SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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...
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @05:39PM (4 children)
One type of opinion is to hate someone. Then there is a type of speech called hate speech which is to say hateful things about the ones you hate.
The most easily recognized hate speech seems easy to prove.
All ${X_group} should die.
We should all get together and do ${violent-thing} to {$Y-group}
because they are ${evil | crazy | dishonest | dangerous | emacs-using | other-slur-goes-here }.
I could make up things about a group, and that may or not be hate speech. All vi-users wear their hair funny and tend to associate with those who use spaces instead of tabs.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday April 17 2017, @05:58PM (3 children)
It can be more subtle than that. I will use Blaire White's Children Transitioning = Child Abuse [youtube.com] video as an example.
She implies the Debie Jackson is a "SJW" what encouraged her daughter to transition. Critically, she cites Debi Jackson reading "That's Good Enough" [youtube.com] as proof.
However, it you actually watch the video, you learn that Blaire White is just making up a hateful narrative. At the very least, she refused to back down in the face of contrary evidence. That moves her video from "opinion" to "hate speech" against transgendered children (and their supporters).
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 17 2017, @06:26PM
That's a good example. I haven't watched, but I can imagine how it could indeed be hateful. And yes, that would be more subtle. But probably still recognizable. Having not watched it, I can also imagine that it could simply be someone with a different opinion that is insensitive to the feelings of others. Refusing to back down in the face of contrary evidence says something pretty strong though about it being hate driven. Especially since it seems like it isn't any of White's business.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
No, it still remains someone's opinions. "Hate speech" and "opinion" are not mutually exclusive, and "hate speech" should certainly not be against the law or even censored in places that claim to respect the principle of free speech.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Tuesday April 18 2017, @06:16PM
The implication is that it is not an opinion if you do not believe it to be true.
But yes, I was assuming that people change their opinions in the face of contrary evidence. The opposite is actually true: people tend to hold their opinions more strongly in the face of contrary evidence.