Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
About 446,000 results (0.29 seconds)So, we see "Waaaaaa! Leftists hate free speech!" is today's whiny delusional talking point, being there are so many threads here on it now. The righties certainly are a reliable bunch of parrots.
What's the next one? Righties, you all better run and check. You wouldn't want to be the last cultist to repeat the latest dumb cult talking points. That would be so humiliating.
Search Results
Speech by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos shut down by ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../speech-by-conservative-speaker-milo-yiannopoulos...
May 25, 2016 - I think universities shouldn't do that, but instead assure the safety of ... by conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos shut down by protesters at ...
Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Ben Shapiro
dailysignal.com/.../campus-protesters-try-to-silence-conservative-speaker-demand-coll...
Feb 26, 2016 - Campus Protesters Try to Silence Conservative Speaker, Demand College ... Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro talks about diversity ...
Uproar After DePaul University Bans Conservative Speaker | Chicago ...
chicagotonight.wttw.com/.../uproar-after-depaul-university-bans-conservative-speaker
Aug 3, 2016 - Uproar After DePaul University Bans Conservative Speaker ... move comes after protesters disrupted an event in May featuring conservative ...
Colleges Across the Country Disinvite Commencement Speakers - FIRE
Nationwide: Colleges Across the Country Disinvite Commencement Speakers - FIRE
This year's commencement controversies included professors at Rutgers University joining together to demand that former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ...
Conservative pundit Ben Shapiro lectures to turbulent crowd on safe ...
https://badgerherald.com/.../conservative-pundit-ben-shapiro-lectures-to-turbulent-cro...
Nov 17, 2016 - Conservative public speaker Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief for DailyWire.com ... Protesters met atop Bascom Hill an hour before Shapiro's speech to .... “The biggest problem was because the university police were not able to ...
Public university cancels conservative speaker after liberal students ...
www.thecollegefix.com/post/26350/
Feb 23, 2016 - ... speech on campus by conservative firebrand Ben Shapiro after liberal students objected to his appearance and organized a counter-protest ...
'Campus fascists take over': University cancels conservative speaker
www.wnd.com/.../campus-fascists-take-over-university-cancels-conservative-speaker/
Feb 23, 2016 - University cancels conservative speaker ... pay security fees based on the potential reaction of students who are planning a counter-protest and ...
Public College Bans Conservative Speaker Shapiro After Liberals ...
www.foxbusiness.com/.../public-college-bans-conservative-speaker-shapiro-after-liberals...
Feb 23, 2016 - Conservatives and Liberals square off on college campuses. ... Public College Bans Conservative Speaker Shapiro After Liberals Protest ... California State University Los Angeles President William Covino abruptly canceled ...
DePaul University Bans Conservative Speaker Ben Shapiro | The ...
dailycaller.com/2016/08/.../depaul-university-bans-conservative-speaker-ben-shapiro/
Aug 1, 2016 - DePaul University BANS Conservative Speaker Ben Shapiro ... Like Yiannopoulos, Shapiro has frequently met with protest in his months-long ...
Rutger Students Melt Down After Listening to a Conservative Speaker ...
https://pjmedia.com/.../rutger-students-meltdown-after-listening-to-a-conservative-spe...
Feb 19, 2016 - ... Melt Down After Listening to a Conservative Speaker on Campus ... However, as far as we know, none of the protesting students were ...
Searches related to university protests conservative speaker
disinvited speakers
conservative speakers shouted down on college campuses
controversial speakers on college campuses
milo yiannopoulos depaul university
edward ward depaul
conservative speakers on college campuses
depaul university protest
ben shapiro college tour
It's sad that the bastions of anti-free speech hate are schools.
- The faculty and students of "liberal" universities melt down when anyone not hard left is going to speak at commencement or anything else and they shout down anyone who disagrees with them on campus. And administrators are supporting them.
- As any parent of non-liberal teenagers knows, our children are berated into silence on their views while they are endlessly subjected to leftist ideology ... from the teachers. Teachers routinely punish our kids with poor grades for even suggesting non-liberal ideas in their work.
