First Amendment and US universities

[chijohnaok]

Nice to know freedom speech is now just about completely dead in the US.

We're not there quite yet.
For now it's more common on university campuses, not so common yet in the "real world".

Now that may be different in 15-20 years when these "snowflakes" have entered the job force, government, and risen to positions of power.

 

[JollyRoger]

There are quite a few restrictions on freedom of speech in the typical American workplace. Always have been.

 

[Berzerker]

Ah, but how do we know that "liberty" in the 14th has its literal meaning of "the power to do as I please" and not its equally literal meaning of "the state of not being imprisoned"? Because both are literal meanings. Deciding that it MUST be one and not the other...that's interpretation.

Whats the difference?

(And sorry, but no. Being denied access to a specific location is not imprisonment under the literal OR legal definition, both of which rely on being made to *STAY* against your will in a specific limited location. Which is kind of the opposite of being forced to *leave* a specific limited location.)

He was physically restrained and removed, that is imprisonment. The fact he was confined only long enough to be removed doesn't matter.

No. No more than I think freedom of speech (an example I note you're ignoring) is a literal freedom given to sound produced by human mouths.

What example am I ignoring?

It is a freedom granted to individuals. What that freedom entail, however, would be, at a literal reading, the right to *print* things (and, probably, the right to distribute what you print as the right to print something is meaningless otherwise). Because ultimately that's what the press, literally, refers to: the printing press.

Thats right, the freedom belongs to people, not a machine.

It's also worth noting that at the time of the founders, using "the press" to mean "the news writers" was...just not part of the english language yet, or was just beginning to be used. In dictionaries of the era, "press" is NOT defined to mean reporters and journalists. In fact, it's very arguable - that the ACTUAL meaning, to the framers, of Freedom of the press is (essentially) the freedom to print and distribute writings. Which, given the importance of pamphlets and book-printers in the revolutionary era, and the efforts to suppress and control printing presses exercised by European monarchs, make a great deal of sense.

I imagine those books contained images too, will you require literalists to believe photos are not protected because they were invented later? What if he was there drawing a picture of the scene instead of taking photos?

There's no question that, under current constitutional interpretation, the amendments *do* apply to States. That's a good interpretation, and it's how the constitution should work (as I already stated in post #201: my point is that literalism is completely horrible)

That good interpretation comes from the literal text of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Zkribbler]

How do you do that though when one side or the other is unwilling to listen to what those with an opposing view may have to say?

That isn't what they're saying at all. What they're saying is that the far-right's claim is not well taken that they have a First Amendment right to hurl racial and religious epithets, to advocate using violence against minorities, and to use other forms of hate speech.

Nice to know freedom speech is now just about completely dead in the US.

 

[Zkribbler]

So it's come to this: The police are now urging students to report thoughtcrimes. [/URL]

You need to look up the definition of "thoughtcrimes."

 

[chijohnaok]

You need to look up the definition of "thoughtcrimes."

Definition from Wikipedia :

Thoughtcrime

A thoughtcrime is an occurrence or instance of controversial or socially unacceptable thoughts.

 

[chijohnaok]

That isn't what they're saying at all. What they're saying is that the far-right's claim is not well taken that they have a First Amendment right to hurl racial and religious epithets, to advocate using violence against minorities, and to use other forms of hate speech.

How many "far right" people make those claims?
A few crackpots are exactly that: a few crackpots.

Hurling racial and religious epithets (words) while despicable, is generally not a crime. If simply hurling a racial epithet were a crime, then any number of musicians would be guilty of doing that, no?

Advocating violence against someone, minority or otherwise, may (or may not be) a crime (I'm not an attorney, don't pretend to be one, and am not familiar with all the local, state and federal laws in the United States). Conspiracy to commit violence or actually committing violence against someone (minority or otherwise) more than likely is a crime.

Hate speech: Similar answer to my response on epithets.


Back to my comment that you responded to:

How do you do that though when one side or the other is unwilling to listen to what those with an opposing view may have to say?

I can show you examples of this happening.

