Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: OSU refuses to allow white nationalist to speak on campus...

  1. #21
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    My question then is, would you attend?
    This specific protest, Michael Brown paean in Ferguson, nope. Because I don't share their sentiment.

    Would I attend a speech by Skinheads on campus? nope. i havent attended any other skinhead event, why start now? But philosophically, now that this free speech/safety in the public square issue is a current focus, I might be curious about the skinheads or Milo for that matter, but would stay away because I now consider that my responsibility to make life easier for policing agencies.

    This begs the question of audience, though. Can sunshine exist if no one gathers in the public square to hear the cranks?

  2. #22
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    But if we impose such additional burdens on unpopular speakers in public spaces, aren't we in effect saying that public safety is a privilege to be paid for rather than a publicly funded benefit that applies equally to all? We don't impose additional taxes for police protection for people who live in dangerous neighborhoods. Shouldn't the same apply to people who hold dangerous opinions? Aren't we also at least indirectly saying that "law enforcement and the administration" get to make the call on who can and can't speak by setting a high price for speech?
    I agree, but it is useful in pointing out that the ham and eggs breakfast analogy applies here. Who is involved..the chicken and who is committed....the pig. I have been the pig too often and can tell you it sucks.

    The idea of free speech is a wonderful idea. In practice, we encroach on it at every turn. We have laws limiting it. We have community standards encroaching on it. Free speech comes with consequences that sometimes are working against our ideal. That includes the threat of violence, and the safety which we are also entrusted to preserve. I agree that we should advance free speech wherever prudent and reasonable but not at all costs. Not when there are viable alternatives.

    The universities are taking a practical look at it and they don't want to be the crucible for the firestorm that can be foreseen. No doubt, they have used this as an excuse to exclude certain ideologies before, but this one has concrete evidence to draw from.

    If you permit it once, in the name of free speech, do you have to let's say allow him back once a month .....once a week.... I think they are looking at it on a purely logistical viewpoint and not ideological at all even though they have publicly denounced his views.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    This specific protest, Michael Brown paean in Ferguson, nope. Because I don't share their sentiment.

    Would I attend a speech by Skinheads on campus? nope. i havent attended any other skinhead event, why start now? But philosophically, now that this free speech/safety in the public square issue is a current focus, I might be curious about the skinheads or Milo for that matter, but would stay away because I now consider that my responsibility to make life easier for policing agencies.

    This begs the question of audience, though. Can sunshine exist if no one gathers in the public square to hear the cranks?
    Audience is an issue.....but I refer to those who are drawn to events like this. They are more tolerant of violent or "expressive" behaviors. When such are concentrated bad things happen. You would not attend because you think it prudent not to....those attending do so because they don't care about being prudent.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3,576
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsmith View Post
    I agree, but it is useful in pointing out that the ham and eggs breakfast analogy applies here. Who is involved..the chicken and who is committed....the pig. I have been the pig too often and can tell you it sucks.

    The idea of free speech is a wonderful idea. In practice, we encroach on it at every turn. We have laws limiting it. We have community standards encroaching on it. Free speech comes with consequences that sometimes are working against our ideal. That includes the threat of violence, and the safety which we are also entrusted to preserve. I agree that we should advance free speech wherever prudent and reasonable but not at all costs. Not when there are viable alternatives.

    The universities are taking a practical look at it and they don't want to be the crucible for the firestorm that can be foreseen. No doubt, they have used this as an excuse to exclude certain ideologies before, but this one has concrete evidence to draw from.

    If you permit it once, in the name of free speech, do you have to let's say allow him back once a month .....once a week.... I think they are looking at it on a purely logistical viewpoint and not ideological at all even though they have publicly denounced his views.
    The flaw in your analogy is that the pig didn't sign up for the job.

    I understand that there are practicalities involved, but I think it is a very bad idea to set up public employees, whether university bureaucrats or law enforcement, as the arbiters of when speech becomes "too dangerous".

  5. #25
    Senior Member Williamsmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Penns Woods
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    The flaw in your analogy is that the pig didn't sign up for the job.

    I understand that there are practicalities involved, but I think it is a very bad idea to set up public employees, whether university bureaucrats or law enforcement, as the arbiters of when speech becomes "too dangerous".
    Each decision stands on its own merit. Administrators and law enforcement are the arbitors of this decision because of its venue. Depending on the circumstance it could be a bad decision because it matters what their motivations are. Here, I think it is for the right reasons and just happens to also serve a less noble agenda. One outweighs the other. More in the view of some not so much in the view of others.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •