Free speech advocates are increasingly uneasy about the response of University of Missouri to protests of racism on campus. Some of the incidents described by students are exercises of free speech. Those concerns were heightened with the videotape of a communications professor harassing and trying to get students to “muscle” out a student journalist. This concern was heightened even further by police asking students to report “hateful and/or hurtful” speech. We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on our campuses and the message seemed to invite the type of speech regulation that has been on the rise. Citizens are allowed to say “hurtful” things without being forced to answer for their exercise of free speech. Monitoring and punishing hurtful statements threatens the most basic values of free speech in our universities. For those with controversial views, the police policy must have had the same feel as Mass communications professor Melissa Click calling for a show of “muscle” to target journalists. A complaint was filed by the student journalist against Professor Click who has now resigned her position.
The university’s student conduct code prohibits harassment, which it defines as “unwelcome verbal or physical conduct” against “actual or perceived membership in a protected class … that creates a hostile environment.” This includes conduct deemed to constitute bullying, retaliation and threatening or intimidating behaviors. The vagueness of these rules raise obvious unease for free speech advocates. As a result, the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri has written to the university to raise these concerns.
I have a nephew who just started at Missouri who appears to love the school. Ironically, he went there for the school’s stellar reputation for journalism studies. If the university wants to remain a serious academic institution, it will have to examine the implications of some of these moves for free speech values that are so essential to the academic mission.
The incidents described by students include people driving around with Confederate flags on their trucks or posting or saying intolerant or threatening things. Some of these acts may indeed cross the line into threatening conduct. However, some statements are also exercises of free speech. While distasteful and “hurtful,” they are part of an open and robust dialogue in this country that has been traditionally protected through cases like New York Times v. Sullivan. If we start to prohibit “hurtful” thoughts from being expressed, a wide array of speech would be chilled in society. We have always maintained that the solution to bad speech is good speech — not speech regulation or coercion.
What do you think?
“With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Yet whatever mischief arises from their use, is greatest when they are employed against the comparatively defenceless; and whatever unfair advantage can be derived by any opinion from this mode of asserting it, accrues almost exclusively to received opinions. The worst offence of this kind which can be committed by a polemic, is to stigmatize those who hold the contrary opinion as bad and immoral men. To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feels much interested in seeing justice done them; but this weapon is, from the nature of the case, denied to those who attack a prevailing opinion: they can neither use it with safety to themselves, nor, if they could, would it do anything but recoil on their own cause. In general, opinions contrary to those commonly received can only obtain a hearing by studied moderation of language, and the most cautious avoidance of unnecessary offence, from which they hardly ever deviate even in a slight degree without losing ground: while unmeasured vituperation employed on the side of the prevailing opinion, really does deter people from professing contrary opinions, and from listening to those who profess them. For the interest, therefore, of truth and justice, it is far more important to restrain this employment of vituperative language than the other; and, for example, if it were necessary to choose, there would be much more need to discourage offensive attacks on infidelity, than on religion. It is, however, obvious that law and authority have no business with restraining either, while opinion ought, in every instance, to determine its verdict by the circumstances of the individual case; condemning every one, on whichever side of the argument he places himself, in whose mode of advocacy either want of candour, or malignity, bigotry or intolerance of feeling manifest themselves; but not inferring these vices from the side which a person takes, though it be the contrary side of the question to our own: and giving merited honour to every one, whatever opinion he may hold, who has calmness to see and honesty to state what his opponents and their opinions really are, exaggerating nothing to their discredit, keeping nothing back which tells, or can be supposed to tell, in their favour. This is the real morality of public discussion: and if often violated, I am happy to think that there are many controversialists who to a great extent observe it, and a still greater number who conscientiously strive towards it.”
~J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Ch. II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion (1869)
I think this steps on the 1st Amendment. I just saw a fine production of Mary Poppins last night and I want you all to know “I am practically perfect in every way!” 24 hours of Disney films should straighten these kids out.
Yikes.
Which police to call? College campus police or local police? I want to file a complaint.
Found hurtful statement written in bathroom stall. Isn’t this suppose to be a “restroom”? My rights have been violated. Can’t take crap in peace.
So, Dave, or dave, posts a video, in response, of course, to what he terms as a long, irrelevant comment by an individual, containing a completely irrelevant diatribe by an old, dead hack.
No need for me to try again, Davey-poo. I nailed you the first time.
Just say no to drugs, Dave. Your mentor, Carlin, didn’t. Look where it got him. Pushing up daisies.
