SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
With Governor Roy Cooper (D) taking no action on the bill, the state of North Carolina has enacted the Restore Campus Free Speech Act, the first comprehensive campus free-speech legislation based on the Goldwater proposal. That proposal, which I [Stanley Kurtz (Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center)] co-authored along with Jim Manley and Jonathan Butcher of Arizona's Goldwater Institute, was released on January 31 and is now under consideration in several states. It's fitting that North Carolina should be the first state to enact a Goldwater-inspired law.
[...] The North Carolina Restore Campus Free Speech Act achieves most of what the Goldwater proposal sets out to do. It ensures that University of North Carolina policy will strongly affirm the importance of free expression. It prevents administrators from disinviting speakers whom members of the campus community wish to hear from. It establishes a system of disciplinary sanctions for students and anyone else who interferes with the free-speech rights of others, and ensures that students will be informed of those sanctions at freshman orientation. It reaffirms the principle that universities, at the official institutional level, ought to remain neutral on issues of public controversy to encourage the widest possible range of opinion and dialogue within the university itself. And it authorizes a special committee created by the Board of Regents to issue a yearly report to the public, the regents, the governor, and the legislature on the administrative handling of free-speech issues.
Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/450027/north-carolina-campus-free-speech-act-goldwater-proposal
(Score: 5, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @01:59PM (26 children)
Ah, the mating cry of the Greater North-American Argument Loser. Anyone secure in their beliefs welcomes the chance to dispute contrary beliefs. The only ones who don't are those who know either consciously or subconsciously that their argument cannot stand the light of day.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @02:58PM (4 children)
You're being willfully ignorant that not all speech is discourse, no matter the surface appearance.
Anarchists and Nazis (including the alt-right, a most surprisingly effective rebranding of nazism) aren't interested in civil society. They're interested in creating a society where they can perform violence upon you*, with cheering and without repercussions. Giving them a platform to promote this under the guise of "discussion" is facepalm stupid for a university.
Yes, you, TheMightyBuzzard. You're smart enough to make computers do backflips on command, hence not trustworthy. You can probably scheme, too. You won't count in their new world order.
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:09PM (3 children)
Which is precisely why their views should be given a hearing. You can't know how wrong a position is unless you understand that position. Which you cannot do without first hearing that position.
BTW: Getting students wound up to silence unpopular speech at universities was a very early Nazi tactic. Informing you of this just so you don't mistake which side are actually acting like Nazis.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday August 11 2017, @06:06PM
Yep. It doesn't matter what the subjective or even objective quality of the speech is. Our founding principles were that it could be said without fear or repercussions, with very few exceptions. Where speech could cause great harm like yelling fire in a theater is one of the very few exceptions.
It's really dumb for a university of all places to not let these undesirables to walk up to a podium and deliver their speech. How else are we supposed to counter their arguments and show them for the bigoted racist morons they are? There exists no intellectual, moral, or ethical superiority to your own positions when you simply oppress the positions of others and don't allow them to speak. How else are students supposed to be exposed to this, cause critical thinking and productive discussions, even among themselves?
I don't know if it Bushido, or older, but there is a Japanese maxim I've always appreciated. Paraphrasing it, "If you cannot expose yourself to the beliefs of others, you have no beliefs of your own". I may have mangled it (most probably), but in it essence it means that these students cannot claim to be principled intellectuals, or that those principles are worthy, if they cannot at least expose themselves to the beliefs and principles of others.
That's not the same as condoning it, or enabling it. Nothing says that afterwards you cannot have your say. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the whole fucking point of debate club to DEBATE? When did it become impossible to have discourse in the very places in which it is the most important?
I'm not down for preventing protests, but what happened at Berkley recently wasn't a protest. It was a violent shutdown of unpopular speech in ways and manners that reminded me of fascism in our recent past. I found it disturbing that our universities seemingly couldn't host Milo without the national guard being there. Which is strange, since as a student I would welcome him. How else can I make him look like the moron he is?
It IS time that some rules of conduct and order were brought to universities, and that the true spirit of debate was brought back. Fuck, these people make the Left look like loony idiots.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:16AM (1 child)
The friendly people of Daesh recruiting gullible idiots via internet videos is a good example of why some speech is curtailed in Europe: In a room where you came to hear the opinion of someone you oppose, there will be someone who takes that hateful speech to heart. We see what happens when that speech reaches enough people to find vulnerable ears who are likely to act on the violence it conveys.
