2 ms·
I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still
by rhaksw 4y ago
I wasn't comparing academia to nazis. Rather, I was saying that even in the most extreme situations e.g. nazis and communists, open and civil discourse is still better than censorship.
It's also worth noting that FIRE was expressly founded to deal with free speech violations in higher education. FIRE's president often discusses this, for example in a recent interview with Nick Gillespie [1]. FIRE recently expanded to cover all free speech issues, but that is where they got started. They've taken over a role that the ACLU has largely abandoned, since they now construe rights to be in conflict with each other, as former Executive Director Ira Glasser mentions [2] with the ACLU's new guidelines [3]:
> "The guidelines are designed to assist in consideration of the competing interests that may arise when such conflicts emerge. The guidelines do not seek to resolve the conflicts, because resolution will virtually always turn on factors specific to each case."
> "The potential conflict between advocacy for free speech and for equal justice in the fight against white supremacy is especially salient, but by no means unique in presenting tensions between ACLU values."
But you're not supposed to construe rights as being in conflict with each other, as implied by the 9th amendment [4]:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Like balancing form and function, one should not take away from another.
[1] https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-the-culture-of-free-speech/id1485021241?i=1000565704046 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/greg-lukianoff-saving-...
[2] https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87 https://youtu.be/x0Lc5b8Flto?t=87
[3] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_case_selection_guidelines.pdf https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- viraptor 4y agoHe may be right with the general idea, but the point was that his phrasing needs some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. If he doesn't say that, I don't know if he realises what stakes he's talking about. (he probably does, but... say it) I'm annoyed, because there are lots of people who don't realise this is literally about survival for others, not just about free speech ideas.
- rhaksw 4y agoIt was a classic argument made during his lifetime, from the 1910s until 1981 when that video was made.
- Manuel_D 4y ago> some serious work. The classic argument is really that they should be censored so they can't easily organise and kill us. There's a difference between words and actions. Words fo not kill. No, words are not violence no matter how much people try to claim otherwise. Furthermore, censoring people does nothing to reduce a groups ability to kill. Taking away someone's public voice does not take away their capacity to carry out violence. Disinviting a speaker or banning a book does not magically make people's guns disappear.