6 ms·

> We don't operate our universities on the heckler's veto. I've seen a few videos from various Universities where invited speakers are shouted down because of

> We don't operate our universities on the heckler's veto. I've seen a few videos from various Universities where invited speakers are shouted down because of supposed wrong views. But then it isn't the heckler's veto if their views are wrong or what?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nemo44x 5y ago
What's weird is that not long ago is popular to say "I disagree with everything you have to say, but I'd die for your right to say it". It's amazing how times have changed from that shared belief. The videos you haven't seen are the ones that were never made because the wrong-view person was stopped from even giving their scheduled talk via "de-platforming".
- tetranomiga 5y ago
  It was popular to say, but I challenge the idea that people have somehow become less tolerant of speech they disagree with than, say, Christians in the 1980s or the US government during the Red Scare.
  - lr4444lr 5y ago
    They were wrong then, and these people are wrong now. Unfortunately, they also have an indelible record of the internet to hunt down those they don't like for words uttered back to their pubescent years.
- ribosometronome 5y ago
  Among a certain sect of internet libertarians, maybe. And we saw that the result of that was the proliferation of communities on popular websites dedicated to legal but sexually suggestive pictures of girls (ex. /r/jailbait on Reddit), communities dedicated to voyeuristic photography, vitriolic hate against people who are overweight, etc.
  - busterarm 5y ago
    I'm sorry but Evelyn Beatrice Hall first wrote those words in 1906, as a description of the beliefs of Voltaire, who died in 1778 and whose ideas were extremely mainstream at the time the US was founded. These ideas long predate the internet and the Libertarian political party and to box them in as such and dismiss them carelessly is extremely intellectually dishonest and bordering on flamebait. Additionally, if your best evidence against freedom of speech is Reddit, I suggest you retool your arguments from scratch.
    - mrguyorama 5y ago
      I'm not convinced the US considered these values mainstream, as exclusion of most people from voting, and from slaves their natural rights shows
      - nemo44x 5y ago
        Western Liberalism is a self correcting, evolving system of ideas and rigorous analysis of what is considered knowledge. So yes, per the people that were considered "the people" during those times, this belief was very strongly held indeed.
      - busterarm 5y ago
        Following on nemo44x's response, we also don't really have much written evidence to the contrary. Literacy rates in late colonial America were 85-90% north of Virginia and around 60% in Virginia and south of it. If large numbers of people were disagreeing, they surely weren't writing about it.
- Latty 5y ago
  Someone having a right to say something doesn't mean they are entitled to every platform to broadcast it. Not everyone can go and speak at a University, there is not enough time and space for that to be viable, just as not everyone can demand to be broadcast on TV. If you can't get enough support at a University to speak, the public square and the soapbox are always at your disposal. The government can't arrest you. That is the freedom of expression that is protected. You are talking about enforced speech, where private individuals must listen to a speaker, and/or use their platform to amplify the speaker's words. It is a violation of their freedom of expression to tell them they cannot refuse or protest against what someone else wishes to say.
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    The person in the article was invited by the university. This isn't a random person demanding to be heard. This is the university succumbing to pressure from a small group to ban a guest from sharing their ideas with the student body that choose to attend.
    - Latty 5y ago
      The students have a right to freedom of expression in protest. The University should absolutely be providing speakers that challenge the student's views and offer ideas they may not agree with, but that's an educational decision, not a free speech one. If the student body wants to lobby the University not to accept you as a speaker, that's their freedom of the speech, and it is up to the University to weigh that against the potential educational value. For example, to start somewhere obvious, someone coming in to talk about how your friends are subhuman doesn't provide a lot of educational value, and students rightly don't want their tuition spent enabling it. Don't like it, use your freedom of speech to demonstrate enough value to your ideas the University and student body are willing to listen. Students are at University for an education, and they have a right to say what they find valuable and demand value from the University. Denying them that is limiting their freedom of expression.
      - nemo44x 5y ago
digbybk 5y ago
> I've seen a few videos from various Universities I've also seen a few videos from various Universities. _Remarkably few_, given how much attention this topic gets.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nemo44x 5y ago

