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.
"Trigger words", "micro-aggression" and anything at all that "hurts my feelings" ..... are now deemed by these whiny kids as "hate speech". THEY want to be able to decided what is "hate speech" and make it "illegal".
Scary bunch of whiners and their Enablers - The colleges and universities of the USA.
Private colleges and universities can make whatever rules against speech that they want, as long as it is applied equally. If you don't like the rules, you can go to a different college.
That said, the scary part is that limiting speech goes directly against the core values upon which higher education was founded.
Private colleges and universities can make whatever rules against speech that they want, as long as it is applied equally. If you don't like the rules, you can go to a different college.
That said, the scary part is that limiting speech goes directly against the core values upon which higher education was founded.
At the U of M in Minneapolis, they do not allow speakers on subjects some committee of ultra liberal students have formed if they don't approve of the message. So if someone wants to discuss gun ownership rights and the history of gun ownership in America in a respectful manner...they would not be allowed.
This is the danger. And it is happening now. Is a State University private? I didn't think it was.
I can only see a convincing case for this if "offensive speech" ONLY refers to the degrading of minorities with ethnic slurs or phrases in public like "death to all Group X". I don't know why any moral person would want to do those things anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem if you're a sane person.
Well, there are already laws against incitement to riot, or any speech that leads to imminent danger, like yelling "fire" in a movie theater. But, at least until this point in time, the court has been very strict on their interpretation. Both liberal and conservative judges have something to lose if we go down this slippery slope, so hopefully they continue to strictly interpret imminent danger in the future.
Last edited by AnesthesiaMD; 11-22-2015 at 08:32 AM..
John Milton, the author of Areopagitica said in his book "Complete freedom of speech is unattainable unless all men in their degree are capable of reason and moral responsibility."
This said, he did not believe in government censorship of a "word" "speech" or "expression." There are fundamental differences between hate speech and offensive speech.
Example, I learned in college that there are certain things others can say, a mixed Japanese/German just cannot say. Let's not pretend freedom of speech is equal for everybody else. If others say certain things, they were just talking about "history." If I said the same thing, people might have to look at me differently.
On the other hand, telling me German or Japanese culture is ugly culture is way more offensive than telling me "Kill the japs". In hawaii, we still have "kill a ***" day. Many people don't take it in an offensive way. It is kind of funny because the words have really lost its true meaning.
I don't mind offensive speech as long as they are not personal. Offensive speech against minorities should not be banned because different people have different definition of "offensive" really means.
I think the relevant question–which is invariably overlooked–isn’t whether or not you are “for” or “against” censorship. The relevant question is, What do you want to censor? Or, how much censorship do you want?
At the U of M in Minneapolis, they do not allow speakers on subjects some committee of ultra liberal students have formed if they don't approve of the message. So if someone wants to discuss gun ownership rights and the history of gun ownership in America in a respectful manner...they would not be allowed.
This is the danger. And it is happening now. Is a State University private? I didn't think it was.
First, I want to say that I'm not a lawyer. I come from a family of lawyers going back 3 generations, so I have listened to these arguments at the dinner table and at family holidays my entire life, so it is a subject that interests me.
I think it would depend on whether or not this "committee" has a direct affiliation with the school. Also, is this a guest speaker, or is it someone being denied access to join the committee based on their political beliefs? If an official committee at a state school were to deny a person access based on political beliefs, I think the person would have a case. If you are talking about guest speakers, the committee can vote to allow whoever the like to speak or not speak. Also, is the subject matter relevant to what the committee was designed to accomplish? If not, nothing else really matters.
The problem, as usual is the question of who gets to decide what's offensive and what's not? And how to keep the people making those decisions from doing so based on their own personal bias and agendas.
I've asked the same question of the Left for decades now.....
Please point out to me the exact part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights that says that you have a right to never be exposed to anything that you find offensive.
It's part of being an American, learning how to handle listening to opinions different than your own. It's says something about YOU how you handle it. Apparently, they cannot handle it at all.
Absolutely not. People need to have complete and unabashed freedom to express themselves.
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.