Merged Discussions of Hate Speech and the First Amendment

[Cain]

I don't understand how this relates. Are the white supremacists the people who should be given good faith and the pedophiles be treated as trolls?

White supremacists and pedophiles are free to express their beliefs. The question, as I understand it, is if universities should provide a platform for those beliefs.

While Charles Murray does not identify as a white supremacist, he has co-authored what might very well be their most frequently cited book (not counting Mein Kampf). Nevertheless, he does have interesting things to say about politics and reasonable people can believe he's acting in good faith. I suppose the same could be said for well-meaning pedophile apologists like Milo.

 

[Brainster]

For the most part, speakers don't invite themselves onto a college campus. They are usually invited onto the campus by one of the local clubs. For example, the College Republicans at Berkeley invited Milo. The club puts up the speaking fee, and typically charges some admission to cover the expense. Sometimes the student body as a whole invites speakers; when I was at school we had the notorious (and flakey) pairing of Timothy Leary and G. Gordon Liddy. And sometimes the faculty will invite a speaker or two.

And that's where I suspect your white nationalists and Nambla speakers might run into a problem. Who's going to sponsor/invite them?

 

[llwyd]

Is it possible to have a debate without getting emotionally involved? Why can't we just discuss the idea in the abstract? I don't mean any offense and I apologize if you were offended.

I think you formulate your argument in such an extremely abstract way that it becomes falsely dichotomic. We are not beasts nor angels (paraphrasing Frederic Manning) and all we do is a balancing act: there are no absolutes in human affairs.

And I think the US is doing pretty well in this regard: Nazi speech is reasonably protected but the overwhelmingly negative historical experience that is reflected in the popular opinion has naturally also influence. The protected class modification is a very sensible way to moderate private irrational prejudices if reflected in business etc. etc. The US is muddling through pretty well in this regard.

 

[llwyd]

Yes, political speech should absolutely be protected. But some forms of public demonstrations can be intepreted as crossing the line into inciting violence and extreme intimidation. Like Orange marches going through Catholic areas in Northern Ireland. So, I would allow Nazis to organize as a political movement and demonstrate on the streets but the latter only with certain restrictions. As for having guest speakers etc. that would be up to the private institutions themselves.

 

[Kid Eager]

Is this always the case ?

What about groups advocating breaking "unjust" laws - like the laws making homosexuality illegal - as a step towards repealing them ?

This relates to the subsequent point - shift in societal norm etc.

Agree that if taken as absolute, the statement fails at the edge cases.

 

[rjh01]

I would also suggest that their lies and misleading statements be pointed out.

Do people have a right to yell "fire!" in a crowded building when there is no fire?

ETA. What I am suggesting is that people who routinely give misleading or false statements not be allowed to speak in universities and other places of learning. That would cover most extremists.

 

[The Don]

This relates to the subsequent point - shift in societal norm etc.

Agree that if taken as absolute, the statement fails at the edge cases.

Unfortunately that requires someone to make a value judgement. I (and I suspect you) felt that homosexuality being illegal was grossly unfair but 50 years ago that wasn't a view shared by the majority of people until comparatively recently. OTOH I suspect we both agree that paedophilia is abhorrent, again a view shared by the majority.

I would have supported people taking illegal action to have the laws on homosexuality changed but I would not support people taking illegal action to have the laws on paedophilia changed but that's because one aligns with my personal beliefs and the other does not.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Yes,frankly.I don't want to give a bureaucrat the power of deciding what speech should be allowed.

The FCC would disagree with you. Luckily, that institution is almost antiquated. There is always some government outreach waiting in the wings, unfortunately.

 

[Kid Eager]

Unfortunately that requires someone to make a value judgement. I (and I suspect you) felt that homosexuality being illegal was grossly unfair but 50 years ago that wasn't a view shared by the majority of people until comparatively recently. OTOH I suspect we both agree that paedophilia is abhorrent, again a view shared by the majority.

I would have supported people taking illegal action to have the laws on homosexuality changed but I would not support people taking illegal action to have the laws on paedophilia changed but that's because one aligns with my personal beliefs and the other does not.

Yes, the value judgement is what it's all about, both personal and societal.