 

[Berzerker]

I am speaking of as text-based interpretation of the Constitution. Under that, the only way to violate the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment is for Congress creating a law. Now perhaps a state law, but that is another matter. She may have violated a Federal law, but again, under a text-based analysis of the Constitution, the Federal government only has the ability to create a handful of criminal laws and assault and battery is not one of the such crimes authorized.

You're misreading the text, a congressional law is not the only way to violate freedom of the press - the amendment merely prohibits Congress from making laws that do so. During the civil war Lincoln and his generals made a habit of punishing the purveyors of bad press and cops are occasionally guilty of violating the 1st Amendment rights of reporters.

 

[JohnRM]

An individual can be charged with violating the civil rights of another person. It happens quite frequently.

 

[BvBPL]

I am speaking of as text-based interpretation of the Constitution.

It's those damn activist judges. Always trying to preserve our civil rights. Meddling kids!

 

[Zkribbler]

Definition from Wikipedia :

touche.

I was thinking of the original definition, as used in 1984. I failed to consider that English is a malleable language, and that the definition of thoughtcrime has expanded to include the one used by you.

 

[Zkribbler]

An individual can be charged with violating the civil rights of another person. It happens quite frequently.

Only when the individual is action "under color of law," e.g. a county sheriff who is also a member off the KKK, leading mob that lynches blacks; the four officers who beat up Rodney King.

 

[Zkribbler]

How many "far right" people make those claims?
A few crackpots are exactly that: a few crackpots.

A few crackpots like Ian Paris, whose wackadoodle blog that you quoted: "The University of Missouri police department sent an email urging students to report offensive or hurtful speech – not because it is illegal – but so the Office of Student Conduct could take disciplinary action against these students."

This is from Wikipedia's article on hate speech: "According to the ritual model of communication, racist expressions allow minorities to be categorized with negative attributes tied to them, and are directly harmful to them. Matsuda et al. (1993)[15] found that racist speech could cause in the recipient of the message direct physical and emotional changes. The repeated use of such expressions cause and reinforce the subordination of these minorities. This has been enough to sway the court in previous cases such as Brown v. Board of Education in USA, in which the Court stated that segregation "generates a feeling of inferiority as to their [African Americans’] status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone." The idea that hate speech is a mechanism of subordination is supported by scholarly evidence.[16]"

This whole "free speech on campus" crusade is about the desire of far-right students to freely engage in hate speech.

 

[BvBPL]

This whole "free speech on campus" crusade is about the desire of far-right students to freely engage in hate speech.

That's not totally true. The admonition to report on the speech of others cited above targets microaggressions which are unintentionally hurtful statements. Hate speech is made with the intent to harm another, microaggressions lack that intent. Microaggressions are a incredibly vague and broad category. That vagary, combined with the lack of intent, makes the notion that a school can and should discipline a student committing a microaggression worrisome.

 

[Zkribbler]

That's not totally true. The admonition to report on the speech of others cited above targets microaggressions which are unintentionally hurtful statements. Hate speech is made with the intent to harm another, microaggressions lack that intent. Microaggressions are a incredibly vague and broad category. That vagary, combined with the lack of intent, makes the notion that a school can and should discipline a student committing a microaggression worrisome.

Thank you. Allow me to rephrase:

This whole "free speech on campus" crusade is about the desire of far-right students to freely engage in hate speech and/or to engage in, without fear of correction or admonition, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership.

BTW: I fall into this latter group. One of my former co-workers pulled me aside and asked me to stop using "bastard" as a curse word. He was illegitimate and, while he was growing up, whenever his mother got angry with him, she'd call him that word. He found it very hurtful. Not only did I stop using, I'm wondering how it ever got to be a curse word meaning a cruel and unprincipled person. All the "bastards" I've known have been very kind and caring people.

 

[chijohnaok]

Thank you. Allow me to rephrase:

This whole "free speech on campus" crusade is about the desire of far-right students to freely engage in hate speech and/or to engage in, without fear of correction or admonition, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership.

BTW: I fall into this latter group. One of my former co-workers pulled me aside and asked me to stop using "bastard" as a curse word. He was illegitimate and, while he was growing up, whenever his mother got angry with him, she'd call him that word. He found it very hurtful. Not only did I stop using, I'm wondering how it ever got to be a curse word meaning a cruel and unprincipled person. All the "bastards" I've known have been very kind and caring people.

