So something along the lines of “shame on you, professor, and as you know there are no consequences for you, so carry on”?
1 Like
Probably not the words I’d choose, no. It would depend on the context, but
Completely agree. I think it’s fair to say that (pre-break-in) the January 6th protesters were demonstrating “hatred of Democracy”.
1 Like
Ah, so you believe in free speech with no consequences, while I believe in free speech with consequences.
No, there can be consequences. Just not ones implemented by the government. I said early on that free speech was not an issue when Dr Laura was fired (despite her protestations to the contrary).
We both agree that she was not fired, so what consequences did the government impose?
None. My beef (on this particular topic) isn’t with the UK government. It’s with the people who were calling for the government to fire her who demonstrated a hatred of free speech. (And not the subject of this thread, but also academic freedom.)
had the people used a different verb - not “demanded” but “strongly wanted” - would it have mattered? do those people also have free speech to choose words?
I answered that already, but I’m adding the bolded emphasis this time.
I answered this one several times already.
There’s:
Also:
And:
Who would be doing the firing at a public university then, if not an agent of the government? They are all government employees, and would be doing government work in carrying out the firing. And even if they delegated the responsibility to some third party (say a committee of students and/or alumni) then whomever was doing the firing is acting on behalf of / as an agent of the university in carrying out the firing.
So yeah, it is a government consequence.
Even to the point of intentionally harming another?
So having free speech allows for the freedom to hate free speech, seems like the same issue with tolerance including the ability to tolerate intolerance.
I think social media broke that idea with their algorithms. I certainly wouldn’t call social media the sunlight to bring down shitty speech.
Don’t the algorithms actually amplify posts with strong negative reactions more than simple likes?
Something not mentioned yet is the critical role independent universities have played in western history. There is a real public interest in having free, sometimes controversial ideas coming out of universities.
Attacks on free speech from the left seems to be motivated by the idea that speech is never just speech. It is also an exercise in power, and potentially a violent one. I don’t agree this is always true. But sometimes it is true.
The right uses this kind of attach too, for example the protest against diversity training that makes people feel bad.
But what i think is even more damaging is this idea if “fair and balanced”, notably seen from fox news. Fact gets replaced by a series of opinions. Dialogue is an exercise in pandering to different audiences rather than pursuit of the truth.
It is all an assault on reason and objectivity.
1 Like
I think this is a fair point. Social media has really complicated political discourse I think. I think we’re overdue for Congress to regulate it to be honest, but they don’t really seem to have any ideas for how to do so.
verified identity is a good start, IMO.
Stiff penalties for a conviction of impersonation wouldn’t be bad, either.
2 Likes
How do you feel about school teachers addressing racial inequality in history and social sciences classes? And talking about how our society is structured to protect the rich (especially rich white men, of course) and to keep down the poor?
Most of the actual restrictions on “free speech by government employees” in the US are coming from the right, restricting various things that are vaguely adjacent to “critical race theory”.
for the record, I think it’s generally okay for your employer to restrict what you can say on the job. Even if your employer is the government. I may disagree with various restrictions, but I don’t think it’s inherently wrong for your employer to impose restrictions on your speech at work.
I also agree with magillaG about the historical role independent universities have played in promulgating new ideas. But that’s completely separate from the right of an employer to muzzle its employees on work time. In fact, it’s not been government universities so much as private universities that have made contractual promises to their employees to grant them freedom of speech even in their role as employees.
I think the right is overreacting on CRT, if that’s what you’re asking.
That said, the government does have a role in setting the curriculum in public schools and if teachers aren’t willing to teach the curriculum then that’s a problem. But the backlash from the right is, for the most part, not reasonable.
But really, that’s a conversation better suited for the CRT thread.
No, you are claiming that a university teacher has the right to spout off about anything, because “free speech, employed by the government”. I’m pointing out that government employees do not generally enjoy free speech, especially on the job. Not even teachers.
I understand that universities are different from elementary schools. But the employer/employee relation is the same. The fact that they are employed by the government has exactly zero to do with whether they should be able to say hateful things without any consequences to their employment. You are barking up the wrong tree.
3 Likes
Does the Right hate free speech?