DtC:I’m still waiting for a cite that the OP incident actually occurred. I’m not buying it.
Can’t speak to the specific incident alleged in the OP, but certainly there have been well-publicized cases of “theft censorship” on campus, where groups of students steal or remove publications to prevent or protest the circulation of items they don’t like.
Of course, what tends not to get mentioned is the less exciting fact that most of the people who characterize themselves as “liberal” strongly disapprove of such tactics, even if they don’t like the offending material any more than the “theft censors” do. It’s a catchy little irony to say “hey look, it’s the self-proclaimed tolerant liberals who are being intolerant!”, so the actions of the few are mischaracterized as the beliefs of the many.
And certainly it is not just liberals who have been known to practice “theft censorship”: consider the recent theft of half the press run of a student newspaper carrying an expose of student-athlete hazing, committed by two students (one on the football team) attempting to suppress the story.
JM:Perhaps this is anecdotal information, but why is there no similar anectdotals regarding actions of “conservative” students?
Heck, I can provide you with anecdotal information if you consider that good enough: even here on my heavily liberal campus I know of acts of conservative “theft censorship”. The most striking one I remember is College Republicans tearing down posters announcing an anti-war rally shortly after 9/11.
Leftist: wants to “seize the means of production” (otherwise known as going on a crime spree), here the printing facilities, while putting everyone “up against the wall.” (also known as murder)
From my experience at Earlham College and later Cornell, liberal and fascist are pretty darn close when either is faced with an opinion that doesn’t adhere to the party line.
Scratch a liberal, reveal a fascist. At least conservatives tend to be more honest about their narrow-mindedness.
Are you aware of instances where the students were known to the administrators and no action was taken against the students until considerable pressure was put on those administrators? I don’t think anyone is surprised that students will act in radical ways. That’s all part of growing up. The real issue, as I see it is a faculty that, thru benign neglect, appears to sanction the radical actions of certain political leanings and not others.
JM:The real issue, as I see it is a faculty that, thru benign neglect, appears to sanction the radical actions of certain political leanings and not others.
That would be a problem, but that’s the part I don’t see much documented evidence of. I would like actual cites for the claim that there is a significant trend among college administrators and faculty to turn a blind eye when students steal things on “liberal” ideological grounds.
I can speak to this. When I was attending the University of Vermont there was an incident where a Radical group of students took over the administration building and then later set of “Diversity University” on the campus green (basically, a shanty town). The cause was the overly Caucasian composition of the campus as well as admission policy. Arsonists later burned this structure.
Now, as I recall (and this is dusty memories from my college days) there was really not a lot of effort put in to finding who did it. In essence, the Conservative administration by inaction condoned the act.
On another front (I am looking at you [Dogface) I am a little troubled by the continued misconception about what Liberal means. It is not the same as Radical (which, again, is what the OP is really talking about). Just as the far right whack job that bombs an abortion clinic is not politically the same as the Conservative that is lobbying to change abortion laws in a peaceful and legal way.
It could well be that my dander is a little up because this misunderstanding is about the side of the political spectrum that I happen to inhabit, but these differences have been spelled out in this thread and I am still seeing the term Liberal misused. You guys are smarter than that.
Well, this is not what I was getting at at all. I’m talking about instances where ther perpetrators are known to the adminstration. If I get some time today, I’ll do a bit of googling to see if I can come up with some of the articles I’ve read. I seem to remember at least one at Dartmouth and Standford in recent years.
I wrote a post that was relevant. The hamsters ate it. I still have it but the discussion seems to have changed, to “liberal” and “radical” and “conservative” groups on university campuses, and the broad-stroke generalization brush has come out in force.
Please. Just because one group is labelled “radical” - either by themselves or by others - you cannot evaluate the stance of “radicalism” based on your perceptions of that group. What if two self-professed “radicals” disagreed with each other? Where would you be then? I very much like Binarydrone’s distinction between “liberal” and “radical.” If I might, I will add another thought: these labels are best applied to ideas and attitudes, not to people or groups. In this way we can examine the motivations behind their behaviour without allowing the details of that behaviour to confuse things. Also important to point out that the two labels represent opposite ends of a spectrum, and an idea, or an attitude, can appear anywhere along that spectrum. You will find very few people who are truly “radical” or truly “liberal,” but if you examine their ideas in this light, you can learn where they are coming from.
