Screaming and heckling are not problems on college campuses

[BigT]

The Left is not confused about freedom of speech. The Right largely is. It literally just means that you have a right to voice your views. It has never, ever guaranteed your right to an audience. It has never guaranteed you from other people also using their freedom of speech to prevent your message from being heard.

Imagine if it did. A television channel could not exercise their freedom of speech in not allowing you to use their airwaves. They couldn’t try to stop your speech by not repeating it. You would be entitled to their audience.

You want to meet privately with people you agree with, and then kick out protesters? Fine. You want to meet in private and have rules of decorum, kicking out those who don’t follow it? Fine.

But when you use a public venue like a college, you have to deal with the entire public, including those who don’t want you to speak. As long as they are only using speech to stop you, and they have a right to be there, they are doing nothing wrong. If they don’t have a right to be there, then kick them out.

I also will point out that I have absolutely no interest in using my speech to help you spread your message. It’s the same issue. I can’t stop you from speaking, but, if I don’t like what you have to say, I have no requirement to help you.

And, if I think what you are saying is morally wrong, then I would be morally wrong to help the idea spread in any way. At most, I might take what you have to say only to also rebut it.

Sorry, but you gave up on the idea of politeness long ago when you decided that “political correctness” was a bad thing. You’re the ones who decided to give up on the decorum. You just want it back now that it’s biting you in the ass.

Stop with that, and maybe I’d have a reason to try and get these college students to be nice to you.

[Shodan]

@BigT

But when you use a public venue like a college, you have to deal with the entire public, including those who don’t want you to speak. As long as they are only using speech to stop you, and they have a right to be there, they are doing nothing wrong.

And if they are using more than speech?

Last night the UC Berkeley campus was invaded by more than 100 armed individuals clad in masks and dark uniforms who utilized paramilitary tactics to engage in violent destructive behavior designed to shut the event down. At that point the University of California Police Department concluded that the speaker had to be evacuated from campus for his own safety, thereby bringing the event to an end.

Cite.

A news release from campus police described “fires that were deliberately set, one outside the campus Amazon outlet; Molotov cocktails that caused generator-powered spotlights to catch fire; commercial-grade fireworks thrown at police officers; barricades pushed into windows and skirmishes within the crowd were among the evening’s violent acts.”

Cite.

And, if I think what you are saying is morally wrong, then I would be morally wrong to help the idea spread in any way.

Do you feel any moral obligation to speak out against violence? Or will you also remain silent about that?

Regards,
Shodan

[Inbred_Mm_domesticus]

This thread is not about violence. Please stick to the topic. You must work harder for your gotcha!

[Rick_Sanchez]

@BigT

But when you use a public venue like a college, you have to deal with the entire public, including those who don’t want you to speak. As long as they are only using speech to stop you, and they have a right to be there, they are doing nothing wrong. If they don’t have a right to be there, then kick them out.

As I asked the OP, how would you react if right-wing agitators disrupted a left-wing speaker (say, for example, a pro-choice speaker, or a socialist) by turning up with megaphones and screaming “FUCK YOU!” and “NO SPEECH FOR <insert name here>” over and over and over and over again until the speaker just gave up and went home? I guess you’d say that’s just hunky-dory, right? After all, they’re only using their speech.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

That’s funny - someone posted something stupid about a death ray, and I could have sworn it was you.

Nope. I’m the one who posted something biting, insightful, and hilarious about a death ray. However, that’s a total non sequitur, which makes sense if you don’t have a substantive argument to make.

Edit: Oh, I get your confusion. You still don’t understand that you’ve drawn a way too broad generalization. You think you’ve said, “All sheep are sheep,” instead of saying, “All living organisms are sheep.” When I made fun of it, you thought it was stupid, because who could object to “all sheep are sheep”?

When you realize your generalization was too broad, you’ll see your mistake, and not until.

[Rick_Sanchez]

@Inbred Mm domesticus

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.

Okay…so, just to clarify, you’d consider it acceptable for right-wing agitators to shout down liberal speakers, so long as they don’t literally punch them out, because the left-wing agitators always have the option of just shouting right back at them. Have I got that right? I don’t want to accidentally misrepresent you, but that honestly sounds like what you’re trying to argue. Assuming I’m understanding you correctly, can you honestly not see why your strategy is counterproductive?

