Also, if your argument is that conservatives or right-wingers don’t have a platform to speak in this country, then… uh, I’m gonna have to ask you politely what color the sky is in your world. Conservatives and right-wingers own very nearly every lever of power in the United States (all three branches of the Federal government, 33 state governments, all of talk radio, and Fox News, etc.) So if a few of the more abhorrent, evil jerks can’t get speaking gigs at a few universities, well, yeah, maybe that’s the (incredibly small and minor) consequence of their speech?
Universities are not places where all viewpoints are equally valued. I don’t know why people keep suggesting that. On the contrary, as long as universities have existed they have made explicit distinctions between truths, falsehoods, and things in between (aka research). In a way, weeding out bullshit is their most important function. Universities write and defend dogma. Without it, a university would be no different than a random slice of the internet.
Thus, it should come as no surprise that plenty of people won’t find a platform at most universities. For instance, the Time Cube guy. Or flat-earthers. Or fascists. Each is a propagator of bullshit and opposes the mission of universities.
I have a basic problem with a public institution (specifically talking about the Univ of Calif here but I suppose this may apply to others) that allows 19-20 year olds (and Oakland anarchists) to tell them what speech is allowed and what isn’t.
For the left to argue that speech should not be allowed because they disagree with it is a dangerous precedent as it then gives them no right to bitch when the right does the exact same thing. declaring your self the arbiter of all that is right is no way to run a democracy.
So in a few years when the Dems have the White House (because that is the way American politics work) you would be fine with free speech again? And the right owns talk radio because nobody on the left has ever made it work. Is that somehow the rights fault? That damn capitalism thing?
I mean it helps that the leftist position is the correct one across the board.
Freedom of speech does not mean free choice of venue. I can’t just barge into some place where I’m not wanted and start screaming at passers-by in the name of free speech. If I did that, they might not shut me up but they could certainly make me go away.
As for the left, can you name a recent example when a leftist speaker showed up at a hostile venue and demanded the right to provoke a right wing audience?
This actually was done to stop Megan Rapinoe from doing her protest last year.
At UC Berkely there have been invited speakers (by both the school and clubs) who have been disinvited at the last minute because of the threat of violence. I repeat, they were invited. Now I am not an Ann Coulter fan but I hardly find her speaking a threat to the free world. Same with Ben Shapiro. They are merely expressing political views.
But then college kids today need their safe spaces.
At this point if it’s necessary to stop what is happening now, I’d accept it. I used to be fairly socially libertarian, but the rise of Trump and Trumpism made me change on that. I’m now for full-on authoritarianism in order to stop them by any means necessary. I consider them an existential threat more dangerous than any enemy America has ever faced.
Well, maybe when the Dems get back in power we should declare martial law and outlaw republicans. If we can’t listen to them speak it sure seems like the next step.
Ann Coulter can cause aneurysms at 60 paces in any thinking brain; she’s pretty dangerous.
At least you’re listening to reason, now!
As I said I am no fan of her…but I don’t fear her either.
You’re right- the NFL has a right to determine what the players do when they’re on the NFL’s clock, but the players have the right to say we’re not playing- or to make a mockery of games.
I wonder what would happen if every team just said- ok you won’t let us take knees for the anthem- how about some knees for the entire game, nothing but 70 minutes of victory formation and every game ends 0-0. If the NFL banned all the players they’d have some real trouble, especially since the players could also form their own league from the ground up in such a scenario and cut the owners out- even if they made 50% of the money they’d be better off.
I think folks would watch the real players over the scabs.
That’s a heavy cross you’ve got there.
I don’t think anyone has a problem with the right taking a more reasonable approach to both campaigning and governing and free speech. There are conservative positions on certain things I might be inclined to vote for, but they most definitely do not include intertwining religion more deeply into politics, nazism, fascism, a destruction of the free press, hate for people of different color skin, and telling people what they can and can’t do with their own body. If they want to write “better” tax law, "better’ budgets, etc. Sure! Have at it! Let’s talk about that! There are places to argue there. Can you really argue any of those other things are important to talk about still? Do we need to have speakers on nazism? Speakers that claim religion should be a part of every day politics despite taxation? I mean, c’mon… there are some simple lines we can draw here, and if we can’t, are we also then saying it’s time to head back to much less civilized times?
On the other hand, all it seems they really want to do is find a way to shut up the people who aren’t white, shut up the people who give us actual news and facts, and make sure we all go to church on Sunday and worship a flag. Oh, and make the rich guys even richer. Their entire platform is pretty much built on removing freedom, not preserving it.
Ben Shapiro did speak at Berkeley. Coulter was invited but declined, twice.
Of course you can listen to Shapiro and Coulter. But you may need to make your own arrangements with them, rather than relying on a state university to provide a venue for you. Rah rah private enterprise! Get some skin in the game!
Just kidding, they have actually no interest in speaking to you on friendly turf you might provide. Sucker.
I have a problem with people on either side who try to tell me that the freedom of speech is a one way street.
Not exactly true but I think you probably know that.
Julia Galef makes a good point that there is a difference between controversial speakers who are speaking in good faith and those that are not. It’s right for universities to prevent speakers in bad faith from speaking.
A “state” university. That’s my point. Not a private school, like Liberty or BYU or St. Mary’s, but a taxpayer funded state university.
Look, I understand that UC Berkley is a different school with a different history and outside influences than most schools. The State university in my city has no problem bringing in more conservative speakers. We don’t have the outside influences that Berkley does. Most of the violence at Berkley comes from off campus groups.