This week, North Dakota State University is under fire for its statement of diversity, equity, and inclusion goals, including from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The university issued a “statement of inclusivity” that included a pledge to combat “violence in language or in action.” The notion of “violent speech” is a touchstone for the anti-free speech community, which treats the expression of viewpoints as akin to physical attacks on students.
While this is merely a university statement, the inclusion of combatting violent speech as a priority was concerning for many. As I have previously written in columns and my recent book on free speech, violent speech has long been a rallying cry in higher education.
The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views. As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
As one Antifa member explained, free speech is a “nonargument…you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.”
When people criticized Antifa for its violent philosophy, MSNBC’s Joy Reid responded to the critics that “you might be the fascist.”
The Pride Office website at the University of Colorado (Boulder) declared that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.”
University of Michigan economics professor Justin Wolfers declared that some of those boycotting the store Target over its line of Pride Month clothing were engaging in “literal terrorism.” (He insists that he was referring to those confronting Target employees.)
The diversity, equity, and inclusion statement at North Dakota State University maintains that the College of Business aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.” However, the question is how treating speech as violence provides a safe space for free speech on campus.
Blurring the line between speech and violence can lead to censorship and viewpoint intolerance at a university. Speech directed at individuals to threaten them is actionable and potentially criminal. However, sweeping claims that speech is violence are the mantra being used in higher education to rationalize speech codes and censorship. Free speech requires bright lines of protection to avoid the chilling effect of arbitrary or capricious enforcement.
North Dakota State University would be wise to revise its policy statement.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Well at least we know Weenies have invaded North Dakota! Those East and West Coast Ninnies are trying to get an education at a cheaper rate but bringing their numb-nuts sensitivities with them! I suppose trying to enlighten the heathens in the middle of the country? Well lets see how the locals like them at the favorite watering holes over the next several years!
At The Local Watering Hole
Ask why someone would say something as illogical as equating speech with violence and there is only one answer: to shut you down for disagreeing with them.
In its most aggressive form, having accused someone of committing violence against them first, via “hate speech”, they justify shutting the offender down violently “in self-defense”.
The Left’s brain-addled footsoldiers and Antifa are known quantities and will not fare well if real Americans stand up to them
They will look you straight in the eye and tell you they are limiting speech to save Democracy. Don’t you understand that your freedom must be relinquished in the name of kindness. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. After the last eight years we know what hearts have been effected by the plague brought about by the lord of flies. Please allow me to introduce myself I’m a man of wealth and taste. Please to meet you hope you guess my name.
They suffer from their proximity to Gay Montana. by which I mean Canada.
When I was at the University of Virginia, one of the iconic features on campus was the balcony that surrounded the Commons. It was used by professors so that they could navigate the area without being exposed to the verbal, and potentially physical, attacks from students expressing their political and social emotions. Modern attempts to limit exposure to free speech considered “hurtful, harmful or violent” are the 21st century version of that balcony. An attempt to protect a select group who perceives itself and its agenda as needing isolation from inconvenient expressions from the unwashed, uncooperative masses. In all honesty, these anti-freedom attempts are purely tyrannical. There is nothing else to be said about it. Any agenda promoting this kind of suppression is not worthy of even cursory consideration.
Unless it’s a violation of the schoo’s civility rules.
It will be interesting to see if these Marxist colleges and universities continue to receive federal taxpayer money moving forward.
“It will be interesting to see if these Marxist colleges and universities continue to receive federal taxpayer money moving forward.”
What needs to occur is the complete cessation of Federal taxpayer money flowing to colleges and universities, regardless of how those institutions present or conduct themselves. There is absolutely zero Constitutional authority for Fedgov involvement in education. This change could come from Trump’s traditional staff, or form DOGE, or both. I’m hopeful, but not hugely optimistic about the prospects.
I find it very odd, very odd indeed that Turley has been dead silent on the Tik Tok free speech case being heard by SCOTUS today. He’s never said whether he supports or condemns the ban. Free speech is his baby and here he has not said anything about it given how important this case is. There’s also the Texas ban on p0rn sites, the age verification case which is also a free speech case that pits state’s alleged interest in “protecting children”, the same state that is adamant about the idea that parents should have full control of what their children learn, see, eat, and read. But this particular case Republicans seem to think the state is a much better protector of children than parents. Weird. It’s a parent’s job to ensure their kids don’t look at p0rn or even have access to the sites. In this day and age where parental control apps and literal ovesight of what their children see, eat, learn, and read is right at their fingertips why should the state be involved?
I find it very odd, very odd indeed that instead of engaging with the topic on this URL (that being free speech violations at a university), users like George, Denny, Gigi, and the scores of other Anons would rather dilute the conversation and distract from pieces of evidence that are furthering their anti-American goals.
The Tiktok issue is complex. It is NOT a direct attack on free speech. No one is trying to stop free speech on TikTok.
The US efforts regarding TikTok are related to Chinese control and chinese use of TikTok for purposes that have nothing to do with speech.
Personally I think we should leave TikTok alone, and let the free markets work it out over the long run.
The Chinese do have nefarious objectives.
But ultimately I belief Joseph Goebbels was correct – the “big lie” – totalitarian states generally, even efforts to bring them about REQUIRE
state control of everything and massive amounts of power. They are inefficient and ultimately unsustainable.
