Could you clarify what that actually means?
Who’s paying for the conference? Student groups do get campus funding, but each group wanting to use the Michigan League for a party/after-prom bash/wedding reception/conference gets the free temporary use of one (1) small office for the duration of their event, but that’s the sum total of the UM’s response. Other than that, they all have to pay. Rent, food and beverage, A/V services, security, cleanup, it all comes out of the group’s budget.
Now, the student group can apparently request additional funding from the U for their event.
http://www.umich.edu/~msa/MSARegister/MSA-RulesBenefits.html#rights
Just FTR, the UM student group that is sponsoring this is Students Allied for Freedom and Equality, or SAFE.
This is their official student group website.
http://www.studentsallied.com/home.html
They also sponsor lectures, and things like a mock refugee camp.
http://www.studentsallied.com/events.html
This website is apparently specifically set up just for their divestment agenda.
http://www.divestmentconference.com/
So, I have some questions for December, setting aside all the shrill hysteria about “lynching gays”:
[ul][li] Do you think SAFE ought to be disallowed as a UM student group? [/li]
Next question.
[li] Last spring, one of the St. Louis Howard Johnson’s rented rooms to a “Beat Me In St. Louis” Bondage and Discipline conference, hosted by a local B & D group known as St. Louis Leather & Lace . The Southern Baptist Convention thereupon cancelled their reservation for 4,000 rooms for their convention at Howard Johnson’s, saying that the St. Louis Howard Johnson’s was “attacking family values”. This seems to be the same logic as yours, saying that the business that rents the rooms is thereby sponsoring or promoting the agendas of the folks to whom they rent the rooms. So, the question is: Do you agree that the St. Louis Howard Johnson’s was promoting or sponsoring bondage and discipline by renting rooms to St. Louis Leather & Lace?[/li]
Moving on…
Well, geez, maybe if I shout, it’ll penetrate.
The UM is NOT HOSTING the CONFERENCE.
They are ** just RENTING the CONFERENCE a ROOOOOOOOOM.**
And, yes, **it’s OKAY with ME if people have a conference ANYWHERE to discuss burning gay people and lynching blacks because, ta daaa!! here in America we have this thing called…
the…
* FIRST AMENDMENT * which SAYS…(pay close attention now, dear)… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Wheeeee!! Yippeeee!!! Three cheers and a tiger for the Founding Fathers!!! Hip, hip, HOORAY!! Hip, hip, HOORAY!! Hip, hip, HOORAY!!**
<< thousands of hats fly into the air >>
<< brass band begins to play >>
<< fireworks explode >>
<< crowd goes home, leaving hats strewn all over ground >>
<< DDG picks up hat from ground >>
Here, try this one on.
If we expect the Ugly People
to allow us to have conferences
on subjects that we like,
we have to be prepared
to allow them the same privilege.
[li]Well, whaddaya think? Is it “you”?[/li]Go back and read Mary Sue’s statement again. It’s a marvel. Here, I’ll repeat the best part for you.
**This means, “It’s okay to talk about ugly things.” This mean, “If the KKK wanted to organize a weekend conference, and wanted to rent the Michigan League for it, no, I wouldn’t have any problem with that.” This means, “If Fred Phelps wanted to organize a weekend conference, and wanted to rent the Michigan League for that, no, I wouldn’t have any problem with that.”
It’s okay to talk about ugly things.
Especially on a college campus. “Candid expression and open debate are intrinsic to academic freedom.”
Which brings me, finally, to…
Uh oh…
<< bullshit alarm goes off >>
BULL…SHIT BULL…SHIT BULL…SHIT
<< hits button >>
Whew.
Okay, December, God knows why, but I’ll bite, if only out of curiosity, the way one sometimes can’t resist poking a maggot-ridden dead squirrel in the alley out by the garbage cans, just to watch the maggots wriggle.
Setting aside the obvious inconsistency of someone who first says that he’s an enemy of campus speech codes, by which I assume you’re referring to those speech codes that prohibit “hate speech” on campus, which would mean that you’re in favor of allowing people to speak their minds on campus, be the sentiment ever so ugly–and in the very next breath says that he thinks some speech is inappropriate on campus…so, which is it, can the kids speak their minds or not?..
