8 ms·

I just graduated from Cornell, and I'm not surprised. Some student posters around campus which read "Hong Kong stands with Ukraine" had the "Hong Kong" scribble

I just graduated from Cornell, and I'm not surprised. Some student posters around campus which read "Hong Kong stands with Ukraine" had the "Hong Kong" scribbled out by someone else. [1] I saw students point and laugh at a similar poster. On multiple occasions, I saw scraps left behind where posters criticizing Xi Jinping or the CCP had hung. [1] https://i.postimg.cc/25LM9hZJ/7297-B1-DB-5-CB3-4019-BCF3-8-F1-A2409-DD3-A.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/25LM9hZJ/7297-B1-DB-5-CB3-4019-BCF3-8-F...

zaptrem 4y ago
I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted. > On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval." I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions of these students (they have an organization and a secret group chat to coordinate stuff like this) absolutely fall into the toleration of intolerance paradox. On the other hand, walking out is just about the most polite form of protest you can conduct. Certainly better than the mob that tried to prevent the law school Boston Flag SC case debate from occurring this semester. However, even without imposing actual consequences, the administration absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses. They should have done more to defend Rizwangul NurMuhammad.
- femiagbabiaka 4y ago
  Right wing activists have been doing this kinda stuff wrt Israel on campuses for decades. I agree, this kind of intolerance should be stamped out. The question is: whose morals become law?
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Emphasis mine. There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It makes me proud of this place: > The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects. Citation: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALDE_00000393/#ALDF_00006040 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALD...
    - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
      The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).
      - RhysU 4y ago
        > the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
        femiagbabiaka 4y ago
        If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
      - the_biot 4y ago
        It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.
- dvt 4y ago
  > absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses I have no love for communists (having been born in the Eastern Bloc), but that's not how free speech works. Either you're for it (and all the icky stuff that comes with it) or you're against it. There's no "splitting the difference" here. We've debated and litigated this since the Enlightenment (from J.S. Mill to Skokie, IL): if you start banning one type of speech, that's a train you won't be able to stop. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is highfalutin nonsense.
  - koonsolo 4y ago
    If they are residents, I agree there is nothing you can do about it. But since they seem to be exchange students, you could say "We don't welcome people with such views here in our country", and just send them back to the country that is ruled by their beloved government. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can't select foreigners based on their beliefs and values.
    - glogla 4y ago
      Even if they are residents, you can absolutely be expelled from university for bullying, hate speech and other abuses.
      - koonsolo 4y ago
        This could indeed be seen as bullying or discrimination.
    - godelski 4y ago
      When we're talking about fundamental rights, I don't think we should treat foreigners any different than citizens. That's cruel. Is that really the country we want to be? Humane only to our citizens? We say that the mark of a man is how he treats those he sees as lower than himself. I think the same applies to countries. Now I'm not saying being a foreign national you should have "the right" to open a US bank account, buy a house, or even get a job. But if we're talking about what we call "basic human rights," then that's a different story. Of course, Universities are different, but I think the point still stands.
- endymi0n 4y ago
  And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run. „The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - ls15 4y ago
    I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.
    - nhinck2 4y ago
      I think you have failed to understand the paradox.
      - ls15 4y ago
        I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.
        dorgo 4y ago
        So, "I think other people should not be free" is not covered by free speech?
        ls15 4y ago
        I don't think that such a statement should have any legal (or other) consequences. It would (kind of) translate to "I don't believe in freedom", but it would not directly attack someone's ability to practice free speech. Context matters here, I think: If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech. If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - wesleywt 4y ago
    Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.
    - effingwewt 4y ago
      This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences. I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things. Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit. edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.
      - Dracophoenix 4y ago
        > Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.

zaptrem 4y ago

I'm a current senior at Cornell and I'm conflicted. > On Friday, the administration told students in an emailed statement "we have an expectation and responsibility to engage with viewpoints that we disagree with," but that "we must also respect that walkouts are a legitimate form of protest and an appropriate expression of disapproval." I like free speech as much as the next Hacker News user, but many of the actions of these students (they have an organization and a secret group chat to coordinate stuff like this) absolutely fall into the toleration of intolerance paradox. On the other hand, walking out is just about the most polite form of protest you can conduct. Certainly better than the mob that tried to prevent the law school Boston Flag SC case debate from occurring this semester. However, even without imposing actual consequences, the administration absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses. They should have done more to defend Rizwangul NurMuhammad.

