Campus clash: Students battle over what constitutes free speech

[Noradin]

Students should worry less about their social anxieties and focus more on learning marketable skills.

Dealing with other peoples social anxieties is a marketable skill.

[Saucexorzski]

It'd be hypocritical if they were denying their right to protest. Simply disliking their protest doesn't constitute said denial, or hypocrisy at all. It's only exposing something about these protesters that society finds unacceptable, reacts accordingly, etc etc.
The meta analysis doesn't stop at protest. But it's not particularly interesting, as it essentially amounts to "no u".
Their rights are not questioned, and neither the fact that free speech is nasty by design. That's why people are trying to move past your insistence to keep it contained: because the symmetry of the issue is 12-year-old levels of realization. It just so happens that you don't get to set the goal posts: you don't own the platform.

I really hope you get through to him because this is an ongoing thing for Endus.

[melodramocracy]

We've been over this several times already. Free speech doesn't exist outside of what you say about the gov't. Anything else has potential repercussions.

[Endus]

I really hope you get through to him because this is an ongoing thing for Endus.

Yeah, the fact that freedom of speech means EVERYONE gets to say what they like, and provides zero protection from social backlash, that's an ongoing "thing" with me, because that's exactly what the concept is about.

The whole "we need to suppress protestors because we don't like what they're saying" stuff that you folks are expressing is an assault on free speech, and I actually give a shit about the concept, which is why it's a "thing" with me.

[Saucexorzski]

Yeah, the fact that freedom of speech means EVERYONE gets to say what they like, and provides zero protection from social backlash, that's an ongoing "thing" with me, because that's exactly what the concept is about.

The whole "we need to suppress protestors because we don't like what they're saying" stuff that you folks are expressing is an assault on free speech, and I actually give a shit about the concept, which is why it's a "thing" with me.

Who you talking about here endus? Because trying to claim its any of the recent posters addressing you would be lying. Please dont lie.

[Ozzyorcborne]

Ah, college students. Infants who have contributed nothing and bitch about everything, and only think they're something
because they're "college students" . They're so much fun to mock and should never really be taken seriously. The lot from the
last few years have been even more mentally deficient than normal.

[Deleted]

I really hope you get through to him because this is an ongoing thing for Endus.

There is nothing to get through.
He or she is right 100%.
It's just an entirely uninteresting point with little to no development.

Add to it that the exercise is tilting at windmills:

you folks

The premise that "they folks" (or even "us folks") are assaulting free speech is the product of their magical thinking. And that's the only interest it has for Endus: fighting ghosts.
It's no surprise that they need, and demand, goalposts be strict and limited. Outside of those safe boundaries, the exercise is meaningless. It's power what they're trying to gain: by forcing you abide by their limits on the discussion.
It's just too transparent and bland.

[Noradin]

Ah, college students. Infants who have contributed nothing and bitch about everything, and only think they're something
because they're "college students" . They're so much fun to mock and should never really be taken seriously. The lot from the
last few years have been even more mentally deficient than normal.

You sound bitter, couldn't go to college?

[Ozzyorcborne]

You sound bitter, couldn't go to college?

I did. I went there to study, not be a self-obsessed, opinionated troublemaker.

[IIamaKing]

Who you talking about here endus? Because trying to claim its any of the recent posters addressing you would be lying. Please dont lie.

I just gave up, I am not sure he argues in good faith.

[Endus]

Who you talking about here endus? Because trying to claim its any of the recent posters addressing you would be lying. Please dont lie.

If we're going to play the semantics game, then there's one of two things they could be saying.

"We don't like what they're saying, so we're going to protest their protest and somehow this isn't hypocritical", or
"We don't like what they're saying, and we don't think they should be allowed to protest in ways that lead to people's invitations being revoked", which is explicitly anti-free-speech.

The former really isn't the step up you seem to think. If you disagree with their message, speak out against that message. Don't speak out against their capacity to express that message, or have it heard.

[Rox the sox]

Not sure why people get their panties in a twist over speech...