[li] What kind of speech, exactly, would you find inappropriate in a university? And why would whatever kind of speech you’re referring to, be particularly inappropriate in a university, as is implied by the way the statement is phrased–“Some speech is inappropriate for a university”, the way one would say, “Some speech is inappropriate for the dinner table”?[/ul][/li]While waiting for your answer, I will occupy myself with finding a longer stick with which to poke the dead squirrel, as it looks like it’s a pretty ripe one.
“Major Universities” can we please stop using such blanket terms talking about stereotypes of large groups of people with vague descriptions of hypothetical situations? Such discussions are pretty much just mental masturbation as we stroke our various stereotypes of the groups/ideologies involved and hope something impressive comes out.
I’ll admit I tend to lean towards a more broad definition of “free speech” than many people I’ve encountered. There, however, in the society we’re discussing, in the country we’re discussing, is the concept of “hate speech” which is not constitutionally protected. If such speech were to take place, I would not try to protect the person(s) who said it from legal action by the appropriate authorities. This “hate speech” line seems to be a bit of a fuzzy line. I’m not sure if the hypothetical conference you are proposing would cross that line. I gave my answer under the assumption it would not, because I’m one of those “innocent until proven guilty” kind of guys. If the conference organizers did indeed state the position of intending to use or allow hate speech during the proceedings, then I’d support it’s cancelation and appropriate charges against the perpetrators.
Here is my point, and the point of pretty much everyone who disagrees with you in this thread.
The Second National Student Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement being held at The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor has clear, stated, goals and plenty of examples of their leadership’s dedication to peaceful, non-hateful, communication. The University of Michigan at Ann Arbor has a stated mission to support communication, even of ideas which challenge the paradigms of society. The freedom of speech in the country this conference will be occuring in is unrestricted execpt in the cases of “Hate Speech” “Fighting Words” and a few other specific forms. There is no indication that any of the non-protected forms of speech will occur during the conference. There is no reason to object to the conference except for personal objections. Personal objections, while perfectly valid on a personal basis, carry no weight of law or University policy.
In summary, any problems you have with this conference, are YOUR problems.
**
If you start this crap again I’ll take you straight to the pit and the gloves will come off. You MAY NOT extrapolate my moral stance on other issues from my stated position on this one. I happen to KNOW some things about this one and the University it is being held at. This means I support THIS conference’s right to happen at THIS University. This DOES NOT map to other issues at other Universities, regardless of how things work in december-land.
**
I agree. But I don’t believe speech which would be illegal on a public street is appropriate ANYWHERE. What we seem to disagree on is the imposition of EXTRA restrictions on free speech on university grounds. I don’t think there is any inherent special property of educational institutions which justifies further restrictions of freedom upon their grounds.
**
Quit trying to set up your fellow debaters with leading questions. I responded to it because I didn’t want you to get away with yet another straw man arguement. This does not make it a point of debate. It’s intellectualy dishonest at best, trolling at worst. In any case it’s jerkish behavior and in violation of the rules of the SDMB.
Enjoy,
Steven
On preview: DDG you rock 
DDG, will you adopt me?
So duck duck,
What would it take for you to call something hate speech?
If they DO endorse terrorism (unclear, but they at least endorse the decision that others make to engage in terrorism), is it hate? Should such calls, if they were being made, be allowed in university facilities?
Should something only be disallowed if a group is in an act of terroroism?
[ul]
[li]playing[/li][li]with[/li][li]code[/li][li]makes [/li][li]my[/li][li]points[/li][li]so[/li][li]much[/li][li]more[/li][li]important[/li][/ul]
Doncha think?
Up to a point, The First Amendment certainly permits hate speech in general, as in, “Jews are untermenschen that must be exterminated.” It does not permit urging specific acts of violence, as in “There’s a Jew, get him!” So DeSeid’s concerns are groundless–hate speech in general is perfectly legal, but it is tacky. Since the University of Michigan is a state-funded institution, and thus subject to First Amendment laws (we wouldn’t be having this discussion if the location were Bob Jones University), the university may not ban a conference because it finds the topic distasteful.
