10 ms·
Campus free speech was in trouble in 2018, and the data shows worsening
- budududuroiu 3y ago> A significant portion of college students have become more hostile toward free speech * proceeds to use Milo Yiannopolous as an example *
- hotdogscout 3y agoImplying?
- oo0shiny 3y ago"In 2018, Yiannopoulos told at least two news organisations who had requested comments that he wanted vigilantes to shoot journalists. He wrote in a text message 'I can't wait for vigilante squads to start gunning journalists down on sight'."
- richrichie 3y ago[flagged]
- cauch 3y agoI think that one element is that people like that are encouraging protest so they can sell more books. This is a strategy that was employed for real, as explained by this person who did it: https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolling-playbook-you-should-stop-playing-right-into-it/ https://observer.com/2017/02/i-helped-create-the-milo-trolli... They organised the event, and then organised a protest against the event.
- richrichie 3y ago[flagged]
- budududuroiu 3y ago[flagged]
- richrichie 3y ago[flagged]
- budududuroiu 3y ago[flagged]
- notgoliath 3y agoThe term "deplatforming attempt" lacks a clear definition, making it challenging to ascertain its exact meaning. It could encompass situations where there's dissent towards a speaker or concerns raised about their content. It might involve hecklers disrupting an event. However, reports of faculty or speakers being forcibly removed are often exaggerated. The concept of deplatforming is inflated to serve right-wing agendas. While the right champions free speech when it aligns with their views, they react defensively to dissenting opinions. For example, from the cited database: > As Clinton was speaking a heckler began shouting over her calling her a "war criminal." The school's dean had the heckler escorted out by security. A second heckler then began to shout over Clinton. Clinton paused her speech for a minute before resuming and completing her remarks. The incident involving hecklers disrupting Hillary Clinton's speech, while undoubtedly disruptive, it's an exaggeration to say this is a threat to free speech. In no way does this indicate a systematic suppression of free speech across the campus or broader community. It's an isolated incident rather than a widespread phenomenon. The dean's decision to have the hecklers escorted out by security demonstrates an attempt to address the disruption while allowing the speaker to continue. It's a measured response aimed at maintaining order rather than outright censorship. Despite the interruption, Clinton was able to resume her speech and complete her remarks. This indicates that the disruption, while disruptive, did not prevent the speaker from expressing her views or the audience from hearing them. The fact that hecklers were present and able to voice their dissenting opinions, albeit disruptively, suggests that there is at least some degree of diversity of views on campus. This diversity is a cornerstone of free speech, even when it manifests in challenging or uncomfortable ways.
- mouse_ 3y agoI agree. They're quoting 75 deplatforming attempts in the recent year; that is not very many. Is there a list of the things that were said to cause these attempts?
- Hnrobert42 3y agoThe article goes into some depth describing what constitutes a deplatforming event, including shouting down an in-progress event, rescinding an offer to speak, etc.
- mouse_ 3y agoNot 100 years ago, you'd be stoned for being a socialist, or being black in the wrong public setting. No one was going to protect you. Protected free speech is a myth, at best.
- hotdogscout 3y agoIn 1924? What? Socialism was extremely popular in academia during that period. The US had the Espionage Act but I cannot think anywhere the stoning of socialists would happen, let alone in academia. Stoning black people was never a thing as far as I know. Do you have any pointers?
- defrost 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre was 1921 and was a little more excessive than stoning. Lynching and posing with corpses for collectable postcards was also a thing of the times. Technically none of this is stoning but it's easy to imagine church gowing people that are willing to lynch black people were very likely to stone them also. Addendum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Summer Beginning on July 27, the Chicago race riot marked the greatest massacre of Red Summer. Chicago's beaches along Lake Michigan were segregated by custom. When Eugene Williams, a black youth, swam into an area on the South Side customarily used by whites, he was stoned and drowned. There's even some photos there from 1919 of people posing with stones in hand over people that they've stoned during the following riots.
- hotdogscout 3y agoThat's a far cry from the context he painted. Socialists were absolutely not under that kind of violent lynching level of abuse and it was quite the opposite in Academia. [Just to be clear, did not know about Red Summer and I concede that point.]
- defrost 3y agoI haven't looked at the treatment of socialists - I just addressed the stoning of blacks. IIRC union busting in the US was quite violent and sometimes involved the police and | or military aiding in charging and beating strikers with clubs and occasional deaths, frequent injuries. Again, not stoning but would count as violence towards socialists | communists | workers. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th... 1916 - 1925 seems to be a peak time of extreme violence toward unions.
