The headline of the editorial in the Wellesley News said "Free speech is not violated at Wellesley." Then the body of the opinion piece goes on to advocate violation of Free Speech.
There were two key passages from this Editorial that deserve further attention. Let's consider the first:
"Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
Regarding the first sentence, who defines what is "discriminatory speech." Consider the following instances that have been labeled hate speech by some. If a person expresses concern about the fact that 75% of minority children are born out of wedlock, that view is considered racist. Someone who wants to prevent Muslim extremists who wish to commit violent acts of terror from entering our country is considered Islamophobic. Pointing out actual instances where criminal acts have been committed by men against females in the women's restroom and asking for laws to protect against that is considered "transphobia."
Others consider those legitimate concerns based on facts and deserving of debate and discussion.
Who decides whether it is hate speech or not?
Regarding the rest of the quoted paragraph, that's just horse manure. Shutting down any speech is a violation of free speech. Consider the following from the ACLU's website:
"In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause."
Note that last sentence - the same laws used to protect marchers during the Civil Rights era also protects neo-Nazi's who want to march through Skokie, Illinois.
I encourage the Editors of the Wellesley News to look up the book by Phillipa Strum titled "When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate." Go to the ACLU site listed below as the source of the quote above and you'll see a link to the Kansas Press that publishes Ms. Strum's book.
In the description of the book on the Kansas Press site you'll find the following passage:
The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without intimidation.
The theme of the opposition to the ACLU sounds remarkably similar to that of the Wellesley News Editorial Board. Yet the Courts decided the ACLU was right, the neo-Nazis right to Free Speech was being violated by those who would prevent them from expressing their "hate speech."
The second key passage from their editorial is this...
"This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better."
So their answer to people with whom they disagree is "hostility" and to "hold them accountable for their actions." During the last six months we have seen the "hostility" of intolerant liberals. Violent riots in some cities right after the election. Beatings of Trump supporters. Violence on the Berkeley Campus when a conservative speaker was scheduled to speak. Threats of violence when Ann Coulter wants to go to a college campus to speak.
Note that the Editors only want hostility directed against "those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so" or in other words "those who know better." For students who have not been "given the chance to learn" the editors prefer to give them "the incentive to learn" by showing them what happens if they choose to have a different opinion. Or to put it another way, "we will show you what happens if you do not conform to our views."
Could any repressive regime have said it better?
Sources:
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/12/free-speech-is-not-violated-at-wellesley/
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html
There were two key passages from this Editorial that deserve further attention. Let's consider the first:
"Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging."
Regarding the first sentence, who defines what is "discriminatory speech." Consider the following instances that have been labeled hate speech by some. If a person expresses concern about the fact that 75% of minority children are born out of wedlock, that view is considered racist. Someone who wants to prevent Muslim extremists who wish to commit violent acts of terror from entering our country is considered Islamophobic. Pointing out actual instances where criminal acts have been committed by men against females in the women's restroom and asking for laws to protect against that is considered "transphobia."
Others consider those legitimate concerns based on facts and deserving of debate and discussion.
Who decides whether it is hate speech or not?
Regarding the rest of the quoted paragraph, that's just horse manure. Shutting down any speech is a violation of free speech. Consider the following from the ACLU's website:
"In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause."
Note that last sentence - the same laws used to protect marchers during the Civil Rights era also protects neo-Nazi's who want to march through Skokie, Illinois.
I encourage the Editors of the Wellesley News to look up the book by Phillipa Strum titled "When the Nazis Came to Skokie: Freedom for Speech We Hate." Go to the ACLU site listed below as the source of the quote above and you'll see a link to the Kansas Press that publishes Ms. Strum's book.
In the description of the book on the Kansas Press site you'll find the following passage:
The debate was clear-cut: American Nazis claimed the right of free speech while their Jewish "targets" claimed the right to live without intimidation.
The theme of the opposition to the ACLU sounds remarkably similar to that of the Wellesley News Editorial Board. Yet the Courts decided the ACLU was right, the neo-Nazis right to Free Speech was being violated by those who would prevent them from expressing their "hate speech."
The second key passage from their editorial is this...
"This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn. Rather, we are not referring to those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so. Paid professional lecturers and politicians are among those who should know better."
So their answer to people with whom they disagree is "hostility" and to "hold them accountable for their actions." During the last six months we have seen the "hostility" of intolerant liberals. Violent riots in some cities right after the election. Beatings of Trump supporters. Violence on the Berkeley Campus when a conservative speaker was scheduled to speak. Threats of violence when Ann Coulter wants to go to a college campus to speak.
Note that the Editors only want hostility directed against "those who have already had the incentive to learn and should have taken the opportunities to do so" or in other words "those who know better." For students who have not been "given the chance to learn" the editors prefer to give them "the incentive to learn" by showing them what happens if they choose to have a different opinion. Or to put it another way, "we will show you what happens if you do not conform to our views."
Could any repressive regime have said it better?
Sources:
http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/12/free-speech-is-not-violated-at-wellesley/
https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie
https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html
Comments