Terrorism in theory may be discussed, but planning specific acts of terrorism would be forbidden. I should look up the relevant cases in Findlaw, but I’ll leave that to the actual lawyers. (I really need to get my ass into law school, if only to give me more weight in debates). Oh, what the hell…
In *Yates v. U.S. * (1957), the Supreme Court found that the Smith Act (1940), which forbids teaching or advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S., forbade only advocating the acutal overthrow, rather than the advocacy of violent overthrow as an abstract doctrine.
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court overturned the conviction of a Klan leader who had advocated violence to overturn civil rights laws. The Court held that speech cannot be punished, even when it advocates illegal action:
Mtgman – If the conference were addressing terrorism in some abstract way, that would be one thing. ISTM that the quoted statement amounts ot an endorsement of terrorism. I agree that one needs to know what will actually be said at the conference. If the article cited in the OP is incorrect or exaggerated, then there might be no problem.
Crusoe, here’s what I mean by “standing shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites.” A group of people are attacking Israel in the name of anti-Semitism. Some other people support the struggle against Israel, but want no part of the anti-Semitism. But, the group they are aligning yourself with is practicing anti-Semitism.
It’s something like a non-anti-Semite supporting you-know-who only because of a desire for timely railroads.
Rexdart, you brought up Native Americans. Would you have a problem with a university hosting a conference encouraging the mass murder of Native American women and children? My support for free speech doesn’t extend that far. Nor does it extend to the same thing for Israelis.
Huh? A. Advocating mass murder is disgusting, but not bannable. B. This is a strawman because you have not demonstrated that this is what the conference is discussing. C’mon, man , do your homework.
gobear – regarding (A), I can appreciate your extreme free-speech POV, but I don’t share it.
Regarding (B), it comes down to interpreting words from a single article. I understood the article to imply that the conference would encourage murder. You read it differently. In order to find out for sure whether they advocate murder, one would have to attend the conference. However, I’m not planning to do so. :eek:
[Homer]It’s funny cause it’s true[/Homer]**
I salute your dedication to determining the facts of a situation before making a judgement call. It is one of the key properties of an open-minded and fair individual. The context that The Jerusalem Post took that quote out of is on the conference organizer’s website. Go to http://www.divestmentconference.com/ and click on “Mission” on the menu bar on the left. The full quote would have been
**
I don’t see a clear line of demarcation in the guiding principles. They seem to have tried very hard to not condem the activities of the Palestinian people while saying they would not do such things themselves. The appropriate section of their mission seems to be this.
As I said earlier, the “direct action” piece leaves a lot of leeway, but it’s not a declaration of war or a stated purpose of “driving Israel into the sea”. They also have no mention of activities outside the boundries of Palestine(aside from ending US aid, which I’m sure we can all agree could not be accomplished by terror tactics), so I’d think it would take considerably creative reading skills to interpret it as encouraging worldwide activity against Jews. As with so many things, mileage varies.
**
I’ll have to work harder on forming my hypothetical situations. Substitute “Asians” for French if you like. Quite frankly I’m disinterested in matters of race because I think on the species level, and there are no distinctions between humans at that level. It is my opinion that “Races” are artificial distinctions which have been created for convenience of various societies and yet more shoehorning of individuals into stereotypes to keep people from having to think of each other as individuals. Individuals are harder to deal with than stereotypes.
So do we need to coin new terms for every form of racism? Asians don’t experience exclusion from their peers for academic achievement. Do we need to relegate the term racism to strictly “black” race issues? What about Croatians? Serbs? If we were to come up with a term to describe racism against each each group of humans with a common cultural background(a decent working definition of “race”) we’d have even more divisions among society.
I’d rather go the other direction. I’d prefer people recognize that racism can be motivated and expressed in different ways, but it’s still all racism. It’s still all inexcusable.
