Zarathud wrote:Kurth wrote:Zarathud wrote:But Germany puts a hole in the arguments of those insisting on the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment as necessary for democracy.
How is that? Not sure what you mean by "the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment," but I have a huge problem with the notion that stifling speech - even undesirable or repugnant speech - can ever be consistent with preventing the rise of oppressive government.
Germany isn't an oppressive government. Which is my point.
Sure, the ACLU has stood for letting Nazis speak in situations where it is offensive. Skokie has a significant Jewish population and is in the Chicago area. The Nazis marched there to intimidate and harass. Talking to people who lived there at the time changed my perspective on it.
The belief that free speech must never be limited -- and that we have an obligation as citizens to listen to repugnant speech -- has been oversold. The idea that "no speech is really safe" is propaganda that had no reality in the post-internet era. There is no government censorship going on at the university -- or at least not enough to defend.
What most offends me about these tales of "censorship" is that the speakers have other platforms to speak. But the speech on those platforms is used to wallow in self-entitlement rather than persuading others about what is right.
But, you know, that's just my opinion, man.
I hear what you're saying, and I think I get where you're coming from. I just wholeheartedly disagree with it.
And, to be clear, I'm not a crazy free speech absolutist. Neither I nor the ACLU embraces the belief that "free speech must never be limited." There are all kinds of time and place limits on speech that make perfect sense. The problem comes about when government starts making content based determinations on speech.
Also, as many have already noted, no one is suggesting that we, as citizens, have to listen to repugnant speech. No one is suggesting that listening to a bunch of white supremacists with torches is going to provide an interesting and valuable new perspective on an issue! A perfectly reasonable -- but not the only -- response to that kind of speech is to turn our backs and say hell no, we're not listening to the shit you're peddling.
[not talking about Nazis here]Regarding university speech and whether first amendment issues are truly implicated when universities or student bodies shut down invited speakers, I think there are some open questions and some grey areas. In my opinion, our universities today and a very large segment of our college students have become cowards. It's embarrassing to me the degree to which they go to shield themselves from points of view that don't align with their own. I came from a pretty rural and very conservative PA town and went to a very small and VERY liberal arts college near Philadelphia. Because my parents are pretty open-minded people, I didn't show up at college with many hardcore conservative ideas, but I wasn't exactly liberal, and I certainly didn't fit into the mainstream of thought on campus at the time in the early 1990s. I was especially behind -- mostly from ignorance -- on issues regarding women's rights and gay rights. But through exposure to different views on those subjects from fellow students and from some really good speakers different student groups brought to campus, my thoughts quickly evolved and became much more progressive. At the same time, the small contingent of college conservatives also brought a number of conservative speakers to campus with views that were, at times, antithetical to the deeply held beliefs of many of the students. Back then, those speakers were criticized and their ideas were challenged, but no one sought to shut them down because (1) we all knew that protecting their ability to be heard was directly linked to protecting our ability to be heard; and (2) we all knew that hearing an opposing viewpoint, even one we absolutely disagreed with or found offensive, was good for us on some level. I'm afraid that this is just not happening on today's campuses. [/not talking about Nazis here]
Finally, on the issue of "other platforms" and THE INTERNET!!!, I think it's a dangerous path and a red herring. Again, time and place restrictions may be fine when they aren't content based, and the availability of other platforms can come into play when assessing how restrictive a free speech limitation is, but that's not really the issue here. We're talking about whether content based limitations are appropriate.
And the notion that the Internet is always an available option is wrong. As already pointed out, the Internet is run by private companies that can easily boot your ass off if they don't like what you're saying (or if enough of their paying customers don't like what you're saying). In fact, as we slide away from the notion that the Internet should be run like a public utility, the idea of the Internet as a bastion for free speech is being severely undermined. In fact, unfortunately, I may need to start considering a change to my sig.
