‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›
 
   
 

College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 14:30
 

Garret:

Well, in the case of your original post, I have zero interest in using police or campus security to prevent a protest that would disrupt hate speech.

Okay, this is a point we just disagree on. I believe that such protests abridge free speech, you do not. We disagree.

Garret:

I’m also fine with a university not allowing such speakers to be invited to events.

IMO, if a recognized student group wants to invite a speaker, it should take EXTRAORDINARY circumstances for the uni. to override them. Again, we might just disagree.

==

Garret, have I heard you accurately?

 

[ Edited: 09 August 2019 14:32 by icehorse]
 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 August 2019 15:19
 

I also don’t think any of that qualifies as censorship.  The speaker is still allowed to use their own resources to create their own platforms to promote their ideas.  The students don’t have a right to invite anyone they want to speak at the university formally, and outsiders don’t have a right to the universities platform.

You can disagree if you want.  I’ve given scientific based evidence to back up my conclusion though.  Since you’ve presented no evidence to support your conclusion, right now it is your opinion disagreeing with facts.

[ Edited: 09 August 2019 15:22 by Garret]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 15:26
 
Garret - 09 August 2019 03:19 PM

I also don’t think any of that qualifies as censorship.  The speaker is still allowed to use their own resources to create their own platforms to promote their ideas.  The students don’t have a right to invite anyone they want to speak at the university formally, and outsiders don’t have a right to the universities platform.

You can disagree if you want.  I’ve given scientific based evidence to back up my conclusion though.  Since you’ve presented no evidence to support your conclusion, right now it is your opinion disagreeing with facts.

I agree that students have no legal right to invite speakers. But in practice, universities usually allow recognized groups to invite speakers.

Now I’m not sure what scientific evidence you’re talking about. The OP is about the law, not science.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 August 2019 15:39
 

Are you saying that because something is the law, that is therefore what we should consider to be the correct thing?  If someone disagrees with the law, they are therefore wrong?

I gave a post with scientific evidence.  I’ve linked to that post as well.  You keep ignoring it and claiming that I’ve presented no evidence. You should ignore it again, that way I can safely make some harsh assumptions about you.

Also, I’m going to remind you that a bit of history.  Effectively the first day that the founding fathers (who you tried to invoke as having an opinion we should value earlier) began their rebellion did so with a protest, not of speech, but of vandalism and destruction of property.  And it wasn’t against some great, horrible injustice.  They were protesting the LOWERING of a tax.

[ Edited: 09 August 2019 15:46 by Garret]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 16:38
 
Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

Are you saying that because something is the law, that is therefore what we should consider to be the correct thing?  If someone disagrees with the law, they are therefore wrong?

No, sometimes laws should be changed. But in this case I think we should be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of abridging any of our rights to free speech. Again, it seems to me that you and I simply disagree on this point.

Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

I gave a post with scientific evidence.  I’ve linked to that post as well.  You keep ignoring it and claiming that I’ve presented no evidence. You should ignore it again, that way I can safely make some harsh assumptions about you.

As I recall (I didn’t go back through the thread history), your links were about how hate propaganda can be harmful? If I’ve got that correct, please notice that I’ve never attempted to refute that. My point is that even though free speech can sometimes cause harm, it’s better - IMO - than the alternative.

Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

Also, I’m going to remind you that a bit of history.  Effectively the first day that the founding fathers (who you tried to invoke as having an opinion we should value earlier) began their rebellion did so with a protest, not of speech, but of vandalism and destruction of property.  And it wasn’t against some great, horrible injustice.  They were protesting the LOWERING of a tax.

Without trying to be snarky, so what? For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen, and unless you can enlighten me, I don’t see why details of the American revolution should factor into the rights I’m tying to protect today?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 August 2019 17:41
 
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM

For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen ...

Not for my money.  Other countries enjoy free speech, but whereas in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans where violence ensues (Charlottesville), Canada’s neo-Nazis march in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happen, but no one dies.

Hate is harmful and contagious.  If there are no limits on what society will tolerate, vulnerable minorities who have hate directed at them will experience a different citizenship than others.  That’s not right.  Free speech does not need to be held as an absolute (no limits) to be valued, protected and preserved. 


Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2018-25-eng.pdf

[ Edited: 09 August 2019 18:23 by Jan_CAN]
 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 20:03
 
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 05:41 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM

For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen ...

Not for my money.  Other countries enjoy free speech, but whereas in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans where violence ensues (Charlottesville), Canada’s neo-Nazis march in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happen, but no one dies.

Hate is harmful and contagious.  If there are no limits on what society will tolerate, vulnerable minorities who have hate directed at them will experience a different citizenship than others.  That’s not right.  Free speech does not need to be held as an absolute (no limits) to be valued, protected and preserved. 


Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2018-25-eng.pdf

The US does have limits. And I understand that you and I disagree on what the optimum limits should be.

But another perspective that I think bears repeating is that stifling speech doesn’t make the bad guys go away, it just forces them to go under cover. I’d much rather be aware of them than pretend they’re not there.

 
 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  490
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 20:10
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 05 August 2019 11:57 AM
lynmc - 04 August 2019 08:48 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 04 August 2019 08:06 AM
lynmc - 03 August 2019 03:37 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 02 August 2019 04:05 PM

What fascinates me about the current free speech debate (when it fascinates me at all) is the different takes from the Left and the Right.  Those on the Right don’t seem to give a damn.  Let people blather on; deal with the consequences as they arise.  At least I don’t know of any cries for restricting speech or calls for censorship, coming from the Right.  I stand under potential correction here, but they seem more inclined to permit diversity than to enforce conformity, even though, of course, in their own circles they expect conformity as much as anyone else.

The Left is another matter.  Lately we’ve seen outrage that certain kinds of speech are permitted, and these certain kinds aren’t action-inducing, inflammatory riotous speech, but conservative speech, and in some cases so-called “hate speech” because it kicks a sacred cow of liberal dogma.  I think this response is predictable given the sanctimony intrinsic to the Left—at least intrinsic nowadays.  These Chosen Ones (self chosen, of course) who would restrict speech from their moral high ground patronize would-be listeners by implying they can’t sort out for themselves who the retards are, and who they are not, and thus sort the good ideas from the bad.  Put another way, these demands to restrict speech and limit speakers are nothing more than implicit contempt for ordinary people, implying as they do that ordinary listeners cannot handle hearing these things; that simply hearing them will dictate dispositions and behaviors, as though mere Pavlovian dogs.  By all means, of course: restrict riotous and inflammatory speech that calls for violent action against an individual or a group (this would include, not incidentally, comments about how punch-able teenagers’ faces are).  But speech that inflames political partisanship—especially when it comes from the opposing party—should never be restricted.  Not restricting it is precisely what the First Amendment was for, and we should adopt its spirit even where not obligated to its practice.

For all its faults—and they are legion—the political Right understands this.  With its emphasis on individual responsibility comes respect for individual judgement; indeed, the Right demands individual judgment and accountability.  But the Left nowadays wants to suppress that judgement, and they want to suppress it because they think ordinary people either don’t have it or cannot handle it.  These so-called regulators of speech in the name of the moral high ground are precisely why the First Amendment was devised, and the question of what to do with them was asked and answered more than two centuries ago.  Let everyone speak their mind, then deal with the consequences as they arise, for thriving amidst contentious, controversial, and disconcerting speech in a cauldron of political contention and disagreement is what free societies do.  The Left needs to remember this as they press their agenda on others who do not share it.  They need to recollect that if we can’t put faith in ordinary citizens sorting good from bad ideas for themselves, then we have no business putting faith in democracy in the first place.

I think who is at fault (left or right) more for “free speech violations” is debatable:  see https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/8/3/17644180/political-correctness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown

In any case, consistent with Stevens and Haidt here, here, and here, Beauchamp’s main source shows a sharp increase in political speech terminations.  That more liberal professors are affected by this trend neither proves liberals aren’t calling for these speech codes in the first place (they are), nor that conservatives aren’t disproportionately affected by them (they are).  As it stands, the data—however slight and tentative—is what one would expect from liberals who both want speech codes and who are not hypocrites in enforcing them, there being more likely violations among liberal faculty than conservatives, simply because there are far, far more liberal than conservative faculty to do the violating.  But, the problem was never “liberals are hypocrites in enforcing speech codes.”  According to Stevens et al it’s that there are codes against politically “offensive” speech in the first place.  In fact, one wonders if Beauchamp would agree with the irony that the “surprise” is that liberals are being affected by the very problem they’ve created—anti-offensive speech codes—hence the headline: “Data shows a surprising campus free speech problem: left-wingers being fired for their opinions.”  It may be surprising to some that liberals aren’t being hypocritical—I admit it is to me—but the problem with these speech codes stands.  That they affect anyone is the problem, not whether they affect any group disproportionately over another, based on political ideology.

 

Well yes, there may be a problem may be with speech codes. On the other hand, should a professor tell the black students he thinks they’re less intelligent?  It would detract from his being able to teach anything else or the black students being able to learn.  If students want to state racist views, that’s different.  I think the problem of professors being fired for political speech long predates the current controversy over imposing them, however.

It’s funny.  I read that article in the original, before the clarification, and it said liberals were more likely to be dismissed for their political views than conservatives, i.e. that they were “at higher risk.”  It only took reading the actual source linked in the article to discover that it said no such thing; that in fact it said this could not be concluded because “it is possible for liberals to constitute the majority of faculty terminations and also for conservatives to be terminated at an equal or higher rate” (emphasis original).  And indeed, this is the case: at between 5-to-1 to 30-to-1 liberals to conservatives (depending on the university, and the study), conservatives are more likely to be dismissed for their political views, even as more firings are happening (between 2015 and 2017 28 liberals were fired, compared to 15 conservatives—less than 2-to-1).  Sachs notes some problems with the data set, he focuses on the disparity (not the relative rates), and he adds that the trend “bears watching.”  But, this is a far cry from liberals being “at higher risk.”

However, when apportioning blame it’s not so much who the victim is but who the victimizer is.  If one were to assume that the liberal professors were fired by conservative ones, and the conservative ones were fired by liberal once (a very bad assumption), and that the liberal/conservative mix of those doing the firing were approximately the same as that of the professors, I think it works out that conservatives would be doing a disproportionate amount of suppression of free speech of professors.  However, such assumptions being so bad, I’m back to “its unclear whether the left or right should be blamed.”  They suppress speech in different ways, and one would have to look at the impetus for the firings.

I agree one would have to look at the impetus of the firings to say much more than is being said here.  And indeed, I am taking on faith from these sources that these firings can in fact be attributed to political speech, and not cause on other grounds.  But, that said, speech codes, microaggressions, and safe spaces—three notions that go together, however loosely—are brain children of the Left, which I assert merely as fact, not blame.  For the proponents of these ideas (speech codes specifically) the goal is to protect the feelings of marginalized peoples; they serve as tools to alleviate or fight systemic oppression.  For the critics this justification is either a bad basis for restricting speech, or the basis comes at too high a cost, capturing as it does otherwise protected political speech and a necessary diversity of ideas.  Either way, “blame” only comes into play on the presumption of morally bad outcomes, and that presumption begs the question.  But, as a statement of fact, I don’t know why you think it’s ambiguous which side of the political spectrum is pushing for these changes that we’re seeing in an increasing number of universities.  While I have little idea how extensive they are—I would not, for instance, call it a “crisis,” just a trend—I don’t see any gray area on where they are coming from; their proponents are vocal enough in their advocacy and their reasons for there not to be any question on that point.  They are coming from the Left, and the Right is against them, perhaps more because they feel threatened than on principle, but against them nonetheless.  That much is, I think, clear.

Also, it’s not like only those on the Right are against them.  Jonathan Haidt, the founder of the Heterodox Academy, identifies as liberal, not conservative.  With that in mind, this debate is as much a civil war of sorts within the Left, not just the Left versus the Right.  That too, seems pretty clear.  Most of the people I’ve read on this issue identify as politically Left, but that could be a function of my preferences, not the distribution.

In any case, in so far as these monikers are even useful, speech codes are coming from the Left, not the Right, and some within the Left and all within the Right (as far as I know) are against them.

Going back decades (at least), the left originated anti-racist, anti-homophobic and anti-sexist movements, “safe places” and the idea of “micro-aggression” grew out of those.  However, I see little push from the left in recent years to turn anti-racist, anti-homophobic and anti-sexist policies into enforceable speech codes.  Yes, some clear incidents of protests by students against racists or perceived support for e.g. racism.  There may be a slight change in attitudes towards racist etc. speech, it may be true that a larger percentage of newer college students think racist speech should be limited than before, there may be a larger effort to make people uncomfortable who express racism.  But nothing to turn this into speech code.  And judging by reports at thefire.org, some universities are tightening up their codes to make clear their support for freedom of speech.

On the other hand one of your links said something interesting, protests may cause donors not to give money to universities.  Would that be a threat to freedom of speech?  And what about efforts by republicans (probably supported by democrats) to withhold federal money from campuses if some invited speaker criticizes Israel? (fair notice: I support Palestinian rights)  Or proposed federal regulations having the effect of requiring the hiring more republicans at universities?  Anyway, those efforts don’t come from leftists, at least, not mostly.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 August 2019 20:24
 
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM
Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

Are you saying that because something is the law, that is therefore what we should consider to be the correct thing?  If someone disagrees with the law, they are therefore wrong?

No, sometimes laws should be changed. But in this case I think we should be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL of abridging any of our rights to free speech. Again, it seems to me that you and I simply disagree on this point.

Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

I gave a post with scientific evidence.  I’ve linked to that post as well.  You keep ignoring it and claiming that I’ve presented no evidence. You should ignore it again, that way I can safely make some harsh assumptions about you.

As I recall (I didn’t go back through the thread history), your links were about how hate propaganda can be harmful? If I’ve got that correct, please notice that I’ve never attempted to refute that. My point is that even though free speech can sometimes cause harm, it’s better - IMO - than the alternative.

Garret - 09 August 2019 03:39 PM

Also, I’m going to remind you that a bit of history.  Effectively the first day that the founding fathers (who you tried to invoke as having an opinion we should value earlier) began their rebellion did so with a protest, not of speech, but of vandalism and destruction of property.  And it wasn’t against some great, horrible injustice.  They were protesting the LOWERING of a tax.

Without trying to be snarky, so what? For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen, and unless you can enlighten me, I don’t see why details of the American revolution should factor into the rights I’m tying to protect today?

You invoked them as being authorities we should adhere to.  I personally find people’s actions far more illuminating about how they actually feel about something than their words.

You’re welcome to your opinion.  So far all you’ve offered is your opinion and platitudes.  When I provide evidence, you fall back on your opinion.  When your opinion gets pointed out as being contrary to facts, you offer up platitudes.

Also, the evidence that you clearly haven’t attempted to look at would have informed you that hate speech silences the speech of minorities.  Right now you are in favor of protecting speech that people intentionally use to silence others.  That doesn’t sound like you’re in favor of protecting speech at all.  That actually sounds like you value the speech of political fringe groups over the free speech of other Americans who haven’t tried to silence anyone.  As long as you’re willing to use the state to protect their speech, that means you condone the effects of their speech.  If you don’t condone it, then offer up a solution that is acceptable to you to minimize it.

Lastly, every time you refer to the scientific evidence that I provided, you say that you agree with it, but then you immediately contradict that by advocating policies that allow the harm to take place.  That tells me that you don’t think the harm is actually real.  You pay lip service to it, but the actions you endorse are the opposite.

 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 August 2019 20:26
 
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:03 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 05:41 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM

For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen ...

Not for my money.  Other countries enjoy free speech, but whereas in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans where violence ensues (Charlottesville), Canada’s neo-Nazis march in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happen, but no one dies.

Hate is harmful and contagious.  If there are no limits on what society will tolerate, vulnerable minorities who have hate directed at them will experience a different citizenship than others.  That’s not right.  Free speech does not need to be held as an absolute (no limits) to be valued, protected and preserved. 


Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2018-25-eng.pdf

The US does have limits. And I understand that you and I disagree on what the optimum limits should be.

But another perspective that I think bears repeating is that stifling speech doesn’t make the bad guys go away, it just forces them to go under cover. I’d much rather be aware of them than pretend they’re not there.

Yes, you and I disagree on the limits.

It is clear for all to see the harm that is being done now that the ‘bad guys’ have been emboldened to crawl out of the shadows; we’d all be better off if they’d retreat into the dark crevices where they belong.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 20:50
 
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 08:26 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:03 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 05:41 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM

For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen ...

Not for my money.  Other countries enjoy free speech, but whereas in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans where violence ensues (Charlottesville), Canada’s neo-Nazis march in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happen, but no one dies.

