SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-the-First-Amendment-isn't-clear-enough dept.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.
It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.
In other cases — as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week — the event is called off.
Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.
The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.
The author of the model bill argues that the neutrality stipulation is necessary for public institutions funded by tax dollars, "who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with." In response to the legislation, a Democratic North Carolina legislator criticized the bill as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right." The story also mentions that "Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus," but the bill author responds that hate speech is "not well-defined in the law."
Although the proposed legislation varies by state, the model bill linked above recommends a number of initiatives, from clear campus policies on protecting free speech to severe disciplinary actions for students who interfere with that right. Perhaps the strongest section of the model bill would require that "Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled" (Section 1.9).
In other free speech news, USA Today reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into an "obscene" joke by Stephen Colbert concerning Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which caused a Twitter firestorm and led to a trending #FireColbert hashtag. While the joke was sexually explicit, the offensive word was bleeped in broadcast. CNN has argued that the FCC is merely doing its job in investigating "a number" of complaints, but Slate notes the high legal threshold that would be necessary for a fine in this case, given the late hour of the broadcast and the three-pronged test for obscenity.
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:46PM (14 children)
The problem with this is the false equivalency. And the dog-whistles. And the hate speech. There are not always two sides to everything, and if the two sides are crazy and sane, they are not really two sides. Debating Ken Ham, as Bill Nye found out, really does nothing. Debating Alex Jones makes no sense, unless you are a large bowl of chili. As Oliver pointed out, a one on one debate over climate change is silly, when it should be a 97-to-3 debate. All these are desparate attempts to gain intellectual legitimacy for positions that are unable to claim any on their own. And being shut down is really the best outcome, since they can claim that their views are legitimate, since they have not been heard! (When in reality, they have been, and no one wants to give them legitimacy, except for the fellow batship crazies.)
So this is why Bernie supported Ann "the Witch" Counter speaking at Berzerkly, he said, "What are you afraid of, her ideas?" Hard to be afraid of something that does not exist. But both by giving it a platform to speak from, and denying it a platform we grant legitimacy to what is really just marketing.
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @12:52AM (8 children)
Pffft... If you need overwhelming representation to beat your opponent in a debate, you've already lost. Nye just sucks at debating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:42AM (7 children)
Ok, who was the fool who upmodded TMBs obvious trolling??
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @10:17AM (6 children)
That's not trolling, just the truth. Now if I'd said Nye still wouldn't have won the debate if he were the only one with a mic, that could have been considered trolling. Learn the difference between things you don't want to hear and trolling, please.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @06:46PM (5 children)
That's not trolling, just the truth.
Ah, the old "it's not trolling if it's true" troll! My, my, Lesser than a Condor, you are falling down on your game if hackneyed trolls like this are all you are capable of!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @07:07PM (4 children)
Right, it wasn't a troll. You of all people should recognize trolling.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @07:34PM (3 children)
Followed by the "I'm not trolling" troll? You really know how to double down, Zzub! But really we should be more professional with the trolling on SoylentNews, don't you think?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 08 2017, @10:07PM (2 children)
Okay, just for you then. Hillary didn't just cover up Bill's sexual assaults and intimidate the victims, she was the one doing the assaulting while Bill watched and jerked off.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 09 2017, @08:53AM (1 child)
No, no no! Buzztard! This is a 14 year-old's idea of what trolling is! Seriously dude, do you even know what it is we do? Now let me clue you in on something not many people know yet, that Donald the Trump knew before he appointed Flynn that Jared and Bannon were both Soviet deep-sleeper agents, and that all three of them were aware that Donald was born in Jamaica, and so not legally able to be president. Of course, they hushed it up, because they wanted to keep their new snazzy jobs! Bzinga! Google it, bro!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 09 2017, @10:25AM
Now now, there's no need to be intimidated by Cheeto Jesus's trolling skillz. Did you hear about his newest executive order to replace Washington with Trollface on the one dollar bill?
Side note, that's part of why I dislike Republicans somewhat less than Democrats. With Republicans just want you to give them your dollar bills in exchange for shiny beads. Democrats want to take them away and replace them with an EBT card that gets filled based inversely on your Privilege Rating.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:15AM (1 child)
anybody who says "hate speech" is a fucking douche bag who deserves a proper beating.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @02:56AM
Anyone who says that about hate speech is in fact engaging in hate speech, and thus not capable of rational debate, or even civilized conversation, and probably not being out in public. Beating? From such a pathetic specimen as yourself? Please! Just because it is hate speech does not mean I am afraid, it just means that you have authorized the use of violence, legal or in self-defense, against your sorry excuse for an existence. I usually start by subtly increasing the victim's body weight. I then remove hair from the scalp, one at a time. Finally, I increase blood pressure by exposure to right-wing outrage media, and blocking nut-jobs from speaking on College campuses. And then, you will die. May take a while, but once you engage in hate speech, it is certain you will die. Kind of like the famous Martial Arts move, the "Dim Mak", The "Death Touch" from The Men Who Stare at Goats (2009). Sorry, AC, you touched it!
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @06:07PM (2 children)
.... false equivalency. ... if the two sides are crazy and sane ...
Generally speaking progressivism is a religious belief and right wing thought tends to be more rational and based on historical observation of what works sustainably vs what doesn't. So its not that one side is crazy and one is sane, its more like one side is rational and the other is based on belief and wishes and what would be holier. There are false equivalency issues such that rational people can't reason true believers into a more sensible worldview because they didn't get all messed up in a rational thinking manner to begin with. They didn't think their way there, so they aren't going to think their way back out. Meanwhile going the other direction the religious true believers can't understand why holiness signalling doesn't convert the rational, ignoring 4000 years of human history that religion can only be spread by the womb or the sword. In fact its considered a documented miracle in holy texts when someone converts for any reason NOT because mommie told him or point of sword. So the religious progressives are at the point now in 2017 of waving swords around in their holy anti-white anti-civilization religious crusade. Historically there's not too many options for permanently dealing with religious extremists... convert them at the point of a bigger sword, genocide, intimidate, that's about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @06:31PM (1 child)
The crazy is strong in this one. VLM, so crazy he thinks he's broke on through to the other side and become all rational with alternative facts!
ignoring 4000 years of human history that religion can only be spread by the womb or the sword.
What a strangely ignorant thing to say! Hey! Do you remember the day the Christians stormed Rome and overthrew the Empire? Of course you don't. Have you ever heard of Buddhism? No? No swords, well, not unit Myanmar, and they are not really aiming at conversion, anyway.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @07:06PM
Do you remember the day the Christians stormed Rome and overthrew the Empire?
Oh the sly humor of Aristarchus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge [wikipedia.org]
or somewhat more artistically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Milvian_Bridge_(Giulio_Romano) [wikipedia.org]