Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The title quote by Owen Jones sums it up. It's not a case of Free Speech means you have to be heard, if people don't want to listen to you why should they have to?

Rightists don't understand the majority of people with any kind of Education or brains often find their views disgusting as well as they find the views of many radicals including radical Islamists like Anjem Choudary (I might add most Muslims also find Choudary disgusting and speak out against him, it's just not reported).

Gay cures, Anjem Choudary, Tommy Robinson, none of these deserve a platform for normal people.

If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them.

Your level of hypocrisy is amazing.

OWEN JONES LOL

Does not surprise me at all to see that he's the author of a piece with this title.

I agree with you in terms of having a legal right to a platform in the private sector, but if a publicly funded university is operating under tax payer money and pulls this deplatforming shit from a pretty blatant political bias, that is a problem because that's not private industry.

Also what platforms like Patreon and twitter should have a right to do, doesn't mean them exercising that right isn't something I don't take moral issue with, even though I believe that decision is theirs to make and should be. I'm critical of their actions in a similar way that'd I'd be critical of someone being lazy, or someone spewing hateful rhetoric even though I believe they do and should have the right to do so under the law.

Originally posted by hoangtaybaokiem
The title quote by Owen Jones sums it up. It's not a case of Free Speech means you have to be heard, if people don't want to listen to you why should they have to?

Rightists don't understand the majority of people with any kind of Education or brains often find their views disgusting as well as they find the views of many radicals including radical Islamists like Anjem Choudary (I might add most Muslims also find Choudary disgusting and speak out against him, it's just not reported).

Gay cures, Anjem Choudary, Tommy Robinson, none of these deserve a platform for normal people.

If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them. Jones is completely right. This post seems strangely familiar... Haha. I think it's mine from another thread maybe or I read it elsewhere.

It is.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
OWEN JONES LOL

Does not surprise me at all to see that he's the author of a piece with this title.

I agree with you in terms of having a legal right to a platform in the private sector, but if a publicly funded university is operating under tax payer money and pulls this deplatforming shit from a pretty blatant political bias, that is a problem because that's not private industry.

Also what platforms like Patreon and twitter should have a right to do, doesn't mean them exercising that right isn't something I don't take moral issue with, even though I believe that decision is theirs to make and should be. I'm critical of their actions in a similar way that'd I'd be critical of someone being lazy, or someone spewing hateful rhetoric even though I believe they do and should have the right to do so under the law.

I laughed too. Imagine being such a loser you gripe over youtube videos, but then cite Owen Jones with a straight face lol.

Laughable, no forces you to listen to people exercising free speech.



So you start off with free speech and end with how close someone should be allowed near others.

Originally posted by Surtur
I laughed too. Imagine being such a loser you gripe over youtube videos, but then cite Owen Jones with a straight face lol. Haha, TI pegged you perfectly.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It is.

Some may interpret that as a threat.

Which would not be protected speech.

Originally posted by hoangtaybaokiem
The title quote by Owen Jones sums it up. It's not a case of Free Speech means you have to be heard, if people don't want to listen to you why should they have to?


If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them.

Students who don't want to listen to a speaker have the right not to listen to them. They don't have a right to stop people who do though.

Deplatforming speakers is counterproductive anyway as it only brings more attention to the very soeakers they don't want people to hear.

It's as stupid as those who protest concerts by bands they think are subversive or movies they think are controversial.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
It is.

It may not be, depending on circumstances around it.

Violent effigies are not just close to the line, they are right on the line on what constitutes protected speech.


Here's an example of an effigy that falls on the side of the line that is protected speech:

https://www.wishtv.com/news/local-news/hanging-trump-effigy-protected-by-first-amendment/1064107848


But if there was any sign, any words, or any evidence at all that this was a call to action or a desire to hang Trump, it'd be illegal. Again, this was tested and made fairly clear under Brandenburg v. Ohio like I posted in the other thread.



I think the violent effigies would fail the protected speech test if even an utterance about "taking down Trump" was included. It's that close to the line.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Students who don't want to listen to a speaker have the right not to listen to them. They don't have a right to stop people who do though.