Censorship is dangerous. But some ideas are dangerous too. It's not unreasonable, in a place where ideas are taught, that the people entrusted with the education of young gullible adults, be allowed to decide that some speech is not to be implicitly endorsed by welcoming it within the teaching walls.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:22AM
So what? It's the same problem with US liability law since the 70s and drone regulation [soylentnews.org] a few years back. We all lose when we regulate everyone as if they were the worst of idiots. If you're tightening regulations all the time because there are idiots, then you are doing it wrong. The idiots won't stop being idiots.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilsa on Friday August 11 2017, @03:39PM (4 children)
While on the surface what you say makes sense, but there still needs to be some kind of balance. There are people who insist on peddling nonsense and demand their right to speak, no matter how completely and repeatedly wrong they are proven. And as everyone knows, it takes orders of magnitude more effort to dispute bullshit than to invent it in the first place.
I'm concerned that this will make a mockery of intelligent thought. It will force universities to permit outlandish discussions such as creationism being a valid scientific theory, or anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, white supremacy, etc.
While it sounds like the whole safe zone thing has gotten out of hand, pushing the pendulum deeply to the other side isn't going to be very good for anyone either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
There is no "too far the other way" when it comes to free speech. Foolish positions often debunk themselves and nobody is obligated to listen to the speakers. Not even the ones who invited them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilsa on Friday August 11 2017, @05:30PM (2 children)
Except for when those positions *don't* debunk themselves. Or at least, when they are listened to by people who do not have the knowledge and critical thinking skill to properly evaluate the arguments. Never mind the maxim of "If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to think it's true."
Look at the anti-vax crowd as a perfect example. The original "scientist" was discredited, the research has been debunked beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yet a shockingly large number of people insist that vaccinations are bad. If this sort of thing only hurt the people that believed it, then I wouldn't really care. They can do whatever they want. But their decisions, based on gross misinformation, hurts other people as well.
I'm very glad that the university was able to at least push back on allowing any public area to be usable as a public forum. Otherwise there would have been sidewalk preachers every 10 feet.
The Westboro Baptist Church is going to have a field day with this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:31PM
Yes humans can be suckered in with bad information, but it is vastly more preferable to a thought-police tyranny.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @04:24AM
It's a college. If the people there don't have the knowledge and critical thinking skills to properly evaluate bullshit, then shut the place down.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @03:56PM (15 children)
Anyone secure in their beliefs welcomes the chance to dispute contrary beliefs. The only ones who don't are those who know either consciously or subconsciously that their argument cannot stand the light of day.
Or people who have better and more important things to do with their time than argue with nutjobs.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 11 2017, @03:59PM (14 children)
Then don't argue with them. That in a free society is entirely your right. Shutting down their speech is not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @04:41PM (13 children)
I never argued for shutting down their speech, only for not giving them a podium. It's really weird how conservative fools somehow equate not rolling out the red carpet for neo-Nazis to be equivalent to "shutting down their speech".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @07:20PM (12 children)
I agree with your sentiment, but this isn't about rolling out the red carpet. If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue. You won't get random groups being able to force their way in and get a venue, they must be invited by students.
This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content. It cuts both ways, freedom include freedom for ignorant fools.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday August 11 2017, @08:12PM (10 children)
If some group of students invite a speaker to their university then they should be able to hear them and schedule use of an appropriate venue.
Sorry, I disagree. How large is this "some group of students"? Two? On any decent-sized university campus, you can always find some extremists who'd be willing to invite anyone. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Why should students get all this power?
If a large enough fraction of the student body agrees to a speaker, that sounds fine. But some random little extremist student group shouldn't be able to force an extremely provocative and controversial speaker on everyone.
This is critical, we can't allow people to shutdown legal events just because they do not like the content.