Enjoy,
Steven
On Preview:
Refusal to condem isn’t the same as endorsement. They have taken the position that it’s not their place to dictate the tactics of people they feel have a legitimate grievance. That’s as far as I’ve seen them go.
I’ve already said I don’t support hate speech, but I have an extremely high tolerance threshold which must be breached before I’ll throw that flag. From what I’ve seen of her, DDG would throw the flag as well upon reaching her breaking point. From my readings of the mission and history of this conference(you know this isn’t the first time they’ve done this right? I don’t recall any riots at University of California Berkely when they had the last one) I believe there will not be hate speech at the conference. If there is I also believe it will not be at the behest of, and will actually be spoken against, by the organizers.
Or in a state where such an act would be considered iminent by a reasonable observer, yes. As gobear observes.
**It’s one of the things I love mostest about my country.
gobear,
IANAL (thank god!) but I question your assertion that if speech is allowed by law that a public university is required to provide facilities for it. And in practice I doubt that such occurs. So, here december’s example holds … it was legal for that Klan leader to advocate violence to overturn civil rights laws, but UM would likely not allow a meeting in University facilities to advocate such as it would not foster “a community that is welcoming to all and that does not foster hatred and discrimination.”
Independent of whether or not you believe that these particular talking heads are advocating terroristic violence, or are akin to the KKK, what kind of speech should a university not allow facility use for? Use group A and B to take out your sense of the particular politics, or try to reverse the groups to see if you’d react the same if you disagreed with the aims of the group or if you agreed … so if it was a Jewish group that said that a group of settlers who went and killed some civilian Palestinians just because they were Palestinian (no military objective, just because they were Palestinian) were not to be condemned, but that they stand in solidarity with them, would you say that they should meet? (Such has occurred and Israelis planning terror have been arrested and prosecuted by Israel) Would the campus socialist groups say they should be allowed the use of campus facilities? I would say that they should not.
Read the cases I cited above–it ain’t my POV, it’s legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. If you have a problem with freedom of speech, take it up with them. But be of good cheer, John Ashcroft is doing his level best to eliminate civil liberties in the US.
Are we talking about the Jerusalem Post article? Here’s an excerpt on the conference:
Refusing to condemn suicide bombings is NOT the same thing as actively urging murder. It could fairly be interpreted as condoning murder, which is still not the same thing as urging murder.
**
You are a consummate ass. There have been OTHER CITES. I have personally cited the conference organizer’s site TWICE. If you refuse to look beyond the article in The Jerusalem Post then that is your problem. Those without such blind dedication to the promotion of misinformation have branched out to attain a more balanced view. Until you do then you really have nothing else to say that wasn’t said in the OP.
Enjoy,
Steven
Just to be clear, IANAL either. And I did not say that the university is required to provide facilities–I said that the university can’t ban the conference, an entirely different question. Clearly, time and space considerations dictate that the campus can’t accomodate every group that wishes to use its facilities, but the campus can’t discriminate based on the nature of the groups concerned.
Yes, absolutely. But that is not the same thing as planning terror
Why are you citing Israeli legal precedent? We’re talking about American law. Here, one cannot advocate specific violent acts–“We’re going to bomb the Capitol at 9 p.m.”–but one can advocate destruction of the government in general. The Supreme Court has consistently held that hate speech is protected–see R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992). The Supremes held that burning a cross on a black family’s lawn may be punished under arson laws, but it may not be banned purely on the basis of content.
So long as hate speech does not lead to a direct assault–Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)–it is protected under the First Amendment.
Geez, DSeid, :rolleyes: if you think I’m so insecure, that I feel a need to make myself seem important by using special coding, then you sure don’t know me very well.
My hope was that making my post bright and loud would enable at least some of it to penetrate into December’s brain. It works for the circus, why shouldn’t it work here?
**Prove this, please.
Okay, you want a “nailed down” answer?
Okay–things that are out-and-out illegal. For example, I would object if UM rented Vanderbilt Hall to a group holding a weekend seminar on “how to build a suitcase nuke”. Or on “how to grow coca bushes in a greenhouse for fun and profit”. Or on “Child Prostitution–a lifestyle choice.”