They should be allowed to fail naturally rather than interfered with by force.
We are seeing in the US right now the slow collapse of the woke left.
Turley is fixated on a wrong but small move by North Dakota university.
While across the country DEI is dropping like flies.
Not because Trump is about to be president – but because it does not work and it is inefficient.
There is actually evidence and studies that the ideolgoical efforts of left wing nuts against things like racism actually makes them WORSE.
That those of you on the left are CAUSING the very problems you seek to cure.
Regardless., While I would like to hear Turley’s thoughts on TikTok. To the very limited extent it is a free speech issue – it is mostly about the potential for China to use control of TikTok to restrict speech.
But if you wish to try to make a free speech argument – please make it. I would be interested to hear it.
I would note that the TikTok legislation was bipartisan.
One of the few things Republcans and democrats can agree on.
“the TikTok legislation was bipartisan. One of the few things Republcans and democrats can agree on.”
That in itself can sometimes be a red flag…
“While across the country DEI is dropping like flies.”
If you are the type to tolerate VTubers, I recommend looking at Kirsche’s research. She’s found that DEI isn’t going anywhere; it’s just rebranding, mostly under the new name of BRIDGE. The shadow-actors see the wind currently isn’t in their favor, so they let their current plot fall by the wayside as a Judas sacrifice, and will come back like nothing happened once the winds start shifting back.
While I have no doubt that left is responding to the fact that some term like DEI has earned negative connotations by re branding.
That is nothing new. The left engages in constant orwellian word games to escape the tarnish that a term has earned.
That said for many reasons – I do not see rebranding as working.
With respect to the research you are citing – I do not care that the left is re-branding. I care if that re-branding is successful ?
It is probably too early to tell. Except that I agree with Peter Theil we hit peak woke in 2020.
DEI is dying in part due to consume backlash – as in the AHB, Harley Davidson, John Deere, Tractor Supply, ,,, fiascos.
Rebranding will not fix that AHB and Harley Davidson customers are NOT buying DEI in a different dress.
At best rebranding in those instances works briefly.
I would further not – rebranding only works if people beleive it is something different.
The left calling DEI Bridge will NOT likely change people seeing it and attacking it as DEI.
This is a common failure of the left. SOMETIMES the Left rebrands successfully – they convince us to use a new term for something that has not changed and briefly avoid the stigma that the old term gained. But Often the left rebrands – and only the left, and sometimes only portions of that follow.
DEI has been fairly well defined and established in peoples minds. Changing the lable without meaningful change will not change peoples response.
It will likely not even change people calling it DEI.
There are mutliple reasons that DEI (and more quietly ESG) are dying.
The first is that they have become toxic brands. As will ultimately any rebranding without change.
The second is that for any broad market company the loss of even a niche of consumers is deadly.
The segment of the population that does NOT want Dylan Mulvaney on their beer cans is larger than those that will switch to Budlight because he is on the cans.
AHB could have introduces a niche beer targeting the left and not pissed off Bud Light consumers, but they offended a large enough portion of core consumers to damage the company,
I would note more quietly this has happened to Disney – whose market Cap is down 50% over several years.
While there have been few successful organized boycotts of Disney, it is still a fact tht the content they produce is just not generating sufficient sales in their core markets.
The next problem with DEI is that it is horribly inefficient and wasteful.
While Musk rants about Meritocracy – and that is actually very important especially at the top, most employers do NOT benefit from spendig significant extra hourse vetting candidates when all they need is “good enough”.
There are SOME situations where we really do look for “the best of the best” – but most of the time we want to quickly make a “good enough decision”
Put differently we make hiring decisions for the same reasons that we pick breakfast cereals. We make quick decisions based on comfort and familiarity.
DEI is inefficient – it adds cost without adding value. That is true both of hiring and in terms of operations.
Rising standard of living – the objective of most of us, requires producing more of what humans value with less human effort.
Rising inefficiency means lower not higher standards of living.
Next there is significant evidence that in practice DEI and DEI training CAUSE the problems they seek to cure.
DEI heavy workplaces have MORE not less cultural and racisl stress and disharmony and … inefficiency.
People ignore that the business of business is profit. PERIOD.
That is actually immutable, ESG and DEI have sought to get investors to shift capitol to less profitable uses that reflect DEI values.
These have only had small success.
I said that the business of business is profit. Profit is made by accurately targeting the relevant values of customers.
If people REALLY held the values that DOI and ESG promote – those investments WOULD be profitable.
This is also why government should never subsidize anything. Because the truest reflection of peoples values,
the What humans want side of rising standard of living is free markets.
If people truly wanted DEI/ESG then their effect would be rising profits rising investment rising standard of living for all.
In the past people have paid more for cleaner heat as an example. That MEANS that cleaner heat is a REAL human value and standard of living rises when it is delivered.
The standard of living of Europe of Canada, have declined by 40% relative to the US in the past decade.
That means that whatever Canada and the EU have done they have delivered LESS of what humans value than the US has.
Value is subjective – that means that DEI and ESG are legitimate contenders for human values and could raise standard of living.
The FACT they have failed to do so, means that few humans truly value DEI or ESG.
It pretty much never works to try to coerce people into shifting their values.
DEI is inefficient because it does not deliver what people want and need.