[Kazgrel]

Is there a reason that you keep moving goalposts to riots?

Because that's how protests tend to go as of late, in the US at least; from protesting to tearing people's shit up. Not all of them, of course, but as we've seen with Berkeley and previously with the Milo thing (which only led to the guy being on Tucker Carlson's show, I think? I didn't watch it, only heard about it).

[Deleted]

Your right to free speech is directly correlated to the degree to which you respect others rights.

If you start spouting off intolerant hateful Nazi garbage then the community around you has the full right (and arguably duty) to tell you to shut your damn mouth and get out.

If they report you for it, you'll land in prison.

[I Push Buttons]

If we're going to play the semantics game, then there's one of two things they could be saying.

"We don't like what they're saying, so we're going to protest their protest and somehow this isn't hypocritical", or
"We don't like what they're saying, and we don't think they should be allowed to protest in ways that lead to people's invitations being revoked", which is explicitly anti-free-speech.

The former really isn't the step up you seem to think. If you disagree with their message, speak out against that message. Don't speak out against their capacity to express that message, or have it heard.

Only people have been doing the former...

Which led Antifa who go to these protests to "collect Nazi scalps" or "punch a Nazi" (literally a Twitter campaign right now advocating violence against whoever they label as a Nazi)... Oh and by Nazi they just mean everyone who disagrees with them, since actual neo-Nazis are busy fucking their sisters holed up in their anti-government militia compounds.

And quite literally every "protest" they attend devolves into violence.

[Rox the sox]

Yeah, the fact that freedom of speech means EVERYONE gets to say what they like, and provides zero protection from social backlash, that's an ongoing "thing" with me, because that's exactly what the concept is about.

The concept of free speech includes freedom from societal sanctions too, you know.

The whole "we need to suppress protestors because we don't like what they're saying" stuff that you folks are expressing is an assault on free speech, and I actually give a shit about the concept, which is why it's a "thing" with me.

Do you really? If you really cared much about the concept then you would want people to be protected against backlash, be it from law or from people.

[Endus]

The concept of free speech includes freedom from societal sanctions too, you know.

No. It doesn't. It explicitly cannot, since many of those sanctions are, themselves, speech. Or otherwise, generally revolve around personal property rights, which someone else's freedom of speech does not and can not overrule.

Do you really? If you really cared much about the concept then you would want people to be protected against backlash, be it from law or from people.

What "backlash", exactly?

Public outcry? That's free speech, too.
Employers firing employees that make them look bad? That's the employer's right, and your freedom of speech doesn't in any way change that.
Venues deciding not to host a speaker? Totally within their property rights, not a free speech issue in any way whatsoever.

The "backlash" you're complaining about either is speech, and as such should be protected, or it isn't about speech at all and is fundamentally irrelevant.

[Rox the sox]

No. It doesn't.

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction."

[Endus]

"Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction."

Thanks for cutting off the part of my post where I explained that's an internally contradictory description, since any such definition necessitates that you're blocking the speech of those who's speak out against you, since that's part of what "societal sanction" looks like.

If you're going to argue that freedom of speech means other people aren't allowed to react freely to your speech, then you're not defending freedom of expression, you're picking and choosing who gets to speak freely, and who doesn't.

[Rhaide]

The irony here is that, for the most part, these outcries of being protesting someone's appearance are expressions of free speech.

And because you don't want to hear their message, you want them silenced. How is that any better? It's the same attitude, just aimed in the other direction.

I don't have any issue with a group asking for a speech to be cancelled because they dislike it. But I also fully support the right of the venue-holder to say "no" to that request, and let the speech go ahead. I don't see the need to silence either side in this.

Difference here is that one side is trying to speak, the other side is trying to stop them from speaking. It seems a bit insincere to cage that fact in a totally different 'free speech' commentary concerning the 'talks about whether they should be allowed to talk'.

That's a monstrously self-serving argument that is intentionally framed to make anyone who disagrees sound unreasonable. You're good Endus, you're good.