In which we discuss free speech.

There is no such thing as hate speech, in and of itself. Sure, fighting words could be bad, but speech regarding hateful ideas should be allowed. Davidson, at the Federalist, explains the difference:

"But in fact, there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment. The answer to the question, 'Where does free speech stop and hate speech begin?' is this: nowhere. For the purposes of the First Amendment, there is no difference between free speech and hate speech. Ideas and opinions that progressive students and professors find offensive or “hateful” are just as protected by the Bill of Rights as anti-Trump slogans chanted at a campus protest."
http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/20/...g-hate-speech/

It is a shame that people stop speech with violence. That makes them fascists. Berkeley cancelling Ann Coulter's speech is a disgraceful violation of the First Amendment. Free speech is what keeps us free.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.781e564c4611

Edit to add a review of some of the issues related to "hate speech."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8d27cbafa071

It is, quite straightforwardly, the cornerstone of civilisation, the right upon which other rights are built, and frankly the thing most worth fighting for.

I'm totally comfortable in taking an absolutist approach to free speech as I think, fortunately, most people are in the West.

Always needs defending though, and that naturally involves defending unpopular views.

Some people obviously try and asset that defence of someone's right to free speech constitutes an endorsement of what they're saying, but meh, most people see through that as a rhetorical tactic.

So you don't know what words mean. Fair enough.

I can see this thread going well.

Pretty much agree with apple though.

Why does it always start with ridiculous notions like this? Berkley isn't under any obligation to host an Ann Coulter speech any more than it's obligated to host a talk from me (that's an open offer if anyone there is reading, I'll talk about anything in exchange for beer and a room). It's not a free speech issue. It's an Ann Coulter is a ****ing waste of DNA and some people might get uppity about it issue.

You ever here of a thing called a contract fella?

plus Ann Coulter is hot!

You can't even say "Merry Christmas" any more.

You can now that Trump is President.

I guess I will start taking it easier on you. You have to be at least 70 to think Ann Coulter is hot.

The issue is fuzzy for the University. People have every right to protest her though.

Contracts aren't a first amendment issue.

I thought Maher was meant to be a voice of reason on US TV but whenever I see clips he's talking total ****.

This is why we never get to a point of nuance on these issues, because we've got to hear bull**** about how if you don't get to talk at a university then that's a violation of your rights. It isn't. And then we have to go through this bull**** about how "in the real world" everyone gets to say what they want. They don't.

If you work as a TV presenter and it turns out you make lewd phone calls to your colleagues and someone finds out about it, turns out you really can be fired just for what you say.

Free speech is about government sanction. It is not about codes of conduct for institutions.

1) UC Berkeley is a government run entity.

2) The grounds are public owned land open to the public.

3) There is precedent for public speaking on the grounds.

4) that there might be violent protests has not previously been sufficient justification to bar speakers.

5) Berkeley, lately, has shown a practice of attempting to bar certain political speech while approving others.


~~~~~~

Even if "free speech" concerns are not the driver of the conversation, the cowardly actions of Berkeley trying to limit political speakers, who are invited by student groups, should be cause enough to find the situation revolting.

What's worse, it appears that the University is condoning the violent protests.

Universities also ban certain kinds of physics speech while approving others. It's kind of what good universities do.

I'll add that being a government run entity also doesn't entail allowing anyone to say whatever they want whenever they want.

Government employees can kindly tell the President that he's an orange-faced cretin and expect to be unemployed shortly after and it's still not a first amendment issue.

The US protects the rights of people to incite hatred in others and removes the rights of some people to live (and therefore to express their views); Europe does the opposite.

I know which I prefer.

Except that then UC Berkeley reverses itself in embarrassment when pressure is brought.

If your statement was correct, then Berkeley would have stood up on its hind legs and held it's ground.

Explain.

Okay. And maybe that makes Berkeley sucky. It's still not a first amendment issue.

1) when student group invites a political speaker the University is obligated to permit the speech.

If the University bans the speech, then the political rights of the speaker and the students are infringed.

This is why it's a 1st amendment issue.

Again, the risk of violent protests has never been satisfactorily grounds to ban a political speech.

2) Has there been any government employees who have been fired for hating the president? Provide evidence please.

3) Lol at "banning some physics speech". Are you for real?

Coulter is the perpetual motion idiot of politics. So yeah, super serial.

If Time Cube Guy gets deplatformed and disinvited there will be hell to pay.

My favourite Time Cube moment was when they told him a cube has six sides and he said "You call your floor and ceiling a side? That's stupid".

Oh snap, I never actually watched his debates, I prejudged them as being exceedingly cruel to a clearly unwell man.

But the website is incredible and glorious.