Everything we think about the political correctness debate is wrong

[Jack]

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

Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.

I wouldn't necessarily call college students stupid or suppressive for not knowing that.

As said before, believe people who don't understand their rights aren't aware when they're forfeiting those rights, or realize when they're trampling on the rights of others. Ignorance maybe so more than stupidity but if the result is suppression, then yes suppressive is the perfect term.

[Tequila]

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

Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.

With regard to harassment - there is a problem here.  How is harassment defined?  Can we define this?  Some jurisdictions may have a more liberal view on what it constitutes.

[Jack]

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

Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.

With regard to harassment - there is a problem here.  How is harassment defined?  Can we define this?  Some jurisdictions may have a more liberal view on what it constitutes.

The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated. While local laws may differ slightly, have understood the legal definition of harassment generally involves multiple acts. Didn't really mean to imply shouting down a single speaker is harassment; that really boils down to assembly.

[Tequila]

The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated.

Would you like to elaborate on that remark?

[Jack]

The forum's resident attorney appears to have vacated.

Would you like to elaborate on that remark?

One of the members here is an attorney, but hasn't been a regular poster in some time.

[El]

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

Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.

Was also thinking about issues like how organizations try to use the RFRA as a way to deny birth control coverage or abortion coverage, discriminate against LGBTQ+, etc.

[Jack]

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

Not really, no. It's not a competition of rights. Freedom of speech isn't the right to take away other's freedom of speech, it's not a right to harassment, nor a right to force anyone to listen.

Was also thinking about issues like how organizations try to use the RFRA as a way to deny birth control coverage or abortion coverage, discriminate against LGBTQ+, etc.

I see. Yes, sometimes new laws can create conflicts with existing laws and even worse, loopholes. The courts will have to button those things up. Personally think there should be no exceptions other than for non-profit religious organizations, but that doesn't seem to be the foundation that being established. one problem with the RFRA is many states have adopted their own version, so the only way to avoid conflict with federal laws is to amend the federal RFRA so these decisions aren't made at the sate level and state law can't supersede it.

[Lestat]

Best  response to institutionalized PC is addition of two more letters. U. and F. Not, necessarily in that order