Free Speech and Creepy Liberalism

although "I got fired for slapping Sergey Brin and telling him he smells bad" would be an excellent reason to get fired from gooogle

Otm

I don't see why an employer is obliged to keep around someone who is at odds with their stated priorities.

Hum hmmm

As a student media advisor, I'm legitimately torn about UF's decision to deny Richard Spencer an invitation to speak on campus.

On on hand, it's illegal for public universities to regulate speech on the basis of the speaker’s point of view. Public university administrators can't order students to invite or rescind invitations to speakers invite to campus on their own initiative, in much the same manner that public uni administrators can't dictate content to student newspapers. Moreover, the Brandenburg case sets a very high bar for challengers of inflammatory speech, i.e. the speech has to provoke the crowd into immediately carrying out acts of violence.

I'm not a lawyer; this is how I understand First Amendment law at public universities. It's possible that the UF president's actions have inspired a law suit which he and his institution may lose based on case law. In addition, UF has enough time before the event to station as much university and local officers on campus as required to ensure everyone's safety. This is the argument we'll likely hear in court.

On the other hand, Charlottesville. I don't know if students invited Spencer to speak. If they didn't, it's a grey area. Either way, I don't want uni administrators shutting down, say, a student newspaper because its content was likely to provoke violence, according to their general counsels.

I don't usually post this sort of thing on ILE, so polite responses requested.

I think the problem is different than it was in Brandenburg or Hess. The "imminent lawless action" is from the simple presence of the speaker on or near campus, since Spencer's presence guarantees that a bunch of nazis and a bunch of protesters are going to show up and at some point it is likely they will throw punches or much, much worse.

The "it is likely" is the grey area. Nazis showing up isn't an incitement, according to the courts.

Yeah, this is a safety issue not a free speech issue imo. Spencer's presence on any campus would cause mayhem. White suprematist shitheads would almost certainly try to start trouble with the people who will protest Spencer.

It's a different situation than Charles Murray or someone like that.

Sure, I understand the difference. But public universities can't refuse invitations on the explicit basis that an appearance of a white supremacist is likely to incite violence. And, again, for a host of reasons, I'm quite uncomfortable with these old-ass conservative administrators making decisions based on public safety.

It is both a safety issue and a free speech issue. We'll see.

aiui the university declined to rent space to an outside group to host Sp3ncer; he was not invited by a university group to begin with

It's a grey area, but if a group has just straight up murdered a person at one of their gatherings, and then says: “The Next Battlefield is in Florida", then Florida can cancel on them imo. I mean, they would have to prove that a) that statement is connected to the same group and b) that Spencer won't just disavow whoever said it, but most alt-right groups didn't even flinch after the murder of Heather Heyes, and then it does become more of a question about safety.

But that would infringe on their rights! Which are absolute! No matter how many people have been killed on consequetive protests, shouldn't the ACLU defend their right to protest? I don't know, it's super alien to me as a Britisher. We fought Fascists marching through jewish districts in the 30s, we limit or ban Orange Order marches through Catholic areas in NI, and I can't understand why that could be wrong. A white supremacist march through a black community chanting nazi slogans is a threat of force. That's what it's meant to do, and I have no problem stopping them from doing it. It's qualitatively different from the Left marching, and UK Leftists have never seen a contradiction between seeking to ban fascism yet arguing for freedom of assembly for everyone else.

Of course we've always arrested people who bring weapons to protests, obviously. There were ways around it - AFA used to put bats and clubs in bins where there was going to be a clash, so they could fish them out when needed, rather than get arrested on the way. The idea that bringing semi-automatic weapons to a march is acceptable is bonkers. And lots of this stems from the 2nd Amendment, presumably.

i'm feeling like america is in the throes of a full-fledged moral panic. we do this kind of thing a lot. this time it's nazis and not satanists or internet pornography or pedophiles. anybody who can keep their head through all this can get a posthumous medal from rudyard kipling, but i'm certainly not keeping my head right now.

The difference here is that people who sympathize/align with neo-Nazis control the executive branch of the government and have prominent representation in the House and Senate. This is a tangible problem in a manner that D&D Satanists were not.