Also, why are the Republican student groups trolls while the liberal student groups aren’t? You realise that whether or not someone is a troll is largely a matter of perspective, right? To me, if these people aren’t trolls then the term has no meaning.

Polite doesn’t mean being a sycophant.

Whoever said it does?

[XT]

@Inbred_Mm_domesticus

This thread is not about violence. Please stick to the topic. You must work harder for your gotcha!

Yes, you’ve said this repeatedly. Of course, it kind of detracts from your narrative that they DID use violence in conjunction with screaming and heckling and other abuse. It’s a slippery slope…when one group tries to stifle the message of another it seems to often spill over into violence. Probably why encouraging such behavior and thinking it’s not a problem is wrong on a lot of levels.

BTW, just for those who keep coming back to freedom of speech, only the OP seems to have brought up this angle. No, it’s not a freedom of speech issue in the conventional sense…the government isn’t stifling free speech (nor even assembly). I’m unsure why many here feel that makes it ok, which is what the debate is supposed to be about. My guess, as others have said, is it’s about Gores and oxes…folks are OK because they don’t like the speakers in question and don’t like their message. But at a guess people taking this line would be much less sanguine about it if the shoe were on the other foot, and some religious fundamentalist group was using the same tactics to block the speech of someone they did agree with. Me, I wouldn’t be ok with this sort of behavior regardless of whether I agreed with the people doing the stifling and hated the speaker and everything they stood for. This sort of demonstration, no matter how well-meaning, besides being a slippery slope to the violence the OP doesn’t want to discuss, is going to be negatively received by anyone who isn’t one of the faithful and just lend credence to their message. Far better is to debunk the message not try and shout it down.

[Rick_Sanchez]

@XT

BTW, just for those who keep coming back to freedom of speech, only the OP seems to have brought up this angle. No, it’s not a freedom of speech issue in the conventional sense…the government isn’t stifling free speech (nor even assembly). I’m unsure why many here feel that makes it ok, which is what the debate is supposed to be about. My guess, as others have said, is it’s about Gores and oxes…folks are OK because they don’t like the speakers in question and don’t like their message. But at a guess people taking this line would be much less sanguine about it if the shoe were on the other foot, and some religious fundamentalist group was using the same tactics to block the speech of someone they did agree with.

QFT.

[Velocity]

I remember a speaker being invited to my alma mater (a small conservative Christian college.) The speaker was quite left-wing on many issues; including saying that the US had gone to war in Iraq simply because it had a military sitting around with nothing to do. I would estimate that around 60-75% of the audience disagreed with his views.
He was never heckled. People formed a line at the microphone during Q&A to disagree with him, but the tone was polite throughout. It wasn’t like Betsy DeVos at the Bethune-Cookman University ceremony yesterday.

[Magiver]

@rnhaas

What’s hard to understand is why this is so binary. Why can’t we acknowledge both “sides”?

Nobody should be physically prevented from saying anything that isn’t already illegal at any time. (Whether or not any speech should be illegal is another story.) If you disagree with them, don’t listen to them or debate them and show them that these ideas are problematic. It’s probably hard to debate professional speakers, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

A speaker invited to speak at an event does not constitute a debate forum. A “debate forum” constitutes a debate forum. Otherwise anyone interrupting a a speaker is denying that person the right of free speech.

[Human_Action]

@BigT

The Left is not confused about freedom of speech. The Right largely is. It literally just means that you have a right to voice your views. It has never, ever guaranteed your right to an audience. It has never guaranteed you from other people also using their freedom of speech to prevent your message from being heard.

How can you have both the right to voice your views, and the right to stop others from voicing their views? It’s one or the other.

Imagine if it did. A television channel could not exercise their freedom of speech in not allowing you to use their airwaves. They couldn’t try to stop your speech by not repeating it. You would be entitled to their audience.

How about a third party jamming the television frequency to prevent the broadcast from being received? That’s a lot closer to what we’re talking about here.

You want to meet privately with people you agree with, and then kick out protesters? Fine. You want to meet in private and have rules of decorum, kicking out those who don’t follow it? Fine.

But when you use a public venue like a college, you have to deal with the entire public, including those who don’t want you to speak. As long as they are only using speech to stop you, and they have a right to be there, they are doing nothing wrong. If they don’t have a right to be there, then kick them out.

