speech is more speech, is to engage others in ideas that oppose these racist and bigoted ideas. It would be effective if counter protestors scheduled their own speakers. Why not ask Berkley University to permit their speakers on some other section of the campus at the same time as Bannon?
We need to fight this ugliness at every turn. More speech is the way to do that.
51
The best article on freedom of speech I've read in a long time. Should be required reading on all campuses, and to all leaders of activist groups including the individuals and organizations that financially contribute the aggressive left and right antagonists.
4
"The central principle of the First Amendment — and of academic freedom — is that all ideas and views can be expressed. Sometimes they are ideas and views that we might consider noble, that advance equality. Sometimes they might be ideas that we abhor."
And sometimes they are ideas we were supposed to abhor, but which actually were actually a clear expression of the truth and very sensible.
14
It would be nice to send this interview to college students to let them understand the delicate but meaningful balancing act that is the First Amendment and speech in a campus and academic environment. I sent it to both my kids, both in college, and both frustrated with the normative force of what they term "PC culture." Both of them are, for lack of a better description, left of center, open and liberal-minded. But both have told me that they see a shutting down on campus of any forthright and honest dialogue about identity and other issues as they arise in the ordinary course of college life. Thanks for this interview.
18