Included in my definition of “obscene” might be the prohibition of free speech on college campuses.
Listening to or trying to understand an opposing viewpoint does not mean acquiescence or agreement.
Panel discussions, anyone? Perfectly simple way to construct a conversation around micro subject matters like Betsy Devos’ approach to sexual assault accusations without devoting an entire evening to Betsy Devos herself. I mean, is the emphasis here on giving a celebrity with an already big bullhorn, an even bigger bullhorn, or is it about hearing both sides of an issue?
@circuitrider: In my post #78 above, I suggested that booking agencies offer packages of 2 speakers who offer differing & opposing viewpoints. I think that this approach is better than panel discussions as panel discussions often result in a watering down of the message.
^I think we are thinking along the same lines. The only problem is in finding speakers who don’t mind sharing a stage with another speaker. I mean, let’s get real - that’s the real bottleneck on a truly free flow of ideas. In some cases, a skilled master of ceremonies can offer some counterpoint to a celebrity guest. But, in the sad majority of cases, college personnel are either too polite or too star-struck to serve in that role.
@Publisher I can choose to define “hate speech” however I wish in my house or my Facebook, etc. An employer may choose to define it how they wish in their place of business, as far as I am aware (anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong… can’t a customer be kicked out of a restaurant by management if they are insulting other customers or employees? Employees can be fired for that offense as well?). Even here on CC, moderators can and obviously do remove posts and posters themselves for comments made.
Since these are not examples of the government punishing a person for their speech, it’s not a violation of free speech or the Constitution.
Free speech does not come without consequences. People are free to speak aloud their ideas and various entities are free to react to them. Aside from the government calling for them to lose their jobs, be threatened or jailed (well, aside from recently how some individuals in government have been allowed to do that).
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/camille-paglia-uarts-left-deplatform/587125/
This story, published in the Atlantic, describes student and outside activist efforts to have Camille Paglia fired from the University of the Arts. The most frightening thing in this article is that her colleagues are terrified about speaking up publicly, even though they strongly disagree with her censors.
Folks - this is an art school in Philadelphia, where free expression should be paramount. Where the instructors work in a climate of fear. Reported in the Atlantic. If you think this is a problem conjured up by the right wing media, you are terribly mistaken.
@Publisher @circuitrider I agree that a well moderated debate or discussion between two opposing speakers is highly desirable but probably hard to pull off. Roxane Gay appeared with Laura Kipnis at Scripps on a #MeToo debate. https://tsl.news/news7599/. Sounds like it was a bit messy but at least it happened. Roxane Gay also recently appeared with Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, although not on a college campus. That was messy too, but at least it happened. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/inside-the-near-meltdown-of-the-feminist-tour-in-australia.html. It sounds like in both instances the audience was predominantly supporters of Roxane Gay and didn’t like the idea that they were asked to listen to an opposing view.
@mom2twogirls : My questions asking for definitions were designed to do two things:
- Understand your point of view and
- Illustrate how difficult it is to define most of the terms involved in this discussion.
Courts & judges have experienced difficulty in defining offensive activity as well as the limits of free speech. One court in an attempt to define obscenity stated, in essence, “I cannot define what is & is not obscene, but I know it when I see it.” Not very helpful guidance.
Just as you know what constitutes hate speech to you, it may be different for others. And it may differ by court, by region of the country, by country, etc.
I suspect that in the country of France, anything not spoken in French may be deemed offensive to the point of being obscene to a Francophile.
The professor who was to speak at Middlebury College has been labeled many things by some posters. Labels are dangerous because they can mean different things to different people.
I used to be involved in politics. I loved asking political activists what it meant to be a Republican or to be a conservative. Responses varied greatly.
If an author with controversial beliefs has the courage to appear onstage alone in front of a hostile audience, I think that it is worthwhile to listen to the speaker’s point of view & reasoning. And the Middlebury speaker agreed to field questions afterward. Certainly he wasn’t expecting an easy time.
When prohibited activity cannot be adequately defined, then we encounter due process issues in addition to unfairly affecting our most basic & sacred freedoms.
P.S. When students matriculate at Middlebury College & when parents send their children /young adults to Middlebury College for an “education”, what did you expect ? In short, define “education”.
For the record, I only accept limitations on speech by people who specifically deny the rights of people from specific groups, and whose words have a good chance of leading to physical harm, or whose words/beliefs have done so. While I find little about Camille Paglia to admire, and I think that she take logical fallacies in arguments to unprecedented levels, there is no justification to limit her speech.
I think that, in many cases, activists are looking for easy targets. Instead of focusing on the people who are literally saying that being raped is the victim’s fault, and therefore rape should not be treated as a serious crime, they are spending time and energy attacking people who they do not think have sufficient ideological purity for their taste.
