12 ms·

Turning College Into a No-Thought Zone

110 points by lsh123 12y ago

autokad 12y ago
I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is something else. obviously everything has limits being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet. thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.
- gambiting 12y ago
  I would equally defend their right to present their ideas, as I would defend your right to tell them to fuck off if they get in your face. You can't have freedom by limiting some else's freedom.
- chaqke 12y ago
  most campuses do not have narrow, unavoidable choke points as gathering places to distribute pamphlets/flyers. in fact, the popular locations are often intentionally chosen to be large plazas. you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".
- pyre 12y ago
  What happens when your university decides to cut your pay, and you want to picket outside of the work place? "Oh, you need to protest at this location 20 miles away where no one relevant will hear your message."
  - autokad 12y ago
    #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. #3 protesting / picketing, etc are quite different than soliciting (even if they are ideas). theres a line in there somewhere, and a place and a time for both former and later. they are not without limits, and all a FSZ is sets some of that. you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. see where you end up, heck, try it any government building. and thats 'public' property. universities are private property, and they do have the right to make decisions on how they see fit for creating the best environment for the campus. guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses.
    - pyre 12y ago
      > #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. I didn't assume that you were in a union, but I was trying to paint a picture that might be more relevant to you. Just because it's not directly relevant to you doesn't mean that the general idea isn't sound though. > #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. Someone following you around screaming at you is harassment, not protest / free-speech. We already laws against that. There's no need form a designated 'protest zone' where no one is allowed to protest / express non-status quo ideas outside of this 'zone.' At the same time, there is no 'right to not be annoyed' either. So there is that. > you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. You keep repeating "there is something in the middle," yet you assume the worst of me and use it as a strawman to proclaim victory over in the furtherance of 'proving' your point. > guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses. So... free speech is analogous to concealed weapons?
      - autokad 12y ago
        again, i said there was somethign in the middle and showed you the extreme that was wrong. i guess what you're not seeing is that YOU are in the extreme. I consider people preaching/soliciting harassment if it goes overboard, and thats what a FSZ would help circumvent. and yes, exactly yes. Free speech is exactly analogous with the right to bear arms, its why its in the bill of rights. No right in the bill of rights is less important than any of the others.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
suprgeek 12y ago
In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them. In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  You mean like the ACLU?
- ihnorton 12y ago
  Isn't that the ACLU? (and perhaps the ACLJ?) The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
- stcredzero 12y ago
  In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information. I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman. Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism." Hooray for judging books by their covers. If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- krisdol 12y ago
  Simple: you don't have that right. Consider a nation with a different set of laws, a greater degree of tolerance and open-mindedness, and/or home schooling.
- lhc- 12y ago
  I'm not sure what right you are concerned about. There is no "right to not be bothered by political nonsense", but there is a right to free speech for other students. Just as you can't argue that billboards and talkative salespeople should be outlawed, I'm not sure you can realistically argue that students who want to talk politics should not be allowed near you.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- slucidi 12y ago
  There is no right to not be confronted with difficult ideas.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
I think there is a real way forward on this issue. Not too long ago, Penn State abandoned its "free speech zone" policy in response to pressure. It was heartening to see the change greeted warmly by folks on both sides of the ideological rift: http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-comes-to-penn-state.html http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-come..., http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDailyTimesPSUFreeSpeechZones081706.htm http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDa.... A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus-free-speech-zones http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus.... An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/ http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/
- venomsnake 12y ago
  How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government hangouts)?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The Bill of Rights only applies to state actors, and receiving money from the government does not, by itself, enough. Essentially, you have to be working as an agent of the government. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor. Now, public universities are clearly state actors, and the First Amendment applies. For such organizations, free speech zones are based on the principle that certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public areas are Constitutional: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timepla.... It probably wouldn't have been considered a violation of the First Amendment, even in the founder's day, to charge someone with disturbing the peace for protesting in a residential area in the dead of night, even if they were standing on a public sidewalk. Universities justify their regulations on "time, place, and manner" grounds, but often stretch that category too far: http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manner-restrictions.[1] http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manne... It will be interesting to see further developments in this area. The Supreme Court recently struck down Massachusetts' law banning protests in a 35-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/sta.... [1] On the flip side there are other people who argue that university grounds are not public forums per se, but are rather private property that happens to be owned by the government. They argue that university campuses are more like a government office building than a public street in that regard. See: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=ilj http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar....
cryoshon 12y ago
The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of free speech, but it's here. Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- stcredzero 12y ago
  I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    People "drowning you out" is not a limit on your free speech, It only limits you right to be heard. A private website is like a private restaurant, you are free to speak, but If people don't like what you say the owner is free to demand that you leave.
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      This happens in places that are more like public squares. The drowning out is done not by website employees, but by other commenters. My comment is not about legality. It's about society. A society as I've described doesn't value free speech, it's just a bunch of short sighted individuals who only value their own speech. It values free speech in the same way a political party that wins elections to abolish democracy values democracy. Underlying free speech: Does the society value the interchange of ideas, or does everyone just value their own ideas?
uncoder0 12y ago
Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement
- davidp 12y ago
  "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [0] This case illustrates one of the permanent forces to guard against: Well-meaning people routinely make shortsighted decisions to address a problem, at the expense of things that are far more important. None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs. [0]: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-price-of-liberty.html http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-...
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo. > I thought this fight had already been won. Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1] > Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect. Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
spodek 12y ago
> “The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report. That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone. The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak. The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law. > “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?" Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    It sounds like you're deeply confused about the differences between public and private venues.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - jerf 12y ago
        Aggressively following someone around in public is harassment, regardless, which renders your strawman irrelevant. Please don't bother replying if you're just going to continue erecting strawman with such vigor. You are not contributing.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
dkhar 12y ago
For a point of contrast: I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups). We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme. Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it). Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs. [1] http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers-save-the-sluts-email-is-the-most-hideous-thing-ive-ever-read http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-email-william-and-mary_n_4688160.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-...
peckrob 12y ago
When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area." But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes. Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them. This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.
socrates1998 12y ago
College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the administrators decide to. Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that. Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say. The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it. No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.
personjerry 12y ago
This makes me glad I decided to go to Berkeley
NickWarner775 12y ago
There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dobbsbob 12y ago
I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever cause it wasn't the end of the world.
- kghose 12y ago
  It's terrible here. Just terrible.
retroencabulato 12y ago
Reminds me of the documentary: Berkeley in the 60s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0
m0llusk 12y ago
Not all thought is political thought. However bad this situation may be, it cannot result in a "no-thought zone" as asserted in the headline. Ignoring what is real in this way makes Bloomberg come across as primarily interested in advancing a conservative political agenda and only secondarily interested in reporting facts.

