Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday April 17 2017, @10:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the not-listening-to-all-sides dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

An editorial in the Wellesley College student newspaper that called for "shutting down" some forms of hateful rhetoric became the latest flashpoint in a contentious national debate over free speech and its limits on college campuses.

The editorial, published Wednesday in the Wellesley News, argues that the campus community will "not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible."

"Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech," the editorial states. "The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."

The editorial was widely criticized on social media as antithetical to the free exchange of ideas that is critical in a democracy and in liberal arts education. It comes as colleges across the country are wrestling with how to protect free speech in an era of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and even assaults on incendiary speakers invited to campuses.

Free speech for all. Unless they disagree with us on something...

Source: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/14/wellesley-college-student-newspaper-ignites-free-speech-debate/NHVrp8nNensXxCQHaPLHPJ/story.html


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by c0lo on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47PM (1 child)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 17 2017, @01:47PM (#495240) Journal

    They can't use public funding to do that because then it becomes First Amendment territory.

    Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.

    (public funding used for research does not count - they delivered on a contract. Neither public money used for students tuition - they delivered the agreed level of educational services to those publicly sponsored students)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 18 2017, @04:08AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday April 18 2017, @04:08AM (#495671) Journal

    Then it's up to you to show they accepted public funding to carry their day to day educational work.

    It'd have to be even more specific than that. For example, if they were funding hate speech tribunals with public funding, then that would qualify. And I don't have to show that they were doing that, but rather that it is an exception. After all, the original assertion was universal.

    Point is, the way I read, Wellesley college is a private institution, they can adopt whatever values they think suit them. They'll live and die (economically) by their choice.

    One merely needs to show an exception can exist.