Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 26 2016, @10:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the beware-Roy-Rogers'-horse? dept.

Recent reporting and discussions here about "trolls" and the "culture of hate" (both con and pro) have repeatedly broached the topic of what appropriate limits to free expression might be.

Dean of Students John Ellison at the University of Chicago has taken a stand on the issue in a letter welcoming new students. He writes:

Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago's defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression. [...] Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn, without fear of censorship. Civility and mutual respect are vital to all of us, and freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others. You will find that we expect members of our community to be engaged in rigorous debate, discussion, and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.

Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so called 'trigger warnings,' we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.

While some have voiced support for Ellison's commitment to free expression (with Robby Soave at Reason encouraging readers to give the dean "a round of applause"), others are concerned about the implications of his message. L.V. Anderson at Slate agrees with much of the letter's content promoting "civility and mutual respect," but finds the last paragraph quoted above to be "weird" and unsettling:

By deriding "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" before students arrive on campus, the University of Chicago is inadvertently sending a message that certain students—the ones who have never been traumatized, and the ones who have historically felt welcome on college campuses (i.e., white men)—are more welcome than others, and that students who feel marginalized are unlikely to have their claims taken seriously. Adults who decry "the coddling of the American mind" will likely celebrate U. Chicago's preemptive strike against political correctness, but students who have experienced violence, LGBTQ students, and students of color likely will not.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:21AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:21AM (#393802) Journal

    (1) False equivalency between those two groups.

    What equivalency was made in the first place?

    (3) At what point does advocating for racial violence become a threat?

    Advocating for actual crimes would be a good starting point. "Threat" is too vague especially given the variety of paranoid groups and government agencies out there.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:35AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @01:35AM (#393814)

    > Advocating for actual crimes would be a good starting point.

    So thats a start point. What beyond "actual crimes" should qualify? Implied crimes? Intimidation?
    "Wouldn't it be great if all jews tripped, fell and bashed their heads on concrete?"
    "Some people think a black man having sex with a white woman deserves to beaten!"

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:07AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:07AM (#393830) Journal
      I'll go with the AC replier's comments [soylentnews.org] ont the definition of "threat".

      So thats a start point. What beyond "actual crimes" should qualify? Implied crimes? Intimidation?

      And really what is the point of your questions? I don't see the point of specifying this when we're not even close to having that as a problem. You give no real world examples. It's hypotheticals all the way.

      Real world hate groups, like for a classic example, the Westboro Baptist Church know what legal lines shouldn't be crossed and are pretty clever about jumping around just on the edge of those lines. But those lines are conservatively drawn. It's just not a problem that someone says "God hates fags" or protest at funerals. Sure, it's annoying that these louts exist, but so what? It's not a danger to us.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @02:45AM (#393841)

        So, if I read you right, you misspoke and that was not a starting point, it was an ending point?
        As long as they toe the legal line, that's all that matters?

        In your mind the paramount principle of a university is freedom of expression. All other principles must be subjugated to freedom of expression, correct?

        To take your example, it is more important that westboro be welcome on campus to preach that gay people are subhuman than it is for gay people to feel welcome on campus? It is more important that the fees of gay students go to pay for the facilities of westboro to tell them they are subhuman than it is for those students to have a say how their fees are spent?

        Just making sure you are a free speech absolutist. You are, right?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:36AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 27 2016, @03:36AM (#393847) Journal

          So, if I read you right, you misspoke and that was not a starting point, it was an ending point? As long as they toe the legal line, that's all that matters?

          The legal line goes beyond just inciting criminal activities, such as disturbing the peace, slander/libel, and falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

          To take your example, it is more important that westboro be welcome on campus to preach that gay people are subhuman than it is for gay people to feel welcome on campus? It is more important that the fees of gay students go to pay for the facilities of westboro to tell them they are subhuman than it is for those students to have a say how their fees are spent?

          What university facilities does the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) have a claim to again? Why does the WBC have a claim to student fees? Since when have students had a say over how a majority of their fees get spent rather than the university? And what again does students fees have to do with speech?

          Then there's the matter of "feeling welcome". Do we pass rules that require gays to feel welcome? Just how valuable is this feeling of feeling welcome? Will it stick around after a scary placard sign is revealed?

          There's a reason I'm a free speech absolutist. It's a concrete, enormous benefit particularly, for a college campus. In comparison, we have vague touchie feelie crap like "feeling welcome" or "WBC will steal my student fees!" Feeling welcome is an ephemeral emotion which can be frivolously taken away due to no fault of anyone except the person with the emotion.

          And who again, who can withstand the rigors of taking classes or of teaching them, is going to repeatedly invite the WBC to siphon up student fees? Maybe we should be concerned that the leprechauns are going to steal all the student's gold and put it at the end of the rainbow! (after they give an unwelcoming speech to gays, of course)

          Surely, you can with some thought come up with a less frivolous set of objections?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @04:06PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2016, @04:06PM (#393960)

            such as disturbing the peace

            Sounds like subjective garbage.

            slander/libel

            If you believe lies, that's your own fault.

            and falsely shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater.

            A standard invented by authoritarian, treacherous judges so that war protesters could be arrested. In reality, if you panic and hurt others, that was your own doing.

            There's a reason I'm a free speech absolutist.

            No, you're not. Not when you bring up that "fire in a crowded theater" example, which is necessarily anti-free speech. You're not punishing the speaker for physical harm that they inflicted upon others, because they did no such thing; other people did. You're punishing the speaker for the actions others took in response to the speaker's words, which is unjust. What's more, if they had said something else and it caused people to panic ("Hello!"), no court would punish them, which indicates that only certain speech isn't permitted.

            I have nothing against theater owners kicking out morons who shout random things, but the government should not be involved.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday August 27 2016, @04:20PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 27 2016, @04:20PM (#393967) Journal
              I guess we're out of rational arguments. Should I come back later?