4 ms·

There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from consequences of speech". Many people try to hide behind the protection of the former but actu

There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from consequences of speech". Many people try to hide behind the protection of the former but actually mean the latter and claim persecution when they have to face consequences (boycotts, bans from privately run services, etc).

pidu87 8y ago
"freedom from consequences of speech" DOXing, violence, threats, death, and/or imprisonment...... Who said there are no consequences? We don't live inside bubbles haha Every thing we do, don't do or say, don't say has some kind of consequence thanks MOM
golemiprague 8y ago
Nobody complain about consequences, what people complain about is when public entities financed by the public like Berkley university prevent people from talking their mind. As for private entities the problem are with monopolies like facebook which are the facto the city square of modern days and all the laws applied to the public space should be applied to those type of companies also. The same way an electricity or phone company can't deny service because of people political views.
pessimizer 8y ago
Looks like this controversy was about a condescending poen written by a white woman about native girls, that specifically referenced the tribal group of the woman who led the protest (that the author learned of from the protester), and implied some sort of generalized drunken molestation and abuse of native women by the men of that group. I still don't think that the university should have censored the poem, but 1) a protest isn't just for the university; maybe the author would see the point and withdraw the poem, or maybe people who heard of the controversy would be influenced to think in a different way by hearing the details and the protesters reaction to them, and 2) I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been different if the native woman had written a poem called "Stupid White Whore In My Class" and mentioned the other woman's hometown and family name, and how her uncle probably molested her. The free speech advocates that get super-mad about 10 people picketing in the courtyard of an Alaskan university for 3 days 20 years ago would instead be super-mad about "how you can say anything about white people and get away with it." It shouldn't be the job of universities to censor speech, though. But protesting speech is also speech.
- gpm 8y ago
  I think you're misreading this letter if you're reading it as objecting to the protesting. I think it is objecting to vague threats made by university employees towards the author along the lines of "The University supports the right of free speech, but we intend to check into this matter", or "The University supports the right of free speech, but I have asked Dean X or Provost Y to investigate the circumstances".
hn19128ks8 8y ago
because that's how we want the political process to work -- each side has their set of 'privately run services' that is the other side is banned from using. And of course any opinion not popular enough to launch their own bank + payment system + ad network should be banned everywhere unless pre-cleared by one of the political behemoths.
antt 8y ago
Funnily enough there's an old Soviet joke about this. Caller to Radio Yerevan: Comrades what is the difference between the constitution of the US and that of the USSR? Both support freedom of speech and assembly. Radio Yeravan: In principle nothing comrade. In practice the US constitution guarantees freedom after speech and assembly.

pidu87 8y ago

"freedom from consequences of speech" DOXing, violence, threats, death, and/or imprisonment...... Who said there are no consequences? We don't live inside bubbles haha Every thing we do, don't do or say, don't say has some kind of consequence thanks MOM

golemiprague 8y ago

Nobody complain about consequences, what people complain about is when public entities financed by the public like Berkley university prevent people from talking their mind. As for private entities the problem are with monopolies like facebook which are the facto the city square of modern days and all the laws applied to the public space should be applied to those type of companies also. The same way an electricity or phone company can't deny service because of people political views.

pessimizer 8y ago

Looks like this controversy was about a condescending poen written by a white woman about native girls, that specifically referenced the tribal group of the woman who led the protest (that the author learned of from the protester), and implied some sort of generalized drunken molestation and abuse of native women by the men of that group. I still don't think that the university should have censored the poem, but 1) a protest isn't just for the university; maybe the author would see the point and withdraw the poem, or maybe people who heard of the controversy would be influenced to think in a different way by hearing the details and the protesters reaction to them, and 2) I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been different if the native woman had written a poem called "Stupid White Whore In My Class" and mentioned the other woman's hometown and family name, and how her uncle probably molested her. The free speech advocates that get super-mad about 10 people picketing in the courtyard of an Alaskan university for 3 days 20 years ago would instead be super-mad about "how you can say anything about white people and get away with it." It shouldn't be the job of universities to censor speech, though. But protesting speech is also speech.

gpm 8y ago
I think you're misreading this letter if you're reading it as objecting to the protesting. I think it is objecting to vague threats made by university employees towards the author along the lines of "The University supports the right of free speech, but we intend to check into this matter", or "The University supports the right of free speech, but I have asked Dean X or Provost Y to investigate the circumstances".

hn19128ks8 8y ago

because that's how we want the political process to work -- each side has their set of 'privately run services' that is the other side is banned from using. And of course any opinion not popular enough to launch their own bank + payment system + ad network should be banned everywhere unless pre-cleared by one of the political behemoths.

antt 8y ago

Funnily enough there's an old Soviet joke about this. Caller to Radio Yerevan: Comrades what is the difference between the constitution of the US and that of the USSR? Both support freedom of speech and assembly. Radio Yeravan: In principle nothing comrade. In practice the US constitution guarantees freedom after speech and assembly.