8 ms·
You should spend some time on a college campus. Shouting down speakers and deplatforming non-progressives is more common than one might think.
by rmatt2000 4y ago
You should spend some time on a college campus. Shouting down speakers and deplatforming non-progressives is more common than one might think.
- xenospn 4y agoMaybe if they’d done so sooner we wouldn’t have had the KKK.
- coeneedell 4y agoI don’t see how this is inconsistent with what they’re saying. These people are asking their colleges to not provide a platform, not that the speakers should not be allowed to speak anywhere.
- OrangeMonkey 4y agoColleges are public locations that have historically allowed free speech. Court cases have been tried and lost trying to restrict this free speech. I think then you see the issue - "These people are asking their colleges to break the law and restrict the speech of others." You can argue that the laws should be changed to stop the current concept of free speech though.
- whimsicalism 4y ago> Colleges are public locations This is not my experience for the indoors of the college.
- citizenkeen 4y agoThat is perfectly in line with freedom of speech. Is the government showing up and arresting the speakers? No? Then freedom of speech is intact.
- mc32 4y agoIt’s not. If another form of government were to take over and decide that progressivism is dirty and society takes the cue, that’s not freedom of speech. It’s insidious censorship none the less
- hackinthebochs 4y agoThere really ought to be a copypasta to respond to this "free speech = 1st amendemnt" trope.
- glerk 4y agoI’m so tired of this argument. Who cares if it’s the government, private business, or other citizens who do the censorship? The result is the same: censorship. Next you’re gonna tell me to go build my own university/social media platform/payment processor/ISP/etc. if I don’t like it.
- ethanbond 4y agoWho cares who does it? Well, ermmm, the entire legal construct of free speech cares? The government requiring Person A to platform Person B’s speech is a violation of person A’s rights.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoWho cares about the legal construct you talk about? Legal constructs are not something absolute and apriori.
- dmitrygr 4y agoHow about requiring person A to bake a cake for person B? (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission)
- bcrosby95 4y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v.... It's not that simple.
- ethanbond 4y agoDid you read what the actual ruling held? This wasn't a 1st Amendment case. --- In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules: * under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers * under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center. (Emphasis mine)
- jlawson 4y agoThis is like saying lynchings aren't oppression because it's not the government that did them.
- dev-3892 4y ago"I can't say the n word in public and it's like a mob came to torture and kill me"
- ratsmack 4y agoAny collage or institution receiving government funding must not censor speech in any form, as they are government institutions via proxy. Also, in my opinion, all publicly traded companies should not be allowed to censor speech as they are essentially "owned" by share holders, not the management team.
- cies 4y ago> all publicly traded companies should not be allowed to censor speech as they are essentially "owned" by share holders, not the management team. Insightful. So worker-coops should be able to then, as they are (in theory; so lets assume they are) properly self-owned?
- whimsicalism 4y agoCensoring is a management decision. Your point about public companies makes no sense.
- ModernMech 4y agoIsn’t shouting an exercise of speech?
- cies 4y agoExactly, not being able to put a giant sound system in the city center blasting rave is hampering my freedom of expression! So there are many rules that have always limited expression.
- whimsicalism 4y agoThis also has to do with platforming. And it's not just about progressives, my university (Harvard) disinvited a progressive speaker after pressure from the CIA.
- the_only_law 4y agoWho was it?
- whimsicalism 4y agoChelsea Manning
- slg 4y agoPeople on HN and in this thread in particular have such a one sided view of this issue. For some reason people here only think the left is attacking free speech when the truth is that free speech is under attack from both the left and right. One of those two has been much more effective translating these attacks into laws which I would expect to be the most concerning for proponents of free speech and yet it is always "what is happening on college campuses" that scares people more than "what is happening in state legislatures".
- lettergram 4y agoWhile I agree-ish, I can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the right. It could just be only the left has power at the moment. A common question is why the Ayatollah is on Twitter (and I think Facebook) calling for death, but Alex Jones isn’t allowed to question events. We can argue both are reprehensible, but only one is banned. Beyond that I haven’t seen anyone on the right truly call for limitation of speech. I’ve only seen them get upset when something is particularly targeting them (say the push for LGBT in elementary schools)
- uoaei 4y agoI can list a litany of people deplatformed. All of them are on the left. Selection bias does not a good argument make.
- lettergram 4y agoWho? I’d like to read / listen to them.
- uoaei 4y agoChris Hedges and John Kiriakou both have a lot to say about many important things
- hirsin 4y agoBook banning is the right's equivalent of deplatforming, with the bonus that they are getting the government to do it, not just a private company. They do take it further though, with banning of talking about how to get an abortion, banning of talking about LGBT topics in school. I can't say that allowing those topics, or even pushing them, is targeting the right. By definition it's about some other group being supported. Maybe you meant triggering them, not targeting them?
- uoaei 4y agoWhat you describe is people exercising their free speech.
- cortesoft 4y agoIsn’t shouting down speakers just another person exercising their free speech?
- 1270018080 4y agoYes.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]