‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 > 
 
   
 

College students unclear about Free Speech - FIRE

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  705
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:02
 

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:19
 
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:19
 

I’m mostly okay with just fewer restrictions on protesting and counter-protesting.  More restrictions on police anti-protest tactics.

If more speech is how you fight bad speech, why wouldn’t we just let protesters have an easier time protesting?  This would also have the added benefit of removing some of the protections our politicians enjoy against protesters.  Let them hear the people’s voices.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:37
 
Garret - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM

I’m mostly okay with just fewer restrictions on protesting and counter-protesting.  More restrictions on police anti-protest tactics.

If more speech is how you fight bad speech, why wouldn’t we just let protesters have an easier time protesting?  This would also have the added benefit of removing some of the protections our politicians enjoy against protesters.  Let them hear the people’s voices.

I don’t have a sense for how easy or difficult it is to be allowed to protest. I’ve been to many protests. In my experience it seems easy to be able to protest, but that might not be case. So if it is hard to protest, then I’d agree that we should make that easy. But again, the rights of the listeners have to be upheld.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:41
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 07:38 AM

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”?

Thought police, ‘right speech’?  Really?  Perhaps you’re letting your imagination run away rather than examining the facts.  Laws must be carefully crafted and decided in courts of law, tested and balanced with the Bill of Rights. 

You ask “how you’d implement it”?  I’ve posted material several times, on this thread (e.g. post #156) and others, but there is no indication that you take the time to read or consider it.  Laws against hate propaganda have been implemented in my country and we are not in danger of becoming a dystopian society – the proof is in the pudding.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 08:48
 
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 08:41 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 07:38 AM

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”?

Thought police, ‘right speech’?  Really?  Perhaps you’re letting your imagination run away rather than examining the facts.  Laws must be carefully crafted and decided in courts of law, tested and balanced with the Bill of Rights. 

You ask “how you’d implement it”?  I’ve posted material several times, on this thread (e.g. post #156) and others, but there is no indication that you take the time to read or consider it.  Laws against hate propaganda have been implemented in my country and we are not in danger of becoming a dystopian society – the proof is in the pudding.

I’ve posted several times about events in Canada that are quite alarming, that you’re not remembering now. So let’s stay away from the character attacks shall we?

Yes, you have some new hate propaganda laws. So while I think that some creepy stuff has already started happening in Canada, let’s say for the sake of discussion that it’s “so far so good”. That’s not the point. When a new law is created, every nook and cranny of it will be tested. Maybe not right away, but in time. Bad people will find a way to take advantage of Canada’s shiny new censorship laws.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:07
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:37 AM
Garret - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM

I’m mostly okay with just fewer restrictions on protesting and counter-protesting.  More restrictions on police anti-protest tactics.

If more speech is how you fight bad speech, why wouldn’t we just let protesters have an easier time protesting?  This would also have the added benefit of removing some of the protections our politicians enjoy against protesters.  Let them hear the people’s voices.

I don’t have a sense for how easy or difficult it is to be allowed to protest. I’ve been to many protests. In my experience it seems easy to be able to protest, but that might not be case. So if it is hard to protest, then I’d agree that we should make that easy. But again, the rights of the listeners have to be upheld.

The right to assemble and peacefully protest is fundamental to freedom and democracy.  Regardless of the cause or issue.  Peaceful protest does not mean allowing the shouting of racist slogans or incitement to riot.  By demonstrators or counter-demonstrators.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:21
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:48 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 08:41 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 07:38 AM

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”?

Thought police, ‘right speech’?  Really?  Perhaps you’re letting your imagination run away rather than examining the facts.  Laws must be carefully crafted and decided in courts of law, tested and balanced with the Bill of Rights. 

You ask “how you’d implement it”?  I’ve posted material several times, on this thread (e.g. post #156) and others, but there is no indication that you take the time to read or consider it.  Laws against hate propaganda have been implemented in my country and we are not in danger of becoming a dystopian society – the proof is in the pudding.

I’ve posted several times about events in Canada that are quite alarming, that you’re not remembering now. So let’s stay away from the character attacks shall we?

Yes, you have some new hate propaganda laws. So while I think that some creepy stuff has already started happening in Canada, let’s say for the sake of discussion that it’s “so far so good”. That’s not the point. When a new law is created, every nook and cranny of it will be tested. Maybe not right away, but in time. Bad people will find a way to take advantage of Canada’s shiny new censorship laws.

I remember very well your misrepresentation of the facts.  And it is not a character attack to point out what I perceive to be errors in your methods and arguments.

These are not shiny new laws, but have been evolving over many decades.  And bad people have tried to take advantage and been defeated in the courts, as it should be.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:33
 

And I see now your misrepresentation of facts.

As for your new laws - so far, so good… maybe. But M103 will come back to bite you.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:52
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:33 AM

And I see now your misrepresentation of facts.

As for your new laws - so far, so good… maybe. But M103 will come back to bite you.

Again, an opinion with no basis in fact.

I don’t think either of us are at our best by the end of certain types of threads, so I’ll leave it here. 

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 09:58
 
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 09:52 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:33 AM

And I see now your misrepresentation of facts.

As for your new laws - so far, so good… maybe. But M103 will come back to bite you.

Again, an opinion with no basis in fact.

I don’t think either of us are at our best by the end of certain types of threads, so I’ll leave it here. 

It’s probably best to leave it here, and I’ll give you the last word.

But my concern about M103 is more than just an opinion. It’s based on how laws have always been tested.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 August 2019 10:39
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:58 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 09:52 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:33 AM

And I see now your misrepresentation of facts.

As for your new laws - so far, so good… maybe. But M103 will come back to bite you.

Again, an opinion with no basis in fact.

I don’t think either of us are at our best by the end of certain types of threads, so I’ll leave it here. 

It’s probably best to leave it here, and I’ll give you the last word.

But my concern about M103 is more than just an opinion. It’s based on how laws have always been tested.

I’ve been familiar with M103 for about 60 seconds, and I’ve already spotted a fundamental error in your statement.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 August 2019 10:44
 
Garret - 10 August 2019 10:39 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:58 AM
Jan_CAN - 10 August 2019 09:52 AM
icehorse - 10 August 2019 09:33 AM

And I see now your misrepresentation of facts.

As for your new laws - so far, so good… maybe. But M103 will come back to bite you.

Again, an opinion with no basis in fact.

I don’t think either of us are at our best by the end of certain types of threads, so I’ll leave it here. 

It’s probably best to leave it here, and I’ll give you the last word.

But my concern about M103 is more than just an opinion. It’s based on how laws have always been tested.

I’ve been familiar with M103 for about 60 seconds, and I’ve already spotted a fundamental error in your statement.

Amazing powers of legal prognostication you have, Yoda.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  491
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 August 2019 10:45
 

It’s not a law.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  705
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
10 August 2019 11:10
 
icehorse - 10 August 2019 08:19 AM
mapadofu - 10 August 2019 08:02 AM

How about a process like this? Applicant applies for a permit to hold a speech/rally/march.  There is a public comment period.  If there are public objections, then the city council adjudicates whether the event should proceed.

Similar processes could be embodied at private institutions too.

I’d wager that most us of on this forum share similar values: Neo-Nazis are bad, transgender people should be supported, and so on. But what if some folks want to hold a transgender march in some highly conservative, highly religious town, and the townies vote the speech permit down?

Then their permit wouldn’t be issued.  From there people could mobilize politically, or turn to civil disobedience etc.

If you want to play the what if game there are corresponding abuses of an overly permissive stance on speech.


I’m not going to be able to put together something me perfect framework in this thread.  That’s why the law is complicated and multi-layered.  The main point is that there is a lot of options other than going straight to so called thought police.

[ Edited: 10 August 2019 11:17 by mapadofu]
 
‹ First  < 10 11 12 13 14 >