3 ms·

Freedom 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 consequen

Freedom 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 ago
  First, 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.
  - Georgelemental 4y ago
    > 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. Freedom of speech protects your right to say that the earth is round. The roundness of the earth won't reveal any corruption scandals, it won't lead to major political reforms. It's not political at all. And yet is is just as protected as anything else. More generally, defining freedom of speech in terms of government is wrong, because freedom of speech fundamentally does not depend on government. It is an inalienable, God-given right, that people have even in a state of nature where no government exists.
    - jltsiren 4y ago
      The primary purpose of freedom of speech is protecting political participation. The protection for other kinds of speech is a trivial consequence. As for those supposed inalienable rights, I suggest empirical validation. Go to a country like North Korea and try testing, which rights actually exist. The only rights that matter are the ones that the society (not necessarily the government) is willing to enforce.
      - Georgelemental 4y ago
        It doesn't matter what society thinks. Free speech is self-evident, as natural as breathing—it needs no philosophical justification. Society may try to deny it, but in doing so they deny what it means to be human
LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
> the students' rights are obviously more important The students rights aren't being infringed. They can spend all 365 days of the year saying what they want, everywhere they want, except in that one room for two hours. To imply that they have a right to amplified shrieking over the speaker to state their point, you're doing what you accuse the other side of doing, insisting that free speech is a right to be heard. The students deserve the same treatment the invited speaker deserves - a guarantee that they can speak and be peacefully heard - somewhere. Universities have many rooms and the students can have their own.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I think it's okay for the students to decide that the speaker's actions make them ineligible to speak at the school and "shriek" over them. People get to decide you're a piece of shit and refuse to let you speak without getting shouted down, because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights. And it's the school administration's job to do with that behavior as they will. Frankly, it's good to see people taking a moral stance against someone who takes a "moral" stance (imposing their holy book on everyone) by doing something like allowing states to ban gay marriage. People on this site talk big about "accountability" for their pet problems like data leaks and privacy but seemingly don't like it when public figures are held even modestly accountable for their shit behavior which does irreparable harm.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    > because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights That statement is frightening. I sure hope most people think they are obligated to allow other people their right to free speech.
    - DangitBobby 4y ago
      Oh yes, quite frightening! I don't want to listen to people who peddle bullshit, and I would deny them a platform to do so, gasp in horror! In situations where people start threatening others with violence to shut them up, concern is warranted. Until then... Let's touch grass together.

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 ago
First, 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.
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  > 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. Freedom of speech protects your right to say that the earth is round. The roundness of the earth won't reveal any corruption scandals, it won't lead to major political reforms. It's not political at all. And yet is is just as protected as anything else. More generally, defining freedom of speech in terms of government is wrong, because freedom of speech fundamentally does not depend on government. It is an inalienable, God-given right, that people have even in a state of nature where no government exists.
  - jltsiren 4y ago
    The primary purpose of freedom of speech is protecting political participation. The protection for other kinds of speech is a trivial consequence. As for those supposed inalienable rights, I suggest empirical validation. Go to a country like North Korea and try testing, which rights actually exist. The only rights that matter are the ones that the society (not necessarily the government) is willing to enforce.
    - Georgelemental 4y ago
      It doesn't matter what society thinks. Free speech is self-evident, as natural as breathing—it needs no philosophical justification. Society may try to deny it, but in doing so they deny what it means to be human

LawTalkingGuy 4y ago

> the students' rights are obviously more important The students rights aren't being infringed. They can spend all 365 days of the year saying what they want, everywhere they want, except in that one room for two hours. To imply that they have a right to amplified shrieking over the speaker to state their point, you're doing what you accuse the other side of doing, insisting that free speech is a right to be heard. The students deserve the same treatment the invited speaker deserves - a guarantee that they can speak and be peacefully heard - somewhere. Universities have many rooms and the students can have their own.

DangitBobby 4y ago
I think it's okay for the students to decide that the speaker's actions make them ineligible to speak at the school and "shriek" over them. People get to decide you're a piece of shit and refuse to let you speak without getting shouted down, because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights. And it's the school administration's job to do with that behavior as they will. Frankly, it's good to see people taking a moral stance against someone who takes a "moral" stance (imposing their holy book on everyone) by doing something like allowing states to ban gay marriage. People on this site talk big about "accountability" for their pet problems like data leaks and privacy but seemingly don't like it when public figures are held even modestly accountable for their shit behavior which does irreparable harm.
- goatlover 4y ago
  > because people aren't the government and have no obligation to uphold your 1st amendment rights That statement is frightening. I sure hope most people think they are obligated to allow other people their right to free speech.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Oh yes, quite frightening! I don't want to listen to people who peddle bullshit, and I would deny them a platform to do so, gasp in horror! In situations where people start threatening others with violence to shut them up, concern is warranted. Until then... Let's touch grass together.