9 ms·

I have a few issues with that link. Namely that a traffic light system is a huge, huge, HUGE oversimplification of complex issues. While the analysis seems fai

I have a few issues with that link. Namely that a traffic light system is a huge, huge, HUGE oversimplification of complex issues. While the analysis seems fairly transparent, I don't think many people will actually look into it past the traffic light. I checked out the uni I went to: apparently the students union got an amber light because of "no tolerance to sexual harassment". How exactly does that violate free speech? The right to free speech unequivocally does not give you the right to harass people in any way. Similarly "Rules and Regulations for the Use of Information and Communications Technology" is an amber for institutions: does that mean all AUPs are in violation of freedom of speech? Most of them come down to "please don't hack our infrastructure or download anything that will make the police come round". Also when things like "bans on specific ideologies" are very likely to get misconstrued. Banning groups which verbally harass others is likely going to be seen as a ban on free speech, despite the fact that such bans may be warranted. The whole analysis and ranking system seems biased, and completely garbage to me. Edit: since I'm an idiot and didn't realise that you could expand the amber/red points on the site, my uni SU's "no tolerance to sexual harassment" was due to them adopting the NUS (National Union of Students) guideline that sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted comments which makes someone uncomfortable’, and the ICT rule was ‘Users must ensure that the content and tone of their email messages cannot be considered offensive.’ Both of these appear reasonable to me. There's some genuine debate to be had over the issue of no-platforming but all this site is doing is furthering their own agenda, which seems to be that they should have the right to insult and harass people however they want. As always, this is relevant here: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

Angostura 8y ago
Apparently my old university gets an amber light too because " Sexual Harassment is Never OK".
SuoDuanDao 8y ago
That particular xkcd gets linked a lot in this debate. I really wonder what happened between when the author drew that comic and when he drew this one: https://www.xkcd.com/137/ https://www.xkcd.com/137/
- aninhumer 8y ago
  Maybe he realised that speech has consequences beyond an employer not hiring him, and decided to take responsibility for those consequences? And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better? Or, in short, he grew up.
- sudosteph 8y ago
  I don't see any incompatibility there? Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them. The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.
  - henryaj 8y ago
    > he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.
    - sudosteph 8y ago
      "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. They aren't running into obscure codes, they're being jerks for fun and profit.
      - 8y ago
tzahola 8y ago
Define "sexual", define "harassment".
- mayniac 8y ago
  I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument. Your comment honestly does make me feel uncomfortable. Why is it ok on hn to make unwelcome and uncomfortable comments but not in a university setting? Can we label you a harasser?
  - tzahola 8y ago
    Your tone feels threatening. I hope you don't bring that attitude to the campus...
    - mayniac 8y ago
      If you've got an actual argument to make then please make it, I really don't have the time or patience for no-effort bait comments like >Define "sexual", define "harassment".
      - tzahola 8y ago
        My argument is the same as what's described in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16912248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16912248
  - collyw 8y ago
    I don't think it is. I have seen it said before that if you ask a girl out once its fine. If she says no and you continue to do it then its harassment. Except that how a lot of relationships begin. Pretty sure that the story of how Barack Obama got Michelle. At one end of the spectrum its obvious. At the other end it's not.
MichaelGG 8y ago
>cannot be considered offensive >Both of these appear reasonable to me. That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given. But far more importantly, students should not be given protection from being offended. Harassment, sure, but offense? That's part of growing up.
- mayniac 8y ago
  >That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given. I agree with the principle in theory. Of course outright banning anything "offensive" without clearly defining what is and is not offensive is very open to interpretation and can be abused. But when it comes to writing rules regarding offensive communication and harassment I think it's better to be over-zealous and treat all incidents on a case by case basis, especially in organisations where they're more concerned with incidents being made public and the organisation getting bad PR. Also an important point is the "cannot be considered offensive" rule is an IT policy, not a general university one. Every employer I've had has made me sign an acceptable use policy from IT that says (among other things) "don't send offensive emails". It's not that much different. As I said in the original comment, the site is an oversimplification of a complex problem, and generic IT policies shouldn't really be considered anti freedom of speech for various reasons.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> guideline that sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted comments which makes someone uncomfortable’ > Both of these appear reasonable to me. How is that reasonable? Essentially it makes sexual harassment entirely subjective. That is ridiculously open to abuse.
- rlpb 8y ago
  I think you're in agreement. I believe your parent post intended "reasonable" to mean in the sense of "reasonable to be considered an impediment to free speech".
henryaj 8y ago
> ‘Users must ensure that the content and tone of their email messages cannot be considered offensive.’ This doesn't seem reasonable at all. "Considered offensive" - those are just weasel words. How can I be expected to have a perfect model of other people's minds and the things they would be upset by?
- mayniac 8y ago
  Just replied with a longer argument here >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880 tldr is that it's an IT policy not a university one, and every single employer whose email server you ever used has exactly the same policy in place. I actually looked up a few more universities and all the times the "no offensive speech" policy was cited it was an IT policy.