We KNOW that because people do not pay more for those values – not to sufficient degree to raise standard of living.
I beleive DEI and ESG are effectively dead – because they did not work. They did not deliver to people more of anything that they truly value.
I did not decide that – free people making free choices in free markets decided that.
“SOMETIMES the Left rebrands successfully – they convince us to use a new term for something that has not changed and briefly avoid the stigma that the old term gained. ”
Unfortunately, the effect is often more than brief. For example, starting in the 1970s, and continuing to the current, they successfully rebranded “ozone hole / nuclear winter” to “global warming” to “climate change”, after each of the first two concepts was painstakingly refuted to the point that even a clueless public could no longer avoid taking note, in an effort to perpetuate their power based on the myth that humanity was a major factor (preferably THE major factor) in adverse weather and other natural events. They were, and mostly still are, extremely successful in that attempt. The “public” typically has the attention span of a flea. That may be a malady that has been deliberately inflicted by the elites so that most of their subjects are kept too busy putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their families’ heads to properly evaluate political questions.
I do not disagree with you regarding the motives and likely behavior of the “shadow actors” but a commonly shared – by most everyone view that we are not effective agents in our own lives is FALSE. Big business is big – not because it controls us, but because it has delivered to us what we want. Big Business tends to be antifree markets because constantly striving in a free market to meet our ever changing wants and needs is hard work and there is always someone hungrier nipping at their heels.
There is almost no business in the top 10 of the fortune 500 that is still there today. Many are gone forever.
The average life of a business – even a big business is much shorter than a human life. Businesses get sick and die when they fail to deliver to people what they want and need.
Put simply PEOPLE control the markets – not government not big business.
It is inefficient – ie. lowers standard of living to interfere with free people making free decisions in free markets reflecting THEIR wants, needs, values.
Ultimately THOSE – not what government, or shadow actors or big business wants always prevail.
But since it ALWAYS requires force to deliver something different from the free choices of free people.
it is ALWAYS less efficient and therefore lowers standard of living (relatively).
The canard of “national security” to ban TikTok is flimsy at best. The concern is about the Chinese government getting citizens’ private data. Don’t you think X, Facebook, YouTube, insurance companies, banks, and many apps on your phone don’t do the same thing? American companies who supposedly harbor this private data have been hacked and private information stolen multiple times by who knows what government or local hackers.
If China wanted to use TikTok to steal personal data from U.S. citizens, it would just buy it from those who already sell it legally here. However, according to critics of TikTok, it poses a bigger problem than just national security. It’s the lack of control by a U.S. company that can influence the content. That’s telling.
China has already been able to hack and steal data from defense contractors for years. Just look at their military hardware, and you can clearly see copies of what we have. TikTok is not the national security threat they claim it is. It’s just an excuse to ban a platform that is not under U.S. control. It would be like Argentina demanding X be sold to an Argentinian company because they have national security concerns. If they can’t do that, they should ban the platform entirely.
“ While I would like to hear Turley’s thoughts on TikTok. To a very limited extent, it is a free speech issue – it is mostly about the potential for China to use control of TikTok to restrict speech.”
How is that any different from social media here? They can and do restrict speech, too. They are private companies, and they can restrict speech any way they want, including civility rules, TOS, etc. China can, too. But how has speech been restricted by TikTok? The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting speech, not private companies or foreign governments.
George, I have no intention of defending most actions by government.
Regardless, it does not matter whether the NS justification is valid. It is still not a free speech issue.
The law does not try to censor TikTok users, it tries to transfer TikTok to US ownership. Whether you think that is right or wrong it is not a speech issue.
And even if you try to stretch speech really far, it is at best a speech issue for non-0citizens in a foreign country, and the US supreme court is highly unlikely to recognize a free speech right for the Chinese governemnt in China.
I am NOT passing judgement on whether this is a good law, only that it is not really a free speech issue.
Do I trust the US govenrment on national security or other claims ? Absolutely not. I did not trust the collusion delusion nonsense. I did not trust the Hunter Biden laptop is russian disinformation nonsense. I do not trust the US government with FISA search’s, I am disappointed that Tulsi has backed away from opposing reauthorization of FISA.
I have little more trust of a Trump administration claims of National security than those of Biden.
National Security has always been the false justification for infringing on rights.
In the past mostly the justification by republicans, but since atleast Clinton it has been used increasingly by democrats.
At the same time is there a difference between FB gathering data on me and the chinese government – absolutely.
In what world would I trust the chinese government more than FB ? In what world would I trust the chinese government more than the US government ?
In what world would I trust the US government more than FB.
Yes US companies have been hacked with information stolen. And they should be held accountable.
I would note however theat the most recent US data leaks have been exploits of back doors the US government required vendors to put in their software.
Anyone who did not KNOW that would be the result is a moron.
Do US politicians want control ? absolutely just like chinese. And we should not let either have control.
“ At the same time is there a difference between FB gathering data on me and the chinese government – absolutely.”
Why? There is absolutly zero diference between the Chinese goverment gathering data on U.S. citizens and Facebook or an Insurance companies. Zero. The ironic thing is most Americans are oblivious to the fact that every single day their private information is traded, sold, and gathered by companies, Insurance carriers, apps, etc.
