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.
For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, is incorrect. Speech promoting hatred – or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred – may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected.
Let’s say a public university hosts a “very controversial speaker,” one “known for making offensive and hurtful statements.” Would it be acceptable for a student group to disrupt the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker”?
Astonishingly, half said that snuffing out upsetting speech – rather than, presumably, rebutting or even ignoring it – would be appropriate. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to find this response acceptable (62 percent to 39 percent), and men were more likely than women (57 percent to 47 percent). Even so, sizable shares of all groups agreed.
It gets even worse.
Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes.
American values have been educated out of our youth by a far left educational system. Capitalism, freedom, liberty, free speech, the Constitution, hard work, etc are now bad. Communism, and totalitarian all powerful government is now good.
I thought this was a decent talk on the topic from a couple of days ago (though I take a little bit of issue with a couple of the points Simpson made):
I think long-term it’s a losing battle. As irrational anti-debate and anti-dialogue post-modernism shapes more and more of the thought processes of the young and upcoming generations, and as technology continues to wrap us in its coils (internet of listening and watching things, digitization of thought, runaway automation and algorithmic primacy, the AR and VR metaverse, etc.), I have trouble believing the idea of free speech (anywhere) or even dissent or dialogue will survive the next 30-40 years.
This is how some feel about it:
Quote:
Free speech had its role in the past and it was arguably useful as it led to us looking at all the ideas and figuring out the right direction for society to take and figuring out the truth and stuff. But free speech has served its purpose and is obsolete now as it can only be used to detract from the right path through the use of hate, misinformation, and attempts to stir up trouble. It has become something else and it should not be allowed.
The problem is also the two-pronged approach: call 'hate speech' untenable so that we must outlaw it, then label anyone with a philosophical or policy or identity disagreement as engaging in 'hate speech.'
If people are able to outlaw 'hate' speech on one side of the aisle, they better be prepared to outlaw 'hate' speech on the other (for example, hateful words directed towards the president).
It makes one wonder where the "kids" are learning this bad behavior and don't blame Trump.
This has been bubbling for a long time and now they have found an excuse in Trump to come out and act like a bunch of animals.
SO where did they learn to be a bunch of brats? There is nothing wrong with questioning authority BUT one needs to have an intelligent mind and at least have an inkling of what they are protesting.
These Bozos are doing nothing but tearing the place down and I would wager that most have no clue why they are taking a knee during the National Anthem or tearing down Civil War statues or drowning out the First Amendment Rights of someone who is trying to express their ideas in a peaceful manner.
These kids were raised in the time when "time outs" were preferred over corporal punishment but I think a good spanking would do wonders for these misguided misinformed idiots.
Once I heard the phrase "hate speech" in the study I would have asked the interviewer if that's what they speak in Fantasyland cuz I have no idea what that means.
Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes
1 in 5 are beyond hope.
I suspect that number is actually higher in practice. Standing in traffic to prevent a speaker from showing up is violence.
If you had to choose one of the options below, which do you think it is more important for colleges to do?
Option 1: create a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people
Option 2: create an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people?
Student Democrats favored option 1 by a 22-point margin while Republicans and Independents favored option 2 by 6 and 10 points, respectively.
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.
