Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:06PM   Printer-friendly
from the when-the-First-Amendment-isn't-clear-enough dept.

NPR reports:

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.


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: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @01:51AM (7 children)

    by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday May 08 2017, @01:51AM (#506121) Journal

    I tried to keep my own perspectives out of my submission here, but I have some real concerns about the language of this "model bill." I'm surprised at some of the language, because at times it's quite vague -- and different readings could make some sections sound so weak as to wonder why they're necessary or so strong as to be concerned about whether the intent is to suppress those who'd like to protest other speech. There's an extended explanation of all the sections of the proposed legal language, but in many cases the actual legal language is not clear enough to ensure that it would actually do what the report's explanation claims it wants to do.

    For example, Section 1.5: "That the campuses of the institution are open to any speaker whom students, student groups, or members of the faculty have invited." This seems to have been included to prevent "disinvitations" by administration. Whether or not one agrees with the idea that an administration should have some say on who comes to its campus, the intention of this section and what it literally and legally says are potentially very different things. On its face, this section basically says that any random student can invite a speaker to campus, and then the "campuses" MUST be "open to" that speaker. What does that mean? Since the next section talks about "public areas of campuses" being open to ANY speaker, one must assume that the previous section essentially allows any student to give any speaker free range over the private areas of a campus as well. Is that really a good idea? (A previous section allows administration to intervene to enforce "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions": but read broadly, that basically allows a college administration to do what it already does, so then what does the bill even do?)

    Beyond the vagueness...

    I've repeatedly said here in other stories that I am strongly against any use of violence against speech, and generally speaking I believe dialogue of various forms is more productive than summarily attempting to "shut down" opposing views. Nevertheless, protesting the presence of a provocative speaker is ALSO "free expression" of a different kind, and that needs to be allowed within reason too. From that perspective, it's difficult to parse some of the proposed legal measures, since a bill requiring the legislature to intervene and make sure colleges "shut down" those who would protest other speech can easily also become censorship if applied in an excessively draconian fashion.

    The one section I quoted in the summary is a case in point: "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." Exactly what does it mean to be "found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others"? One of the proponents of these bills is on record basically saying simple hecklers are evil, more or less. So, if you heckle a speaker twice (even in a very limited fashion), you MUST be suspended from college for a minimum of a year? Is that what this is saying? I don't generally agree with heckling speakers, but why exactly should state legislatures be stepping in and forcing such penalties? And what constitutes "heckling," by the way? If it's an evening session indoors with an invited speaker, that's quite different from an outdoor casual demonstration where crowds are spontaneously coming and going. If a student gets into a heated argument with someone at the podium during a "speech" there, must they be summarily expelled? If the person at the podium was trying to speak, isn't that "infringing the expressive rights of others" by disrupting their speech? But if that's okay, then why is it unacceptable for a programmed indoor talk?

    The answer, to me, is that a lot of these things are not really questions of "free expression" on 1st amendment grounds as much as they are questions of social conventions, decorum, and expectations of polite society. We might expect warring factions shouting at each other in the quad, but we find it less acceptable when a warring faction shows up and shouts down an invited speaker at a formal indoor program. But is that the place of legislators to intervene and require 1-year suspensions or expulsions to keep up communal decorum? Shouldn't there be some room for college administration to determine appropriate punishments, given the expectations of behavior at a particular time or place or event?

    To put it more simply, the First Amendment prohibits the government from placing restrictions on free expression. The First Amendment does not require (or even suggest) that the government "police" the public in ensuring all are granted free expression (as any true "libertarian," which is the political source of this proposal, should understand) under the arbitrary terms we make up. If the legislators find that an institution itself is arbitrarily suppressing some speech while promoting other speech, that may be a concern (particularly for public institutions). And some of the bill addresses those issues on an institutional basis. But it's a very different thing to dictate specific punishments for individuals who are expressing themselves against other speech.

    Of course, a lot of this depends on how exactly you interpret the proposed text. But isn't that the problem? Just like one person's vulgarity is another's reasonable "free expression," the phrase "infringing the expressive rights of others" could mean a lot of different things depending on who is judging it. If I shout down a speaker, am I "infringing" expressive rights, but if I'm part of a the student group that invited the speakers and decide the day before that we actually don't want speaker X on the program anymore because we'd prefer speaker Y, am I not "infringing" expressive rights of speaker X just as effectively by "shutting down" their opportunity to speak? Am I no longer allowed to choose who is on the program once I've "invited" someone?

    My example here may seem silly, but legislation proposed here doesn't seem to offer a lot of clarity on whether such silly claims have merit.

    I'm all for promoting free speech on campus and allowing controversial speakers to present views and discuss things that some may find objectionable. But I'm really concerned about how such legislation could be used, especially if it's selectively enforced. It seems to raise at least as many issues as it tries to solve.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:47AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:47AM (#506149)

    Thank you for the adult analysis. I had a feeling we'd see the conservative crowd come out swinging in favor of this, yet another notch on the belt for irony. "Too much regulation!! Government bad!?!" *pssst, it might work in our favor here* "MOAR REGULATION!"

    So easily led to think they are defending freedom of speech yet so little ability for critical analysis. Ok, I shouldn't say "so little ability" it is more that their emotions have a death grip on their brain.