110 points by lsh123 12y ago

I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is something else. obviously everything has limits being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet. thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.

gambiting 12y ago
I would equally defend their right to present their ideas, as I would defend your right to tell them to fuck off if they get in your face. You can't have freedom by limiting some else's freedom.
chaqke 12y ago
most campuses do not have narrow, unavoidable choke points as gathering places to distribute pamphlets/flyers. in fact, the popular locations are often intentionally chosen to be large plazas. you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".
pyre 12y ago
What happens when your university decides to cut your pay, and you want to picket outside of the work place? "Oh, you need to protest at this location 20 miles away where no one relevant will hear your message."
- autokad 12y ago
  #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. #3 protesting / picketing, etc are quite different than soliciting (even if they are ideas). theres a line in there somewhere, and a place and a time for both former and later. they are not without limits, and all a FSZ is sets some of that. you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. see where you end up, heck, try it any government building. and thats 'public' property. universities are private property, and they do have the right to make decisions on how they see fit for creating the best environment for the campus. guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses.
  - pyre 12y ago
    > #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely. I didn't assume that you were in a union, but I was trying to paint a picture that might be more relevant to you. Just because it's not directly relevant to you doesn't mean that the general idea isn't sound though. > #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between. Someone following you around screaming at you is harassment, not protest / free-speech. We already laws against that. There's no need form a designated 'protest zone' where no one is allowed to protest / express non-status quo ideas outside of this 'zone.' At the same time, there is no 'right to not be annoyed' either. So there is that. > you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. You keep repeating "there is something in the middle," yet you assume the worst of me and use it as a strawman to proclaim victory over in the furtherance of 'proving' your point. > guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses. So... free speech is analogous to concealed weapons?
    - autokad 12y ago
      again, i said there was somethign in the middle and showed you the extreme that was wrong. i guess what you're not seeing is that YOU are in the extreme. I consider people preaching/soliciting harassment if it goes overboard, and thats what a FSZ would help circumvent. and yes, exactly yes. Free speech is exactly analogous with the right to bear arms, its why its in the bill of rights. No right in the bill of rights is less important than any of the others.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

suprgeek 12y ago

In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them. In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
You mean like the ACLU?
ihnorton 12y ago
Isn't that the ACLU? (and perhaps the ACLJ?) The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
stcredzero 12y ago
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information. I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman. Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism." Hooray for judging books by their covers. If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

krisdol 12y ago
Simple: you don't have that right. Consider a nation with a different set of laws, a greater degree of tolerance and open-mindedness, and/or home schooling.
lhc- 12y ago
I'm not sure what right you are concerned about. There is no "right to not be bothered by political nonsense", but there is a right to free speech for other students. Just as you can't argue that billboards and talkative salespeople should be outlawed, I'm not sure you can realistically argue that students who want to talk politics should not be allowed near you.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
slucidi 12y ago
There is no right to not be confronted with difficult ideas.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 12y ago