- ecmascript 3y ago[flagged]
- SamPatt 3y agoWhat is the mindset of a college student who goes out of their way to shout down and prevent other people from speaking? This isn't rhetorical, I genuinely want to know why they think, in a place ostensibly dedicated to learning, it's acceptable (and seemingly even admirable) behavior.
- shrimp_emoji 3y agoThey think they're on the right side of history and are making the world a better place. Think Rust evangelists.
- ecmascript 3y agoTheir mindset is "my ideology is good and pure, thus anyone that have other opinions are evil and must be fought by any means necessary"
- cauch 3y agoI may be wrong, but from what I've seen, the majority of "prevention of other people from speaking" is done to people who are not really constructive and muddy the water. The article mention Milo Yiannopolous, for example. If you look at the person, it is quite clear that his contribution will not help learning anything, just spreading cliché and create polarisation that will both destroy intelligent debate and possibly push for unfair decisions that will have a real impact on people.
- putzdown 3y agoBut surely "not really constructive" and "muddy the water" implies a judgment—a pre-judgment—that the speech itself ought to be allowed to face. If he speaks and his ideas are "not really constructive" and "muddy the water", then the listeners can decide what to do with the ideas, both within their own minds and in conversation afterward. If he's not allowed to speak, then the people preventing the speech are enforcing their own opinions by violence. This behavior actually implies that his ideas are of more merit, because if the ideas were not really constructive or entirely lacked value, then the listeners could dismiss them thoughtfully. Or could it be that modern students don't have the ability to think carefully about or make good judgments about speech?
- andrewclunn 3y agoLate by like a decade. We’ve moved on from “how do we save / fix academia ?“ ro “how do we destroy academia?” Nobody thinks college even serves a role in protecting free speech anymore
- derelicta 3y agoGood. If it means deplateforming fascists and enemies of mankind, I'm all for it.
- snapcaster 3y agoI haven't been in University for over a decade now, but is this an actual real problem or just conservative provocateurs whining?
- ecmascript 3y ago> actual real problem or just conservative provocateurs whining Can't tell if this is a joke or not. If not, can't you see the irony in your own typing?
- woooooo 3y agoIt's a fair question, people are always trying to work the refs. It sounds like a real problem to me but I'm not in school either.
- snapcaster 3y agoI'm not really a political partisan, what I'm attempting to ask is if this is a real problem affecting genuine academics and others or if it's just people like Milo (grifter) being mad they can't run their grifts on campuses anymore
- ecmascript 3y agoSo only certain people should have free speech? Who determines who is a grifter? You? The angry mob? Your comments is anecdotal proof of what the article tries to convey.
- snapcaster 3y agoIf i was paying tuition or donating to a university I would for sure not want someone like Milo (come on man, just admit he's a grifter) on the campus
- ecmascript 3y agoThe point of free speech is to accept that other peoples opinions can be aired and shared. If you do not like him, do not attend his talk. That doesn't mean you have to prohibit everyone else from attending it too. I am not arguing the specific case of Milo, I think he may be a grifter but I honestly don't care. If people are trying to censor him I will stand by his side as I would with yours if you were being censored or "cancelled". Since someone paying tuition perhaps feels the same way of someone you like, no one would be allowed on the campus in the long run with the logic that grifters should be cancelled.
- cauch 3y agoThat's a strange metric to measure "free speech", as this metric would be very high in campus where free speech is strongly suppressed and where students are punished to complain about discourse that are dangerous for their own safety. After all, some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Sure, not all attempts are like that, there are abuses everywhere, in all direction. But 1) as long as there is no way to handle that aspect properly, this metric is just meaningless, 2) it cuts both ways: you cannot complain about complainers without exposing yourself to the same criticisms (and, I know "it's not the same because I'm just expressing my opinion, but that person who said 'can you, just, not?' want to steal my freedom and kill my family")
- hotdogscout 3y ago>some deplatforming attempts are themselves an exercise of free speech, where people who feel excluded from the platform are trying to rebalance the debate by asking that we stop focusing on debunked theories. Bizarre paradox where a group is disenfranchised enough in academia it needs to protest dissent yet it can consistently expel people from it for disagreeing.
- cauch 3y agoDo they "consistently expel people" though? The very very large majority of requests to deplatforming are not followed by deplatforming. There are _tons_ of university and _tons_ of people complaining. If the majority was reaching their goal, everyone would be deplatformed all the time. (there are plenty of deplatforming protests from the "left", but as much from the "right", just look at all the banning laws discussed in states like Florida, for example) Also, why are they organizing a protest if they are the ones deciding of everything in the first place?
- hotdogscout 3y agodifferent spaces have different harassment problems. Academia can have an extreme concentration of leftist dogmatism while political society can have a far right one. Both can happen at the same time in different communities.
- akskos 3y ago“There’s No Free Speech Crisis on Campus, So Please Shut Up About It.” the irony :D
- komali2 3y ago> A record 87 student-involved deplatforming attempts occurred in 2023, and 2024 is already on track to beat it — with 18 already recorded as of Feb. 29. Maybe I'm just a filthy anarchist but I really don't see the issue with this. Not only because communities should be allowed to tell people they don't like to fuck off, but also because the telling-to-fuck-off itself is a valid political action. A system like a University invites someone like Tomi Lahren or Josh Hammer to come speak, and often leverages violence to ensure that those people are allowed to come and speak - sometimes the state lends violence as well. Yeah, you can not go to the assembly hall that day, but ostensibly when you live on a campus and spend every day there studying and incorporating its culture into yourself, that becomes your community, and I think it's awesome that people reject someone else telling them what their community should put up with. I think it's sociologically healthy for the community to protest when people like that come to speak, and I think it's sociologically healthy for our species that people with ugly, hateful ideologies face as much resistance as possible, in many forms, all the time.
- hotdogscout 3y agoA victim of Maoist violence represents an "ugly hateful ideology"? This shunning bar has been moved from fascists for some years.
- woooooo 3y agoPlease tell us where the Maoist violence is occurring in 2024.
- hotdogscout 3y agoThis is a loaded question and I can't see how it's related. A victim of Maoist violence was deplatformed by socialist students. Do victims of socialist governments represent such an abhorrent ideology?
- woooooo 3y agoI'm honestly asking what you're talking about, the people mentioned in grandparent comment are american conservative personalities who as far as I know have never been publicly beaten, displayed in a cage and forced to self-criticize.
- bananapub 3y agoit is surreal how insanely the right wing of America frames this whole discussion, and how the notional "center" of American politics engages with it as if it is a good faith discussion of an important and consistently held principle. are they genuinely suggesting that everyone has a right to speak at any university? and that the university has to let them? and that the university has to provide security, and AV staff and pay for catering? really? who does it apply to anyway? anyone any student invites? any student club? do janitors get to invite people? how about professors? or is that you can't uninvite someone after they've received an invite? really? how thorough a background check should one do before extending an invite then? what if you find out they killed their wife on the way to the school? or is it that students shouldn't loudly complain about things they disagree with? really? if I'm a student at some uni, and some arseholes invite Nick Fuentes to come and give a talk about how he wants to gas the jews, I should just...not do anything? not complain to the administration? not go and tell him he's a cunt? really? and how much force - physical and administrative - should universities use to stop students exercising their free speech to complain and protest? fines? rubber bullets? actual bullets? what if the leader of Islamic Jihad wants to give a speech? Kim Jong-Un? how much is the university required to spend on security in those cases? infinity dollars?
- bloopernova 3y agoAh, the old tolerance of intolerance quandary. I don't tolerate people who want to remove rights from and do harm to others. Such as the right to bodily autonomy for women. The right to get married and receive its protections and benefits, like visiting your spouse in hospital. Or for people to express their gender identity safely and without right wingers directing hatred at them.
- major505 3y agoWhat you call bodily autonomy cant be easily defined like that. What you dont tolerate is not up to you to decide if they can be silenced. And look Im not telling I dont agree with you in many of this topics. ISt just that is easy to not listen and thing you are an iluminated person because you think the way you think.
- bloopernova 3y agoI know 2 women whose lives were ruined because they were raped during their teenage years by men 7+ years older who got them drunk. They were forced to not get an abortion, and instead had to raise the child as a single parent. These women were greatly impacted mentally and emotionally, deeply resented their children, and had to give up their dreams. These women weren't "sluts who deserved it", they were both 15 year old children and were isolated and groomed by a 22 year old and 28 year old man respectively. Neither man paid childcare expenses. Both women were rejected by society, one abandoned by their parents and family, the other kept at a distance because of religious shame. Both children were very troubled and unhappy throughout their childhood. One did OK in adulthood, but suffers from CPTSD. The other spiraled down into resentment and self-hatred, finally ending their life through heroin. One woman was fantastic at math, she found things like calculus fun, and wanted to write software, but was very poor and unable to pursue any education. The other wanted to be a dancer and model, but was plagued by illnesses and died before age 50. What about those womens' lives? Should I be able to force you to have organs implanted against your will, and then harvest those organs from you later, at great physical danger and harm to you?
- 3y ago
- major505 3y agoWhen you make speech comparable to violence, people still gets surprised when people reacts with more violence.