femiagbabiaka 4y ago
Right wing activists have been doing this kinda stuff wrt Israel on campuses for decades. I agree, this kind of intolerance should be stamped out. The question is: whose morals become law?
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  If you're in the US: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/ > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Emphasis mine. There is a beautiful expansion by Blackstone. It makes me proud of this place: > The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects. Citation: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALDE_00000393/#ALDF_00006040 https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-2-1/ALD...
  - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
    The Constitution is a great document. We no longer live in a world where the spirit of the document matters. It’s a shibboleth, a proxy for the actual political discourse. It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman, in service of whatever opinion one has. Ultimately meaningless. So the question stands. If one is to legislate morals, whose will win? This is the real question of the last 4 decades of American politics (at least).
    - RhysU 4y ago
      > the spirit of the document What do you mean by this? > It’s a shibboleth It is known by all. What definition are you using for "shibboleth"? > It’s referred to when there’s a need to call on a talisman... There's not a need to refer to the rules in any game unless one participant thinks that the rules have been broken.
      - femiagbabiaka 4y ago
        If the rules can be reinterpreted depending on the disposition of the player with more power at a given time, then there are no rules, it’s just a bog standard power game. The drift in disposition of the Supreme Court itself is plain proof of this. And as for shibboleth: > The term can also be used pejoratively, suggesting that the original meaning of a symbol has in effect been lost and that the symbol now serves merely to identify allegiance, being described as "nothing more than a shibboleth". In 1956, Nobel Prize-laureate economist Paul Samuelson applied the term "shibboleth" in works including Foundations of Economic Analysis to an idea for which "the means becomes the end, and the letter of the law takes precedence over the spirit."[14] Samuelson admitted that "shibboleth" is an imperfect term for this phenomenon.[15] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shibboleth
    - the_biot 4y ago
      It's not a shibboleth when some considerable portion of the population, including judges, regard it as an inviolate document of absolute truth.
dvt 4y ago
> absolutely should have rebuked those using their free speech in favor of human rights abuses I have no love for communists (having been born in the Eastern Bloc), but that's not how free speech works. Either you're for it (and all the icky stuff that comes with it) or you're against it. There's no "splitting the difference" here. We've debated and litigated this since the Enlightenment (from J.S. Mill to Skokie, IL): if you start banning one type of speech, that's a train you won't be able to stop. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is highfalutin nonsense.
- koonsolo 4y ago
  If they are residents, I agree there is nothing you can do about it. But since they seem to be exchange students, you could say "We don't welcome people with such views here in our country", and just send them back to the country that is ruled by their beloved government. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean you can't select foreigners based on their beliefs and values.
  - glogla 4y ago
    Even if they are residents, you can absolutely be expelled from university for bullying, hate speech and other abuses.
    - koonsolo 4y ago
      This could indeed be seen as bullying or discrimination.
  - godelski 4y ago
    When we're talking about fundamental rights, I don't think we should treat foreigners any different than citizens. That's cruel. Is that really the country we want to be? Humane only to our citizens? We say that the mark of a man is how he treats those he sees as lower than himself. I think the same applies to countries. Now I'm not saying being a foreign national you should have "the right" to open a US bank account, buy a house, or even get a job. But if we're talking about what we call "basic human rights," then that's a different story. Of course, Universities are different, but I think the point still stands.
endymi0n 4y ago
And there we are again: Demonstrating that an absolutist take on free speech tends to destroy free speech itself in the long run. „The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.“ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
- ls15 4y ago
  I don't think it is a paradox. As soon as your practice of free speech limits other people's ability to practice free speech, you are not actually practicing free speech, but attacking people's freedom of speech.
  - nhinck2 4y ago
    I think you have failed to understand the paradox.
    - ls15 4y ago
      I just don't think it applies to free speech. And I don't interpret free speech as I can say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am free to express my opinion. This does not include freedom to attack other people's freedom.
      - dorgo 4y ago
        So, "I think other people should not be free" is not covered by free speech?
        ls15 4y ago
        I don't think that such a statement should have any legal (or other) consequences. It would (kind of) translate to "I don't believe in freedom", but it would not directly attack someone's ability to practice free speech. Context matters here, I think: If I said "The president should not be allowed to say this", this would most likely not affect the president's freedom of speech. If the president said "ls15 should not be allowed to say this", this may more likely affect my ability to express my opinions.
colordrops 4y ago
Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- wesleywt 4y ago
  Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.
  - effingwewt 4y ago
    This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences. I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things. Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit. edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.