The excuse that it is a national security issue is bogus. The government banning Tik Tok from U.S. Consumers unless a U.S. company runs it is forcing control unto a company that would keep doing the exact same thing. They sell the data regardless or use it like any other company does, to improve the user experience.
Trump doesn’t believe Tik Tok should be banned and even tried to intervene by asking SCOTUS to delay a ruling until he could make a deal.
The issue is not about trust. It’s about the fact that most people don’t care or can’t really do anything about it except in very limited ways. The free market is the issue. A free market based on the buying and selling of personal data to the highest bidder. Even our own government can buy data without violating your 4th amendment rights. The free market allows government to circumvent a search warrant by simply buying the information they need.
The law may not directly be censoring TikTok users, but it is denying them access to the platform because they are claiming dubious national security concerns that the majority of it’s users don’t really care about. What the governemnt is doing is banning a platform that many use to exercise their free speech rights to express their views, opinons and beliefs. Why ban the platform when they can issue a notice like any other website? P0rn cites are required to warn prospective users that the content may be offensive or inappropriate for some. Why can’t they use the least restrictive means to ‘censor’ TikTok? Let the consumers decide if it’s worth the risk. I’m sure that as a libertarian that would be acceptable because it puts the responsibility squarely with the individual.
“There is absolutly zero diference between the Chinese goverment gathering data on U.S. citizens and Facebook or an Insurance companies. Zero.”
Besides the fact that the communist Chinese government (a dictatorship) wishes to enslave and kill you. And Facebook, et al., want to trade with you.
Behold the bankruptcy of moral equivalence.
George,
Should the US government require TikTok to be american owned – I think not.
Is there a free speech issue ? No.
Do I trust either China or the US governemnt ? No.
But please work on your arguments.
Because the Mafia can buy something does not mean we should not care if they steal it.
Is it the same as private companies here ? Yes.
It is not a violation of the first amendment for TikTok or FB to censor speech on their plaform.
It is likely a bad choice, but it is a legal and constitutional choice.
It IS a violation of the first amendment for the US government to even ask SM to censor any protected speech.
It is WORSE to have China – or Brazil, or the EU censor the US speech of US persons.
The First amendment AND the social contract REQUIRES government to protect the right to free speech. Including from infringement by the Chinese government.
Yes private companies can freely make unwise censorship choices.
But the social contract – and the first amendment REQUIRE the US govenrment to protect rights – light that of free speech from FORCE.
That means the US govenrment is not allowed to restrict US speech – directly or by proxy.
And it means the US government can not permit others – including other govenrments from using FORCE to restrict the speech of US persons.
And the action of ANY government is ALWAYS force.
John Say, but the problem you seem to have is the perception that Tiktok is owned or run by the Chinese government, it is not. It is run by a private Chinese company.
The arguement Congres is using is that the POSSIBiLITY that the Chinese government could take private data is a national security risk. They are basing their argument on an assumption, not on fact. Last time I checked a claim such as that needs to show that indeed the Chinese governemnt is gathering that data. There is no evidence that they are.
Just to be clear you keep saying A is the same as B – when they are not.
I agree the US government should not do this.
Often your allegations regarding A or B are correct.
But your Argument that A is the same or similar enough to B is not.
The chinese governemnt stealing something is not the same as their getting it legitimately even if it is not desireable in both cases.
The chinese governmetn gathering information on us citizens is not the same as the US government doing so – even if BOTH are undesireable.
“ The chinese governmetn gathering information on us citizens is not the same as the US government doing so – even if BOTH are undesireable.”
I’m not making that comparison. The Chinese government is not running or controlling TikTok. What is relevant is that they have the power to demand TiKTok’s parent company to hand over data. What is relevant is the fact that TikTok is not doing anything different than what U.S. companies are doing gathering massive amounts of data from unsuspecting consumers, and that is not limited to U.S. consumers but worldwide.
Claiming that TikTok should be run by a U.S. based company because the Chinese government MIGHT use the data it gathers does not pass the smell test. If TikTok is sold to an American Company there is zero guarantee that they will stop gathering the same data. In order to remain competitive they NEED that data, just like Facebook and others. The free marked already buys and sells personal data. So what’s the difference if a Chinese company owns it or an American company does?
I have no problem with Turley addressing the TX laws on porn sites.
Personally the cat has been out of the bag regarding porn on the internet for a long time. Though there was an incredibly successful “trafficking” attack on Pornhub that resulted in Pornhub taking down 90% of its content, and pretty much ending “amateur porn” because it could not be verified to not involve trafficing.
I do not know much about the TX law, but I can not see any state successfully restricting childrens access to porn by law.
Do I beleive that children should be protected from Porn – probably. But just because I beleive something does not make it practical.
I would further note that I am not that converned about relatively free access to porn on the web by children.
In my experience with my own kids, they do NOT have that much interest until puberty kicks in.
So long as we are dealing with children’;s freedom to choose to seek porn I do not think there is a real problem – even if parents lose control.
The BIG problem is the other direction – the targeting of Children with sexual content. Foisting on children content that they did not ask for or seek.
This is the BIG issue that Conservatives have been fighting – and are winning on.
Regardless, a major area of law relates to whether principles and freedoms that are near absolute with repect to competent adults apply to children and incompetent adults.