Ridiculous, huh? Well, that’s precisely how ridiculous I find the whole idea that a university should pick and choose, should somehow set down guidelines for what should and should not be discussed in public. That’s my Granny’s job, not the UM’s.
Tolerance.org classes the Nation of Islam as a black separatist “hate group”.
http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/group.jsp?map_data_type_id=1
[ol]
[li]The Black Student Union of Stanford University invited a representative of the Nation of Islam to speak during Malcolm X Week.[/li]
[li] An unnamed group at the University of Minnesota also invited someone from the Nation of Islam to speak.[/li]
http://www.mndaily.com/daily/2001/03/06/news/new6/
[li]Bradley Smith is an activist Holocaust Revisionist. After the UCLA campus newspaper refused to run one of his ads, a campus group apparently sponsored a panel discussion, apparently inviting a Revisionist named David Cole to present the Revisionist side (I’m saying “apparently” because it’s Smith’s website and it was way back in 1992, and I can’t find it anywhere else.)[/li]
http://www.codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/9201COLE.HTML
[/ol]But anyway, the fact is, major universities do permit such things.
Thank you for the clarification December. I was genuinely curious as to what you meant, and that explained it.
First, gobear, sorry if I was unclear. My point with mentioning the Israeli terrorists who were prosecuted was to point out that such a turn around is not absurd. But to also parenthetically point out that the Israeli government actually does all in its power to stop/arrest/prosecute those who atempt such acts (unlike the PA). That was an aside that really did not belong in this thread and only obfuscated the basic point. Once again, my apologies.
Onto Duck Duck. As to proving the claim that the organizers endorse the decisions made by others, see the cite in the op. As of yet we have no reason to believe that it is an inaccurate or out of context quote. It is all we got to go on for now.
Your examples of campus speech are not ridiculous but they are inconsistent. Take the child prostitution one. Why would you prohibit that? Unless they were pimping during the conference that is. We’ve had posters here seriously argue that there should be no age of consent, that children must be judged individually for their capacity to consent. (Okay, I thought he was a bit wacko, but it was a reasoned argument to a point) And many here believe that a consenting individual should be able to accept money for sexual services. Thus someone could advocate such a position without frequenting or pimping for child prostitutes themselves. Heck, I see these examples as less harmful to the development of a community that does not foster hatred than a statement of solidarity with the means of terror. A discussion on the hydroponic means of illegal drug production? Heck read that in Botony of Desire and I’m sure that Pollan has spoke about it on campuses.
Please further clarify where the point is that a university should say that this speech will not be allowed in a university facility. Find another hall to rent.
So, because you dont agree with it, it shouldnt be held in a rentable hall?
How about if the UoM allowed a conference to be held about “Islam is Racism” and had leaders from right wing think-tanks and speakers from the ICEJ?
if there was, this thread certainly wouldn’t be started, well, not by december at least.
december, could you please stop starting these threads until you learn to look at the cites provided to you, even the ones that show up your ignorance.
No, actually, we can also go look at the websites of both SAFE and Palestine Solidarity and see whether, officially at least, they espouse support of Palestinian terrorism. I have browsed both websites and I don’t see where it says that anywhere. Therefore, lacking any other evidence, I am assuming that neither SAFE nor Palestine Solidarity actually support Palestinian terrorism, and that the Jerusalem Post is slanting something they found in the promotional literature. “The simplest explanation is the best”, and knowing what I do about the mass media and their desire to sell newspapers, it’s simplest to believe that the Post is featuring a slanted statement, rather than believe that either SAFE or Palestine Solidarity has a pro-terrorism statement somewhere.
What I said was…
Last time I checked, child prostitution, building suitcase nukes, and growing coca bushes at home were all illegal.
When they legalize child prostitution, then I won’t have a problem with somebody organizing a weekend conference about it in the Michigan League.
This seems to be December’s whole point, that some speech is unacceptable on a university campus, period. You’ll have to get him to clarify that.
But talking about child prostitution isn’t. Even advocating it isn’t.
The bomb I don’t know.
twisty, read the thread.