7 ms·
At Stanford law school, the dean takes a stand for free speech. will it work?
- gnicholas 4y ago> In January, when Mr. Rosenberger could not find a co-sponsor for an event with Nadine Strossen, a former head of the American Civil Liberties Union and a champion of free speech, he found a partner in Ms. Steinbach, who moderated the event. Amazing that no one else was willing to sponsor an event featuring the first woman president of the ACLU.
- dmix 4y agoFormer head of ACLU being the relevant bit of information. The previous generation who wrote books titled "Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship" aren't very popular among the university cliques these days.
- revscat 4y agoFood for thought. This is a reaction against: 1. The overly-broad application of the First Amendment to conservative SCOTUS decisions giving corporations 1A rights. 2. The financial success of propaganda corporations such as Fox News, and their poisoning of public discourse. 3. The weakening of democratic institutions and the ability for people to govern themselves as they choose Given that, is it any surprise that people are lashing out? MTG gets softball 60 Minutes segments. Perhaps people are coming to understand that this isn’t a viable way forward.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- TinkersW 4y ago60 minutes wasting time on MTG just means you shouldn't watch 60 minutes, not that free speech needs to be abandoned. Fox started the problem with our news, but now we have similiar outlets on both left and right doing it. Don't watch them.
- pessimizer 4y agoIt can't be a reaction to those things, because they're 1) arguing that private companies arbitrarily deciding what they want to allow on their platform, even under direct request from government departments and powerful individuals, is actually good and needed to protect minorities. 2) They also defend one set of "propaganda corporations" from the other set of "propaganda corporations"; they don't rail against extremely partisan coverage, they have come to consider it a patriotic duty to even suppress true information that would give the opposition ammo. 3) They support the FBI and the CIA over Congress and the democratic process. Democratic processes are ridiculed as "popularity contests." They support US military interventions and sanctions regimes abroad against democratically elected leaders.
- chr1 4y agoOr maybe most people like silencing those with whom they disagree, so the same type of people who were becoming religious zealots before, and were against frrespeach, are becoming other types of zealots now who are still against free speech.
- revscat 4y ago[flagged]
- Georgelemental 4y agoIf you don't believe you can share a country with millions of your fellow citizens, that the disagreement is not reconcilable—you are free to leave.
- bradleyjg 4y agoSomeone should really write a book about how the ACLU(!) came to no longer be a stalwart supporter of free speech. To me it is like the Catholic Church deciding that the Bishop of Rome is just one of many important Bishops.
- nostromo 4y agoI support the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) instead of the ACLU since they’ve lose their way.
- RickJWagner 4y agoThank you for making this recommendation. I'll check out FIRE.
- froh 4y agothe current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit. he even sees bishops as some among many important Catholics https://www.synod.va https://www.synod.va wrt free speech I find poppers paradox of intolerance relevant. a unhealthy overdose of Der Stürmer and lashing out against some scapegoat minorities lead Europe into WWII in simple words: you _have_ to put limits on bullshitting else your freedom is shat on.
- bradleyjg 4y agothe current bishop of Rome indeed sees it like that, a little bit Not really. He’s making these pronouncements and reforms. He isn’t deferring to each bishop in their own territory. wrt free speech I find Regardless of what you or I think about this issue there was an organization that stood for one position on it for almost a century. However good the arguments are, I don’t expect the National Pro-Life Religious Council to decide that maybe abortions aren’t so bad after all.
- froh 4y agopp Francis one one hand is strengthening synodality and subsidiarity, i.e. decentralizing "who has the say" and in the other hand he is at the same time limiting divisive occult undercurrents of radical trad caths who are far right infiltrated by divisive neo fascist. so in a way he's is managing "free speech" which is our topic here: how do we establish the rules for speech which support unity and support for our neighbors and which end oppression of weak minorities? which speech rules foster growth and fairness and justice and health for all?
