3 ms·

I disagree with your claim that there has never been a widespread norm. On university campuses in particular, there was a long-standing norm of tolerating radic

I disagree with your claim that there has never been a widespread norm. On university campuses in particular, there was a long-standing norm of tolerating radical and controversial opinions. If a large group of private universities all retaliate against students for expressing certain opinions (which is what's happening) then that causes the same harm as if the government does it. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, that's analogous to how discrimination is harmful even if it's by private institutions instead of by the government.

bradleyjg 9y ago
It's at least a little more defensible when you narrow it down to universities but even there it is a) not that old, emerging after the Vietnam protests and b) is more focused on free inquiry and the flow of ideas than free speech in the sense the government uses it. You say "controversial ideas" but the memes are linked on this page. They aren't advancing ideas controversial or otherwise--they are simply offensive for the purpose of offending. That has little to do with free inquiry, no discussion is being advanced. What harms specifically do you think are being caused here?
- a_puppy 9y ago
  I agree that dank memes in particular aren't particularly important, but I'm worried that the same attitudes and policies that lead to dank memes being banned are also leading to serious political speech being banned. Do you agree that Harvard should not punish students for offensive political speech, if it's meant sincerely and advances an actual idea?
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    That's closer to the free inquiry norm, but better yet would be some connection to some intellectual pursuit. "All Mexicans should be deported" expresses an idea -- it isn't offensive for the purpose of being offensive like the image macros, but it doesn't propose, advance, or engage with any kind of plausible research program or existing intellectual tradition. "Mexicans are genetically inferior to Americans" is more offensive, but at least it is the kind of statement that is plausibly connected to something that could be studied and dissected at a university. That said, even for the first statement, were I leading Harvard I'd say it ought not garner any official response.

bradleyjg 9y ago

It's at least a little more defensible when you narrow it down to universities but even there it is a) not that old, emerging after the Vietnam protests and b) is more focused on free inquiry and the flow of ideas than free speech in the sense the government uses it. You say "controversial ideas" but the memes are linked on this page. They aren't advancing ideas controversial or otherwise--they are simply offensive for the purpose of offending. That has little to do with free inquiry, no discussion is being advanced. What harms specifically do you think are being caused here?

a_puppy 9y ago
I agree that dank memes in particular aren't particularly important, but I'm worried that the same attitudes and policies that lead to dank memes being banned are also leading to serious political speech being banned. Do you agree that Harvard should not punish students for offensive political speech, if it's meant sincerely and advances an actual idea?
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  That's closer to the free inquiry norm, but better yet would be some connection to some intellectual pursuit. "All Mexicans should be deported" expresses an idea -- it isn't offensive for the purpose of being offensive like the image macros, but it doesn't propose, advance, or engage with any kind of plausible research program or existing intellectual tradition. "Mexicans are genetically inferior to Americans" is more offensive, but at least it is the kind of statement that is plausibly connected to something that could be studied and dissected at a university. That said, even for the first statement, were I leading Harvard I'd say it ought not garner any official response.