A white supremacist march through a black community chanting nazi slogans is a threat of force.

but the issue is a speech at the U of Florida, which isn't the same thing, as opposed to say ... marching through most neighborhoods of Oakland, which would be a shitshow to end all shitshows.

But you do think the latter should be blocked?

Well, it would be blocked one way or another -- assuming you mean "by legal means"?

The only way I can see the City of Oakland saying yes is if the rally promoters paid the City very large sums of money and they had it in a relatively out of the way place

Well, the city could say no but the court might say yes.

dim the lights
you can guess the rest

but the issue is a speech at the U of Florida, which isn't the same thing, as opposed to say ... marching through most neighborhoods of Oakland, which would be a shitshow to end all shitshows.

― sansa riff (sarahell), 17. august 2017 15:08 (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I mean, sure, but someone apparently advertised it like this: “The Next Battlefield is in Florida"

I get that free speech is very different in the US than in Denmark, though. In Denmark you can't have a piece of cloth over you're face at a protest, and of course no guns.

So tyranny I guess?

Well, the city could say no but the court might say yes.

― Eallach mhór an duine leisg (dowd), Thursday, August 17, 2017 6:22 AM (seven minutes ago)

Here's the way it works in Oakland:

Assuming they go about it by legal means, as opposed to just showing up and doing their nazi thing:

They would have to apply to the Oakland Police Department for a special event permit, because it would be taking place outdoors in public
OPD would likely say no because of public safety
If OPD were to say yes, they would require a certain number of OPD officers present, various traffic control methods, and so forth, and expect the promoter to pay for these costs up front
This is the same method that has a lot of racist implications because they tend to trot out the "public safety" requirements for rap concerts, and not for say, music for mostly white people
I doubt that a possible court decision is really going to factor into their decision, considering all the other adverse court decisions that have been handed down against OPD
Plus, it's easy political capital for City Officials to say no to neo-nazi rallies ... In bed with real estate developers? Facing corruption charges? You can grandiosely oppose the neo-nazis and score easy points with the voters.

If they just show up without a permit, the cops can come in and give an order to disperse, then start arresting people ...

I guess technically they could pick a park, and go through Parks and Rec, who would, based on the situation, pass the buck to OPD

Unless they go for renting out a private venue ... which, outside of something huge like the Oakland Arena or Coliseum ... would be really bad for business.

The difference here is that people who sympathize/align with neo-Nazis control the executive branch of the government and have prominent representation in the House and Senate. This is a tangible problem in a manner that D&D Satanists were not.

― this iphone speaks many languages (DJP)

right, that's why we have an actual issue here. anybody who's going to abandon their commitment to free speech to defend america from the occult menace of gary gygax probably didn't have an actual commitment to free speech in the first place. it's when you have people like matthew prince of cloudflare, who's built his company's career defending people's ability to say all sorts of things on that internet, saying "yeah free speech is good and all but seriously fuck those guys", that we start having a problem.

personally i'm kind of on matthew prince's side. fuck nazis. the problem posed by violent fascists in the streets is more serious and pressing than the problem of people not being able to say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal.

the slippery slope is an overused and overemphasized argument, it's been kind of shit ever since the days of the "domino theory", but it does exist, and like matthew prince i don't believe that shutting these assholes down is the "right thing". i just don't care anymore. cue phil collins.

personally i'm kind of on matthew prince's side. fuck nazis. the problem posed by violent fascists in the streets is more serious and pressing than the problem of people not being able to say whatever the hell they want without fear of reprisal.

well, yeah, but the law's not on our side

if the law's on their side, let them prove it before a court! it's not my job to say what the law is.

there's a difference between "fuck it, this feels wrong and I'm acting, we'll have meetings to figure out what our official policy is from here on out" and just turning the corner and banning everything that "feels wrong"

I think there are a lot of things said and done by these neo-facist fucks that, in a society with a more nuanced definition of hate speech and incitement to violence would be legally actionable. I'm really tired of "good speech drowns out bad speech" line, because in 2017 that doesn't fly. The number of people who, consciously or unconsciously, believe that there's no harm in denigrating jewish or black people as a class (where they define who is jewish enough and black enough to be hated) because it doesn't personally affect them, it's just speech, and they have some deep-seated biases they don't feel like examining is a little too big.