- You can be pro-Muslim or other religions and speak to it, but if you're Christian or Jewish then STFU about your views, no one wants to hear it. By no one I mean the leftists.
Wasn't education where we were supposed to be able to express and explore all thought? So where are you, leftists? Why are you not only not being outraged at the limit of speech, but you cheer it on? Don't tell me you lied? Really, don't, you don't have to.
And why am I paying for this? It's no wonder the left grow up to throttle free speech, it's what you teach your children. And you wonder why Trump won ...
Having a meltdown is free speech, you idiot.
Students protesting is free speech.
The first amendment protections don't protect you from your own stupidity and the backlash from smarter people.
LIke me.
Xelor said:Regarding your OP and its protestations...Are you speaking of your own experiences, those of your kids, someone else's, the majority of students in schools of higher education? I don't know, but what I can't tell from what you wrote:
- I don't want to hear stupid views/statements/ideas. What's a stupid view? One that won't hold up under rigorous, sound scrutiny:
- ideas that that rest in part or totally on material factual inaccuracies;
- ideas that are contextually out of place;
- ideas that are weakly presented and that are not (near) universally (save by "quacks") understood and accepted by people who are experts on the topic
- I sometimes will tolerate stupid questions, but nearly never stupid statements.
Let me explain why I mentioned those things....The heart of your question is "why does the left not understand negative liberty as it applies to free speech/expression on college campuses?" What's unclear to me is just how to answer your question, and that's unclear because nothing in your post indicates just where you sit on the liberty continuum that ranges from 100% negative liberty to 100% positive liberty. In short, you don't provide enough information in your OP for readers to know what your philosophical position is. Your political position - clearly is an "us and them" one - is obvious, but it must stand on some principled philosophy, and what that is is unclear.
- You wrote only generalities and offered no specific supporting examples for any of your claims -- not even an attempt to support their existential pervasiveness:
- No specific mention of a purportedly liberal (not in the political sense) college whereat politically non-liberal teens (presumably freshmen or sophomores) routinely are "berated" into silence (Frankly, after watching the 2016 U.S. election cycle, I think if one can't handle some berating, one should not live in the U.S. Half of what Trump did, and continues to even now, is berate people and their ideas.)
- No example of a college whereat leftist ideology is presented near exclusively and conservative ideology is never or "uber" infrequently offered.
- No specific illustration of college kids being punished with poor grades, to say nothing of noting the type of assignment and class(s) you have in mind.
- No instance of Christians or Jews being genuinely squelched.
- No factual metrics about what share of colleges and universities offer no officially recognized clubs catering to whatever -- Jewishness, Christianity, conservatism, etc. -- and that will make your claim be anything more than just something anecdotal, if that even, that you are bitching about.
- No specific examples of college liberals in authority advocating for speech restrictions
The theoretical underpinnings are important for this topic because they are really well understood and expounded upon. The question traces to Aristotle and Cicero. It reappears in Hobbes' Leviathan. Mill directly handles it in "On Liberty." Berlin, Pettit, Rothbard, Pocock, Wood, Skinner, Oldfield, Viroli and others have ad nauseum covered the topic. Christman unites them and recasts the central questions about them and their usefulness, but in doing so merely offers a different cognitive conception, but not an existentially different model of liberty's dimensions and consequences.
That's the philosophical approach. How do negative and positive liberty theory manifest themselves where the salt hits the road in academic settings? Well, for Americans anyway, the answer is made clear in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. "Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns"....The First Amendment rights of students "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." Hazelwood informs the extent of discretion state school administrators may exercise. Period.
At private schools, there's not much to say. They mostly get to restrain or permit whatever suits them. To see what sorts of expression colleges curtail, take a look at student organizations found in various colleges and universities.
What exactly is your notion of free speech, and I mean "speech" in the broadest sense, expression? When it comes to squelching expression, consider this. Is not expression in collegiate settings encouraged or discouraged by the mere presence of a group organized for the purpose of a given form of expression? I certainly think so.
