• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

ACLU supports free speech on college campuses (including offensive speech)

Status
Not open for further replies.

sazzy

Member
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied. Since its founding in 1920, the ACLU has fought for the free expression of all ideas, popular or unpopular. That's the constitutional mandate.

More at the link.

Q&A (click the link for the A's)

Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?

Q: I have the impression that the ACLU spends more time and money defending the rights of bigots than supporting the victims of bigotry!!??

Q: Aren't some kinds of communication not protected under the First Amendment, like "fighting words?"

Q: What about nonverbal symbols, like swastikas and burning crosses -- are they constitutionally protected?

Q: Aren't speech codes on college campuses an effective way to combat bias against people of color, women and gays?

Q: But don't speech codes send a strong message to campus bigots, telling them their views are unacceptable?

Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?

Q: Well, given that speech codes are a threat to the First Amendment, and given the importance of equal opportunity in education, what type of campus policy on hate speech would the ACLU support?

Silencing speech, especially on college campuses, is NEVER the answer.

EVER.

Thank you, ACLU.
 

finalflame

Member
Good. I hate bigoted and racist people as much as the next dude, but you just cannot silence speech. That is not to say speech should be free from consequence, social or otherwise, but the moment you start trying to draw a line between "good" and "bad" speech you're going to get into murky waters.
 

Loudninja

Member
Of course they do does not mean any one has to give them a platform.

Seems people still struggle what freedom of speech means.
 

CS_Dan

Member
I mean, constitutionally they're not wrong. If people want meaningful hate speech laws the Constitution needs to be amended, right?
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
So government institutions should have little to no agency over policing policing any sort of verbal conduct from guests, students, or employees?
 

Nepenthe

Member
Public universities can't restrict anyone from speaking on the basis of their speech because they're funded by the government and thus have a responsibility to uphold constitutional principles.

But private institutions can because they set their own rules, ahyuck-hyuck.

Furthermore, this doesn't impede the right of students at public universities to protest and even shout down unpopular ideas, because to do so would be a violation of the students' free speech. And if a racist shitlord finds that intolerable and cancels of their own accord, that's not a violation of their rights.

You are allowed to say what you want. You are not allowed a comfortable platform, or access to every platform. Say shit to me, I'll kick you out of my house, because that's my private space and I don't have to tolerate fuckboi-ness. You can keep saying it on the street or whatever. Free speech!

I say progressives should keep giving the shitstains of society all the hell they can. No more normalization. No more acting like white supremacy and anti-intellectualism is valid.
 

Alienfan

Member
Good. I hate bigoted and racist people as much as the next dude, but you just cannot silence speech. That is not to say speech should be free from consequence, social or otherwise, but the moment you start trying to draw a line between "good" and "bad" speech you're going to get into murky waters.

Isn't creating consequences for certain speech a form of drawing the line though?
 
So, I'm guessing it's also acceptable for a supporter of ISIS to openly indoctrinate vulnerable young Muslim students on how it's okay to organise a terrorist attack in the west?
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Fuck that.

It's still better to cold cock a Nazi.

Yup. You should be allowed to say anything you want, and you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come from that speech, even if it means a guy dressed in black hoodie punches you in the face for being a Nazi.
 
Yup. You should be allowed to say anything you want, and you should be prepared to deal with whatever consequences come from that speech, even if it means a guy dressed in black hoodie punches you in the face for being a Nazi.
351.gif
 

TTOOLL

Member
As "hate speech" in most cases nowadays is saying what lefties disagree. They should walk their talk and be more tolerant with others. Why saying you don't agree with globalism for example is hate speech?
 

Timedog

good credit (by proxy)
Should a government employee be able to say "I hate Jews" in every conversation with every coworker without consequence?
 

Loudninja

Member
As "hate speech" in most cases nowadays is saying what lefties disagree. They should walk their talk and be more tolerant with others. Why saying you don't agree with globalism for example is hate speech?
Yeah not true at all my god.

Also hell no ,I will not ever be tolerant of hate speech not ever.
 
Are you posting this for that troll kid, i forget his name..

Colleges, like forums, get to pick and choose who they invite, and I would hope that sensible ones don't give platforms to shitheads who are there *specifically to try to make trouble*.

The ACLU should warn of the risks of copy pasting rules that define what's allowable and what is not, but by the same token there should never be any laws that force any college campus to hand the microphone to a troll. And if someone turns a speech into a hate fest the organizers have the right to end it.

I also don't see why a college should not decide in advance that certain people are not acceptable no matter what group within the college prefers otherwise.
 
Bear in mind that if this is just a low profile, blanket defense of shitstains like Milo, the following would apply:

Q: Does the ACLU make a distinction between speech and conduct?

A: Yes. The ACLU believes that hate speech stops being just speech and becomes conduct when it targets a particular individual, and when it forms a pattern of behavior that interferes with a student's ability to exercise his or her right to participate fully in the life of the university.

The ACLU isn't opposed to regulations that penalize acts of violence, harassment or intimidation, and invasions of privacy. On the contrary, we believe that kind of conduct should be punished. Furthermore, the ACLU recognizes that the mere presence of speech as one element in an act of violence, harassment, intimidation or privacy invasion doesn't immunize that act from punishment. For example, threatening, bias-inspired phone calls to a student's dorm room, or white students shouting racist epithets at a woman of color as they follow her across campus -- these are clearly punishable acts.