Angostura 8y ago

Apparently my old university gets an amber light too because " Sexual Harassment is Never OK".

SuoDuanDao 8y ago

That particular xkcd gets linked a lot in this debate. I really wonder what happened between when the author drew that comic and when he drew this one: https://www.xkcd.com/137/ https://www.xkcd.com/137/

aninhumer 8y ago
Maybe he realised that speech has consequences beyond an employer not hiring him, and decided to take responsibility for those consequences? And that rather than "watering down" ones thoughts, understanding the implications of language and avoiding unintended ones actually expresses your ideas better? Or, in short, he grew up.
sudosteph 8y ago
I don't see any incompatibility there? Seems like in 137 he's saying that he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear. He's accepting the risks that come with making his opinions public, and challenging assumptions that he should just shut up, in part because he has confidence in the validity of his beliefs and a willingness to defend them. The more recent one is about people who publicize poorly constructed opinions with no consideration to the potential consequences it will create for their interpersonal and community relationships. Those folks are welcome to say "fuck that shit" like the character in 137 and go build their own forums or whatever to spread and defend those ideas. But most of these types would prefer to whine and call themselves victims.
- henryaj 8y ago
  > he doesn't want to sacrifice individuality and creativity for the sake of maintaining a banal existence that doesn't deviate from the norm out of fear Exactly. Just apply that to the fear of running afoul of draconian speech codes designed to reduce the amount of "offence" people experience.
  - sudosteph 8y ago
    "Don't be a jerk" doesn't seem draconian to me. The people I see whining about their speech having consequences (ie, Milo) are usually aiming to offend. They aren't running into obscure codes, they're being jerks for fun and profit.
    - 8y ago

tzahola 8y ago

Define "sexual", define "harassment".

mayniac 8y ago
I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > I'm not going to because that's a really fucking stupid argument. Your comment honestly does make me feel uncomfortable. Why is it ok on hn to make unwelcome and uncomfortable comments but not in a university setting? Can we label you a harasser?
- tzahola 8y ago
  Your tone feels threatening. I hope you don't bring that attitude to the campus...
  - mayniac 8y ago
    If you've got an actual argument to make then please make it, I really don't have the time or patience for no-effort bait comments like >Define "sexual", define "harassment".
    - tzahola 8y ago
      My argument is the same as what's described in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16912248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16912248
- collyw 8y ago
  I don't think it is. I have seen it said before that if you ask a girl out once its fine. If she says no and you continue to do it then its harassment. Except that how a lot of relationships begin. Pretty sure that the story of how Barack Obama got Michelle. At one end of the spectrum its obvious. At the other end it's not.

MichaelGG 8y ago

>cannot be considered offensive >Both of these appear reasonable to me. That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given. But far more importantly, students should not be given protection from being offended. Harassment, sure, but offense? That's part of growing up.

mayniac 8y ago
>That is the issue. Just because someone considers something offensive does not make it so. With a tiny bit of effort, so many things can be "considered offensive". A generous interpretation would be that a governing body must consider it offensive, but more likely this means the recipient of a message can take offense where none is given. I agree with the principle in theory. Of course outright banning anything "offensive" without clearly defining what is and is not offensive is very open to interpretation and can be abused. But when it comes to writing rules regarding offensive communication and harassment I think it's better to be over-zealous and treat all incidents on a case by case basis, especially in organisations where they're more concerned with incidents being made public and the organisation getting bad PR. Also an important point is the "cannot be considered offensive" rule is an IT policy, not a general university one. Every employer I've had has made me sign an acceptable use policy from IT that says (among other things) "don't send offensive emails". It's not that much different. As I said in the original comment, the site is an oversimplification of a complex problem, and generic IT policies shouldn't really be considered anti freedom of speech for various reasons.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> guideline that sexual harassment is defined as ‘any unwanted comments which makes someone uncomfortable’ > Both of these appear reasonable to me. How is that reasonable? Essentially it makes sexual harassment entirely subjective. That is ridiculously open to abuse.

rlpb 8y ago
I think you're in agreement. I believe your parent post intended "reasonable" to mean in the sense of "reasonable to be considered an impediment to free speech".

henryaj 8y ago

> ‘Users must ensure that the content and tone of their email messages cannot be considered offensive.’ This doesn't seem reasonable at all. "Considered offensive" - those are just weasel words. How can I be expected to have a perfect model of other people's minds and the things they would be upset by?

mayniac 8y ago
Just replied with a longer argument here >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16911880 tldr is that it's an IT policy not a university one, and every single employer whose email server you ever used has exactly the same policy in place. I actually looked up a few more universities and all the times the "no offensive speech" policy was cited it was an IT policy.