- Private and religious
- Brigham Young -- Mormon
BYU Hawaii -- I just put the photo in because the place is so gorgeous. Gotta give Mormons props on architecture. I sure hope they teach classes outdoors. How do you go inside the buildings when that's what it looks like outside?
- Southern Virginia University -- Mormon
- Liberty University -- Protestant (not Mormon)
- St. Olaf College -- Protestant (not Mormon) (My nod to "Rose")
- Santa Clara University -- Roman Catholic
- Georgetown University -- Roman Catholic
- Seton Hall University -- Roman Catholic
- Brandeis University -- Jewish
- Yeshiva University -- Jewish
- Pepperdine University -- Protestant (not Mormon)
- Public
- Private - Secular
To put that list together, I had to lookup faith-based universities. I had no trouble finding several sites that identify them. What I was shocked to find is that not one of them includes Georgetown University, Villanova, the several Loyolas, Gonzaga, Xavier, Marquette, St. Joseph's, Seton Hall, Fordham, U. of Portland, or even Notre Dame.
As I perused the student organizations at the schools above, it seems to me if there's any expression squelching going on, it happens more at religious schools than anywhere else. I realize the list is anecdotal, so maybe someone else wants to look at other schools.
Free speech at colleges and universities has at least three dimensions: liberty for student expressions in the abstract of their own views, freedom to express information/ideas that directly or indirectly pertain to the institution itself, and that for employees. I happen to think that any employer has the right to do what it needs to in order to control the messages disseminated about it; everyone ought be accorded the respect of telling their own story rather than having it be told by others. In a courtroom, it's different, but in terms of general public discourse, organizations, including schools, are right to restrict the disclosure of information that may defame them. You don't air your "dirty linen," do you? You expect your family and friends who know of it to keep it to themselves as well, right?
You repeatedly talk about "liberals" and "non-liberals," yet nearly every U.S. citizen is a liberal. (click the link) Here again, you've left unclear just who or what kind of people you mean. What is clear is that colleges and universities are the places you declare have abrogated student liberty. That notion is preposterous when considered in terms of America's colleges and universities because the point of being a collegian is to develop to the fullest one's "manifest destiny;" institutions of higher learning exist to enable individuals to form themselves so they can realize their utmost positive liberty.
Wrapping all the above together:
I can understand how applications of positive liberty theory can, uncurtailed, lead to authoritarianism. I also get that the U.S. doesn't provide an environment for authoritarian anything to get anywhere, but, sure, it can make small inroads here and there. I can't think of any situation where I wasn't free to express myself. I can think of situations where doing so may have been accompanied by undesirable (to me) consequences, but I'm not going to complain about that because I knew the consequences before I "spoke"/acted, so if I wanted to speak, I did and will again.
Freedom doesn't mean free from outcomes; it means free to choose, speak or act. A variety of outcomes may ensue. Readers who clicked on and read the content at this post's second link understand that, which is not to say the notion isn't rebuttable, but that if one wants to rebut, modify or refute it, fine, but I'm not likely to respond well to some half-baked BS (aka stupid) response/"tweet" that fails to apply what one will find at the noted link and others in this post.
As for my position on positive and negative liberty, well, I want both at differing times. Going about the mundanity of daily life, and other "cut and dried" circumstances, I want as much negative liberty as everyone else has. When I'm considering issues about what individuals may pursue in their lives, I advocate for positive liberty in as equal measures as possible for all. It depends on the situation. I can't just say one or the other notion of liberty is always right; I don't think either is, which is why when it comes to free speech on college campuses, without details, I have no basis for forming a judgment.
And that is why you got the inane and unexplained remark that commenced my participation in this thread. I'd have been more than happy to go straight to the negative and positive liberty philosophical discussion. Truth be told, when I saw your thread title, I was fully expecting that your OP would be tailored for exactly that type of discussion, albeit with a new twist on the ideas of the thinkers such as those whom I mentioned earlier. When I saw what you did post, I thought, "okay, I'll take the bait and reply with a classic taut that has as its natural intellectual response some sort of exposition directly addressing negative and positive notions of freedom."