IN the UK as an example the law is significantly different with regard to what are called “vulnerable persons” – while I think that carve out is far to ambiguous and large, there is still a point. In the US we have much the same thing – though more narrowly – we have significantly different law regarding minors that adults. Though minor is often defined differntly in different laws.
If you wish to have a discussion regarding this – feel free to do so. But lets deal with the complex issues, rather than pretending that people who beleive in near unlimited free speech for adults are all hypocrits because they permit restrictions – particularly restrictions on what ADULTS can deliver to children.
Regardless, Yes, I would like to see Turley address the issue.
I would alo like to see YOU address the issue in a thoughtful way that sought to offer and defend a position rather than just to score political points.
If I read you correctly you seem to beleive that parents shoudl be in control ? Is that correct ? Is that a new position ? Because I do not think it is consistent with your past arguments.
If you beleive parents should be in control – does that means that teachers are restricted to the basic educational curriculem and that issues like gender and sex are the domain of parents ?
Or do you beleive that sex and gender issues should be taught by teachers – if so why ? What reason is there to beleive some purble haired 20 something is qualified to teach sex or geneder issues to children ?
If you want these issues to be taught in school, but parent to have control – what does that mean ? a parental opt out, or a parental opt in ?
How do we run an education system where different parents make different allowances regarding what their kids can be taught and exposed to.
It should be obvious that pretty much all issues that do not involve adults get very complex.
I am libertarian – there is abslutely zero doubt in the world, the data is compelling that libertarianism in its most expansive form, possibly even anarcho capitalism
works better than anything else for competent adults.
Libertarians run into issues trying to make libertarianism work for people who are not adult, or who are not fully competent.
But libertarian is NOT unique – ALL ideologies all politics stumbles when dealing with “the vulnerable” – including just defining who “The vulnerable” are.
So if you want to have a conversation – lets.
But lets get past the ad hominem and try to address one of the many areas of life where there are no perfect solutions, and we try to do the best we can.
This is not a comples issue. Not according to Republicans and conseravatives who want to impose these restrictions on free speech. My argument is about the hypocritical nature of their position. They are all about parental control when it comes to what children learn, see, read, eat, and their healthcare needs. But, on this issue it seems they are adamant that the state needs to protect children because THEY think it’s in the children’s best interest.
You believe the big problem is the targeting of sexual content to children, but that’s not happening. It’s the perception that they are because conservatives are claiming purlely to demonize an industry they despise. LIke you say, let the free market dictate is appropriate and that is parents, not the state. Parent’s can decide if they even want to let their children know about p0rn. Or if they support the idea that their child feels like they are not the gender they are. It’s entirely their decision, not the state and as a libertarian I’m sure would prefer that.
As a libertarian technically you should be in full support of women having choice on abortion. Because it’s ultimately a personal choice. Not yours or the state’s. Right?
Texas is bound to lose this case because it’s been pointed out that even now the restrictions can be circumvented by using VPN’s.
I believe parent’s should be in control. However, there is a distinction when it comes to education in schools. As you say, it’s a complex issue. My problem is when One parent or a small group of parents end up dictating what every student should be subjected to or protected from when they can do that for their own children. Book bans in school libraries are one example. If one parent is against books that are controversial why should the book be banned from parents who are ok with it? The one who opposes the book has the power to teach their children that they are not to read such content or tell the librarian not to allow their children to check out certain books. Instead we have parents making that decision for everyone because they can’t exercise their own control over what their children are exposed to.
There is a reason why opting out of certain things is perfectly acceptable instead of forcing everyone to adhere to one particular view. Would you agree?
A taxpayer-funded State University needed to issue a statement about “violence in speech” without, of course, actually defining it. How convenient. Such is the state of higher education in the United States that we need “safe spaces” for our junior woksters.
Fill in the blanks below– making the speaker either white, black, male, female, transsexual, or MAGA– and see whether you think these statements would be sanctioned:
_____ North Dakota students are “not normal.”
_____ North Dakota students “threaten the very foundations of the university.”
_____ North Dakota students “embrace anger and thrive on chaos.”
_____ North Dakota University students “live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.”
Of course, each of these were charges Biden made against MAGA Republicans. I suspect whether the statements would be sanctioned at North Dakota would depend more on the type of students about whom the charges were made rather than the words spoken.
I listened to a great discussion last nite between Jake Shields, the MMA fighter, and Tommy Sotomayor, who has been chased off twitter and youtube a number of times. One thing they discussed was the racism against white people. The channel is just starting, and there are less than 300 subscribers, but well worth listening to in the background, while you do other stuff, like cooking or cat pan cleaning:
This fixation with notions of “anti-free” speech because they mentioned “violent language” is laughable. The professor tends to defend free speech only when it’s convenient for him and the audience he caters to. Let me explain,
“Violent speech” can be anything from depicting violent scenes to chanting slogans. According to Turley and FIRE, this kind of speech should be protected from censorship and allowed to be expressed freely because it is “a different point of view” in Turley’s view. Sure. But is it really just a different point of view? Last summer, there were multiple protests on college campuses against Israel committing acts of genocide and indiscriminate killing of civilians. Students were accused of using violent speech, which Turley claims should not be censored or prevented from being expressed. But there is a neat little loophole Turley relies on whenever violent speech he doesn’t like can be censored without raising much of a fuss. Civility rules. Suddenly, violent speech violates college or University civility rules, and students who use violent speech in their protests Turley demands they be severely punished because they violated civility rules even though violent speech is free speech. Neat, isn’t it?