There was an article I can't find the link for, recently published, that examined the anti-abortion movement and how a lot of people didn't have very strong opinions before joining it, but it gained enough traction and expanded its base enough that it became a movement. That's the thing -- people like platforms, cohesive sets of ideas, that they can wholesale join in on. Even if they don't start out agreeing with all of the points. There are enough people who are on the fringe of whatever this white supremacist thing is that we can't let it get to be a platform.

are there any parts of the US where gun and weapon laws are abridged in certain situations, such as political rallies or gatherings on public space? I know private venues can set their own policies, but I'm wonder if "you can't have concealed or open carry weapons if you're attending a public rally granted a permit by the city, on public ground" would be useful

Yeah, in many states you aren't allowed to be armed at a protest, according to the link I posted in the 'Limits of Free Speech' thread.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-chilling-study-shows-how-hostile-college-students-are-toward-free-speech/2017/09/18/cbb1a234-9ca8-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

free speech and hostile illiberalism

this is a very disingenuous article and seems to be written in anticipation of the Berkeley "free speech" week which is totally happening (probably not happening)

a few people have speculated this is the grift: make announcement of a bunch of speakers, a few of whom were surprised to hear they were included at all, for buzz. then bungle the logistics with speakers and venues more or less on purpose, then claim the university is blocking your event, keep the troops enraged

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/16/failure-confirm-berkeley-patriot-loses-zellerbach-wheeler-auditoriums-free-speech-week/

So I'm watching Milo's latest video about the coming Free Speech Week and, as expected, it's him claiming the institution is censoring him.

— Zoé (@ztsamudzi) September 19, 2017

In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results.

lol

... But if the results do not suit the Koch Foundation's propaganda interests, the rest of the world will never see them, either.

Lately I've been exposed to this new (to me) kind of dialogue on the internet, mostly from white people I vaguely know who are involved with SURJ, which is full of passive aggressive "education" and competitive allyship, and I just find the whole thing weird and a little bit new agey and cultish.

Maybe not a free speech thing but certainly strikes me as creepy liberalism.

every time somebody says "SURJ" my mind automatically fills in "TANKIAN"

In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges.

I'm pissed because I took these results seriously but apparently this guy (who is an engineer, not a social scientist) did this via online panel, making no attempt to randomize??

Lately I've been exposed to this new (to me) kind of dialogue on the internet, mostly from white people I vaguely know who are involved with SURJ, which is full of passive aggressive "education"

It is creepy, rot set in when American teachers started calling themselves 'educators' instead imo

Equally taking a squint at it the use of 'educate' in that assertive way is distinctly American, tying into a rhetorical and civil rights tradition and feels like it wouldn't be creepy if a victim of racism or a not white person basically was using it? I could be reading that wrong through because not American myself

I'm pissed because I took these results seriously but apparently this guy (who is an engineer, not a social scientist) did this via online panel, making no attempt to randomize??

lol just use fucking mechanical turk, what a schmuck

I can't wait for the Kochs to die

mostly from white people I vaguely know who are involved with SURJ, which is full of passive aggressive "education" and competitive allyship, and I just find the whole thing weird and a little bit new agey and cultish.

= ppl who begin sentences w/ an imperative, 'know that...'

rot set in when American teachers started calling themselves 'educators' instead imo

I'm curious. How many of the hundreds of thousands of American teachers calling themselves "educators" it would take for this rot to attain statistical significance? And if a teacher uses "teacher" and "educator" interchangeably, does this count as a partially rotten teacher or a wholly rotten one?

It is creepy, rot set in when American teachers started calling themselves 'educators' instead imo

― Never changed username before (cardamon)

uh, you know there are educators who don't teach students, right? my aunt is one of them. i don't think she's involved with SURJ.

the rot set in when teacher training institutions quit calling themselves "normal schools". clearly the choice of terminology here is of paramount significance.

errbody gotta be a university these days