3 ms·
I don't see any good reason for universities to use different standards than the courts have used for the first amendment -- open calls for violence can be cens
by bpodgursky 10y ago
I don't see any good reason for universities to use different standards than the courts have used for the first amendment -- open calls for violence can be censored (your genocide example), just about everything else is fair game.
Of course, the speakers with the most universally unpalatable views aren't going to get invited (by student groups) because they won't get enough attendees to fill an auditorium or be worth the hassle. But that's unrelated to whether the university should allow it.
- richardwhiuk 10y agoWhy are open calls to violence the standard? How marked does the call need to be? What does the violence need to look like? Is displacing people a violent act? Is yelling abuse at people a violent act - or are we so naive that only direct physical contact constitutes a violent act? This is not an easy problem, and 'open calls to violence' are not a trivial solution. I also fear universities which seek to over-represent minority points for the sake of balance, in the same way that news programs often do.
- mc32 10y agoI think the line has to be physical violence, else we'd allow very few people to speak as any other interpretation kind of dismisses just about anything and everything: Abortion rights Abortion opponents Trade agreements etc.
- tertius 10y ago> Is yelling abuse at people a violent act No, it's an abusive act though. The simple answer to your question is: The definition of violence by the courts is physical. And it's probably a good decision. Otherwise the rabbit hole will take us bad places.
- brians 10y agoOpen calls to genocide are legitimate speech protected by the first amendment. Only speech likely to produce imminent lawless action is banned---so there has to be a target and a plausibly exhorted actor right there.