It’s the same reason that you often see minorities attacking each other - other minorities are easier and “safer” targets. Also, simply attacking people is so much easier than the long-term, grueling work of changing legislation.
Kinda related to this, I forgot who said it, but the gist was that idealists are, invariably, dishonest.
@Publisher He wasn’t just a professor who spoke about these things in a theoretical context, he was a member of government that is running a with hunt against political opponents, rewriting history, and is actively against LGBTQ rights. He has actions, not just opinions.
Once we start accepting that it is okay to deny the freedom of speech of those with whom we disagree, it inevitably leads to a tyranny of the majority or powerful. Here is an instance of students attempting to silence other students, with a nice defense of the minority group’s freedoms of speech and association by the college president:
How does the invitation process work to bring speakers to campus? Did students request this speaker? Someone upthread mentioned a Koch brothers organization? Just curious what the process is for bringing speakers. Just because someone is touring promoting their book shouldn’t be a reason to include them - I would think someone in the Middlebury community would have had to request him but can anyone confirm this?.
@chardonMN: Especially in this case where the speaker’s invitation to speak at Middlebury has just been postponed, not cancelled, according to my understanding.
@chardonMN - My understanding is that the idea came from a faculty member who, at first, extended the invitation to speak to his political science class. But, as news of the impending visit spread via the internet, it became a much bigger deal and efforts were made to find a campus-wide venue until the administration decided that it was all too much to handle on short notice.
He was invited to speak by the Alexander Hamilton Forum.
@Publisher again, this is not an example of the infringement of the right of free speech. Calling it such is taking that right and twisting it to use as part of a political agenda.
If the government was making laws saying this guy wasn’t allowed to speak in public, that would be a violation of free speech.
It doesn’t matter what specific ideas or phrases are considered obscene. Or if everyone agrees. That’s my point. Similar to what happens here on CC. There are words we are not allowed to use. They are not necessarily obscene words. The one for a person who commonly comes online to cause trouble and upset an online community, also a word for a creature that lives under a bridge and harasses those who pass by, is not an obscene word. No one thinks it is. but CC has decided it’s not allowed to be used as a term here. It’s banned. And that is also not a violation of free speech.
This reminds me of how people currently misuse the word literally. They often say it when they mean figuratively. Just because many people are misusing the word, doesn’t make that misuse suddenly correct.
@mom2two girls: Sorry, but I cannot make sense of your above post #114 which conflicts with your own statements made in your posts #95 & #104 in this thread.
You use lots of labels in your posts, but do not define them.
I have no political agenda beyond acknowledging that the right of free speech is guaranteed in our country’s Constitution.
I also acknowledge that US courts have difficulty in defining terms which are used in attempts to limit free speech. “Obscene” is one such term.
When one is not permitted to speak as an invited guest speaker on a college campus because of the anticipated content of that speaker’s speech, that is an infringement upon one’s right of free speech.
P.S. The title of this thread is : “Freedom of speech at Middlebury?”
The issue concerns limiting speech on a college campus due to the unpopularity of the presumed content of the speech.
The focus in this thread is on academic discourse & the freedom to express unpopular ideas.
This leads to discussion of how one defines “education” & what should one expect from a liberal arts college in its mission to educate its students.
I agree with @Publisher that this goes to the heart of the issue of what is meant by a liberal arts education. Freedom of speech is being used in this discussion, I submit, as a concept that is much broader than protection from government interference against speech. Thus it includes issues such as academic freedom, freedom from campus censorship, and the ability to advance unpopular ideas. There will always be a campus orthodoxy on lots of issues and the question is whether one can challenge that orthodoxy.
This is my favorite quote from John Stuart Mill “On Liberty”
Opponents of campus free speech are always fond of citing extremist provocateurs such as Milo to support de-platforming. But as I said above, there is an ever widening scope of issues that are considered off limits for discussion.
@Corinthian - Well stated! I love your post # 117.
So suddenly it’s not really about the right to free speech or the constitution, which has been brought up by people within this thread. Now it’s about freedom of expression. Since this thread is actually about a speaker from outside the campus who was allowed to speak on campus, according to replies within the discussion, just not as planned at one point… then it’s apparently now become a thread about defining obscene, education, and the freedom of expression for people not part of the actual campus?
I mean, maybe I’m not the only one that doesn’t make sense here. Because it sure does sound like a lot of people think they should determine whether students on various college campus protest speakers they find disturbing for whatever reason, and whether college administrations react to those protests and how.
It makes me think that there are people trying to quash other people’s freedom of expression all while claiming it’s to protect freedom of expression, or freedom of speech which has been used interchangeably. Or maybe it’s a figurative freedom of speech because the whole thing keeps shifting.
I guess it’s JMO but I think too many people want to micromanage how college students and administrators handle their lawful activities.