- hirundo 4y agoSubtract the free speech argument and a law school still has a very particular need to train students in adversarial debate. It is inherent to the practice of law and failing to teach it would fail to prepare the students. Lawyers need to convince and discuss and negotiate with people who have different values. Being able to have a civil discussion with a judge you disagree with is literally part of the job. There's no need to "reach" 1A.
- richwater 4y ago[flagged]
- firstlink 4y agoThis is the much more serious issue in this case. Here we have the next generation of lawyers and judges literally unable to hear something they don't agree with without having a public meltdown. I don't hope for a long life, because when these people gain power life will be worth much less. I intend to enjoy freedom while I can.
- ummonk 4y agoYeah this article doesn’t talk about it much but Martinez’ memo to Stanford Law students emphasized that point.
- PM_me_your_math 4y ago[flagged]
- neonate 4y agohttps://archive.ph/EMTkv https://archive.ph/EMTkv http://web.archive.org/web/20230409222949/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/us/stanford-law-school-free-speech.html http://web.archive.org/web/20230409222949/https://www.nytime...
- sigmar 4y ago>That same year, members of Stanford’s chapter of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal organization, filed a complaint against a law student who had mocked the group with a satirical flier. The university briefly put the student’s graduation on hold but eventually said the flier was protected speech. Sorry, what? This stands out to me way more than some heckling at a speech that this article seems focused on. Really feels like what gets lost in these conversations is how "free speech" should mean you can voice opinions without having your livelihood threatened, not some requirement that people are literally quiet while you are talking.
- ceejayoz 4y agoAs with Musk, the loudest claimants to the throne of “free speech absolutist” tend to have some… quirky exceptions.
- cudgy 4y agoThis only strengthens the free speech argument. People are naturally inconsistent on issues and most issues are nuanced, so it is important to give space for discussion that goes beyond the boundaries we set for ourselves.
- causality0 4y agoDo the Federalist Society claim to be free speech absolutists? Actual free speech advocates like FIRE immediately came to the student's defense.
- cudgy 4y agoAs a speaker, isn’t your livelihood threatened if people yell over your speech? A brief interruption to express disagreement is one thing, but a constant yelling simply to drown out the event participant is a completely different thing.
- ceejayoz 4y agoThe judge in question has a lifetime appointment. His livelihood is not threatened.
- bjourne 4y agoI just hope The NY Times will take the same principled stand when it is Leila Khaled getting censored by Google, Facebook, and Zoom: https://theintercept.com/2020/11/14/zoom-censorship-leila-khaled-palestine/ https://theintercept.com/2020/11/14/zoom-censorship-leila-kh...
- Nifty3929 4y agoIt would be nice if these companies could have stood for free speech here, but the rational for censorship is enlightening: they were afraid of retaliation from the government for violating anti-terrorism rules. And the speaker is in fact a terrorist who hijacked a plane, so this is a pretty plausible worry. They weren’t clear about exactly what high rule would be violated, but then again a lot of these rules can be vague and subject to interpretation. We may need to redirect our ire toward the government who creates these vague, restrictive rules and regulations instead of the corporations who are forced to tiptoe around them.
- 29athrowaway 4y agoJust a reminder that Kevin Mitnick was in a maximum security prison for years because of the New York Times. They convinced the public that he had hacked NORAD and he was going to start WW3 or some stupid bullshit. They suck and they should all be in a maximum security prison themselves.
- ceejayoz 4y agoPoor FBI and Federal prosecutors, powerless and without agency before the might of the NYT.
- Georgelemental 4y agoUntil the hecklers are punished, the "stand" is meaningless.
- musicale 4y agoAs noted in the memo (p.9), a law school dean at the event appeared to grant permission and even to "endorse the disruption." Students could (very reasonably) argue that they were granted explicit permission and approval at the event by attending administrators.
- flangola7 4y agoOn what charge would they be punished? Academia and the law both have broad speech protections.
- Georgelemental 4y agoHeckling, screaming, shouting people down, creating a disturbance…
- flangola7 4y agoAre you kidding me?
