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: 1) by idiot_king on Monday May 08 2017, @05:14AM (2 children)
The reality is this: The demographics of the US are changing, and changing in a way that are absolutely irreversible. The Old Guard are so weary of change that they will use absolutely any chance they have to support their cause-- including inviting White Supremacist "lecturers" to their college campuses to cause outrages, only to cry "Wahhhhhhhhhhh!!! Those evil SJWs are hurting our feelings by saying we're Nazis (even though we are technically Nazis)!!!"
Trump won months ago, the cry of a group of people dealing with this change which they brought upon themselves which they do not like, the impotent cry of a dying, racist ("They're not sending their best") and sexist ("Grab her by the....") group of people, the same kind of people causing horrid disruption at college campuses with their racist, hate-filled, and quite honestly horribly antiquated rhetoric.
Le Pen lost in France today. The wind is blowing a certain direction. These Nazis WILL be crushed. It is just a matter of time.
(Score: 1) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Monday May 08 2017, @05:56AM (1 child)
Le Pen lost in the context of recent spectacular waves of terrorism that caused the French to declare martial law. Is that wind going to change?
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:52AM
Uhhm, what?
Despite all the crazy events that she milked for votes, she still lost.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 08 2017, @08:42AM (3 children)
"Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that'll infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.": this is "indecent but not obscene" according to the U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation#Holding [wikipedia.org]).
"In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s cock holster.": broadcast with the word "cock" silenced, this is under investigation by the FCC for being obscene. The Supreme Court said that one requirement for obscenity is that
[...] the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/413/15 [cornell.edu]
If it was intended as humour it obviously doesn't have serious value.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @09:47AM (2 children)
What exactly did Colbert say, and where are the pics?
Nothing says "New York" like Streisanding the Donald.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday May 08 2017, @11:11AM (1 child)
I quoted it in the parent post. It's about 708 seconds into this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaHwlSTqA7s [youtube.com]
On Youtube, "cock" is replaced by a tone and Mr. Colbert's mouth is pixellated when he says it.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday May 08 2017, @03:55PM
I watched. Seems to me that it is likely that Colbert wasn't making a homophic slur – I find it very difficult to presume that he is a homophobe, given his general political leanings – but instead, he said something calculated to enrage homophobics, by painting Trump in a homosexual act with Putin. Which it of course did.
Either way, my position is that the FCC, and the US government in general, at any level, has absolutely zero legitimate authority to regulate the speech of its citizens, or anyone else for that matter. It's something they made up out of whole cloth, and depends on the entirely fucktarded idea that there is a "right not to be offended."
Which is not to say that they don't have the power to fuck people over for this. Rather that it isn't legitimate power, which cannot claim the mantle of legitimate authority.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:30PM
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."
require public universities to remain neutral on political issues
shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with
Remaining neutral would require you to either invite speakers from both sides, or neither side. So if you invite anybody, you're guaranteed to be subsidizing speech you disagree with.
This guy is saying colleges shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with; instead they should be forced to not have an opinion? And he's saying this bill is defending free speech?!
Do universities, like, put out an official announcement of what political ideology they endorse? Wouldn't different professors and staff have different ideologies?
Or is this just another example of the alternate universe that is politics, where normal logic does not apply?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"