As you noted, the lines are different for different subjects at both personal and societal level, and this is where it all turns to custard: particularly where irrational or illogical elements are included (and yes, i recognise that those can also be value based...).

 

[McHrozni]

Should we allow Nazis to speak in public universities, in the public square, in the name of Free Speech?

Do we allow similar, broadly comparible doctrines to be preached in the same way?

If yes yes, if no no.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

Is this always the case ?

What about groups advocating breaking "unjust" laws - like the laws making homosexuality illegal - as a step towards repealing them ?

Thinking about the idea that we say you can't advocate for something illegal.

Free speech would allow someone to advocate for a change to the age of consent without letting them advocating people breaking the law.

Turn that around for the Nazis and you'd get that they could campaign for the law to be changed so that genocide would be legal but not for advocating genocide (because genocide is illegal).

Musing about it a bit more that sounds as if it could work to bring the more unsavoury aspects of some odious people and ideologies to light, they would have to be clear what they actually wanted to avoid advocating for people to do something illegal.

However I don't think you could really make it work in a society you want to be as "free" as possible, for example lots of fiction would suddenly become illegal as it has people breaking the law.

 

[theprestige]

We don't all cherish the right to make hate speech.

Of course we do. For example, your body of work here is mostly expressions of hate.

This signature is intended to irradiate people.

 

[timhau]

US politics has always been astonishingly accommodating to anti-constitutional movements.
TBH, I don't understand why.

There are twi advantages to allowing morons to speak freely.

1. We can identify them from a distance.
2. By keeping the bar low, we can be sure that no reasonable views get censored.

 

[Jerrymander]

And that's where I suspect your white nationalists and Nambla speakers might run into a problem. Who's going to sponsor/invite them?

Richard Spencer spoke at Texas A&M.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Yes. Of Course...unless they turn violent in which case throw their butts in jail.
This is becoming a very dangerous trend on both sides in the US.....wanting to suppress your political foes.

Agreed. Especially wrt public speaking engagements by any extremist, which are better boycotted or peacefully picketed than prohibited.

Also fine if students decide to apply/transfer to schools that totally avoid asking highly partisan speakers to address main events, such as welcoming or graduation ceremonies, a lame excuse for "free speech," and in practice a purposeful provocation. On campus, keep the partisan restricted to events/venues specifically set up for them so that attendees have a chance to freely decide whether or not to go.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Are you really saying that their right to mourn and go on with their lives in peace is worth less than the right of some conspiracy theorist to make their lives miserable by claiming their loss never happened?

Yes.

 

[acbytesla]

If they say "we hate all these people"...ya.*

If they say "all these people must be exterminated/hunted/wiped out etc etc"...hell no.

And if they show up waving torches with body armor and rifles...I don't give a damn what they have to say, no.

*just because they have a right to speak doesn't mean they have a right to a private venue. And if they show up in a public venue, I fully encourage counter protesters.

This is the part I disagree with. It's better to ignore them. Pay no attention. They have a right to speak, yes. But we don't have to listen. Arrange competing events at other locations and encourage the press to cover those instead. While the NAZI's are protesting the opposition can hold a helping others events, community cleanups. Show a better vision for America.

 

[BobTheCoward]

If they say "all these people must be exterminated/hunted/wiped out etc etc"...hell no.

If it isn't an actionable threat, I'm even fine with that.

 

[paulhutch]

The FCC would disagree with you. Luckily, that institution is almost antiquated. There is always some government outreach waiting in the wings, unfortunately.

There is a very important distinction that has legally justified the banning of certain speech from broadcast over public airwaves. That speech is forced upon citizens in their private spaces, so the courts allow restrictions on it. It is the same justification used by government to ban your neighbor from mounting bullhorns on the property line and blasting otherwise protected speech at your yard.

I personally think it's stupid to continue the broadcast restriction since the citizen has to decode the broadcast and can easily turn it off, but as of now the government does not agree with me.

 

[Meadmaker]

US politics has always been astonishingly accommodating to anti-constitutional movements.
TBH, I don't understand why.

I think the answer is that by doing so, we preserve the constitution.

We still have our freedoms. None of those anti-constitutional movements have ever caught on, and they won't as long as we give them freedom.