In other words you are willing to cede your own judgement and replace it with a keyword. Got it. GOP=EVIL and can and should be shouted down whenever possible, right?
Because that is the problem that this tries to address. There have been tons of instances lately where invited speakers on college campuses are shouted down by protesters. Note, in many cases the protesters include professors.
For example, here is some video from outside a Ben Shapiro speech at the University of Wisconsin. Link.
My personal favorite quote from a dipwad protester:
And the protesters are resorting to violence. Gavin McInnes was pepper sprayed by NYU protesters. Link.
Charles Murray spoke at Middlebury. Or attempted to speak. Can’t have that.
There are bunch of other examples, a lot have been on the news. Mio whatever his name is prompted quite a few. The source of the college free speech movement in the 1960s, Berkeley, has become the ‘Shut them down/Shout them down’ capital of the country.
I would rather disagree based upon my tenure at that campus late 80s to early 90s. In particular two protest incidents come to mind.
One was the shouting down of an invited guest speaker, Rabbi Meir Kahane. Protesters entered the auditorium where his speech was to be given and shouted him down. Bull horns, air horns and other noise making devices were commonly used at such protests. Rabbi Kahane was unable to give his speech. He was assassinated a few weeks later in New York City so he was unable to return to campus and try to give a speech again. Some of the protesters had argued that there was no harm, no foul, since the shouted down speaker could theoretically return. However this did not take into account that one or more other student organizations had to come up with the funding for a repeat engagement if that was even possible.
The other protest issue which comes to mind was a protest against the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell policy adopted by the US military. Protesters chose to engage in protests on sidewalks in front of the administration building urging that the ROTC programs be kicked off campus. And in one incident a group of protesters stated their intent to enter classrooms and disrupt ROTC classes. Marching in front of a building, whether admin or the ROTC building was a reasonable means to express displeasure with the DADT policy. Entering classrooms and disrupting classes which other students have paid for crosses the line into unacceptable disruptive behavior.
I lived in Madison for several years after graduation and every year there seemed to be a different cause that rallied the campus protesters. I would be rather surprised if it was not longer an ongoing issue.
No it’s not. Maintaining order and allowing people to exercise fundamental freedoms is more important than allowing disorderly protests.
Freedom of speech is code word for racism? Oh goodness. Do you realize how Orwellian that sounds. And why should the ACLU waste resources protecting those who want to riot and commit arson to protest?
Why can’t you leave the US? Millions of people left their country and came to the US. What do they have that you don’t? And you also think the death of those who want to prevent disruptive protests is a good thing? :dubious:
How are the disruptive protesters not also exercising fundamental freedoms? Just because it annoys other speakers doesn’t mean it’s not speech. Sometimes speech drowns out other speech. You may believe it would better to create spaces for people to speak without interruption in order to inform their listeners. I wouldn’t disagree with that. Education is important. But isn’t the reality that this is limiting speech?
I’m glad they’re finally addressing this, but I fear it’s way too lenient. All depends on two things: 1) How aggressively they make sure they go after the douchebags for that first and second offense. And 2) what the penalties are for the first and second offense.
Is this what you call “using your speech to stop people from speaking”?* That’s not a protest, that’s a tantrum. Most of us stopped doing that when we were four.
Those weren’t Republians. They were the left, the side you claim to support. The side I normally support. I want nothing to do with these thugs. Because that’s what these people are – nothing but a bunch of thugs.
*Which by the way is bullshit. You’ve never heard of the phrase, “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose?”
It’s not a free speech issue when students choose to disruptively protest certain speakers they are protesting. It’s a politeness issue, sure, but it has nothing to do with free speech.
It’s not a free speech issue when a university seeks to uphold the law on their campus.
It’s potentially a big 1st Amendment issue if a public institution seeks to prevent the free speech of its students. There can and should be rules on protesting, but this rule in Wisconsin is at risk of going too far in the direction of actually violating 1st Amendment rights. It is obvious there is potential for abuse.
I hope the first student to be expelled will challenge this rule in court with support by the ACLU. I await their victory and the return of whiny right-wing speakers who can’t say a word after they’ve been invited by whiny right-wing campus groups.