In the case of Milo Yiannopoulos, his appearance was hosted by the Berkeley College Republicans, not by the university itself. Further, campus policy allows student organizations like the Berkeley College Republicans to make use of meeting space in the student union building.

[BigT]

I specifically limited what I said to speech. Not violence. Can you argue with what I said, or are you capitulating the point?

One thing I will say about violence. You cannot use it as a heckler’s veto. I can condemn violence without it meaning that I condemn the protestors. You do not get to use it as proof that the protestors are wrong.

And I don’t have any moral problems not specifying that I do not approve of the violence, as that is the default. I have specified in the past when I think violence may be warranted, and not wanting to hear someone speak is not sufficient.

I will say this: the Civil Rights Movement was not completely nonviolent, and both factions had a role. When it comes to the oppressed fighting their oppressors, I do think violence can be necessary.

But this is not that.

[BigT]

You ninjad when I was responding to Shodan.

It’s simple. Freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard. It does not include the right for people not to try and stop you, as long as they also only use speech (or similar nonviolent means) and have the right to be there. For a less controversial example: if John is going to speak at my fwvorite pub, I have the right to use my speech to tell the owner he shouldn’t let him speak.

People do not have the right to impede the airwaves. It is not analogous. People do have the right to speak. You have to get a license to use the airwaves, which shows it isn’t speech.

And if it was private and they had the right to kick people out, then that is the appropriate remedy. That said, I would not approve of a college choosing to allow racism and sexism. There would be a blatant ban on that, regardless of the speaker. Given Yiannopoulos’s record, my guess would be he couldn’t abide by that.

But it’s not my college. If they want to be all pollyanna and think letting disingenuous rabblerousers speak is okay, fine. Just like on this board, I will simply voice my disapproval and not get worked up if all the “meanies” make the guy leave. Or, like with Maher, I’ll lose my begrudging respect for those in charge for beinbeing so gullible.

You don’t defeat these guys with reasoned debate. You refuse to allow them an audience.

IFR was everyone giving Trump attention that led to him winning. People gave him a free audience.

[Magiver]

@BigT

You ninjad when I was responding to Shodan.

It’s simple. Freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard.

actually that’s pretty much what it does mean. the right to express any opinions without censorship or restrain. It’s the right to communicate. You don’t have the right to abrogate that process.

@BigT

People do not have the right to impede the airwaves. It is not analogous. People do have the right to speak. You have to get a license to use the airwaves, which shows it isn’t speech.

That is such a bizarre statement to make. Speech isn’t speech if it’s licensed?

@BigT

You don’t defeat these guys with reasoned debate.

define “these guys”.

@BigT

You refuse to allow them an audience.

Those are literally fighting words. As has been pointed out, you’re mirroring the Nazis in WW-II.

@BigT

IFR was everyone giving Trump attention that led to him winning. People gave him a free audience.

Trump won because Democrats elected a lesser candidate.

[Ale]

@BigT

The Left is not confused about freedom of speech. The Right largely is. It literally just means that you have a right to voice your views. It has never, ever guaranteed your right to an audience. It has never guaranteed you from other people also using their freedom of speech to prevent your message from being heard.

Imagine if it did. A television channel could not exercise their freedom of speech in not allowing you to use their airwaves. They couldn’t try to stop your speech by not repeating it. You would be entitled to their audience.

You want to meet privately with people you agree with, and then kick out protesters? Fine. You want to meet in private and have rules of decorum, kicking out those who don’t follow it? Fine.

But when you use a public venue like a college, you have to deal with the entire public, including those who don’t want you to speak. As long as they are only using speech to stop you, and they have a right to be there, they are doing nothing wrong. If they don’t have a right to be there, then kick them out.

I also will point out that I have absolutely no interest in using my speech to help you spread your message. It’s the same issue. I can’t stop you from speaking, but, if I don’t like what you have to say, I have no requirement to help you.

And, if I think what you are saying is morally wrong, then I would be morally wrong to help the idea spread in any way. At most, I might take what you have to say only to also rebut it.

Sorry, but you gave up on the idea of politeness long ago when you decided that “political correctness” was a bad thing. You’re the ones who decided to give up on the decorum. You just want it back now that it’s biting you in the ass.

Stop with that, and maybe I’d have a reason to try and get these college students to be nice to you.

