The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free to pursue their lives than they would be in the absence (or at least less pervasive use) of that language. That, for example, someone expressing racist views at a university has the effect of making those views seem more legitimate, which in turn encourages more open expression of those views in people's actions which in turn restricts the liberty of the subjects of those views. This either does happen or it doesn't. Whether it does or doesn't is an empirical matter. — Isaac
I think free speech is a matter of principle — counterpunch
cases in which it is at issue need to be judged on merit, — counterpunch
The individual circumstances of any particular case make it different from every other. — counterpunch
I don't expect ensuring free speech means abandoning hate speech legislation. — counterpunch
I don't think it's possible to gather objective data on such issues. — counterpunch
If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data. — counterpunch
If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data. — counterpunch
It's not that complicated - sociological research, interviews, questionnaires, measures of equality in segregated communities, historical analysis...there's tons of ways we can gather data. Maybe not very robust data, but a damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac
But it is complicated - and not just because sociological investigation is methodologically suspect in the very best of conditions. There would necessarily be an awareness that the data would seek to inform government policy on universities - with regard to freedom of speech, a fundamental human right that - institutionally marxist sociology departments are politically opposed to. The last thing post modernist, politically correct left wing academia want is free speech. They've dedicated the past 60 years to gradually closing it down, and that's who you want to conduct this research? — counterpunch
damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac
damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac
Even those places that where people "are on thin ice" likely are fairly placid places, I would think.My guess is that a lot of colleges are still fairly placid places. There are outstanding exceptions of course, where everyone is on somebody else's thin ice. — Bitter Crank
Huh? In what way are we unable to define free speech as a human right? There's a massive literature on the subject. Acquaint yourself with it and you'll have answers to your questions. — counterpunch
If I give you the wrong directions to the pub, and you go that way, my words have caused you to do so. It's not that hard.
No, I could care less about jargon. — NOS4A2
In what way? You've provided an example of a way of doing so, haven't you? And I even went to the trouble of asking questions which, had you responded to them, might have assisted in disclosing what you think that "right" entails. — Ciceronianus the White
But I understand it's difficult to do, though you apparently don't. The consideration of questions which arise in considering possible situations can tell us something of the beliefs of those asked. — Ciceronianus the White
Would a student's refusal to attend a class taught by a professor because he/she/whatever is a Marxist (or Objectivist--by which I mean a follower of the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, Ayn Rand--or Libertarian, etc.) be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a professor's insistence on teaching the Marxist (or Objectivist or Libertarian) view of a particular subject be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a student or professor's refusal to attend a speech by the proponent of a particular ideology be an exercise of the HROFS?
Would a student or professor's non-violent protest of a speech being given a person on campus (you know, "singing songs and a-carrying signs") be an exercise of the HROFS? Would it be a violation of the speaker's HROFS?
Would a university's refusal to invite a person to speak because it disapproves of what that person may be expected to say be a violation of that person's HROFS? — Ciceronianus the White
who or what is making the tea? The milk? The tea-leaves? The kettle? Not a single one of these, or any combination of these ingredients, can cause tea. — NOS4A2
It’s true; I would not respond to something that is not there — NOS4A2
This is because your post isn’t the cause of me responding anymore than it is the cause of no one else responding. The causal chain of your language ended wherever you have left your words, and there they will sit until some agent comes across and chooses what to do with them. — NOS4A2
Instead, why don't we discuss the need for these measures. What is going on in universities that government has to step in to ensure free speech? — counterpunch
No, they are not sufficient causes, they are necessary causes. Another necessary cause is a human tea-maker, or a machine. It doesn't make them not causes, otherwise nothing could ever be caused.
Exactly. So, in terms of speech legislation, if I wanted to stop you responding, then removing one of the necessary causes (my post) would do that. Of course, in the real world we must usually talk about minimising chances rather than outright prevention because the number of sufficient causes is very large.
You've just ignored what I previously said rather than counter it. That is not the public meaning of the term 'cause'. You'll not find such a meaning in any dictionary. It is not necessary for a cause to be sufficient in order for it to be a cause. My post was not sufficient to result in your reply, but - this is the important bit - nothing is. So if we reserve the word 'cause' for only those factors which are sufficient we have to accept the absurd conclusion that nothing has any causes.
Leaves are a cause of us raking them. They're just not a sufficient cause, they are a necessary one.
Again, the importance for free speech legislation - remove the leaves and you remove the raking, because they are a necessary cause.
So, just to be clear - you are in favour of free speech, but not in favour of government measures to protect free speech? — counterpunch
Would I be correct in assuming you're an American with an innate suspicion of federal government? — counterpunch
That's why these measures are necessary. — counterpunch
You see, whether the government has to step in, and whether it should step in, and what it should do about it if it has to or should step in, all depend on what the "right to free speech" means. But you're clearly unable or unwilling to address that. — Ciceronianus the White
That's exactly what I meant, yes. It's an oxymoronic position to endorse government to protect free speech. Free speech is derived from free will. I do not need the government to regulate when I can go to the bathroom. Or what I can say. But again, I look at the agenda and the origin, not the claim. — Paul S
I don't plan on discarding the anonymity this site offers me. I value free speech, and principles such as whistleblowing which have free speech at their core. — Paul S
If it's the case that you can confidently state that you believe such measures are necessary, then I wouldn't be convinced that you were genuinely willing to discuss the matter. Your view appears to be matured and you are seeking emotional support. No offence. — Paul S
Do you accept that it's not necessarily polite to encourage your level of free speech rights in the UK as a guide for how other countries should view such rights? — Paul S
I want to give an example. Recently, statues of slave owners were torn down by outraged teens - signalling their virtue. One man, Colston - was born in 1636, which - someone might have pointed out were free speech a protected right, was about 200 years before slavery was ended. — counterpunch
If the statute was one of Edward Colson, he was deputy governor of the English Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on England's African trade slave. — Ciceronianus the White
I suppose flour is the necessary cause of bread, and hops the necessary cause of beer. I’m not going to use such language. No matter what word you use to modify “cause”, and no matter how easily we can drift into the passive voice when we describe tea-making, none of these ingredients can gather and mix themselves with other “necessary causes” to create the end product. — NOS4A2
If you wanted to stop me responding you would have to stop yourself from responding. In both cases, the words did not cause any of these actions. These are the decisions of an agent, the only being with the capacity to act in such a manner. — NOS4A2
The one thing that gathers the ingredients, boils the water, and combines the ingredients to form tea hardly makes an appearance in your analogy, or is relegated to the same species of cause as boiling water. — NOS4A2
I suggest we teach people to not fear leaves so that we need not resort to such measures. — NOS4A2
As usual, the right are victim role-playing snowflakes who peddle fake news and they should all get fucked. Whole debate is a charade and anyone who takes it seriously is a clown and probably some kind of post-modern neofascist or somesuch. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.