Deplatforming speakers is counterproductive anyway as it only brings more attention to the very soeakers they don't want people to hear.

It's as stupid as those who protest concerts by bands they think are subversive or movies they think are controversial.





And due to the Streisand Effect, it may be counterproductive to try and silence people they disagree with. Just makes them get more PR and be "Free Speech" martyrs.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Students who don't want to listen to a speaker have the right not to listen to them. They don't have a right to stop people who do though.

Deplatforming speakers is counterproductive anyway as it only brings more attention to the very soeakers they don't want people to hear.

It's as stupid as those who protest concerts by bands they think are subversive or movies they think are controversial.

Makes you wonder what's behind these deplatformings.

With a public school, that's easy: It's the board pushing agenda's, often to avoid lawsuits. Administrators simply toe the line, and have no real say on what goes on in their school.

At universities, it's harder to pinpoint what's really going on. Tenured faculty could be pro-active, as could the students. Presidents have been known to enact policies for no apparent reason. The buck usually stops with a "corporate" board, made up of the Governor and a mix of elected officers and legacies, but you never really know how much they interfere in the day to day, as that's not something that's usually reported on..

Originally posted by cdtm
Makes you wonder what's behind these deplatformings.

With a public school, that's easy: It's the board pushing agenda's, often to avoid lawsuits. Administrators simply toe the line, and have no real say on what goes on in their school.

At universities, it's harder to pinpoint what's really going on. Tenured faculty could be pro-active, as could the students. Presidents have been known to enact policies for no apparent reason. The buck usually stops with a "corporate" board, made up of the Governor and a mix of elected officers and legacies, but you never really know how much they interfere in the day to day, as that's not something that's usually reported on..

It is not at all difficult to figure out what is going on. College unaffordability has led universities to a consumer-driven model. The students are now customers, and colleges go out of their way to please them in order to keep the tuition money rolling in.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is not at all difficult to figure out what is going on. College unaffordability has led universities to a consumer-driven model. The students are now customers, and colleges go out of their way to please them in order to keep the tuition money rolling in.

So you're saying that, despite claims to the contrary by those on the right, the Universities aren't haven's of far left ideology at all, but have instead become exactly the same sort of beast the corporations are that they hate so much?

If all universities are now, are mills designed to take kids money, as opposed to a social good that trades money for knowledge, as a leftist, it must be hell working for such an organization.

Originally posted by cdtm
So you're saying that, despite claims to the contrary by those on the right, the Universities aren't haven's of far left ideology at all, but have instead become exactly the same sort of beast the corporations are that they hate so much?

If all universities are now, are mills designed to take kids money, as opposed to a social good that trades money for knowledge, as a leftist, it must be hell working for such an organization. lot of good stuff here

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Students who don't want to listen to a speaker have the right not to listen to them. They don't have a right to stop people who do though.

Deplatforming speakers is counterproductive anyway as it only brings more attention to the very soeakers they don't want people to hear.

It's as stupid as those who protest concerts by bands they think are subversive or movies they think are controversial.

Yup. I have never once seen an instance where some conservative was gonna give a speech and the university made it mandatory for students to attend.

If some conservatives very presence on campus triggers people that much they might as well just leave college and take courses online.

These shouldn't be hard lessons for people to learn. Don't like a speaker? Don't listen. Don't like a tv show? Change the channel. Don't like a product? Don't buy it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yup. I have never once seen an instance where some conservative was gonna give a speech and the university made it mandatory for students to attend.

If some conservatives very presence on campus triggers people that much they might as well just leave college and take courses online.

These shouldn't be hard lessons for people to learn. Don't like a speaker? Don't listen. Don't like a tv show? Change the channel. Don't like a product? Don't buy it.

It seems they learned the lessons of Capitalism very well. They have the money, so they make the rules. This sort of bad behavior is a perverse incentive created by turning everything into a moneymaking venture.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It seems they learned the lessons of Capitalism very well. They have the money, so they make the rules. This sort of bad behavior is a perverse incentive created by turning everything into a moneymaking venture. very true

Well now I just picture them smoking cigars and using one of those stock ticker tape machines.