Why not? It would be perfectly legal for me to invite KKK members to my house to have a party (a "legal event"), but I'm not going to because I have no interest in associating with those fools. That doesn't mean I'm "shutting down a legal event", it means I'm just not having one. The same goes here. I don't see how a University is obligated to host a speaker just because some dumb students want it. That'd be like me being required to host some jerk at my house just because my teenage kid wanted them over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 11 2017, @09:43PM (6 children)
You can't compare your home to a university. Also, it is up to each institution to develop their own criteria. I imagine they would want a student group of 20+ at least in order to reserve a venue for some speaker. I don't think it is a good precedent to allow universities to have such subjective rules as you propose. Some well defined limits and requirements for speakers must be created so that there is no subective bias that comes into play.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @09:35AM (5 children)
I'd imagine that they would want some relevance to the mission or the fields of study of the university. No anti-vaxxers at the CS department, no spiritual healers for the law department, etc. The university has no duty to provide a platform outside of furthering their mission.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:29PM (4 children)
Lol, university speakers are not often "for CS majors only".
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Saturday August 12 2017, @10:07PM (3 children)
Every committee / group recognised by the university has been recognised as providing a function within/for the university (and, therefore, in line with the university's mission).
What I was suggesting was that each group sticks to its function.
Thus: the CS department invites speakers with relations to CS, legal invites speakers with relation to legal, etc.
This means that any group that the university recognises and evaluates as a group with a function that will contribute to its mission, can get university support (facilities) for speakers in line with that function.
If your group is not recognised, or your planned event deviates from the claimed function, then the university has no reason to support you.
Note that this is a typical CS solution to a legal problem :)
All the conundrums can now be resolved in some formalism, yet in real life it'll never work out this way.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:36AM (2 children)
I disagree. Most groups don't actually have a function. If a group of 20+ students, to use the above criteria wants to invite someone, what's the function of the group? Why should it have a function? It's just another way for selective bias to enter into the system. It also prevents simple quid pro quo like the CS department invites our speaker because they still have some money in the budget for speakers, and we'll do something for them later to pay them back.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Sunday August 13 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)
To prevent the complete arbitrarily spending of (public) money at the whim of whoever is holding the purse strings.
In your hypothetical example, if the speaker's talk has some relevance to the CS department, then it is within the CS department's purview. No problem there.
If it doesn't... then why should the CS department be allowed to use university funds and facilities to this end? Why should the university sponsor such things? If there's general interest, book a room, charge admission, reimburse speaker, all off-campus.
No need and no reason to use university funds and facilities for non-university business.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 14 2017, @03:27AM
What makes you think it's not university business?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday August 12 2017, @03:16AM (2 children)
Dude, have you ever read what you write? It is frightening in the lack of awareness.
So? Then a couple of students are chatting with some visitor in some common area somewhere. Explain the possible harm or reason why anyone should care? A school as a variety of places than can be booked for events of all sizes, from a meeting room for a dozen up the the sportsball stadiums that can seat thousands. The only requirement is a student organization books one appropriate to the audience.
You are forgetting something. This argument is not about the speaker, it is about the students. The school decided they were worthwhile admissions, they decided a particular speaker would be a good idea for whatever organization they are members of.
That is entirely on the snowflakes who get all butthurt and "simply can't" at the idea somebody they disagree is going to be within a mile of them. If it is a mandatory program that all students must attend then you would have a point. That is never the case except when Proggies bring in a speaker to a "must attend" event like graduation. One of the lessons schools should be teaching is how to be a f*cking human in a pluralistic society, and that includes accepting the fact that there are people who disagree with you, and those people are talking, lecturing and otherwise engaged in the life of the mind that is the reason the institution they attend exists. If they can't accept that THEY should be expelled on the grounds of being unfit receptacles for an advanced education.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 12 2017, @04:34PM (1 child)
Says the human shaped pile of shit who wants to literally murder people he doesn't like. Hypocritical garbage bin.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday August 13 2017, @11:16AM
And yet jmorris is right. Such is the power of ad hominem attacks.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday August 12 2017, @12:01AM
Some group of Nazi students? Some group of Christian Fundie Westboro students? Some group of Milo Man-Boy Love students? Some group of Young Republican/Cannibal/Karl Rove students? And if said student group is just a front, completely funded and controlled by some off-campus anti-intellectual organization, like D'nesh D'Souza? And what if, just if, an airline makes Ann Coulter change her seat? [soylentnews.org] Is this not free speech in the service of treachery and rebel insurrection?