Everything we think about the political correctness debate is wrong

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

 

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

Pappy's youtube feed trumps activist research. 

FYP.

Statistics are easy to fudge, video evidence? not so easy to fake.

It's ok MOSW, you might learn to think one of these days. Might.   

Or I might even learn to let my YouTube feed do my thinking for me. 

[Tequila]

Ok, so I got my timeframe off by a year.

Less than a year (a matter of months) for the shock-jock and the politician.

In regards to the Islamic radicals, they were advocating violence which isn't covered by free speech laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

The United States of America would be the nearest exception to that but as far as I know no liberal democracies have truly unregulated free speech.  I would imagine in the American case it would depend on just how it was phrased given the "fighting words" doctrine.

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Pappy's youtube feed trumps activist research. 

FYP.

Statistics are easy to fudge, video evidence? not so easy to fake.

It's ok MOSW, you might learn to think one of these days. Might.   

Or I might even learn to let my YouTube feed do my thinking for me. 

Yes, heaven forbid that you allow pesky things called facts interfere with your sacred beliefs that your tribe is the "good" tribe. 

[Yuri Bezmenov]

In regards to the Islamic radicals, they were advocating violence which isn't covered by free speech laws anywhere in the world that I'm aware of.

The United States of America would be the nearest exception to that but as far as I know no liberal democracies have truly unregulated free speech.  I would imagine in the American case it would depend on just how it was phrased given the "fighting words" doctrine.

Yes, although "fighting words" arguments are losing clout in most courtrooms, it appears as if these Muslims were calling for direct violence, which isn't protected under the 1st Amendment.

[Jack]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.

[Jack]

When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.

That's an interesting statement, though the article I presented shows the political divide to be fairly balanced, so if it's not related to political views then what are the sides? Young vs old?

[Tequila]

Yes, although "fighting words" arguments are losing clout in most courtrooms, it appears as if these Muslims were calling for direct violence, which isn't protected under the 1st Amendment.

What precisely were they saying and in what context?  It could possibly fall under the "imminent lawless action" clause in the 1969 Brandenburg v Ohio judgement, although it appears most likely that the First would cover it.  It all depends.

Were they calling for direct violence kind of, well, in a few minutes?  Or is it just a vague call?  It's all details.

Are there similar cases in the States we could refer to?  Reuters has a say on U.S. free speech cases - they give a mention to a racist preacher inciting violence there and, of course, the often-amusing Fred Phelps.

[Minister Of Silly Walks]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.

Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.

It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.

[Jack]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.

Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.

It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.

It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.

[Calandale]

When a side perceives that it has more social power,
even if (maybe especially) threatened in other ways, silencing divergent opinions is a standard tactic.

That's an interesting statement, though the article I presented shows the political divide to be fairly balanced, so if it's not related to political views then what are the sides? Young vs old?

Actually, I think it's that BOTH sides of the political spectrum feel they have significant social power within their own spheres.


May have to do with the broadening of speech platforms and/or the echo chambers.


In that sense, we are seeing something that is new.

[El]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.

Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.

It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.

It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.

I also feel like there's a semantic issue with the term "acceptable" when you're talking about free speech (including the issue of "shouting down" an unpopular campus speaker).  There's acceptable as in legal (should the cops get involved?), acceptable as in permissible (should campus authorities get involved?), acceptable personally/socially (should the shouters have friendships broken or be socially shunned as punishment for norm violation?), acceptable as in good/desirable, or acceptable as in not good or desirable but also not something action should be taken against.  There's some "ifs" to this component of it, but the first amendment does also protect the right to protest.

Maybe a nitpick, but that's a question I had a problem with in this particular survey, but also a broader line of thought that I think gets blurred in ways that contribute to the discussion of what free speech "means" going screwy.

[Jack]

This makes me think of an article read some time back which caused me to question the conception, that the generational snowflake aspect of this topic is a small minority getting their squeaky wheel greased. The reality may be different. This article's research shows it is a generational phenomenon and not a political one. A substantial portion of young adults today may not even understand what their rights are regarding speech, are apposed to free speech on campus, believe shouting down a speaker is acceptable, and even find violence as an acceptable response to offensive speech. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

Zero evidence presented that the current generation has a different understanding of free speech compared to previous generations.

That's correct, though do believe people who understand their rights are less likely to volunteer to forfeit rights or think it's acceptable to impose on the rights of others. Though found the more interesting part is the contrast provided to the other article; this may not be politically related at all, nor rare extreme behavior found in a small minority among young adults. Found the best point of the article to be the reality of students acting as their own arbiter in this type of environment, so if the majority support restricting speech on campus then it's highly likely that's what they will get. It may be a matter of majority rule.

Now you've gone and made a bunch of valid points that I can't disagree with.

It would be interesting to do the same survey with a number of different people and compare results according to age, education, and other factors. It would also be interesting if the same survey was held 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, and if any trend could be identified.

It would also be interesting to know if the people who don't understand their rights are predominantly the same people who support prohibiting speech, and believe it's acceptable to shout down or enact violence against a speaker.

I also feel like there's a semantic issue with the term "acceptable" when you're talking about free speech (including the issue of "shouting down" an unpopular campus speaker).  There's acceptable as in legal (should the cops get involved?), acceptable as in permissible (should campus authorities get involved?), acceptable personally/socially (should the shouters have friendships broken or be socially shunned as punishment for norm violation?), acceptable as in good/desirable, or acceptable as in not good or desirable but also not something action should be taken against.  There's some "ifs" to this component of it, but the first amendment does also protect the right to protest.

Maybe a nitpick, but that's a question I had a problem with in this particular survey, but also a broader line of thought that I think gets blurred in ways that contribute to the discussion of what free speech "means" going screwy.

Acceptable is a decent nitpick. The right to protest is really peaceful assembly, and it doesn't cancel out other people's rights. In a situation where someone is shouting down a speaker and the speaker can't be heard by the people who have peacefully assembled to hear them, the shouter is the one who is violating other people's rights. They should step outside and shout to people who wish to assemble to hear them. If everyone is just in the street all shouting together, then that's different.

[El]

Acceptable is a decent nitpick. The right to protest is really peaceful assembly, and it doesn't cancel out other people's rights. In a situation where someone is shouting down a speaker and the speaker can't be heard by the people who have peacefully assembled to hear them, the shouter is the one who is violating other people's rights. They should step outside and shout to people who wish to assemble to hear them. If everyone is just in the street all shouting together, then that's different.

Trickier when there are rights that seem to be in competition with one another, isn't it?

Based on a bit of research, it looks like the debate about whether heckling is free speech or not falls on the side of not, but like it has been mulled over enough that I wouldn't necessarily call college students stupid or suppressive for not knowing that.  Won't link all of them, but here's a nice example of some caselaw exploring the subtleties of the issue:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/03/14/is-it-a-crime-to-heckle-at-a-campaign-rally/

I'll also add, the issue of what "free speech" "really means" will vary based on context.  In the U.S. the debate usually defaults to picking apart what the first amendment "really means" and how it applies to a particular situation, but its scope doesn't always actually reach to any given scenario.  So, someone's first amendment rights could be totally untouched but they could still feel they're not being allowed to exercise "free speech" based on other consequences (which may or may not be accurate).  So there's often a lot to nitpick, even if you assume you're only talking about the U.S. (which we're not always doing on here).