Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (37715)	4/3/2004 10:54:43 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793731

Regulating hate speech is hardly suppressing constitutionally protected free speech. That's about ideas; not hate. We might get a different definition of the boundaries of such protections. Have the administrators found a court that agrees with this interpretation of the First Amendment? Seems to me quite a novel one; David Duke is permitted his First Amendment rights even though his speech is quite hateful, just to pick one obvious example. Of course, one could argue that students of a private university don't have any First Amendment rights on campus but I have never heard that idea advanced. Moreover, these 'hate speech' cases often blow up not over any clear expressions of hatred, but more over the question of whether minority students have a right to freedom from feeling offended. There was a big case at U of P a while back where a bunch of black students made a lot of noise and an Israeli student yelled "shut up, you water buffaloes" which he did not intend as anything racial, but was taken that way. This makes any "hate speech" code slide into meaning whatever some minority students say it means at any given moment.

To: JohnM who wrote (37715)	4/3/2004 11:03:49 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793731

Regulating hate speech is hardly suppressing constitutionally protected free speech. I am astounded at how blind you are on this subject, John. Every First Amendment Lawyer will tell you that you just CAN'T do it. The cases being taken up are won every time by the students if they have the Lawyers. Which they now do. The ACLU stands branded forever by their refusal to take these cases. Do I have a representative sample? I have been posting case after case of lawsuits brought by students about free speech on campus. I think that almost every one started with a minority/gender group complaining. I just googled "campus hate speech" and got, "119,000 English pages for campus hate speech."

To: JohnM who wrote (37715)	4/4/2004 9:37:00 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793731

Regulating hate speech is hardly suppressing constitutionally protected free speech. I think that where the universities went astray was in evolving from hate speech to discomfort speech. No reasonable person would challenge a university's policy to punish the use of the "n" word even if he considered it unconstitutional. It would be just too churlish to do so. But when the universities punished "water buffalo," they went too far. We can reasonably, I think, stop hate speech in a school environment. But we cannot deprive folks of free speech to cater to the exquisite sensitivities of the professional victims and the insecure. That's not fair to the speakers nor healthy for society. It isn't even in the best interests of the overly sensitive, IMO. If the universities would set more reasonable standards I don't think that they would be challenged.