  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday May 08 2017, @04:58AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Monday May 08 2017, @04:58AM (#506187) Journal

    Thanks for the submission, Anthanasius, and there is no shame in commenting in a thread you have submitted. In fact, it seems to be necessary of late, when all the Nattering Nabobs of Negativism come out to have their say. So this is the "Conservatives, since they are the Majority in Government, must be allowed to speak on University campuses" bill? Which could change. President Tom Cruise! Scientology Free Speech Guarantee Law! Rmoney becomes President! The "Mormonism is just as good as any other Religion and/or science- bill" passes both Houses! You are right on point.
          Of course, as mentioned before, this is the problem with conservatives. They are conservatives because of a deficit of thought, which causes them to fall back upon the "tried and true" ways of the past. Put it also leads them to short run solutions that bite them in the behind. FDR, four terms in the White House! Hurrah! Republicans? Term limit! Reagan, four more years is now illegal. Did not see that coming. Nuclear option in the Senate to get the bimbo gun-rights nominee on the Supreme Court. You do no think that will come back on them when the Democrats have the majority in the Senate? Which, if the TrumpNoCare bill gets passed, could be sooner rather than later. And now, have state governments determine who can speak on college campuses, only because it is their right-wing nut-jobs who are being "denied"? Just wait till the Socialist Worker's Party starts calling for the same enforcement in the near future.

  • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Monday May 08 2017, @05:28AM (4 children)

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Monday May 08 2017, @05:28AM (#506197) Homepage Journal

    any random student can invite a speaker to campus, and then the "campuses" MUST be "open to" that speaker. What does that mean?

    What it is supposed to mean is that the current scenario, i.e., you have to convince a student body which is (1) dependent on approval from the university and (2) vulnerable to political maneuvers by other student bodies, is not needed anymore. If a student can book a hall he or she can invite the speaker and probably post some flyers to attract other students.

    It is a step in the right direction.

    Now, that is what it is supposed to mean. It may not end up being that. Only future can tell.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:01AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:01AM (#506239)

      Shut up, cubancigar00, you are out of your league. You do not understand what you are talking about. You are a pipsqueak and a numbskull, and very, very cute. So shut up. Go ahead and try to book my hall!

    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @12:43PM (2 children)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday May 08 2017, @12:43PM (#506316) Journal

      I get your point. But I also disagree somewhat with your implicit assertion that it's somehow wrong to require that an external individual have some sort of "official invitation" to use the private property of the university. Now most of this is talking about state/public universities, but there's public property and then there's "public property." To take an extreme example, a dorm room at a public university may ultimately be owned by the state, but I think we can all recognize that it's NOT a "public space" for use by the public at will.

      Similarly, buildings, auditoriums, lecture halls, and other facilities of the university are subject to the control of the administration. A lot of the issues are buried in your qualifier "If a student can book a hall..." Isn't that really the question here? Under what circumstances should a student be allowed to book a university facility and for what purposes? If the university finds out that you've booked the hall for something antithetical to the university's mission, can they not exercise some control over that? And at some point, allowing outsiders a role on college campuses WILL be considered as a tacit endorsement of those outsiders.

      Say the University of Northern Podunk adopts your policy. Say there's a handful of Flat-Earthers among the student body. The students start inviting speakers every weekend to promote Flat-Earth theory. Then they start organizing "conferences," inviting various "scholars" of Flat-Earthdom. Those scholars start advertising themselves after their visit: "My research has been presented at a conference at the University of Northern Podunk..." Eventually, the University of Northern Podunk becomes known for Flat-Earth beliefs, even if the administration, faculty, and vast majority of the student body think it's BS.

      Now imagine whatever issue you think is complete nonsense on one side (but where there's a set of fringe folks who'd love to speak on it) and have this play out at a prominent public university. And if you think I'm making up such concerns, there have been cases where anti-science groups (or whatever) have booked halls on university campuses and then hosted conferences there or whatever. This is not a theoretical concern. At some point the disinformation that could be spread by providing even facilities to host events can become a concern. And at some point, we may need to actually exercise "viewpoint discrimination," for not all viewpoints are equal. Flat Earth theory simply is NOT a matter that should be put up for constant debate at a university.

      It's always a balancing act, and I'll agree that some university administrations have made some poor decisions. But I think state legislatures trying to micromanage college administration decisions may not be the best way to address this.

      • (Score: 2) by slinches on Monday May 08 2017, @04:15PM

        by slinches (5049) on Monday May 08 2017, @04:15PM (#506413)

        I don't really disagree with anything you've said specifically. It's true the legal definitions are vague, but it's going to be up to the courts to interpret those. Although, I don't necessarily disagree with the law either as long as there isn't something that unfairly targets one political ideology.

        The intent seems pretty reasonable overall. If a student group invites a speaker, they shouldn't be shouldn't shouted down or threatened with violence and differences in the political leanings of the administration should not be cause to bar them from speaking. The question I have is whether it treats private institutions differently from public ones. The same protections should be afforded an atheist speaker invited to talk at a religious school as a conservative one at a liberal leaning college.

      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:50AM

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @04:50AM (#506749) Homepage Journal

        You are right, though the purpose of college education is debating, questioning and living in an atmosphere of dissent. Otherwise it would be just another school.

        ...they start organizing "conferences," inviting various "scholars" of Flat-Earthdom. Those scholars start advertising themselves...

        This is a legal loophole, something probably a trademark litigation should resolve. It is still not a university's place to pick sides on political spectrum though. Flat-earthers getting traction is just a political reality of our world - a part of bigger problem of 'power' trumping 'knowledge', if you will - a much bigger problem. Keeping universities out of this game is only in interest of humanity.