- gnicholas 4y agoThey violated the school's rules on disrupting events. The SLS dean had sent out an email that day reminding them of those rules. The DEI dean (lower ranking than the SLS dean) did indicate her pride at what was happening, which could be viewed as endorsing the behavior. But they were put on notice in writing, that day, by the senior dean. To be clear, they could not have been punished for violating any laws. But the school could have punished them, and the state bars to which they will be applying could deny them admission based on their behavior. This would have a serious impact on their ability to earn money and/or repay loans.
- flangola7 4y ago
- jacooper 4y agoI think the most important thing to achieve is to moderate leftist speech like right speech. As long as one side gets to decide what the other can say, you are not impartial here, and can't fairly moderate.
- lamp987 4y agoand who will decide what is the "center" there? and isnt it unfair and not impartial to protect the center by censoring left and right? no one should be moderated
- lazyeye 4y agoMaybe it would be better framed as the majority censoring the minority. And unfortunately academia is clearly dominated by left-wing ideology right now.
- flangola7 4y agoMaybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny.
- trafficante 4y ago> Maybe left wing ideology is just more accurate and holds up better under academic scrutiny Paraphrasing a Colbert quote (“reality has a well-known liberal bias”) is oddly apropos, given the thread topic. The Colbert Report actively sought out guests/topics with unorthodox views and used speech (in the form of satire) to indirectly mock or support. And it worked as both a moderator of extremism as well as a way to humorously expose issues embedded in society. And while it was certainly a “liberal” oriented show, they went out of their way to showcase conservatives with interesting ideas (eg: Ron Paul, who was essentially blackballed from other media at the time) and touched on topics like the Snowden leaks that would be absolutely verboten on Colbert’s sad and pathetic Late Night Show. “I am very moral therefore I am the arbiter of speech” is what the left used to rail against. “Canceling” used to mean “Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and exposed the show for the society-destroying rage bait it always was”. What happened? (Yes Trump, but it has to be more than just him)
- refurb 4y agoCould you imagine legal students, people being trained in adversarial debate, thinking the best approach is to shout someone down?
- HWR_14 4y agoIf by "shout someone down" you mean "refuse to engage with them", then it's sometimes required. Nutjobs need to be ignored sometimes.
- bmarquez 4y agoIf you read the PDF linked in the article, it states that the speaker was literally shouted down.
- amusedcyclist 4y agoNobody is obligated to let people spew propaganda
- Georgelemental 4y agoYes they are. There is no "propaganda" exception to the First Amendment or free speech in general.
- amusedcyclist 4y agoThe government is obligated to let you speak, no private citizen or organization is obligated to let you speak without interruption
- DangitBobby 4y agoI don't think the 1st Amendment requires you to open your school up to speakers that students don't like, nor does it require students to sit and listen or to not actively heckle. In fact, as far as I know, the only thing the first amendmendment does is prevent the government itself from silencing your speech. Are these kids or the school the government itself? Then the first amendment doesn't apply.
- CodeWriter23 4y agoOnly if there were certain well-known methods to give people with opposing views an equal platform for speaking their views. Like a moderator who enforces turn-taking and time limits. Or a talking stick. Or just being civil in the presence of those whom you may cast as barbarians and savages.
- zahma 4y agoI’ve lost all patience for liberals or conservatives who can’t entertain a thought that doesn’t strictly adhere to the contemporary orthodoxy. It is especially disconcerting within a law school. What an awful thing to imagine a lawyer unwilling to defend a client for similar grievances, or one incapable of knowing how to argue against a position one finds problematic. On an epistemological level it is even more frightening. We lose knowledge when we refuse to engage ideas, especially when the intellectual elite does the equivalent of sticking their heads in the sand.
- musicale 4y agoJust a footnote in the NYT article, but it is really sad to hear about students dying at Stanford and other universities, often from suicide. Sometimes even faculty and staff as well.