5 ms·
It’s already been ruled that “death to queers” is allowed as long as it doesn’t target individuals or amount to a “true threat” which exactly what Gay’s point w
by dpkonofa 3y ago
It’s already been ruled that “death to queers” is allowed as long as it doesn’t target individuals or amount to a “true threat” which exactly what Gay’s point was during the hearing. The speech itself is protected unless it’s targeted (which “from the river to the sea” or whatever it is and the word “intifada” likely wouldn’t be) and actionable which it definitely isn’t. It would need to be proven that the people making the speech had the intent of directly or indirectly harming the people they had targeted.
All this discussion does is prove that there’s nuance to the question and that it’s not black and white which is exactly why I believe it was a dishonest question to begin with.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> speech itself is protected unless it’s targeted It's First Amendment protected. Universities have a long track record of having policies more restrictive than that.
- dpkonofa 3y agoYes and that’s a direct quote from Gay during the hearing - “Gay, in her testimony, said such speech can be a violation of the school’s policies “depending on the context” if it is “targeted at an individual.””
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoWhich is mincemeat of an answer. Plenty of hate speech is banned on university campuses even when not targeted at an indi vidual.
- dpkonofa 3y agoThat’s irrelevant unless you have examples of this being the case at Harvard.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoHarvard is notorious in its modern history of censorship [1]. [1] https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-f...
- dpkonofa 3y agoNone of those things are examples of students being censored. Disinvitation and protesting are themselves protected activities. This doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says.
- dekhn 3y agoCan you point to the ruling? It looks like Google searches don't uncover any useful writing about a specific legal ruling allowing direct calls to violence against a group, but as usual, I am always best convinced by specific links to articles referencing case decisions.
- gnicholas 3y agoLook up the true threats doctrine. There won't be any specific case law on the phrase you mentioned. Here's one summary of the doctrine: > The U.S. Supreme Court defined true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) as “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.” According to the Supreme Court, true threats include when a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. [1] https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-constitutes-a-true-threat/ https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/wha...
- dekhn 3y agoI don't agree that applies in this case- in terms of Westboro, they very clearly advocate actual direct violence. In the case of the protesters at Harvard their intent is much less clear - I suspect even the people calling for intifada aren't attempts to elicit immediate violence. I broke my cardinal rule- never get involved in an internet discussion of free speech. Also, and this is purely opinion- I think the Supreme Court made an error in their ruling.
- dpkonofa 3y agoIt does apply. Westboro has already argued the “true threat” position and won. https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro-baptist-church-protected-20110302-105751-023.html https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-hurtful-speech-westboro...
- 3y ago