Several universities have initiated policies that both support free speech and counter discriminatory conduct. Arizona State, for example, formed a "Campus Environment Team" that acts as an education, information and referral service. The team of specially trained faculty, students and administrators works to foster an environment in which discriminatory harassment is less likely to occur, while also safeguarding academic freedom and freedom of speech.
 

Eumi

Member
Are you posting this for that troll kid, i forget his name..

Colleges, like forums, get to pick and choose who they invite, and I would hope that sensible ones don't give platforms to shitheads who are there *specifically to try to make trouble*.

The ACLU should warn of the risks of copy pasting rules that define what's allowable and what is not, but by the same token there should never be any laws that force any college campus to hand the microphone to a troll. And if someone turns a speech into a hate fest the organizers have the right to end it.

I also don't see why a college should not decide in advance that certain people are not acceptable no matter what group within the college prefers otherwise.
They already do. You don't just walk into a uni and ask nicely for a platform and get it. If a bigot is speaking at a uni, then the uni itself has allowed that. The American government aren't, and aren't planning to, force anyone to give anyone a platform (besides themselves I guess but they're kinda the exception, being the government and all).
 

Number_6

Member
And people are free to protest against the speaker. It's not like he is forced to cancel, it's his choice.


So, I'm guessing it's also acceptable for a supporter of ISIS to openly indoctrinate vulnerable young Muslim students on how it's okay to organise a terrorist attack in the west?

No. I'm pretty sure there are provisions against speech for the purpose of causing violence.
 

hidys

Member
As "hate speech" in most cases nowadays is saying what lefties disagree. They should walk their talk and be more tolerant with others. Why saying you don't agree with globalism for example is hate speech?

It isn't and literally no one would say not supporting globalism is hate speech.

This is crazy.
 
Then you believe in free speech so long as the other person agrees with you.
No, I believe that if you say stuff that makes you look like an asshole, expect people to call you an asshole

You want all the benefits of free speech without any of the consequences
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
Protesting and freedom of speech got a new meaning, I guess.
Alright, let me just change the definition.

Freedom of Speech: The right to say whatever the person wants anywhere without any interruption or criticism.

Protesting: Violent riots that killed Nana Ruth.
 

TTOOLL

Member
Yeah not true at all my god.

Also hell no ,I will not ever be tolerant of hate speech not ever.

You didn't answer my question about globalism. I'm talking about having different views of how the things should be. I'm not talking about or defending racism, which is obviously to be condemned.
 

sazzy

Member
No, I believe that if you say stuff that makes you look like an asshole, expect people to call you an asshole

You want all the benefits of free speech without any of the consequences

calling people an asshole for being an asshole is not the same as disrupting their right to speak.
 
A University should have the right to cancel inciteful bigoted hate speech.

And if they don't cancel bigots' speeches/events, protesters have the right to show up and peacefully protest.

By the way, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that either the few violent Inauguration Day rioters or the co-ordinated gang of Berkeley rioters were anything but an orchestration of self-interested anarchists (probably a subset of violent Oath Keepers, r/TheDonald basement dwellers, or Breitbart News forumgoers specifically spurred on by Milo and/or his KKK-loving cronies).

It's quite probable that Milo wanted riots to retroactively prove his own point that University campuses should be more lenient towards free (hate) speech, which is, of course, the goal of any fucking Nazi fuck.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
calling people an asshole for being an asshole is not the same as disrupting their right to speak.

But it is my right to disrupt their speech, again, freedom of speech only protects you from government prosecution, not other private individuals. I have the right to the talk over your speech and disrupt it, it's rude but that is my 1st amendment right.
 
Certain colleges clearly need some "extreme vetting" of their own, letting human excrement violate their campuses. If they fail to do so, then expect protests and disruptions.

Deal with it.
 

Eumi

Member
calling people an asshole for being an asshole is not the same as disrupting their right to speak.
Ok, out of the two of you here, you might wanna step back and notice that you're the one saying people should be prevented from speaking.
 

scamander

Banned
Shit like this is why someone like Trump could even end up as president. By offering a platform, you are normalising and even legitimising extreme world views. I'm okay with Europe not being okay.
 

TTOOLL

Member
It isn't and literally no one would say not supporting globalism is hate speech.

This is crazy.

But not supporting globalism means you don't want "free" immigration or your country run by burocrats not elected by you. If you defend this kind of idea nowadays you are called a white supremacist/nationalist.
 

Ms.Galaxy

Member
But not supporting globalism means you don't want "free" immigration or your country run by burocrats not elected by you. If you defend this kind of idea nowadays you are called a white supremacist/nationalist.

You can be protectionist and still support immigration, in fact globalism doesn't mean anti-immigration and has more to do with international trade and agreements. I'm left and if there are those who actually think that's white supremacists, they're ignorant on the subject. Funny enough, protectionism, the opposite of globalism, is a leftist ideology.

Yeah, when people are called racist assholes, it's because they don't like bureaucracy, not because when you scratch a bit and start having a conversation you generally end up with "I'm fine with getting rid of these brownies".
Cry me a river.

Also this is true, some racists assholes like to hide behind "anti-globalism" to hide their true racist intentions. Again, globalism has nothing to do with immigration, it's an economic and industry ideology.
 
But not supporting globalism means you don't want "free" immigration or your country run by burocrats not elected by you. If you defend this kind of idea nowadays you are called a white supremacist/nationalist.
Yeah, when people are called racist assholes, it's because they don't like bureaucracy, not because when you scratch a bit and start having a conversation you generally end up with "I'm fine with getting rid of these brownies".
Cry me a river.
 

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I've literally never seen anyone complain about globalism that wasn't some racist Info Wars nut.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom