What ever happened to reasoned constructive discussion based on facts?
The wolves in sheep clothing
States Consider Legislation To Protect Free Speech On Campus
May 5, 2017 - 6:29 PM ET
Heard on All Things Considered
SAMANTHA RAPHELSON
In other cases — as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week — the event is called off.
Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona. ...
...
Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus,
and Manley says this is possible because hate speech is not well-defined in the law.
"The point of having free speech protection in the Constitution is to protect unpopular ideas," Manley says.
"We don't need the First Amendment for ideas that everybody agrees with.
We need to protect minority views, even if those views are repugnant to most people, and maybe especially if those views are repugnant."
...
Can anyone explain how hate speech and deliberate tactical lying are going to help society deal with developments and our future.
The problem isn’t hate speech or legislation. The problem is a misunderstanding of “freedom of speech” as stated in the Constitution. Freedom of speech does not mean control of a university’s decision to either invite or disinvite someone to speak in one of its auditoriums. Free speech has to do with the public square, not a university venue. In this case, Ann Coulter could have gone to Berkeley and said anything she wanted to say in the university’s public areas. The right to free soeech does not guarantee an invitation to speak in a university’s auditoriums. Being invited or disinvited to soeak on a university venue has nothing to do with the right to free speech. The right to free speech means anyone can express any opinion in a public area. No one is guaranteed a right to use a university’s facilities, even a state university. The university has a right to restrict its venues other than public areas. The whole university should not be considered a public area just because it is owned and controlled by the state. Should anyone be permitted to speak in the House, the Senate or in the Supreme Court? Those venues are also owned by the people, just as a state university is. But no one can go there and give a speech without an invitation. “Free speech” does not mean anyone can speak uninvited inside a governmemt-controlled venue.
{author "LoisL" date-1494345103}
The problem isn't hate speech or legislation. The problem is a misunderstanding of "freedom of speech" as stated in the Constitution.
Freedom of speech does not mean control of a university's decision to either invite or disinvite someone to speak in one of its auditoriums. Free speech has to do with the public square, not a university venue. In this case, Ann Coulter could have gone to Berkeley and said anything she wanted to say in the university's public areas. The right to free speech does not guarantee an invitation to speak in a university's auditoriums. Being invited or disinvited to speak on a university venue has nothing to do with the right to free speech. The right to free speech means anyone can express any opinion in a public area.
No one is guaranteed a right to use a university's facilities, even a state university. The university has a right to restrict its venues other than public areas. The whole university should not be considered a public area just because it is owned and controlled by the state. Should anyone be permitted to speak in the House, the Senate or in the Supreme Court? Those venues are also owned by the people, just as a state university is. But no one can go there and give a speech without an invitation. "Free speech" does not mean anyone can speak uninvited inside a government-controlled venue.
Good point. I hadn't looked at it like that, it makes sense.
Not that I've changed my mind about the biggest problem is how our general societal accepts gratuitous politically hate speech and malicious lies replacing honest fact based reviews.
Not that I've changed my mind about the biggest problem is how our general societal accepts gratuitous politically hate speech and malicious lies replacing honest fact based reviews.
I'm not sure if it's the "dumbing down" or that things are actually more complicated. Populism, of the variety that only appears to be for the common citizen, but actually isn't, is not a new thing, but I am surprised by it in a time of so much information available to so many.
My Uncle, who is not stupid, has given up making any kind of argument, and just attacks my sources, saying I just don't like his sources, for no reason. I used to explain to him things, like how his chart is only showing the uptrend years and ignoring the decades long picture, or how it ignores inflation, or whatever. I used to show him Snopes articles, then he said that it has been shown that fact checking sites more often say conservative stories are false, therefore, they are biased. I haven't asked him if he'd come to the same conclusion if it was found they more often say liberal stories are false.
It seems to be just intellectual laziness. Don't bother checking a source. Don't bother holding contradictory evidence in your head until further study. Instead, let the opinion of an artist with a blog be equal to 99% of the worldwide science agencies. Or when the headline says "George Soros banned in 5 countries", don't bother looking up what countries those are. You know you are supposed to hate Soros, that's all you need to know.
Free speech means just what the words say. There are limits but damn few. On another “freedom issue”, there prayer in school each day. There is no way in heaven or hell it can be stopped. Don’t believe me, check with the algebra class.
Free speech means just what the words say. There are limits but damn few. On another "freedom issue", there prayer in school each day. There is no way in heaven or hell it can be stopped. Don't believe me, check with the algebra class.
Been chewing on this and in no way do I disagree, specially considering somethings I write, I'm exquisitely aware that I wouldn't be able to do so in many other countries,
at least not without extreme if not dire consequences.
The problem with this movement is that at it's heart these are Absolutists, they have totally jettisoned morality, civility, decency and respect for others, believing in standards of honest, even if we don't always follow our own standards - all that has been tossed out the window for the sake of their frantic drive to control everything.
These people will justify yelling "Fire!" in a dark crowded theater if it suits their own purposes.
The contempt for honesty behind all this is what so deeply disturbs me.
Coulter: Those Who Don't Believe In Global Warming Are Treated Like Holocaust Deniers
Posted By Ian Schwartz | On Date May 22, 2014
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/22/coulter_those_who_dont_believe_in_global_warming_are_treated_like_holocaust_deniers.html
The entire slimy argument structure - the over all message.
Maybe you won't get it, if not, you can count yourself among the 'disconnected from Earth Physical Reality crowd' - Ann will tell us that's everyone's right.
She's even proud of this rejection of reality based on dishonesty emotionalizing which she specializes in.
Well, I also know that "Rights" aren't given, they are taken - so it goes. The Golden Rule - the man with the gold makes the rules.
No matter how insane or self-destructive.
DO SMOKING GUNS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, TOO?
December 2, 2009
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2009-12-02.html
"As we now know (and by "we" I mean "everyone with access to the Internet"), the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth's temperature."
Reality is that the break-in and computer hack and the thousands of personal emails stolen did no such thing, not even close.
And it's about an issue that is not a fuking game!!! >:-(
Free speech should not be a license to wanton crazy making and deception and fraud - but that is exactly what has happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Also for the record in that interview linked in the thread opener, did specifically say Hate Speech should be protected.
I spent a little time at Ann’s own blog opening various articles, and they are plain filthy and busy with dredging up distrust and resentment and anger using deliberately misleading information.
Trying to cull specific examples of hate speech is a challenge because it more a matter of how she weaves that seething disgust of her’s and that anger into all her words.
She’s trashy and into encouraging resentment and fear and anger and hatred towards others. But what makes it Hate Speech?
Guess you got me there, what is hate speech???
Wantonly misrepresenting, slandering and libeling honorable competent professionals and experts in order to harm their standing and perceived validity?
Never honestly representing what your opponent is saying?
Ignoring tons of authoritative, valid, observations and information because its implications interferes with your business plan?
You tell me.
How does one know Ann Coulter will engage in "hate speech"?
I didn't fully appreciate your question the first time around.
Hmmm, so how do I know Ann would have engaged in the sorts of hate speech (others have cited) in her past.
Good question.
What difference does it make to her legitimacy to speak?
Does any wannabe get to speak at a prestigious college?
Okay, how about considering The People's - the community's Right to say:
Dear Ann Coulter, your record speaks for itself.
It has been so outrageous and beyond the bounds of reasoned constructive dialogue that we do not want to listen to you.
Period.
Just as you, Ms Coulter, believe it is your right not to listen to valid facts and evidence -
It is our right not to listen to you at this prestigious venue that values solid facts and evidence!
We'll read your blog to catch up on your thoughts.
How does one know Ann Coulter will engage in "hate speech"?
I didn't fully appreciate your question the first time around.
Hmmm, so how do I know Ann would have engaged in the sorts of hate speech (others have cited) in her past.
Good question.
What difference does it make to her legitimacy to speak?
Does any wannabe get to speak at a prestigious college?
Okay, how about considering The People's - the community's Right to say:
Dear Ann Coulter, your record speaks for itself.
It has been so outrageous and beyond the bounds of reasoned constructive dialogue that we do not want to listen to you.
Period.
Just as you, Ms Coulter, believe it is your right not to listen to valid facts and evidence -
It is our right not to listen to you at this prestigious venue that values solid facts and evidence!
We'll read your blog to catch up on your thoughts.
Any thoughts?We don't want to listen to you - That's a lot more honest.
The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too often as a way to shut down those one doesn't like.
The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too often as a way to shut down those one doesn't like.
Guess for an amoral people the sky's the limit Beltane.
What is it about deliberately using fabricated lies to slandering and libel professionals that you don't like - that isn't hateful?
What is it about vicious and malicious that isn't hateful?
We don't want to listen to you - That's a lot more honest.
Bull shit that is not more honest! There deserves to be reasons given and understood.
But it gets back to the amoral nature of these days when you dismiss malicious lying as merely a difference of opinion.
But that is what the Christian Evangelical political absolutism has achieved, thank you Reagan and Falwell, Robertson.
No wonder this nation is unraveling.
The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too often as a way to shut down those one doesn't like.
Guess for an amoral people the sky's the limit Beltane.
What is it about deliberately using fabricated lies to slandering and libel professionals that you don't like - that isn't hateful?
What is it about vicious and malicious that isn't hateful?
No, lying isn't hate speech, maybe it's hateful to lie sometimes but doesn't make it hate speech, legally.
And what are you taking about? Who is Coulter slandering? Which professionals?
The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too often as a way to shut down those one doesn't like.
Guess for an amoral people the sky's the limit Beltane.
What is it about deliberately using fabricated lies to slandering and libel professionals that you don't like - that isn't hateful?
What is it about vicious and malicious that isn't hateful?
No, lying isn't hate speech, maybe it's hateful to lie sometimes but doesn't make it hate speech, legally.
And what are you taking about? Who is Coulter slandering? Which professionals?
Seriously? If you are going to discuss Coulter, there is an expectation that you have listened to her once or twice.
Do you have some reasoned discourse from her that you can site?
Free speech means just what the words say. There are limits but damn few. On another "freedom issue", there prayer in school each day. There is no way in heaven or hell it can be stopped. Don't believe me, check with the algebra class.
The right to free speech does not include speeches that are paid for. When payment and the use of facilities is involved--even government-owned facilities, it is no longer a matter of free speech. Using Government owned facilities to give a speech does not come under the heading of free speech. As I said before, the right to free speech is limited to the public square. No one has an automatic right to speak in any other place under the intent of the first amendment. A disturbingly large percentage of the US citizenry misinterprets the right to free speech. It doesn't mean what many people seem to think it means--that citizens have a right to express any opinion in any location other than the public square.
Lois
Do you have some reasoned discourse from her that you can site?
That was going to be my next question.
Now I'm curious to see what B comes up with. :smirk:
Incidentally, Lois makes another key point that the frothing alt-right consistently chooses to ignore.
The term "hate speech" gets thrown around too often as a way to shut down those one doesn't like.
Guess for an amoral people the sky's the limit Beltane.
What is it about deliberately using fabricated lies to slandering and libel professionals that you don't like - that isn't hateful?
What is it about vicious and malicious that isn't hateful?
No, lying isn't hate speech, maybe it's hateful to lie sometimes but doesn't make it hate speech, legally.
And what are you taking about? Who is Coulter slandering? Which professionals?
Seriously? If you are going to discuss Coulter, there is an expectation that you have listened to her once or twice.
Do you have some reasoned discourse from her that you can site?Whether her discourse is reasoned or unreasoned is irrelevant because neither constitutes hate speech.