I think there is a real way forward on this issue. Not too long ago, Penn State abandoned its "free speech zone" policy in response to pressure. It was heartening to see the change greeted warmly by folks on both sides of the ideological rift: http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-comes-to-penn-state.html http://thorsteinveblen.blogspot.com/2006/08/free-speech-come..., http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDailyTimesPSUFreeSpeechZones081706.htm http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2206/CentreDa.... A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus-free-speech-zones http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus.... An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/ http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/

venomsnake 12y ago
How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government hangouts)?
- rayiner 12y ago
  The Bill of Rights only applies to state actors, and receiving money from the government does not, by itself, enough. Essentially, you have to be working as an agent of the government. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor. Now, public universities are clearly state actors, and the First Amendment applies. For such organizations, free speech zones are based on the principle that certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public areas are Constitutional: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timepla.... It probably wouldn't have been considered a violation of the First Amendment, even in the founder's day, to charge someone with disturbing the peace for protesting in a residential area in the dead of night, even if they were standing on a public sidewalk. Universities justify their regulations on "time, place, and manner" grounds, but often stretch that category too far: http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manner-restrictions.[1] http://www.thefire.org/misunderstanding-time-place-and-manne... It will be interesting to see further developments in this area. The Supreme Court recently struck down Massachusetts' law banning protests in a 35-foot "buffer zone" around abortion clinics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/states-cant-mandate-buffer-zones-around-abortion-clinics-high-court-says http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/26/325806464/sta.... [1] On the flip side there are other people who argue that university grounds are not public forums per se, but are rather private property that happens to be owned by the government. They argue that university campuses are more like a government office building than a public street in that regard. See: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1717&context=ilj http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar....

cryoshon 12y ago

The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of free speech, but it's here. Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
stcredzero 12y ago
I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  People "drowning you out" is not a limit on your free speech, It only limits you right to be heard. A private website is like a private restaurant, you are free to speak, but If people don't like what you say the owner is free to demand that you leave.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    This happens in places that are more like public squares. The drowning out is done not by website employees, but by other commenters. My comment is not about legality. It's about society. A society as I've described doesn't value free speech, it's just a bunch of short sighted individuals who only value their own speech. It values free speech in the same way a political party that wins elections to abolish democracy values democracy. Underlying free speech: Does the society value the interchange of ideas, or does everyone just value their own ideas?

uncoder0 12y ago

Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Speech_Movement

davidp 12y ago
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [0] This case illustrates one of the permanent forces to guard against: Well-meaning people routinely make shortsighted decisions to address a problem, at the expense of things that are far more important. None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs. [0]: http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-price-of-liberty.html http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/01/eternal-vigilance-is-...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo. > I thought this fight had already been won. Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1] > Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect. Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

spodek 12y ago

> “The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report. That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone. The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak. The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law. > “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?" Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  It sounds like you're deeply confused about the differences between public and private venues.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - jerf 12y ago
      Aggressively following someone around in public is harassment, regardless, which renders your strawman irrelevant. Please don't bother replying if you're just going to continue erecting strawman with such vigor. You are not contributing.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

dkhar 12y ago

For a point of contrast: I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups). We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme. Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it). Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs. [1] http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers-save-the-sluts-email-is-the-most-hideous-thing-ive-ever-read http://www.bustle.com/articles/14437-sigma-chi-frat-brothers... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-email-william-and-mary_n_4688160.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/fraternity-brother-...

peckrob 12y ago

When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area." But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes. Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them. This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.

socrates1998 12y ago

College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the administrators decide to. Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that. Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say. The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it. No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.

personjerry 12y ago

This makes me glad I decided to go to Berkeley

NickWarner775 12y ago

There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dobbsbob 12y ago

I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever cause it wasn't the end of the world.

kghose 12y ago
It's terrible here. Just terrible.

retroencabulato 12y ago

Reminds me of the documentary: Berkeley in the 60s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEySwyM2ZQ0

m0llusk 12y ago

Not all thought is political thought. However bad this situation may be, it cannot result in a "no-thought zone" as asserted in the headline. Ignoring what is real in this way makes Bloomberg come across as primarily interested in advancing a conservative political agenda and only secondarily interested in reporting facts.