I don't think anyone but a handful of students would object to someone expressing their opinions and arguing over of homosexuality and sin. I think when it veers off towards Westboro Baptist territory that people have a problem.

I've yet to see you cite a single troublesome situation these SAFE SPACES have produced

K, where are the specific examples here? We asked FoldN, and he tossed out an Atlantic article that he clearly didn't read. Where are these books that are supposedly being banned.

I would lean no, with the caveat that if a topic is really that sensitive that the student would talk with the prof to work something out, maybe by skipping the triggering passages.

How do you not get this? You complain about free speech, which you already have, but what you really want is a SAFE SPACE where you won't be criticized.

I, personally, hate the idea of students being expelled or even punished for speech; even idiotic speech. If someone wants to say "Hitler had some good ideas", let them. Then let people rip their idea to shreds. How do you think bad arguments are going to do when faced with better arguments?


Even good ideas can be made better by being exposed to disagreement. If you make no space for disagreement, then you make no space for growth or real learning.


The problem is that once you start punishing people for speech you don't like, you implicitly allow others to punish for speech they don't like. Maybe they label me calling "intelligent design" idiocy as hate speech and punish me accordingly.

So we have to wait for books to be banned before we can say anything?

It's a real problem when there are groups still suffering so much from discrimination of various sorts. Homosexuals are still struggling for equality under the law and in parts of the world are suffering greatly, up to and including being murdered - why should people be freely allowed to reinforce these attitudes by calling them abominations?

What the actual argument in favour of totally free speech. Why not have some restrictions on hate speech?

Hahaha whew

+1

Don't think you should be expelled for speech except in extreme circumstances where you're threatening a life/limb. Seems like the most efficient way to shut down stupid speech is what goes on everytime the SMP crew posts in politics, i.e. relentless criticism

The horrors of safe spaces are limited only by our imaginations I guess.

Holocaust still total BS, tho.

Who gets to define hate speech?


It's the same argument I've used against governmental overreach. If you allow government powers to be expanded to accomplish things you support, don't act shocked when those powers are later used to accomplish things you oppose.

Uh, sure I did. Why don't you?

The law. We have hate speech laws in the UK. It's seems to work ok, not perfect no doubt.

Slippery slopes concern be a great deal but that can't always be sufficient justification to do nothing. Is there any argument against banning hate speech other than it might go too far?

And I think the hate speech laws you have the UK are overly broad and generally crap.



There are many situations in which "nothing" is precisely the correct governmental response.

Eh you can mock something as stupid and non-productive, even if it doesn't produce some horrific outcome.

Not that chilling free speech on college campuses isn't a bad outcome.

Drugs a problem? Lets DO SOMETHING!


How about we start throwing millions of drug users in jail, start drug testing for jobs, start seizing money & property on the mere suspicion that it is involved in the drug business, and inadvertently create massive profits for brutal drug cartels?


Yay! We DID SOMETHING!

Before you say something about books being banned? Yes

No, we get to roundly mock ideas before they're implemented. Ideas that can't stand up to mockery are rarely worthwhile.

Maybe they are. I'm not sure but that in itself doesn't make them worse than allowing hate speech which is also a problem. It's a tricky area.

Is the only argument that it would be good to restrict hate speech but it's too hard?

OK, I'm going to soundly mock disingenuous hand-wringing over non-existent book bannings.

People have a basic human right to express their thoughts and opinions in a peaceful manner.

I'm arguing that we shouldn't restrict hate speech at all. Preach hate if you want (God Hates ****!, etc), but expect to be mocked for it mercilessly.

Yay! Now you're taking part in the marketplace of ideas!

I don't know what that means any more than saying people have a basic human right not to be subjected to hate speech.

I appreciate that's what you're arguing for. I'm asking whether there's any argument for that position beyond the claim that suitable restrictions are too hard to implement.