10 ms·
As 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 yelli
by cudgy 4y ago
As 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.
- cudgy 4y agoHis livelihood as a speaker at the college is.
- ceejayoz 4y agoCan you provide the definition of livelihood you’re using so we can share context?
- cudgy 4y agoHow about “viability to perform a freely chosen pursuit and possibly receive remuneration or rewards regardless of whether that money is required to eat a buy one get one free Big Mac”?
- joshuamorton 4y agoUnder this definition, my livelihood threatened because my employer doesn't pay me as much as I'd prefer.
- cudgy 4y agoI fail to see your example as fitting within my eloquent definition. You are free to work for less than you want from your employer; I presume they are not trying to prevent this.
- joshuamorton 4y agoI am not free to work for more than my employer wants to pay.
- rnk 4y agoPeople are free to make fun of anyone when they speak, even when it's their job to speak. It's called "heckling" and is a common thing. I'm sure it's not enjoyable to experience and people can be required to leave of course. I don't understand your obtuse comments around this.
- cudgy 4y agoYour not following. I never argued that noone can make fun of another person, disrupt or heckle. Such discourse is perfectly normal in elementary and middle school and is observed by similarly elementary adults. It is the continuous disruption by a single or a few participants that is unproductive and denies any communication or discourse for the parties. We are talking about a law school here, where topics are non-trivial and nuanced … not the Jerry Springer Show … or third grade. For example, it would be harassment if I show up at your birthday party at a restaurant patio and repeatedly yell that you are a pedantic, argumentative, picayune anarchist who should have more manners and respect the opportunity of others to speak their opinions as well. Saying it once or twice is another matter.
- hotpotamus 4y agoIf I were a right wing judge who liked to give speeches at colleges, I'd probably add a clause that I get paid either way (assuming this was a paid gig). Honestly, the publicity will probably help him sell books or whatever it is he does as a side hustle anyway.
- slg 4y agoSounds like you are arguing that we need to restrict free speech to protect free speech.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cudgy 4y agoMy argument is simple. Humans can typically only hear one person speak at a time. In order to have a proper societal discussion, there needs to be some rules of engagement to ensure that listeners can get something out of what is being said. Yelling over people constantly with the express intent of preventing that person’s audience from hearing what they are saying is harassment, not free speech.
- slg 4y agoPeople have a right to speech. They don't have a right to be heard. You are suggesting that we stop some people from speaking to allow other people to be heard. You are making an argument against free speech and not for it.
- cudgy 4y agoNo. You are creating a red herring. What is speech if no one can hear it or read it? If I intercepted the post you just made and scrambled it with random characters so noone else would understand it, are you still calling that free speech? How is that effectively different than some people purposefully yelling over your conversations and scrambling the sound waves entering the intended listener’s ear?
- slg 4y ago>What is speech if no one can hear it or read it? Take your thought process here a step further. If we establish that speech needs to be heard in order to satisfy the principle of free speech, how many people need to hear something before it qualifies? >If I intercepted the post you just made and scrambled it with random characters so noone else would understand it, are you still calling that free speech? Are you arguing that downvoting a comment until the text is gray and difficult to read is HN infringing on a user's free speech?
- ummonk 4y agoAs a speaker, you’re free to buy / rent your own private venue and you trespass any hecklers who attempt to threaten your livelihood there by yelling over your speech. You don’t have a right to force a private university to host your speech and prevent its students from heckling.
- Georgelemental 4y agoThe school had written rules against these sorts of disruptions. By permitting this behavior, Stanford is violating their prior written commitments.
- ummonk 4y agoThey aren't permitting this behavior. But if they were to change their rules to allow these sorts of disruptions, as stupid as that would be, they would have every right to do so and it wouldn't be a violation of anyone's right to free speech or to earn a livelihood.
- Georgelemental 4y agoIt would not be a violation of the First Amendment (probably, Stanford is a private university but they do receive federal funds). It would be a violation of the spirit and principle of free expression.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y agoSure, heckle and hold counter-events. But the current state of university mobs today is literally closer to murderous than insightful. SFSU let Riley Gaines be beaten and held against her will by the braying mob. New Zealand let Posie Parker and a bunch of old ladies be attacked be assaulted by shrieking thugs. There's nothing of speech in their actions, just terroristic political violence against the enemy. > you’re free to buy / rent your own private venue Actually, no you're not. The mob will blockade even an entirely private event held off-campus, or in a public square with permit, etc.
- jltsiren 4y agoFreedom of speech, as a political right, is fundamentally a right to protest. It's about the ability to speak against those in power without excessive consequences. When you have some students against a high-level public official, the students' rights are obviously more important from a freedom of speech perspective. Of course, freedom of speech is not an absolute right, and it's not the only thing that matters. If the university finds it valuable to host controversial speakers, maintaining the order by suppressing the freedom of speech of those who try to disrupt the talk can be a valid choice.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Georgelemental 4y ago> It's about the ability to speak against those in power without excessive consequences. "Those in power" is such a nebulous concept. In certain situations (legal cases that come before him), the circuit court judge has a lot of power. In others (Stanford campus environment), the students have more power than he does. Freedom of speech is fundamentally the right to express one's opinion—it is irrelevant whose interests that opinion serves. In the Stanford incident, the hecklers interfered with the judge's ability to express his opinion, while the judge's actions in no way interfered with the ability of the students to communicate their opinions.
- jltsiren 4y agoFirst, this would be a far more interesting case for freedom of speech if the speaker was someone from a private think tank. Now it's effectively citizens vs. the government. With high-ranking government officials, it's often impossible to separate the person from the office. Second, opinions are irrelevant. Everyone has them, and they are almost always worthless. Placing excessive value on opinions is the reason why we are in this endless quagmire of political polarization. The students disrupted the talk instead of arguing with the speaker, because they believed they have the right (rather than just the freedom) to express their opinions. Freedom of speech is at its core the right to express politically actionable ideas. It protects those who reveal secrets the authorities would keep hidden, those who criticize the way things are done, and those who propose doing things in a different way. It allows citizens to debate matters and to make better, more informed decisions. The freedom to express opinions is a trivial consequence.