Few care about the law or our Constitutional rights in these cases. This is about winning political points and enjoying the discomfort or failure of people who represent your political opponents. It’s obvious here in this very thread by the correlation between “degree of Conservatism” and “desire for more severe punishment”.
The camp of the law. I can separate my distaste for people with beliefs like yours from my respect for your Constitutional rights. Can you do the same?
“The law” in Wisconsin says that disorderly conduct is a crime. There’s no First Amendment violation for enforcing that law, or in making continued attendance at the University of Wisconsin contingent upon obeying that law. Where do you get the idea that “this rule in Wisconsin is at risk of going too far in the direction of actually violating 1st Amendment rights”?
It seems too vague to me. The rule defines what cannot be done without specifics on what types of behavior represents actions that are in violation of the rule. The University of Wisconsin isn’t the arbiter of what is a violation of the law. The policy needs to be tested in court.
No, I’m saying that it’s a strong prior. Not that I cede my judgment, but…
Okay, let’s say you have a neighbor. This guy is an asshole. Like, grade-A total douchebag. He’s greedy, mean, dishonest, and almost every time you see him, he does something you hate. Then, after a year of this, one day, he comes up to you and says, “Hey, I’m proposing a neighborhood initiative to clean up the local water fountain, will you sign?” You want that water fountain cleaned. That said, what’s your immediate response, before having read the bill? Is it “Huh, awesome, where’s the dotted line” or “Oh god, what does this asshole want now? I should read this first.”? Give him the benefit of the doubt and read it, sure, but keep a close eye out for small print about him suddenly owning the fountain when you’re done.
That’s where I’m at with republicans. 9 times out of 10, the legislature they propose is fucking abysmal. So by all means, let’s praise the remaining 10% that doesn’t suck, but on any given bill that we haven’t seen yet, the correct prior is not “Oh boy, a totally neutral bill” but “Oh boy, a bill by a party that writes mostly shitty bills.”
At the moment I’m trying to understand why you said “this rule in Wisconsin is at risk of going too far in the direction of actually violating 1st Amendment rights”. Is that an opinion you read somewhere? Did someone tell you that? Did you come up with it on your own? Are you a lawyer / law student / expert on 1st Amendment jurisprudence?
Yeah, good luck filing that lawsuit. I hope they end up having to pay Stanger’s hospital bills.
(Tell me, how would you feel if the table were turned, and a group of right wing students tried to shout down and assault a leftist speaker? To the point that someone ends up in the hospital?)
It’s a conglomeration of several articles on the topic. Haven’t you read any? I think if you had you’d be aware of the issues.
One of the first articles I read indicated to me that public institutions such as the University of Wisconsin are capable of violating the 1st amendment rights of their students.
Then I read about differences of opinion concerning the effects of this policy on UW students right to free speech. These differences of opinion were noticeably partisan. This concerns me. I am suspicious of a rule that punishes nonviolent protest, no matter how annoying the behavior, when there should already be laws on the books for this problem. But apparently there isn’t. So this policy is something new that can affect free speech. I’d like to see it tested in court once it is enacted. That may be many months from now.
Until then, any racists the college Republicans invite to UW campuses will hopefully be unable to be heard over the disruptive noise of the students.
Guinastasia, nobody is supporting violence here so there is no point in bringing Murray in every other post in this thread. And I don’t have a problem with disrupting left wing speakers as long as it isn’t violent.
Are you familiar with “time, place, and manner” restrictions? If not, I’d invite you to add the few paragraphs I linked to here to your reading on the subject. They’re the reason you can be barred from protesting on the freeway, or train tracks, or the airport tarmac, or boisterously in the auditorium when Ben Shapiro has been invited to speak, or by blaring your message from loudspeakers in a residential neighborhood at 3:00 am. And the fact that you would want to do those things non-violently is no protection at all. Time, place, and manner restrictions on First Amendment activities, such as protesting, are perfectly constitutional.
ETA: We’ve already established that Wisconsin indeed already has a disorderly conduct statute on the books. What I don’t understand why you think this is some sort of barrier or detriment to the UW policy.