It’s the same on his blog. Turley is a staunch defender of free speech, including violent speech and offensive speech like openly racist comments. Buuuuuut….Turley has his own DEI sort of statement in his ‘civility rule’ that openly racist comments will be removed. Why? It’s not violent speech; it will undoubtedly be offensive, but it’s still a different point of view. Turley loves to champion the idea of free speech being unencumbered by offensive or controversial views and let its expression be self-regulating. But here, on this blog, oooh, that’s a serious no-no. Turley is indeed anti-free speech based on his claim that he will remove openly racist comments on his blog. Can you say, hypocrite? Yes indeed.
What about speech deemed anti-semitic? Why is it permissible to censor or punish speech condemning Israel or Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians? The mere threat of labeling particular speech “anti-semitic” is a form of censorship.
Turley will invoke “the civility rule” exception when violent speech is expressed on campuses as a permissible loophole to censor it. He’s already shown to be ready to demand students be punished severely for breaking ‘school civility rules’ when expressing speech many would deem violent speech. So the question for Turley should be If it’s anti-free speech for a school to say they are against violent speech, but not when it violates “civility rules”? Nothing in the First Amendment says speech is required to be civil. Let’s keep in mind that Republicans have used “civility rules” to censor or punish other lawmakers for speech they don’t like.
George – so called violent language is protected speech.
Further people are “fixated” on it because the lefts abuse of words is ALWAYS a signal for how they will use FORCE.
The good news – as we have seen from the past decade – the most bat$hit left antifree speech period in US history is that the left is FAILING.
We lived through the period of mass ideological and political censorship by the left through social media.
Not only did it FAIL, but the backlash is part of what elected Trump.
Those of you on the left do not understand that your own arguments and conduct undermine you.
The 1984 like effort to control thought by controlling the meaning of words have failed.
We are constantly told we can not use this word, or that word because it meaning is some how derogatory.
We are on maybe our 5th iteration of language changes for black americans. Often the terms that the NAACP
advocated for 50 years ago are considerded racist today.
But the point is that your efforts to change peoples thinking by changing words have FAILED.
In the real world organic changes to language work – usually expanding and claifying meaning.
They work because they are organic, they happen because people intuitively see a need for change.
Conversely the left wing nut Orwellian efforts to distort language do not work. they create a backlash,
and or the new language quickly develops the same derogatory connotations as the old language.
Regardless the lefts efforts to control thought and people by controlling language has backfired.
I would further note that leftist ranting about ”
violent language” is transparent hypocracy”. Sarah Palin or Roger Stone using a crosshairs or using the word targeted,
are painted as inappropriate violent language. Trump saying we will fight, fight fight – peacefully and patriotically is magically a crime.
But democrats putting a bullseye on conservatives or calling them hitler, or generally far more violent language than republican use – that is
hypocritically acceptable by the left.
The worst racism today is by the left, the most violent rhetoric is by the left. And the country is slowly moving away from the left because of that.
John Say,
Well said. Bill Maher has been calling out the stupid and insanity that taken over his party. James Carville even called them stupid. After the election, long time DNC members have called out their party has become toxic. We can all hope the sane and normal, traditional Democrats can take back their party. The one thing they have going against them is the progressive Democrats have no problem with violence or the threats there of as they have demonstrated.
John Say, you blame a lot of things on the left that are things the right does. Typicla projection arguments. Violent speech is protected speech, but as it is often the case with the right it invokes “civility rules” to censor speech they deem violent such as anti-Israel rhetoric or other ‘violent speech’ they don’t like.
You claim the left “distorts” language but that is simply using speech. It’s similar to lying, misinformation, disinformation, etc. So what if they offer a different point of view on how the language is perceived? The right loves to invoke civilty to shut down other’s speech they don’t like. They have their games, we have ours. All part of free speech.
George – you clearly do not understand individual liberty.
The social contract – the justification for the existence of government, is that we give a near monopoly on the initation of force to government in return for using that force to PROTECT our liberty from the use of force to infringe on liberty by others.
This is pretty much what our founders said in the declaration of independence
This is also of fundimental importance in many ways – it defines what is and is not a crime and what is and is not the legitimate role of government.
A crime is the use of force by one individual to infringe on the liberty of another.
One of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect against that use of force and to punish it.
Government is limited by the social contract to roles that involve the use of force to protect individual liberty.
While that is not limited to national defense and the prevention and punishment of crime, it is still not a very large domain.
The first amendment – the protection of free speech is the restriction of government use of force to limit rather than to protect an individual liberty.
If we consistently applied the social contract and Declaration of independence understand that the purpose of govenrment is to protect individual liberty fromt eh use of force,
There would be no need for the first amendment or the bill of rights.
Neither the social contract nor the bill of rights asserts that ANY right is protected from infringement by non-government actors who are NOT using FORCE.
Is there anyone who beleives that free speech entitles me to come into your home and shout at you at all hours ?
There is no individual liberty that includes the right to infringe on the liberties of others.
John Locke included property rights in the list of fundimental rights that the social contract was to protect.
Our founders substituted the “pursuit of hapinees” – while that was more poetic, it was also fundimental error.