So is the "free speech on campus" crusade then different from the "Free Speech Movement" ?

The Free Speech Movement (FSM) was a student protest which took place during the 1964–65 academic year on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley under the informal leadership of students Mario Savio,[1] Jack Weinberg, Michael Rossman, Brian Turner, Bettina Aptheker, Steve Weissman, Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, and others. In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students' right to free speech and academic freedom.

Who knew that Jack Weinberg, the man that coined the saying "Don't trust anyone over 30" was a far right wing student from the 1960's spouting hate speech?

Who knew that Bettina Fay Aptheker, an American political activist, feminist, professor and author. A former member of the Communist Party USA like her parents, she was active in civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s and 1970s, and has worked in developing feminist studies since the late 1970s, was a far right wing student spouting hate speech?

Who knew that Jackie Goldberg, a major player in the Free Speech Movement while on campus, was a right wing student spouting hate speech?

Students on campsuses across the US have been calling for "free speech" for more than 50 years.

 

[Zkribbler]

Students on campsuses across the US have been calling for "free speech" for more than 50 years.

True dat ... but not for the purpose of denigrating minorities.

 

[BvBPL]

Thanks, Obama.


Link to video.

 

[chijohnaok]

Another troubling incident on a university campus:

The Protest…

Protesters clad in white sheets and carrying Confederate flags gathered in front of JD Williams Library at the University of Mississippi (“Ole Miss”), forming a crowd roughly one hundred fifty strong. Ostensibly there to denounce the removal of the Confederate flag from a Civil War memorial, the group collective began to sing Dixie. Not content to merely demonstrate there for the night, the band descended from their high-water mark to march into the library itself.

“F*** you, you filthy black f***s!” “F*** you and your protests!” “F*** you, you worthless n*****s!”

These shouted epithets were the first indication that many students had of the coming storm. The sign-wielding, obscenity-shouting protesters proceeded through the usually quiet backwaters of the library. They surged first through first-floor, then up the stairs to the normally undisturbed floors of the building, before coming back down to the ground floor.

Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march. They confronted students who bore Black Lives Matter t-shirts and “gangsta hats”. The flood of demonstrators self-consciously overstepped every boundary, opening the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.

Students who refused to listen were shouted down. “Stand the f*** up!” “You filthy black piece of s***!” Men and women alike were pushed and shoved by the group. “If we can’t have it, shut it down!” they cried. Another woman was pinned to a wall by protesters who unleashed their insults, shouting “filthy black b****!” in her face.

In the immediate aftermath of the demonstration, social media was abuzz with comments condemning the protesters for their tactics. Many students who had experienced the protests took advantage of YikYak’s anonymity to air their grievances. Some students reached out to The Daily Mississippian to provide additional details.

An anonymous ‘19 explained that while working on a group project in a private study room, his UGA came in and expressed his virulent disappointment that the he was not joining in the protest. The UGA then demanded that he and the other members of his group project to leave the room and join in.

Another ‘19 recalled clapping after a protester said, “let’s give a round of applause for the beautiful white people who were here for this protest.” The protester then turned on her saying, “for all of you that are sitting down and applauding right now, ‘we don’t care about you’.”

Of course, the protesters themselves have also spoken out in the aftermath of their march. One woman, identifying herself as one of the protesters in a lengthy post to Facebook, wrote, “we raised hell, we caused discomfort, and we made our voices heard all throughout this campus in the name of standing up for white people across the country.”

This incident is disturbing. The student's behavior is inappropriate.

There is one thing though.
This incident didn't occur at Ole Miss. It occurred at Dartmouth.
And some of the other details are different from what was stated above.

For details on what actually happened, please go the following two links:
http://www.dartreview.com/eyes-wide-open-at-the-protest/

and

http://thetab.com/us/dartmouth/2015...-last-nights-protest-until-it-turned-ugly-978

The incident is still disturbing and the student's behavior is still inappropriate.

Aren't libraries on university campuses a place that many students go to to research things for classes, papers, and to study?
Shouldn't that be a 'safe place" for them to do that, without 150 protesters coming in?

 

[Berzerker]

wow, are these people supposed to make me feel proud of being "white"?