Now, to my original post, addressing the OP (contradictions of free speech, hate speech etc) which I cleverly pasted into Notepad and then went out for lunch:
This article by Madame Justice Rosie Abella is on the subject of human rights vs. civil liberties. She is speaking in the context of anti-Semitism laws in Canada and the US, respectively.
Another Madame Justice, this time Mme L’heureaux-Dube, addressed this point in a talk (no cite, sorry). She basically said that US’s laws are based on the individual’s inalienable right to free speech (Bill of Rights), and that Canada’s laws (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) allow the courts to say “Yes, we recognize your right to say that, but we give more weight to the right of everyone else to live in a society which is free from hearing that.”
So the “liberals” that you wonder about may object to free speech if it causes discrimination or interferes with the “free and democratic society” mentioned in the Canadian charter. They would be objecting to this on the basis of “human rights,” in the terms of the top quote, or the more conditional kind of rights mentioned in the bottom.
It must be a real slow day on the SDMB when a rhymes-with-Nicole OP such as this one gets so many replies. :rolleyes:
And the idea that conservatives don’t believe in censorship is laughable, considering how many of 'em were trying to repress “criticism” of the Iraq war just a few months ago.
Criticism of the war’s critics is not “repression,” sparky. Neither are boycotts. Indeed, if leftist students want to arrange a boycott of conservative campus publications, I back their right to do so.
Stealing or destroying those publications, and campus administration’s failure to punish such acts when perpetrated against conservative opinion sources, is quite another matter.
There was no repression. There was a lot of criticism, some of which was ad hominem. But, did conservatives break into the offices of the *Nation[i/], steal copies of the magazine and destroy their computer files? Were anti-war leaders put in prison for sedition? Did mobs prevent anti-war speakers from speaking on college campuses?
I’ve got an example of free speech suppression by conservatives, although it’s anecdotal, too. I was in high school during the UN military action in Kuwait. Some students planned an anti-war protest on school grounds and put up posters throughout the school promoting it. Some conservatives (especially some football players and ROTC members) tore down many of the posters and let word leak that they were planning to beat up anyone that showed up at the anti-war rally. Many of them even showed up at the rally and stood nearby, glowering in a threatening manner. Although noone was actually beaten up (possibly because of the nearby presence of teachers and principals who had been warned of a potential riot), their presence was an attempt to keep the anti-war crowd from holding their rally. [Sorry, no cite because it didn’t make the papers]
I don’t think there’s much shame in admitting that people of all political stripes try to suppress speech with which they disagree. The shame is in accepting it as a legitimate means of accomplishing your political objectives. And luckily for both sides of the political aisle, I think almost all conservatives and liberals condemn these types of practices.
“This leads to assimilation as the ultimate human rights goal.”
Can someone explain how Abella came to this conclusion?
Polycarp
Your post implies that you are missing an even more important distinction: individuals may exercise their own rights in response to others’ exercising their own rights. They do not have have free rein to do anything; just what is within their rights. In the OP, the actions of the students are not OK simply because they are not acting on behalf of the government. I’m not saying that I think you think otherwise, just that your post, by focusing on the distinction between government versus private actions rather than the more relevant peaceful versus nonpeaceful actions, gives that impression.
rjung
For once I find myself in agreement with DCU. I found the whining of many liberals (not all or even most, just many) after 9/11 to be hypocritical. When they criticized the government, they were exercising their First Amendment rights, but when people called them unpatriotic, that was repression and censorship.
Free speech isn’t just a right generously granted to citizens by the good folks who write the Bill of Rights. It’s a necessary tool to ensuring that democracy works. If you are not free to speak your mind, and others are not free to hear you speak (and vice versa) you cannot have democracy, because democracy is all about citizens making informed choices – and you can’t have informed choices without free speech.
The Canadian model of free speech cited earlier betrays a deep misunderstanding of the function of free speech in a democracy.
And for the record, for almost all of U.S. history it has been liberals who advocated free speech and conservatives who sought to suppress it. In the 80s some liberals backed off from the general approval of free speech, but most still hew to the free speech standard. Some conservatives now complain about lack of freedom of speech on campus, but other conservatives are busy BUYING the media wholesale and setting up conservative propaganda factories like Fox News and the Clear Channel radio network.
I would maintain that on the whole, liberals are still the strongest defenders of free speech and conservatives the strongest attackers of free speech.
