How is what they did (majority peacefully protest) not included in free speech but her right to say what she thinks with zero repercussions or disagreement more covered by free speech?
And as I recall, her university defended her. They never fired her.
What about non ordinary people such as extremely wealthy people, politically powerful people, socially influential people?
If ordinary people could be trusted to be reasonable and rational, the threat posed by unreasonable or irrational non-ordinary people would be less of a concern.
Post of the year candidate, this is…
I was specifically referring to demands that she be fired.
Sure, people have the right to stand up and say “we don’t like what you’re saying” (and worse) to or about her, I agree.
So why don’t they have the right to say “you better fire her!” Knowing they have no legal rights to actually make that happen? How is that not protected free speech?
Eh, I think it went beyond that. I don’t know how voluntary her resignation was given that she was told by police that she needed security guards.
I don’t think you have the right to intimidate someone to the point that police think you need security guards.
If lines weren’t actually crossed, I think they came pretty close. I admittedly haven’t religiously followed all the details surrounding her resignation / concerns for personal safety.
So they’re allowed to demand her firing but not threaten her. I think everyone would agree with that, and also everyone would agree threats/harassment are not covered by free speech. How many on the left crossed that line? I imagine it’s a significantly smaller proportion than those who were “demanding” she be fired.
True, but back to your earlier question… while lefties have the legal right to demand that she be (illegally) fired because they too have the freedom of speech to call for an illegal action… the original question wasn’t “has the left broken the law”, it was “does the left really hate free speech?”
And making a demand for an illegal firing because you don’t like what a person is saying is something that I think qualifies as “hating free speech”. They’re literally demanding that she not have a right to free speech.
And making a demand for an illegal firing because you don’t like what a person is saying is something that I think qualifies as “hating free speech”.
[/quote]
While also exploiting the right to free speech by demanding it.
That’s all I’m Britain so it doesn’t matter.
But yes, we need to bring back dueling.
I don’t think so, and if that’s the case, I think the right to peacefully protest is meaningless.
I was unaware the 1st Amendment applied to the UK, thought there was some war about 250 years ago about that.
Anyway sounds like she exercised her right to free speech. The students expressed their displeasure with her (the consequences) and she quit because her colleagues agreed with the students.
Sounds like she’s landed in ‘Murica to spout her drivel.
Liberty U probably has a special chair available.
Nah, she’s gay, so she’s out at Liberty (she’s no straight philanderer or adulterer or pool boy sex tape star) although it’s gotta be a tough call. When it comes to TERF’s, they love the TE, not so much the RF.
Yeah, I’m not interested in courteous discourse. I want everyone to be able to say whatever they want. We can decide individually what to do with their words, but if the platform is in any shape, form, or fashion public all speech should be allowed.
So like a church message board then?
Sure, have it out. We can start a discussion. I think it’s stupid when we shun people for saying bad things instead of letting that start a conversation. Outrage is unproductive, but it should be allowed too.
I think the trouble is she wasn’t really defended, she complained the the university failed to defend her, and the article notes:
" Rather than condemning the attacks against her, the Sussex branch of the ucu urged a university-wide investigation into “institutional transphobia” and warned that “appeals to both employment rights and academic freedom are often instrumentlised” (in other words, used as cover for bigotry). Shereen Benjamin, a sociologist at Edinburgh University, has long suffered harassment for similar views. In 2019, when students who agree with her put up stickers around campus saying that “Female is a biological reality”, the principal called them “offensive” and said those responsible would be disciplined."
The main thrust of the article is the erosion of academic freedom.
Interpretive version: you will not go to jail/prison/ether by any government for saying anything. Lenny Bruce, thank you.
The Economist is British 