A proletarian of England in 1848 was probably worse off than the current black students of the University of Missouri. So what did the proletarians of England and of other European countries do? They organized in unions and political parties of their own and made tangible, attainable political demands such as the 48-hour week. They also understood the nefarious collaboration of the churches with the powerful and eventually left their religions in droves. As long as the black community of our nation does neither there will be no change.
Bam bam:
It’s called reading.
I wrote: “For Jonathan Hughes” above the Carlin video — which, here we go, let’s slow it down for you, was a specific response, to a specific commenter, who himself posted a long irrelevant comment.
The clip therefore was *directed at JH,* not toward the general conversation. You then took it upon yourself to go off on Carlin: *which has nothing to do with university fascism.*
The lady doth protest too much.
Try again, again.
KCF, I’ve said many times, Obama was/is unique.
Some reporters on MSM are now comparing the current university protests to the protests of the 1960’s – 1970’s civil rights actions. That is extremely misleading. The former protests were, among others, for the legal rights of black students to get into public universities in the first place.
Anyone who has ever made comments on any website knows that these are overflowing with insults starting with the mild “you are an idiot”. If this would happen here should we demand that Professor Turley resigns?
Dave
You post an irrelevant, pathetic and obnoxious video, where some dead, brain-damaged, coke-head gives his screwball viewpoint of God, on a thread about Mizzou, and I am accused of ad hominem attacks because I respond to its content?
Hysterical.
You’re out of your league, baby.
Nick, I hope you’re right, but we have a populace so dumb and socialist (but I repeat myself) they elected a community organizer twice.
Dave, who cares?
The topic is university fascism, not dead irrelevant comedians.
KCF, That’s an interesting theory, but this campus horseshit has been building for several decades now. Camille Paglia has written about this fascism on campus since the 80’s. What I see as an outcome is this rallying the independents and conservatives. When people see lawlessness on campus and in the streets they vote Republican. The 1960’s riots and campus unrest produced Nixon.
Bam bam:
So your evidence that Carlin was wrong on god is that he died at 71? Makes sense, because religious people never die younger.
And ad hominem attacks have little to do with his comedic insight on religion generally.
Try again.
Isn’t it time to admit that these intentionally vague laws against “harassment” and “bullying” are really just fascist threats against free speech and liberty? The proof of that is that wherever you find those laws, there are always other long-standing laws that prohibit assault and threats of violence, which means that the “harassment” laws are totally unnecessary. Except, of course, when power groups want to suppress free speech.
Consider this:
”
Limbaugh got it right: The radical students are rising because it is an election year, and the Democrats are worried that they will lose the White House if they don’t get a BIG turnout from their base: blacks and the young. The President of the United States and head of the Democratic Party is a professional community organizer, so that is what the party now does better than anything else (and how!). The community organizers are organizing the communities. The cadres that were trained in the seminars and workshops of the “occupy movement” are now being activated. This is not a student movement, it is a putsch.“
Back on subject. The Founders are a(the) wonderful source of wisdom on the subject of liberty and rights.
“I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” James Madison
“The First Amendment protects radical opinions” Janet Napolitano (yes I was surprised also)
“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” Thomas Paine
“A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy, or perhaps both.” -James Madison
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”- Thomas Jefferson
“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
Thomas Paine
“She’s not a bad person,” Kurpius said in an interview Tuesday night. “… She wanted to explain what happened. I thought it was very appropriate. She was intelligent and thoughtful and apologetic for many of the things that had happened.”
What a load, of course she’s a terrible person. She’s very sorry her actions revealed her true priorities and radicalism and sincerely wishes she had retained plausible deniability.
Perhaps in light of the upcoming birthday of the Bill of Rights, Professor Turley could do a large article on the formation of the Bill of Rights themselves. Not so much as their roots in other documents but rather on the intent of the Founders themselves. The goals of Madison, Henry, Jefferson, Adams etc etc when it came to establishing them.
I feel that too often the courts and lawyers greatly overlook clear and documented intent in early versions, discussions and letters regarding the formation of the first ten amendments. There is great treasure in there to use, especially against a judicial that is increasingly favoring the state vs the people.
Too often judges have bad interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Many of which can be exposed and defeated before decisions based solely on the papers of the Founders OUTSIDE of the Constitution.
People debate on the intent of the 2nd for example but outside the actual Constitution the intent of the Founders is unmistakably clear. Shall not be infringed.
The campus hysteria at Mizzou and Yale reflect a generation of fascists, and make no mistake: this is fascism, straight up.
Soon these students will be out in the world, making the same demands in every job they have, and in elections.
The Mizzou police are capitulating to the demand for state control of speech.
Will fascism spread off the campus, as the activists demand?