Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
got any other hotlinked jpegs you'd care to share?
And what speech was suppressed? A private individual creating a transcript of an event and choosing to redact certain terms doesn't mean that during the event, anyone was prohibited from using whatever words and terminology they wanted.
It's a bit ironic that this article assumes that this is only left wing people that are bringing this loss of free speech. Not only is this pretty much the epitome of stereotyping - hence the irony but this instantly puts the right wing in a position where they think free speech is being able to call people N####r,c##t and so on. In this sense its a double stereotype.
It's a bit ironic that this article assumes that this is only left wing people that are bringing this loss of free speech. Not only is this pretty much the epitome of stereotyping - hence the irony but this instantly puts the right wing in a position where they think free speech is being able to call people N####r,c##t and so on. In this sense its a double stereotype.
Are you saying being able to call people those is not part of free speech? Are you saying it should be illegal to say those things? (please dont put me in a position to defend the rights of hate mongers but I will in defense of free speech)
got any other hotlinked jpegs you'd care to share?
When you bring up censorship in the context of "free speech," that means government censorship (since "free speech" refers to not being censored by the government).
Did I miss the part of the story where after saying ******, the government came in an arrested this woman? How is this a free speech issue?
The freedom to say something offensive doesn't deny someone else the freedom to be offended.
No one censored the author of the article from saying the offensive things she said. It was just omitted from the transcript.
People are, of course, free to be offended by whatever words or ideas they may choose. As a socialist, I know that some capitalists will be offended by things I say. I know for a fact that things I've said in these forums as a non-believer in gods, has deeply offended some of those with sincerely-held religious beliefs. Sometimes, people counter the things I say with good points. This allows for an interesting, and hopefully respectful, discussion to ensue.
Intentional omission is, by definition, censorship. Far more importantly, we need to look at the much larger picture of campus speech-control and enforced political correctness. Students can face suspension or expulsion for engaging in free speech or the free inquiry of ideas. Teachers often risk discipline, including termination, for allowing the discussion of ideas which violate the dogma of administrators.
Saying things which might offend, and the risk of being offended by something someone says, are the two necessary sides of the coin. Exercising authoritarian control over free speech, when in the role of governance, is inherently anti-democratic. The democratic antidote to offensive speech, is speech which is more eloquent and convincing.
Sorry, she was whining about a whole lot of nothing. Omitting words in a college transcript is not a violation of the freedom of speech.
Nothing is preventing her from printing all the offensive language she likes. Heck, no one stopped her from saying it either. Freedom of speech is still intact for her.
That's rich. Now we have to censor the word "censorship".
The article is well written, and it deals with a subject those of us on the political left refuse to adequately address. That doesn't exonerate the equally dangerous censorship that originates on the political right, but it does show that authoritarianism has no political boundaries.
The author is correct in tracing the roots of this left-authoritarianism to the radical feminists of the 1980s. We can see the ideological descendants of those radical feminists in the "rape culture" feminists of today. We can see the ominous results of that ideology in the fascistic management of college campuses. Colleges and universities, which should be the bastions of free speech, have become its greatest threat.
Part of living in a free society is the right to say things others may find to be offensive. Without that right, the interflow of ideas can never lead to any kind of real social progress. All of us, regardless of where we fall on the political axis, need to shine light on those who work to subjugate free speech to their own micro-ideologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogead
People are, of course, free to be offended by whatever words or ideas they may choose. As a socialist, I know that some capitalists will be offended by things I say. I know for a fact that things I've said in these forums as a non-believer in gods, has deeply offended some of those with sincerely-held religious beliefs. Sometimes, people counter the things I say with good points. This allows for an interesting, and hopefully respectful, discussion to ensue.
Intentional omission is, by definition, censorship. Far more importantly, we need to look at the much larger picture of campus speech-control and enforced political correctness. Students can face suspension or expulsion for engaging in free speech or the free inquiry of ideas. Teachers often risk discipline, including termination, for allowing the discussion of ideas which violate the dogma of administrators.
Saying things which might offend, and the risk of being offended by something someone says, are the two necessary sides of the coin. Exercising authoritarian control over free speech, when in the role of governance, is inherently anti-democratic. The democratic antidote to offensive speech, is speech which is more eloquent and convincing.
Even if I disagree with your socialist beliefs, your posts are precise, balanced and very thorough. I will also agree that the op-ed is very spot on.
The author of the article sounds like they have an issue with criticism and people having a negative reaction to what they say. Freedom of speech does not protect one from people having a negative reaction to their speech.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
In addition it is known fact many conservatives have either been de-invited,, have been treated very rudely even BEFORE the speak, and denied being able to speak on campus's.
And we DON'T see the same things happen to liberals.
Ms.Kaminer is absolutely correct that we have taken hurtful speech to ridiculous levels. Words do have meaning, and words do hurt, but you cannot have a free and open discussion about certain topics without broaching those words and subjects.
That said, this is not a Free Speech matter. Despite the outcries of conservative oppression no one is being arrested or denied their ability to say what they want. It's a matter of intellectual and academic freedom, and some universities are impeding on both in the name of sensitivity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
