Freedom of Speech (again, again, and yet again...)
Perhaps I view my college years through rose-colored glasses now. Protesters, while less frequent and vociferous, were as much a part of my college life 30+ years ago as they are a part of college life now.
But I recall, having had some emotional and vehement arguments; that opposing views were permitted to be aired. They might be ridiculed, assailed, or even occasionally debated in an informed, measured fashion; but you were generally allowed to finish your sentence.
The following is simply one more example of free speech being obscenely suppressed. Such suppression is often cloaked with assertions of a "First Amendment" right basis ; but nothing could be further from the truth. It is silencing the speaker, pure and simple. Arguments that such silencing has a 1st Amendment imprimatur are completely Orwellian.
What's even more frightening is this occurred on a University campus. The Professors there aren't doing their jobs very well if their students are engaging in this type of behavior:
http://tommydevine.blogspot.com/2009/03/tapemaster.html
The "Cliff Notes" overview of the above article is students at UMass ran a speaker off the stage because they disagreed with his speech topic.
I said "obscene" and I stand by it.
To me the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee I won't hear something I dislike, disagree with, or even find offensive. It does guarantee I get to argue back. The Supreme Court has set scant (and reasonable in my opinion) limits on speech to ensure the 1st Amendment's vitality.
However, the above dynamic is endemic in colleges and universities around the country; usually cloaked as "speech codes". It is completely antithetical to the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment. It is also eviscerating our institutes of higher education as "marketplaces of ideas" and turning them into nothing more than 4-year long catechism classes. (Unless you're in an engineering or hard science major; you're too busy with Diffi-Q and a senior seminar that would give Stephen Hawking a headache.)
Any rebuttal that is composed solely of the sentence: "You can't say that." is automatically and fatally flawed from the start.
But I recall, having had some emotional and vehement arguments; that opposing views were permitted to be aired. They might be ridiculed, assailed, or even occasionally debated in an informed, measured fashion; but you were generally allowed to finish your sentence.
The following is simply one more example of free speech being obscenely suppressed. Such suppression is often cloaked with assertions of a "First Amendment" right basis ; but nothing could be further from the truth. It is silencing the speaker, pure and simple. Arguments that such silencing has a 1st Amendment imprimatur are completely Orwellian.
What's even more frightening is this occurred on a University campus. The Professors there aren't doing their jobs very well if their students are engaging in this type of behavior:
http://tommydevine.blogspot.com/2009/03/tapemaster.html
The "Cliff Notes" overview of the above article is students at UMass ran a speaker off the stage because they disagreed with his speech topic.
I said "obscene" and I stand by it.
To me the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee I won't hear something I dislike, disagree with, or even find offensive. It does guarantee I get to argue back. The Supreme Court has set scant (and reasonable in my opinion) limits on speech to ensure the 1st Amendment's vitality.
However, the above dynamic is endemic in colleges and universities around the country; usually cloaked as "speech codes". It is completely antithetical to the spirit and intent of the 1st Amendment. It is also eviscerating our institutes of higher education as "marketplaces of ideas" and turning them into nothing more than 4-year long catechism classes. (Unless you're in an engineering or hard science major; you're too busy with Diffi-Q and a senior seminar that would give Stephen Hawking a headache.)
Any rebuttal that is composed solely of the sentence: "You can't say that." is automatically and fatally flawed from the start.