Hate is harmful and contagious.  If there are no limits on what society will tolerate, vulnerable minorities who have hate directed at them will experience a different citizenship than others.  That’s not right.  Free speech does not need to be held as an absolute (no limits) to be valued, protected and preserved. 


Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2018-25-eng.pdf

The US does have limits. And I understand that you and I disagree on what the optimum limits should be.

But another perspective that I think bears repeating is that stifling speech doesn’t make the bad guys go away, it just forces them to go under cover. I’d much rather be aware of them than pretend they’re not there.

Yes, you and I disagree on the limits.

It is clear for all to see the harm that is being done now that the ‘bad guys’ have been emboldened to crawl out of the shadows; we’d all be better off if they’d retreat into the dark crevices where they belong.

Let’s be very clear here. Advocating for speech is not endorsing these a##hats. I don’t think our free speech laws are what has emboldened them, do you? Wouldn’t you say it’s more about the US’s sorry, miserable excuse for a president?

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3494
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
09 August 2019 21:12
 
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:50 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 08:26 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:03 PM
Jan_CAN - 09 August 2019 05:41 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 04:38 PM

For my money our free speech laws are the best the world has ever seen ...

Not for my money.  Other countries enjoy free speech, but whereas in the U.S. armed neo-Nazis can march en masse with fists raised shouting racist and threatening slogans where violence ensues (Charlottesville), Canada’s neo-Nazis march in silence (Quebec City), skirmishes happen, but no one dies.

Hate is harmful and contagious.  If there are no limits on what society will tolerate, vulnerable minorities who have hate directed at them will experience a different citizenship than others.  That’s not right.  Free speech does not need to be held as an absolute (no limits) to be valued, protected and preserved. 


Hate Speech and Freedom of Expression
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2018-25-eng.pdf

The US does have limits. And I understand that you and I disagree on what the optimum limits should be.

But another perspective that I think bears repeating is that stifling speech doesn’t make the bad guys go away, it just forces them to go under cover. I’d much rather be aware of them than pretend they’re not there.

Yes, you and I disagree on the limits.

It is clear for all to see the harm that is being done now that the ‘bad guys’ have been emboldened to crawl out of the shadows; we’d all be better off if they’d retreat into the dark crevices where they belong.

Let’s be very clear here. Advocating for speech is not endorsing these a##hats. I don’t think our free speech laws are what has emboldened them, do you? Wouldn’t you say it’s more about the US’s sorry, miserable excuse for a president?

Of course, the POTUS and his followers can take a lot of the blame, but everyone needs to do their share to drown it out (not just in the U.S.).  And when it goes too far, shut down – Charlottesville should never have happened – Nazi’s should not have been permitted to march in the way that they did (armed/large numbers/shouting racist slogans).  On this, I guess we’ll disagree, again.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  666
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
09 August 2019 21:14
 
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:50 PM

Let’s be very clear here. Advocating for speech is not endorsing these a##hats. I don’t think our free speech laws are what has emboldened them, do you? Wouldn’t you say it’s more about the US’s sorry, miserable excuse for a president?

You aren’t endorsing their speech.  You are endorsing the consequences of their speech as an acceptable price to pay.

Of course, it is a price that you don’t have to pay.  Maybe that is why you find it acceptable?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
09 August 2019 21:16
 

To be clear, I don’t deny that when Neo-Nazis march, it’s a very, very bad thing.

I just think the risks of censorship are worse.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7896
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 07:38
 
Garret - 09 August 2019 09:14 PM
icehorse - 09 August 2019 08:50 PM

Let’s be very clear here. Advocating for speech is not endorsing these a##hats. I don’t think our free speech laws are what has emboldened them, do you? Wouldn’t you say it’s more about the US’s sorry, miserable excuse for a president?

You aren’t endorsing their speech.  You are endorsing the consequences of their speech as an acceptable price to pay.

Of course, it is a price that you don’t have to pay.  Maybe that is why you find it acceptable?

No, I’m not endorsing the consequences. I put up with them. Look, if Neo-Nazis came to march in my town, I’d protest them. So of course an idiot might run me down too.

None of you who are advocating for censorship have explained how you’d implement it. Any thoughts there? Thought police perhaps? A government agency for “right speech”?

 
 
‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 >  Last ›