Even Marx ultimately found that you can not make a society work without property rights.
The reason that you are prohibited from exorcising your free speech rights in my home whenever you please is because you are violating my property rights when you do so.
The reason that trespassing is crime – is because it is an infringement on property rights by force.
The govenment – near absolute right to free speech applies to public schools and universities – because public schools and universities are Government.
We have extended those restrictions to Private Schools and universities that accept government funding – because they as governmnent actors/agents.
Government can not expand its power or circumvent its duties and limitations with respect to the rights of others by contracting out those infringements to others.
Twitter and FB are free to censor as they please. But govenrment is not free to FORCE censorship or even gently coerce censorship by private actors even those who are free to censor as they please.
North Dakota U – if a completely private college receiving no govenrment funds is free to have whatever speech codes it pleases.
There are a very few private colleges in the US that accept no govenrment funding of any kind and they are entirely free from strings that govenrment attaches to that funding,
and also free from contraints that exist because taking government funding makes them a government agent/actor.
That does not preclude FIRE or Turley or students or their parents from demanding that this mythical completely private NDU restrain from restricting undefined violent speech.
With respect to Government and government actors and agents free speech is a PRINCIPLE – again government exists to protect rights not to limit them.
With respect to completely private actors free speech is a value – subordinate as we choose to other values.
Turley uses a civility standard of his own choosing here – because he values free speech. He is not bound to protect free speech as a principle – nearly absolutely, because no force is involved – he is not government and he is not an illegitmate actor using force.
You make a good point, which for you, is extremely rare, when you say:
“It’s the same on his blog. Turley is a staunch defender of free speech, including violent speech and offensive speech like openly racist comments. Buuuuuut….Turley has his own DEI sort of statement in his ‘civility rule’ that openly racist comments will be removed. Why? It’s not violent speech; it will undoubtedly be offensive, but it’s still a different point of view.”
And, what you said about antisemitic speech. too.
With the “racist” speech, I think you have two problems. First, it defining it. In 2024, saying anything negative about African Americans or their stupid, toxic dysfunctional culture, is deemed racist. I did that the other day, and a coupe of people here went bananas. But Turley did not take down my comments. Probably because what I said was true, and there is an increasing number of AA’s saying the same thing.
But that culture is separable from the race. AA’s don’t have to be that way in such large numbers. That culture is taught to young blacks, just like hatred of Jews is taught to young Palestinians. And, in the video of Tommy Sotomayor that I posted above, Tommy and Jake discuss that if you don’t talk about a problem, you can’t fix a problem.
The second problem is, that there is a great deal of resentment, disgust and disdain in the country from White people, towards African-Americans. Based on the behavior, not the race. While I try not to throw out the baby with the toxic, stupid, degenerate, dysfunctional bath water, I think that there are a large number who blur that line. IMHO, that includes most white liberals, and in fact, I think that there is more racism and race hatred to be found among white liberals, as opposed to white conservatives, because liberal thinking is already predominated by judging people according to their identify or race. Don’t tell me that you have a high opinion of someone that you think is too stupid to get an ID card.
Where the problem would come in, is that if those floodgates were open, and if there were a “safe space” to use the N word, for example, then the site here would be flooded with that. Because that anger and resentment has been building up for years.
As far as the antisemitic taboo, my great-grandfather was a Jewish bootlegger. I pop about 12% Ashkenazi Jew DNA according to the test. And I love Fiddler on the Roof. I think Israel ought to carpet-bomb Gaza into dust, and round up what’s still breathing and dump them on some other country, like Libya, or Iran. That being said, there does seem to be a lot of Jews showing up behind bad things, like gangster rap. And as J H kunstler noted, most of the lawfare folks are Jewish lawyers. This excerpt:
“Now I will tell you something that deeply troubles me and might trouble you. Forgive me if I throw the Overton Window wide open here. Readers may know that I am an American Jew. We have entered a new era of antisemitism. Many might say it is due to the conduct of Israel warring against its enemies. I would say it is as much due to the adoption of Jihad politics by the Marxist-Woke campaign as an instrument to promote political and social chaos in America. Lawfare is essentially jihad waged via the courts against our own disintegrating common culture and national interests.
The lineup of the leading Lawfare attorneys are Jews: Marc Elias, Norm Eisen, Benjamin Wittes, Andrew Weissmann, Michael Bromwich, Michael Sussmann, Laurence Tribe, Daniel Goldman, Paul Rosenzweig, the exceptionally profligate serial liar Rep. Adam Schiff, and many others. I can’t say I understand exactly what motivates them to engage in these antics. (Possibly to defend their Deep State clients against many previous crimes committed since 2016, especially within the FBI and DOJ.) But it’s a really bad look on top of being a nefarious agenda. They are disgracing the rest of us American Jews and putting us in danger. Shame on them. They must be defeated, and their defeat must come within the arena of the very law they work so hard to pervert.”
https://www.kunstler.com/p/lawfare-is-jihad-against-our-country
========
So again, what you have is a bathwater/baby and floodgate problem, IMHO. Antisemitism has been a horrible monster over the years, and it should never be let out of the bag.
“What about speech deemed anti-semitic? Why is it permissible to censor or punish speech condemning Israel or Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians? ”
George Svelaz is a strong supporter of Double Standardism along with anti-Semitism. Unless he has a double standard he has nothing to say. Anyone can criticize Israel, but will the criticism hold water? Mostly no. Will it represent a double standard. Of course as far as George Svleaz is concerned.
I’ve always said Antifa stands for Anti First Amendment.
Unless someone actually does something violent, if they threaten to harm someone it’s only speech and ought to be protected.
Terroristic threats lie outside the First Amendment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_threat
Also suppose someone makes a bomb threat, causing the evacuation of a building. The cops can’t do anything about it because it was just speech?
Haven’t the courts been over most of this ground? Direct threats in proximity to the target or accompanied by steps towards implementation are a no-no. Wishing harm on someone and other hyperbolic statements are protected.
Unlike Europe or the UK, here you can wish ill on entire classes of persons no matter how irrational you may be. It’s ugly but it’s life.
I’m simple – if a university accepts a single penny of public money it had bloody well better abide by the Bill of Rights or its administrators are guilty of deprivation of rights under color of law. And I don’t want to hear how universities are special places that need special rules. It has become obvious that they are anything but special.
The redefinition of opposing views as “violence” is a favorite excuse for violent groups like Antifa, which continue to physically assault speakers with pro-life and other disfavored views. As explained by Rutgers Professor Mark Bray in his “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” the group believes that “‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.”
These atheist Marxists are exhausting!
Now would be a good time for a few plagues to be unleashed to cull the herd. That or the Catholic Church to declare a Crusade against these Marxist heretics.
💪🏾
You want an explanation? God is pissed!!
😜
Why does a university need a speech code? Isn’t it part of a society that already has free speech as part of its constitution? Looks like tumorous bureaucracy to me. Let the kids live in the real world
You answered your own question. Universities hate free speech. The people there have contracted the woke mind virus.
OldFish,
I had the same thought. Looks more like virtue signaling than anything. Let them run around with their hair on fire, screaming this word or that word is violence. The rest of us will just ignore them.
The Statement should have said nothing about speech and only the desire to “Foster the Free Exchange of Ideas in The University Setting”.
You cannot have a free exchange of ideas without free speech. And I would have no doubt that this university’s definition of violent speech would have no guarantee of free speech.
The better question at this University is who decides what violent speech is. Never have seen that in action before. I would suspect this might make their football games quite boring and quiet. God forbid that a referee or field judge hear violent criticisms of their judgements or is it just a vigorous defense of a point of view, or is it outrage when someone asserts they have the right to impinge upon or curtail your speech, or is it when you tell the professor he is full of s—t, or is it when your lab assistant blows something up in chemistry and invectives are then heard all around the lab. There are all sorts of situations.
The desire to curtail “violent speech” is the to put doubt in each speaker as to what they can say, thereby inhibiting free speech. It’s “1984” in a nutshell. Remove the word, remove the thought. Newspeak I think they called it.
Tell the University that they need some further revisions and suggest they drop the violent speech mantra.
I’ve been around a long time and in some turbulent situations but I have yet to be injured by a word. Enlightened, embarrassed, humiliated, resistant, forceful in response, laughing but never injured by a word.
“…aims to help students “feel safe” and provide “space to be their own person.””
Maybe they should just never leave their dorm rooms! It’s like the entire peanut allergy thing. Very few kids were allergic to peanuts in the 1960s to 1980s, but media hysteria in the 1990s caused moms to not expose their kids to peanut butter and as a result, more and more kids developed peanut allergies due to lack of exposure to it at a young age. As adults the more radical among them insist that they are allergic to ALL “nuts”, which is statistically unlikely, since peanuts are legumes, not nuts, and pistachios are seeds, not nuts, but that doesn’t prevent them from entering a public space like an airplane and asking the flight attendant to request the passengers refrain from eating all “nuts”. As with those imposing restrictions on speech, it’s all about control and has nothing to do with violence or allergies. When kids are exposed to free speech at a young age and learn to tolerate the opinions of others they will find as we did as kids, “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me!” These immature students, professors and administrators need to grow TFU and realize that the open and free exchange of speech and ideas is the bedrock of a free and Liberal society. If they can’t deal with it, they have no business existing on a university campus.
Albinophobia is spread through rhetoric and symbols in parades.
Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry), including racism, sexism, and other class-disordered ideologies, Equivocation, and Incompetence. Lose your religion.
#HateLovesAbortion
If “speech” can be redefined to mean “violence,” can “thought” be far behind?
Verbal demands by non-normal enetites is also, by defintion, violence… call me mam or I kill you.
In Britian a new law is coming into effect, whereby the mere suspision that somone in a pub harbors negative thioughts, is grounds for ejection. The articlke was on spiked-online.com yesterday, but now can’t find it.
Differentiating between speech and thought makes no sense to me. Speech is the act of expressing a thought. Not all thoughts are expressed as speech, but all speech originates as a thought.
You can’t fix this kind of stupid…
https://stevewitherspoonhome.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/hatespeechequalsmurder.jpg
Steve, please refrain from linking your blog to JT’s. You can’t compete.
It’s linked to a photo you blithering idiot.
How should a revised policy statement be worded?
Why expect JT to write it, the college has lawyers, albeit woke.
The question was addressed to all visitors to this website.
Then state it as such. But why should they waste their time on such a folly.