2 ms·
That is not a right of the speaker. The right to hear is not the same thing as the right to be heard. Either way, it doesn't refute my original point. People
by slg 4y ago
That is not a right of the speaker. The right to hear is not the same thing as the right to be heard.
Either way, it doesn't refute my original point. People are asking for certain people's free speech rights to be curtailed in order to protect the free speech rights of others. That is effectively the same argument that the students are often making in these situations. Speech should be restricted when it infringes on other people's rights. The pro-free speech side just likes to play no true Scotsman games and redefine stuff they don't like as not really speech. But if the audience members heckling the speaker can be speech unworthy of protecting because it infringes on other people's rights, then we also need to evaluate what the speaker on the stage is saying and whether their words infringe on the rights of anyone else.
- gnicholas 4y agoYou should read Dean Martinez's letter, which describes the longstanding legal perspective on this. Although one can always raise philosophical questions and claim that free speech advocates are just trying to silence people that don't agree with them, this isn't really an accurate representation of their position. Actual free speech advocates (e.g., FIRE) want their opponents to be free to host talks without disruptive heckling from people with whom they (the free speech advocates) would agree.