Welcome to College Confidential!

The leading college-bound community on the web

Sign Up For Free

Join for FREE, and start talking with other members, weighing in on community discussions, and more.

Also, by registering and logging in you'll see fewer ads and pesky welcome messages (like this one!)

As a CC member, you can:

  • Reply to threads, and start your own.
  • Post reviews of your campus visits.
  • Find hundreds of pages of informative articles.
  • Search from over 3 million scholarships.

Speaking Freely: What Students Think About Self-Expression at American Colleges

1235»

Replies to: Speaking Freely: What Students Think About Self-Expression at American Colleges

  • roethlisburgerroethlisburger Registered User Posts: 2,227 Senior Member
    @OHMomof2 additionally discusses a left-wing professor's dismissal for...speech.

    http://reason.com/blog/2017/10/16/whittier-college-speakers-trump-shutdown

    Professors are employees of the university. Students and guest speakers are not employees, so students and guest speakers should be entitled to greater free speech protection than the faculty of a university.
  • dadoftwingirlsdadoftwingirls Registered User Posts: 730 Member
    @OHMomof2, your assuming the 197 inauguration protesters are being charged for only protesting.

    Wahington post story stated 230 people arrested with the majority being charged with rioting. Rioting isn't protesting.

    a comment from the story, "Faison said attacks were done with “nuance and intention,” while conceding that some may view the violence as undermining their cause. He said that what appeared chaotic was purposeful in its symbolism and that vandalism at a Starbucks shop and a Bank of America branch were executed as attacks on capitalism and corporate greed."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/protesters-who-destroyed-property-on-inauguration-day-part-of-well-organized-group/2017/01/21/096678c8-dfeb-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.dae69dd51f75

  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    @roethlisburger Students and guest speakers are not employees, so students and guest speakers should be entitled to greater free speech protection than the faculty of a university.

    I totally agree, with respect to the classroom. Not so sure about the world beyond it, that's a pretty grey area. If a professor engages in racist or sexist speech in his free time (like in personal facebook group), is that OK? We know it is for students now, as it happened at Pomona.

    Wheaton College (IL) decided their professor had no right to her own opinion with respect to the concept of "People of the Book", whether expressed outside the school or not. AFAIK she's still fired.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    @dadoftwingirls Rioting isn't protesting.

    I agree, of course. But obviously the line is not always clear. Violence against people and to a lesser degree, property? Of course that's not protected. But what of the others in the group, part of the same protest (or riot, if you will) who do not commit violence or property damage?

    What about the fellow protesters/rioters that created the conditions for, say, a white supremacist to drive his car into a crowd in Charlottesville and kill a woman? I'm not aware of any arrests other than of the one man driving the car in that case (for that - there were a few arrests of protesters and counter protesters for specific offenses).

    And as objectionable as that is, it's probably the right thing - despite the fact that the torch rally etc were well organized ahead of time, sometimes someone goes rogue. I think people who broke windows or threw concrete at a limo or whatever on inauguration day went rogue too. And people who expressed themselves legally should not be caught up in that.

    Same org protecting the speech of the white supremacists in court are doing the same for the inauguration day people:
    Scott Michelman, a senior attorney for the ACLU of the District of Columbia, said at a news conference that many of the people detained that day had nothing to do with the violence but were arrested out of “guilt by association” with the small group of agitators.

    “It is clear to me that the Metropolitan police came out on Inauguration Day intent on teaching demonstrators a lesson and chilling political speech in the nation’s capital,”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/aclu-sues-dc-police-over-arrests-during-inauguration-disturbance/2017/06/21/91316cd0-503f-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html

    ...and this?
    The Department of Justice, in an unprecedented move, is trying to seize 1.3 million IP addresses of people who logged onto a website to read about Inauguration organizing. This is a direct encroachment on the First Amendment, by a government that wants to silence criticism, dissent, and protest.

    I may have visited this web site. 1.3 million people apparently did. Are their rights not protected because some subset of 200 people helped break windows?
  • dadoftwingirlsdadoftwingirls Registered User Posts: 730 Member
    Freedom is a big problem for some individuals since there are people who are going to say and do things they don't like and vehemently disagree with. However, as long as no laws are broken, people are allowed to say and do things which we find are racist, cruel, etc.

    This discussion about freedom reminds me of a Frank Burns quote with a similar subject, "Individuality is fine as long as we all do it together."

    Freedom doesn't mean people are only allowed to say and do approved things.

    I don't understand why we don't treat a college protest like a protest at an abortion clinic. (I do not in anyway want to discuss if abortion is right or wrong, but discuss how the courts have handled protest at these places.)

    Those who are protesting against the clinic can do so but must stay a certain distance away from the clinic so that it can conduct its business. The workers and those who are using the services of the clinic can not be stopped or delayed in anyway from entering the clinic. Those who are protesting can do so and aren't stopped unless they break certain rules which have put in place to allow the business and those who use their services their rights to conduct and participate in a legal business.
  • ZinheadZinhead Registered User Posts: 2,610 Senior Member
    FIRE has an editorial from Zach Breenber entitled "A World Without Hate Speech:"

    https://www.thefire.org/a-world-without-hate-speech/
    Getting back to our hate speech-less utopia, we have the luxury of looking to an actual world full of hate speech prosecutions in the many nations that do not enjoy our broad free speech protections. For example, in Pakistan, people are arrested and sentenced to death for “blasphemy” for insulting Islam, while in Egypt, individuals are arrested for “debauchery” for waving rainbow flags at concerts. Then, there are the thirty Turkish journalists currently facing consecutive life sentences for their anti-government articles, as well as the Kyrgyz author imprisoned for “inciting hatred between religious groups” for publishing a book questioning God’s form.
  • OHMomof2OHMomof2 Registered User Posts: 11,755 Senior Member
    Seems some college cheerleaders who knelt for the anthem were subsequently moved off the field until it ended. For political reasons.

    The politicians in question admit that they couldn't legally keep them from kneeling for first amendment reasons, so they just decided to keep them off the field until after.

    Speech violation or no?

    https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/10/19/texts-cast-doubt-kennesaw-state-presidents-statements
1235»
This discussion has been closed.