Your argument is as disingenuous as claiming that a mob going out of their way to burst into a religious gathering, forcing people to disband, is not a violation of freedom of religion because it wasn’t the government doing it or because they were doing it at a public place.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@BigT

You don’t defeat these guys with reasoned debate. You refuse to allow them an audience.

You think you’re beating these guys?

[Velocity]

@BigT

I would not approve of a college choosing to allow racism and sexism. There would be a blatant ban on that, regardless of the speaker.

But who decides? It’s a sword that cuts both ways these days. Plenty of MRAs play the “Societal double standards are sexist in a way that benefits women at the expense of men” card, and plenty of white supremacists play the “Reverse-racism against white people these days” card. It’s not like women and minorities are the only ones who cry ‘sexist/racist’ these days.
How would a university enforce this sort of “blatant ban” that you are proposing? Have a panel of social scientists examine every claim of racism and sexism to see if it’s “true racism/sexism?”

[Gyrate]

@Shodan

No, that actual leftists actually do that, as we saw in Berkeley and elsewhere. You asked if they would do what they have already done.

I’m sorry if you are having problems with the idea that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, but you are going to have trouble with answers to hypothetical questions until you clear it up.

Oh, okay.

So if I then assume that suppression of dissent is far more characteristic of the right and that Republicans intend to continue to suppress dissent in every way possible because Republicans are working to pass laws in multiple states to facilitate the prosecution of peaceful protesters, and because the current President advocated physical violence against protestors on multiple occasions during his campaign and has indicated a desire to change the laws to enable him to use the power of his office to legally harass media outlets daring to report negative stories about him, and because the last Republican president required protesters to be herded into “free speech zones”, you’d be fine with that because “the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior”? Good to know.

But some liberals yelled stuff really loudly, so I guess that makes them worse.

[Shodan]

@Gyrate

So if I then assume that suppression of dissent is far more characteristic of the right…

Well, you could assume that. It would be pretty silly, but you could do it.

You are making the same mistake that Left Hand of Dorkness is clinging to. You asked if the leftists who used threats and violence and disruption in Berkeley would be likely to do the same elsewhere. Obviously they would, and so you attempted to claim that we were talking about hypothetical leftists, then all leftists, then attempted a tu quoque.

Like I said, I understand your embarrassment at the sight of the original spot of the Free Speech Movement rioting to deny other students their opportunity to present and discuss any point of view besides political correctness. “Understand” in the sense of “snicker at”.

Regards,
Shodan

[Human_Action]

@BigT

You ninjad when I was responding to Shodan.

It’s simple. Freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard.

This makes freedom of speech meaningless, and trivial.

It does not include the right for people not to try and stop you, as long as they also only use speech (or similar nonviolent means) and have the right to be there. For a less controversial example: if John is going to speak at my fwvorite pub, I have the right to use my speech to tell the owner he shouldn’t let him speak.

That’s very different from the sort of conduct the thread’s about, though. The pub owner can allow or disallow anyone he likes, and that’s not controversial.

What we’re talking about is the pub owner inviting John, people who want to hear John showing up, then people who don’t want to hear John barging in and drowning him out with chants and screams. That’s not using speech, it’s using noise.

People do not have the right to impede the airwaves. It is not analogous. People do have the right to speak. You have to get a license to use the airwaves, which shows it isn’t speech.

It’s pretty close, in that you have a speaker, an interested audience, and another group that comes between them to prevent speech they don’t like. Only the medium is different.

And if it was private and they had the right to kick people out, then that is the appropriate remedy.

Certainly. The question is whether the conduct is ethical in the first place, not how best to eject people from a theater.

That said, I would not approve of a college choosing to allow racism and sexism. There would be a blatant ban on that, regardless of the speaker. Given Yiannopoulos’s record, my guess would be he couldn’t abide by that.

I don’t think a public school like UC Berkeley could have a speech ban without violating the First Amendment, but I’m no lawyer.

You don’t defeat these guys with reasoned debate. You refuse to allow them an audience.

I’ve seen no evidence that this works. Milo and Coulter’s audience receives their content on the Web and television, their live appearances aren’t making or breaking their message. All trying to “refuse to allow them an audience” does is make them look like persecuted truth-tellers. If anything, it makes the message more persuasive: look how my enemies are afraid of letting me tell it like it is! Look how intolerant and hypocritical they are!