BLM protestors broke up an ACLU event. From the student newspaper:
http://flathatnews.com/2017/10/02/black-lives-matter-protests-american-civil-liberties-union
BLM protesting the ACLU…oh my goodness the world has gone mad. Clearly the that faction of the BLM does not believe in free speech. Unbelievable what is happening on campuses. Those poor deluded kids.
Freedom of speech is not generally that popular among current college students (regardless of political affiliation), according to the survey referenced in http://talk.qa.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/2019374-survey-of-college-students-on-freedom-of-speech-questions.html .
But note that this survey does not indicate whether current college students are significantly different from other adults in this respect (a successful presidential candidate a few decades ago called his opponent a “card carrying member of the ACLU” implying that that was a bad thing – the people who voted then are older adults now).
Perhaps it may be the case that many people (not necessarily just current college students) are valuing freedom of speech less due to the increased volume and visibility of inflammatory or hate speech, crowding out reasoned debate. That can lead to the breakdown of civil society and accelerate the rise in extremism.
@ momofthreeboys The difference between free speech and hate speech from my perspective: a coach may say that his boys are the best, promote them to think that they are better than other teams’ players, teasing other teams’ weakness, or whatever — that’s free speech. But if the coach encourage his players to break the arms or legs of the other teams’ players, so they can win the game — whether imply or explicit, that likely to result of actual body harm or injustice — that’s hate speech. That’s nothing to do with people’s skin color. I am using Temple basketball coach John Chaney as an illustration here.
I don’t think it is possible to rationalize what BLM says they stand for by shutting down an ACLU speaker…defies all logic. Not to mention shutting down speech…and the ACLU cannot be classified as “hate speech” propagators on this continent so yes BLM demonstrates they have zero interest in free speech only “their” speech. Great way to alienate the people that might get behind the BLM messages. You won’t get my advocacy with such nonsense and I don’t always agree with the ACLU but I respect their perspective and mission.
I do understand your point ^^^, and I do also understand that ACLU is try to be neutral on whatever side want to have a say on local/national stage. I am not saying BLM is correct on this, but I was just saying there is a difference between free speech and hate speech. American culture has always been protecting free speech, which promote justice and not hate speech, which encourage injustice. I don’t think your saying that “BLM does not believe in free speech” is fair.
That was a bizarre article linked to in the post. It was not enlightening at all.
There didn’t seem to be any attempt by the reporter to talk to any of the protestors or the BLM chapter. The students who pin the photo accompanying the article seem to be mostly white. And the quote: "the protesters shouted chants such as “liberalism is white supremacy” from the article almost seems like it was group of provocateurs who weren’t really part of BLM but are trying to discredit the organization.
It wouldn’t surprise me if this is a set up – it is certainly being picked up and given prominent display on some of the least reliable alt right news sites. And the ACLU and BLM are not at odds in any other place.
I wonder if the media fell for another nasty trick. This group of mostly white students and no one was interviewed or identified by name? Perhaps they were just misguided students.
But students willing to do this publicly are always willing to be identified and this reporter never bothered to find out who they were and what got so many white students at W & M certain they should shut down the ACLU when the national BLM movement isn’t protesting the ACLU.
BLM says that the term “All lives matter.” is racist. There are loony groups on the left, and loony groups on the right.
"BLM says that the term “All lives matter.” is racist. "
Because in a lot of instances it is.
There is something seriously wrong when a phrase like, “All lives matter.” is considered racist.
Does BLM want equal rights, or special rights?
It is not the phrase itself. It is that some racists have used it enough that others now associate the phrase with racism (even if other non-racists also used it). A more extreme example of this phenomenon is the phrase “blood and soil”. “We will not be replaced” is another example.
Depends on whether you think being treated fairly by police (i.e. not being subject to greater police misconduct) is equal rights or special rights.
That is an absurd analogy. “Blood and soil” and “We will not be replaced” are chanted by neo-nazis when they march down the street. “All lives matter” isn’t, and that’s because there’s nothing racist about it. If anything, it’s the most non-racist thing you can say.
According to a WaPo article I read (6/19/2017) there is no “hate speech exception to the first Amendment.” This was unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court. Does this mean hate speech=free speech? Don’t get me wrong - I’m against hate speech. But it seems to be protected?
Yes, hate speech is protected as far as its political content is concerned. (Restrictions against inciting a riot, threatening someone, etc. are not dependent on political content.)
Of course, the more hate speech displaces other speech and becomes seen as the dominant form of free speech, the more freedom of speech will be devalued in the eyes of many.
Maybe colleges could replace their current admission essay prompts with something more practical, like “discuss 3 ways you could disagree with someone without resorting to assault” or “explain the first amendment and why it matters to you.” Might be more useful in improving campus debate and quality of life for all.
Imagine this scenario:
Person A: “Black lives matter”
Person B, in response: “All lives matter”
Person A then says: “So you agree? black lives matter”
What does person B say now? “Yes, black lives matter” because they recognize that all lives includes black lives, and thus indeed black lives do matter? or “No, all lives matter” because they mean the all-lives-matter phrase to be a counter argument to the phrase black-lives-matter?
My sense is that in the scenario above, person B is saying “all lives matter” as a counter argument to the statement “black lives matter.” In which case, the phrase is racist.
The statement “black lives matter” does NOT say that other lives do not matter, or that black lives matter more than other lives, rather it is saying black lives matter just as much as other lives.
Saying “all lives matter” in response to someone saying “black lives matter” is a means of denigrating the argument, a way of saying that black lives don’t matter…
Huh? The meaning of the word “all” is not typically confused.
Or person A could respond what part of “all” do you not understand? Obviously “all” includes black lives. And every other life. Should be a truism, not a semantic debating point.
Black Lives Matter is a very easy concept to understand. There is no ONLY in there. The folks who make an issue of it are intentionally choosing to pretend they don’t get that and they intentionally demean the slogan to fit their own agenda instead of trying to respect and listen to the sentiment behind the words. It’s not rocket science. Folks get what you are doing when you claim “All Lives Matter”.
If you feel the need to constantly exclaim “All Lives Matter”, what do you really think “Black Lives Matter” means? Why is it so threatening to you that you even need a “All Lives Matter” rejoinder? Why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that black people in this country face challenges based on their skin color that you, white person, do not face in the face of so much evidence that says it is true?
You just choose to be insulted, doschicos, by presuming too much. I happen to believe we are all God’s children, black, white, brown, yellow or red, and try to publicly emphasize that commonality among humanity and our shared souls. You may disagree, but don’t presume you know what others are thinking. Isn’t that part of the problem with the college incident? One group presumed to know and disagree with another group without even listening.