That, as we see, is not how you responded. Thus here we are with me having to lay out all the various aspects that came to mind as a result of your OP, something I'd not have done were the OP focused, either rhetorically, abstractly, via reference to liberal philosophers' ideas or by detailed illustration.
An example that facilitates discussion of liberty:
Jack’s living in New York. He’d like go to California to visit family. Under a negative conception of liberty, Jack is free to go to California if nobody is actively preventing him from doing so. Thus his negative freedom would be violated if his neighbor locked Jack in the basement, or if someone stole his car.
But what if Jack’s so poor that he can’t afford a car or a plane ticket? What if Jack is sick and so not physically up to the trip? In these instances, no person prevents Jack from going to California, so Jack’s negative liberty remains intact. Yet he lacks the capacity to fulfill his desire and so, from a positive liberty standpoint, he is unfree.
Within the context of political philosophy - within the context of what the state is permitted to do and what it ought to do - a government protects Jack’s negative liberty by discouraging the neighbor from locking Jack up and likewise the thief from stealing Jack’s car. If dissuasion is ineffective, the state may punish the perpetrators, thus (we hope) reducing the likelihood of other, similar liberties violations. In addition to - or instead of - punishing violations, the state might force the violator to compensate Jack, striving to make him whole.
On the other hand, a state tasked with directly promoting Jack’s positive liberty might tax its citizens in order to buy Jack the car he couldn’t otherwise afford. Or it might use that revenue to pay for the medical care Jack needs to get back on his feet so he can travel. A positive liberty focused state would take active steps to assure Jack isn’t just free to pursue his desires, but also has the resources to attain them.
To close, I'll simply point out that for all the recrimination about liberals, Democrats, being socialists, the fact is that socialists and Marxists do not distinguish between negative and positive liberty. Recall what I said about stupid comments/statements. The instant I see a self-professed conservative, in a discussion that boils down to differences over ideas of positive and negative liberty, equate liberalism with socialism/Marxism, I know immediately they don't know what they are talking about because people in those two camps don't distinguish as Democrats, Republicans, Anarchists and Libertarians do.
Summary of Hazelwood:
US Supreme Court decisions define the scope of the First Amendment in public school settings. Public schools must have a valid basis to limit free speech rights, and can't act on an undifferentiated fear or apprehension. Schools can:
Schools can also limit speech if it's in the form of a threat. Not just any expression is a threat, though. Threats must:
- Limit speech based on a reasonable expectation that it will cause a material and substantial disruption of school activities or invade the rights of others
- Prohibit obscene or vulgar language
- Be perceived as a threat by others
- Be clear and convincing, causing others to believe it will be carried out
- Cause other students to fear for their safety
Your first response to the point on shutting down opponents views, your opponents views are stupid. You can't spin your way out of that
Assuming that is true - and as we are talking about young conservatives, I shall take it to be so - there is a very fine reason for it. It is almost certainly an effort to inculcate those young geysers of sophistry with the notion that it’s better they keep mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt. It is a school, after all.
Well, the fact is that some of them are, and the ones that are don't need to be heard outside of an explicitly, rather than tangentially, didactic setting.
Yes, your statement was certainly patronizing. When someone other than leftists speak, you want it to not be "stupid." Which of course is not possible since we've already established they aren't a liberal. You know, the inherent truth of liberalism and all
I assure you that what I want in terms of soundness in the ideas others express has no ideological, temporal or topical limits.
Not ideological? You're a complete and utter Democrat bitch. What the fuck are you talking about?
Your first response to the point on shutting down opponents views, your opponents views are stupid. You can't spin your way out of that
Well, the fact is that some of them are, and the ones that are don't need to be heard outside of an explicitly, rather than tangentially, didactic setting.
Yes, your statement was certainly patronizing. When someone other than leftists speak, you want it to not be "stupid." Which of course is not possible since we've already established they aren't a liberal. You know, the inherent truth of liberalism and all
I assure you that what I want in terms of soundness in the ideas others express has no ideological, temporal or topical limits.
Not ideological? You're a complete and utter Democrat bitch. What the fuck are you talking about?
I was quite clear about what I am talking. I see now that clarity isn't what you need.