What's weird is that not long ago is popular to say "I disagree with everything you have to say, but I'd die for your right to say it". It's amazing how times have changed from that shared belief. The videos you haven't seen are the ones that were never made because the wrong-view person was stopped from even giving their scheduled talk via "de-platforming".

tetranomiga 5y ago
It was popular to say, but I challenge the idea that people have somehow become less tolerant of speech they disagree with than, say, Christians in the 1980s or the US government during the Red Scare.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  They were wrong then, and these people are wrong now. Unfortunately, they also have an indelible record of the internet to hunt down those they don't like for words uttered back to their pubescent years.
ribosometronome 5y ago
Among a certain sect of internet libertarians, maybe. And we saw that the result of that was the proliferation of communities on popular websites dedicated to legal but sexually suggestive pictures of girls (ex. /r/jailbait on Reddit), communities dedicated to voyeuristic photography, vitriolic hate against people who are overweight, etc.
- busterarm 5y ago
  I'm sorry but Evelyn Beatrice Hall first wrote those words in 1906, as a description of the beliefs of Voltaire, who died in 1778 and whose ideas were extremely mainstream at the time the US was founded. These ideas long predate the internet and the Libertarian political party and to box them in as such and dismiss them carelessly is extremely intellectually dishonest and bordering on flamebait. Additionally, if your best evidence against freedom of speech is Reddit, I suggest you retool your arguments from scratch.
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    I'm not convinced the US considered these values mainstream, as exclusion of most people from voting, and from slaves their natural rights shows
    - nemo44x 5y ago
      Western Liberalism is a self correcting, evolving system of ideas and rigorous analysis of what is considered knowledge. So yes, per the people that were considered "the people" during those times, this belief was very strongly held indeed.
    - busterarm 5y ago
      Following on nemo44x's response, we also don't really have much written evidence to the contrary. Literacy rates in late colonial America were 85-90% north of Virginia and around 60% in Virginia and south of it. If large numbers of people were disagreeing, they surely weren't writing about it.
Latty 5y ago
Someone having a right to say something doesn't mean they are entitled to every platform to broadcast it. Not everyone can go and speak at a University, there is not enough time and space for that to be viable, just as not everyone can demand to be broadcast on TV. If you can't get enough support at a University to speak, the public square and the soapbox are always at your disposal. The government can't arrest you. That is the freedom of expression that is protected. You are talking about enforced speech, where private individuals must listen to a speaker, and/or use their platform to amplify the speaker's words. It is a violation of their freedom of expression to tell them they cannot refuse or protest against what someone else wishes to say.
- nemo44x 5y ago
  The person in the article was invited by the university. This isn't a random person demanding to be heard. This is the university succumbing to pressure from a small group to ban a guest from sharing their ideas with the student body that choose to attend.
  - Latty 5y ago
    The students have a right to freedom of expression in protest. The University should absolutely be providing speakers that challenge the student's views and offer ideas they may not agree with, but that's an educational decision, not a free speech one. If the student body wants to lobby the University not to accept you as a speaker, that's their freedom of the speech, and it is up to the University to weigh that against the potential educational value. For example, to start somewhere obvious, someone coming in to talk about how your friends are subhuman doesn't provide a lot of educational value, and students rightly don't want their tuition spent enabling it. Don't like it, use your freedom of speech to demonstrate enough value to your ideas the University and student body are willing to listen. Students are at University for an education, and they have a right to say what they find valuable and demand value from the University. Denying them that is limiting their freedom of expression.
    - nemo44x 5y ago

digbybk 5y ago

> I've seen a few videos from various Universities I've also seen a few videos from various Universities. _Remarkably few_, given how much attention this topic gets.