But not really.
An invasion of space in this context has nothing to do with ownership, rights of way or legality, it is all about behaviour.
The fat guy on the bus that refuses other free seats, sits next to me and overflows into my seat has a perfect right to be there and to do what he does and yet he is invading my space.
No sympathy for anyone who is shouted down? or only the ones who hold opinions that don’t agree with yours?
It has everything to do with rights and legality. Abortion protesters have the same right to be on in the public space as abortion seekers. Protesters are not allowed to interfere with or prevent access to abortion clinics. But they have the right under the Constitution to protest in a public space, subject to the same regulations as any other protest.
Regards,
Shodan
What would make people in our society today “functionally voiceless”? Could you offer some examples of people you think meet this definition?
The following might meet my definition, depending on the individual circumstances: Homeless, mentally disabled, closeted LGBTQ people in communities in which coming out could be dangerous, undocumented immigrants hiding from authorities, victims of domestic abuse, victims of cults, religious minorities in communities in which they are not welcome, black people in communities in which law enforcement and local authorities treat them as the enemy (modern sundown towns). Not a comprehensive list.
If your list gets any more “comprehensive”, it will include nearly everyone, and is then meaningless.
Which group in my list constitutes any population larger than a very, very small percentage of America? If those groups are that much larger than I thought, then our country is in much, much worse shape than I thought.
The tactic under discussion was shouting down a speaker who was addressing a self-selected audience. Are you saying that the groups you mention would be justified in using that tactic?
Can you describe how it serves the interests of, say, homeless or mentally disabled people, or illegal aliens, to shout down a speaker who was addressing someone else?
Regards,
Shodan
Sympathy only for those who are willing to engage in honest, open debate, which excludes all politicians I’ve heard very much of. If people were actively engaging in open dialog with me and they got shouted down I wouldn’t want that to happen. But I’ve often had to turn off NPR when a politician that I’ve agreed with either in general or even in the specific was making a crappy argument and I couldn’t jump through the radio and correct them.
If you’re engaging in a collegial discussion then I have sympathy if you’re interrupted. But if you’re just giving a speech or engaging in a “gotcha ya” debate then my opinion on whether you should be interrupted might be influenced by my opinion of your opinion, but my sympathy would not be.
Very often it wouldn’t serve their interests. I think there might be some circumstances in which it would, in the same way that there are some circumstances in which civil disobedience helps a cause – by gaining attention, raising the stakes, showing ‘toughness’ (i.e. we won’t back down) and resilience, etc.
For example: Let’s start in a modern sundown town, like Vidor, TX. Someone has been trying to organize a public speech to educate the populace on the history of sundown towns and the harm they do. But, unfortunately, due to the informal and mostly unspoken covenant between business owners and local officials, no one will grant them a permit or rent them space for this event. They all find legal excuses not to. At the same time, a local white nationalist rents a space to give his own speech about the superiority of white European culture. In this instance, I don’t think I’d fault protesters for, say, sneaking into the venue, camping out (in secret) until the event starts, and then loudly chanting and disrupting the white nationalist’s speech (and subsequently being arrested, most likely), all on video.
Maybe it’s not the perfect tactic, even in that instance, but I don’t think I’d fault someone for trying an extreme tactic like that in the face of such injustice.
That seems to suggest you’d have no sympathy for any politician who is shouted down.
And I’m sure we’ve all done the same, that isn’t stopping free speech though.
I don’t understand what you are saying here, can you give an example?
I don’t think this can be dropped in the laps of “leftists.” it’s more due to self-absorbed kids who think the semester or two they’ve got under their belts give them all the knowledge they need to know about the world.
and in their minds, “Freedom of speech” means “I have the freedom to say what I want, and the freedom to silence anyone who disagrees with me.”
So far I see many people completely unwilling to let go of the notion this issue is one of free speech. It isn’t. These are protests where the students attempt to disrupt the speech but it has nothing at all to do with the topic of free speech. The protestors are not the government. You confidently discuss free speech in this context without establishing what free speech is.
There are others who’ve accurately observed this topic is actually about being polite. I agree that ideally, our nation’s young people behave politely to invited guests, but on the other hand, the invited guests are there to fill impressionable minds with impolite garbage.
Many of you discuss “debating” the speaker. Yes, that should be fair. A seasoned speaker who has faced the same questions of their work for decades faces off against an opponent, some kid, in the audience who asks a single question before returning to his/her seat. The speaker, on the other hand, gets to stand on stage, lights on him/her, in a position of authority, and drone on, probably lying the whole time, in an unrestrained effort to tear that kid apart.
These aren’t debates. Debates are great and you’d probably get less protest if the protesters had a seasoned speaker in authority at these events, but they don’t, so they do the smart thing and yell. It is the best response to the garbage presented in the format it is presented.
More importantly, it shuts the speaker down. Yeah it gets on the news and the people get wound up tight about it, but the focus is on the students and the yelling. Not their ideas. Their ideas are not heard so they fail to be spread. At most you get, “author of the racist Bell Curve”, and since few want to be racists, they don’t read it and it returns to its trip into obscurity.
I think these students have found the best, most effective remedy for professional trolls.
It is fine. Everyone can do it. I wouldn’t want it to be violent, and I would strongly urge troll Republican student groups to invite their speakers along with a contrasting view.
Polite doesn’t mean being a sycophant.
They do. It’s called yelling. It has the same valuable content as the speaker’s.
Illegitimate?
Give me a set of examples supporting this statement.
You cannot defeat a person playing checkers by playing chess.
There are conservative college students as well. Do they engage in the same type of violent protest like what happened at Berkeley?
except they’re not playing chess. they’re trying to win by knocking the checkerboard off of the table.
Who appointed you to determine the “value” of anyone’s speech or point of view?
So…just so that I’m clear on this. Preventing people from speaking has nothing to do with freedom of speech…do I have that right?
No-one appointed you or them guardians of acceptable opinions.
No, the best thing is to put up your own speakers and arguments in opposition.
I think anyone taking part in shutting down speech in that way is leaning too far towards the fascistic and totalitarian end of the spectrum for my liking, no matter which political views you espouse.
aye, and there’s the rub. If you consider it a legitimate tactic to use on them, *they *are fully empowered to use it on you. And you will have no grounds for complaint, or at least none that the other side are willing to let you voice.
No, All the more reason then to decide in advance on a sensible set of ground rules that apply to both sides. If we can hit that bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards…checkmate!
If you think I am approaching this with some sort of unprincipled view that it is ok for people with a liberal leaning ideology to do this but not a conservative one, then you are wrong.
Comics defeat hecklers all the time. This isn’t a big deal. Speakers that can adapt will get to say their “Heil Hitler”'s regardless of student protests. There is no free speech issue here, just a differential in commitment to saying what one wants to say.
I don’t see how that serves their interests. A white nationalist comes into town to say that black people and their supporters are uncivilized thugs. Then black people and their supporters are videotaped behaving like uncivilized thugs. This helps?
Regards,
Shodan
It could – without it, perhaps it never would have been publicized at all. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be filmed, but by sneaking in, disrupting and filming it, and promulgating the video, suddenly the wider country is aware of what’s going on in this sundown town, and pressure comes down and changes are instituted.
And I don’t think chanting against white supremacism would count as “behaving like uncivilized thugs” – if so, then it’s probably rather easy to categorize many of the events of civil disobedience of the 50s and 60s against segregation and for civil rights the same way, which I think is extremely inaccurate.