3 ms·

What was the driving force for this? What was the percentage of staff and students asking for this level of policing of language? I'm not American and even I a

by samhuk 4y ago

What was the driving force for this? What was the percentage of staff and students asking for this level of policing of language? I'm not American and even I am scared of how un-American such flagrant policing of language is. Some of the examples are shockingly benign, with invisible lines drawn and imaginary people invented to manufacture offense. With the Twitter Files showing how the US government has colluded with a web of companies to violate the 1st Amendment, I wonder if any lines will end up being drawn between anomalous actions like Stanford's and the US government. Even as a non-American, I'm confused how this doesn't violate the very thing that being American is -> freedom. This all reminds me of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

foofoo4u 4y ago
As an American, I am coming to appreciate the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, more than ever before. I can better see why, now, out of all amendments, this is the first. And why it is so absolute. I am also glad that we do not have "hate speech" laws. The Stanford word-banning list is a perfect example as to why. The university is the pinnacle of our institutions. The staff who composed this list are upper echelon members of society. They serve as gatekeepers to our future success and now wish to dictate what is good and bad. If hate speech laws were to be enacted, who do you think would have significant influence on what gets added to the list? I'd bet it would be individuals like these. People and institutions closest to Washington D.C. I am already under threat for losing my job for saying "master branch". But a "hate speech" law could very well charge me with a crime as well. Circling back to why the First Amendment is absolute. I appreciate it is this way because it compensates for the fact that composing a list of what shouldn't or cannot be said is impossible to compose. And any attempts to do so will only lead to tyranny and undermine the point of the amendment itself.
- krapp 4y ago
  The First Amendment isn't absolute. The US has always had numerous laws that regulate and limit speech in various ways[0]. And the First Amendment explicitly doesn't prevent private citizens or organizations like Stanford from regulating speech themselves. It only prevents the government from doing so, with exceptions as mentioned. And the premise that this could somehow lead to a dystopian future in which you are thrown in jail simply for uttering the phrase "master branch" is absurd. Even granting the slippery slope, that isn't a realistic fear. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
  - samhuk 4y ago
    Back when the First Amendment was concieved, I imagine that they didn't have nor forsee the centralization and size of institutions and companies that we have today. You only have to see recent occurences with well-known online personas that saying the wrong thing can get your bank account frozen, internet access restricted, and use of a multitude of services denied. When institutions and companies get so centralized, large, and act homogenously, a "pseudo-government" capable of restricting your freedom emerges. This idea of "First Amendment doesn't apply because not government" is IMHO an incredibly poisonous one. An idea that, by way of disclosures like the Twitter Files, we have found out the US government has exploited by using a complex web of companies and agencies to police speech on platforms like Twitter. Institutions like Stanford policing language is effectively indistinguishable from the government doing it in a multitude of ways. Yes you don't get charged with a crime, but you will end up unable to get higher education there. What if Harvard does the same? If you allow this seed to take, then you quickly slip down the "First They Came..." slope. First they came for schools. Then for tech platforms. Where do you think it ends? Just there? This is essentially a long definition of the (quite polarizing and controversial) term "woke mind virus", since it spreads from company to company and institution to institution until there is nobody left, and through no "technical" violation of the First Amendment, you have effectly not got it any more.

by samhuk 4y ago

foofoo4u 4y ago

As an American, I am coming to appreciate the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, more than ever before. I can better see why, now, out of all amendments, this is the first. And why it is so absolute. I am also glad that we do not have "hate speech" laws. The Stanford word-banning list is a perfect example as to why. The university is the pinnacle of our institutions. The staff who composed this list are upper echelon members of society. They serve as gatekeepers to our future success and now wish to dictate what is good and bad. If hate speech laws were to be enacted, who do you think would have significant influence on what gets added to the list? I'd bet it would be individuals like these. People and institutions closest to Washington D.C. I am already under threat for losing my job for saying "master branch". But a "hate speech" law could very well charge me with a crime as well. Circling back to why the First Amendment is absolute. I appreciate it is this way because it compensates for the fact that composing a list of what shouldn't or cannot be said is impossible to compose. And any attempts to do so will only lead to tyranny and undermine the point of the amendment itself.

krapp 4y ago
The First Amendment isn't absolute. The US has always had numerous laws that regulate and limit speech in various ways[0]. And the First Amendment explicitly doesn't prevent private citizens or organizations like Stanford from regulating speech themselves. It only prevents the government from doing so, with exceptions as mentioned. And the premise that this could somehow lead to a dystopian future in which you are thrown in jail simply for uttering the phrase "master branch" is absurd. Even granting the slippery slope, that isn't a realistic fear. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- samhuk 4y ago
  Back when the First Amendment was concieved, I imagine that they didn't have nor forsee the centralization and size of institutions and companies that we have today. You only have to see recent occurences with well-known online personas that saying the wrong thing can get your bank account frozen, internet access restricted, and use of a multitude of services denied. When institutions and companies get so centralized, large, and act homogenously, a "pseudo-government" capable of restricting your freedom emerges. This idea of "First Amendment doesn't apply because not government" is IMHO an incredibly poisonous one. An idea that, by way of disclosures like the Twitter Files, we have found out the US government has exploited by using a complex web of companies and agencies to police speech on platforms like Twitter. Institutions like Stanford policing language is effectively indistinguishable from the government doing it in a multitude of ways. Yes you don't get charged with a crime, but you will end up unable to get higher education there. What if Harvard does the same? If you allow this seed to take, then you quickly slip down the "First They Came..." slope. First they came for schools. Then for tech platforms. Where do you think it ends? Just there? This is essentially a long definition of the (quite polarizing and controversial) term "woke mind virus", since it spreads from company to company and institution to institution until there is nobody left, and through no "technical" violation of the First Amendment, you have effectly not got it any more.