When free speech hurts liberals

[prisonchaplain]

The link below describes a liberal professor who tweeted that Trump must hang. He claims the quote was out of context, and that it should be protected academic speech. In a vacuum, I find his excuses questionable and his content despicable. However, if this were say 2007, I'd agree with him that his speech should be protected. Alas, too many conservative academics, actors, sports & newscasters, etc. have seen the wrath of PC intolerance for free thought and speech, so I'm inclined to say the professor must go. I am sad though. I wish we could just all agree to reinstate the First Amendment.

http://politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/24/cal-state-lecturer-tweets-trump-must-hang-215620

 

Edited September 25, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[NeuroTypical]

Hypocrisy check:

"Tweets should only get people in trouble if they're made by people on the opposite side of your personal political spectrum."

If you agree, that's kind of the definition of hypocrisy.  At least, holding a double standard.
If you disagree, but you believe in various classes of people having additional protections that make it so they aren't doing anything wrong, that's another way of saying you agree, and continues to be an example of a hypocritical double standard.

 

[NightSG]

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

However, if this were say 2007, I'd agree with him that his speech should be protected.

Why?  Openly and publicly calling for the murder of another person was never, AFAICT, intended to be protected speech.

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hypocrisy check:

"Tweets should only get people in trouble if they're made by people on the opposite side of your personal political spectrum."

If you agree, that's kind of the definition of hypocrisy.  At least, holding a double standard.
If you disagree, but you believe in various classes of people having additional protections that make it so they aren't doing anything wrong, that's another way of saying you agree, and continues to be an example of a hypocritical double standard.

 

Ah yes. Liberals get to go after conservatives, getting them shamed, fired, sometimes even fired upon, because Liberals don't believe in free speech anymore. However, when conservatives catch that rare liberal that says something so outrageous that the person has to be blamed and fired, conservatives get lambasted for opposing free speech. I wish I could be liberal so I could have my cake and eat it too!  :::sigh:::

[prisonchaplain]

15 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Why?  Openly and publicly calling for the murder of another person was never, AFAICT, intended to be protected speech.

It's pretty hard to prove someone was intending to incite murder. The professor claims that he was quoted out of context, and that he was quoting possible perspectives in an internal academic discussion. His Twitter followers numbered 28. We may not believe him, but I doubt he'd be convicted of inciting violence in a court of law. BTW, I'm pretty Libertarian when it comes to free speech. However, if the left is going to get our folks fired on the flimsiest of misspeaks, we should at least be able to do likewise to their very worst offenders. 

Edited September 25, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, NightSG said:

Why?  Openly and publicly calling for the murder of another person was never, AFAICT, intended to be protected speech.

I agree.  And compared to most on this forum I'm a flaming Liberal.   

Even if he didn't intend to do that exactly, I still think his comment was wrong, wrong, wrong.  I don't care for Trump either, but that is not the way to fight.  

Edited September 25, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

The link below describes a liberal professor who tweeted that Trump must hang. He claims the quote was out of context, and that it should be protected academic speech. In a vacuum, I find his excuses questionable and his content despicable. However, if this were say 2007, I'd agree with him that his speech should be protected. Alas, too many conservative academics, actors, sports & newscasters, etc. have seen the wrath of PC intolerance for free thought and speech, so I'm inclined to say the professor must go.

Doesn't that fit under the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right idea?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -- or so I learned from Fiddler on the Roof.

[prisonchaplain]

@The Folk Prophet  You're not wrong. It's just hard to take when the other side is shouting that we're hypocrites, even as they have another half dozen conservatives (or even progressive-but-not-enoughs) in their cross hairs. Case in point, they just settled with Bret Weinstein (the progressive science professor from Evergreen State College, who didn't agree with the announcement that white people should stay off campus on a given day). He got $500K and agreed to resign. The students who demanded his removal won. The super progressives won. Moderate liberalism lost. Any hope for free speech and thought lost.

So, yeah...I'm wrong to want to see this professor forced out. I'm wrong for wanting ESPN to can the sportscaster who opined that POTUS is a white supremist (after they fired one for criticizing kneeling during the national anthem). What has happened as that conservatives cried hypocrisy to the liberal power-brokers, and instead of admitting it, they just threw us a few bones. It's really hard not to eat when the culture beats down, and then places a plate in front of you.  :::sigh:::

Edited September 25, 2017 by prisonchaplain

[The Folk Prophet]

@prisonchaplain maybe you're wrong. Hard to say. There's a time and a place where punching someone in the face who keeps punching others in the face is the right choice. It's a hard call to make. Best answer: follow the Holy Spirit's whisperings.

[Grunt]

18 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Ah yes. Liberals get to go after conservatives, getting them shamed, fired, sometimes even fired upon, because Liberals don't believe in free speech anymore. However, when conservatives catch that rare liberal that says something so outrageous that the person has to be blamed and fired, conservatives get lambasted for opposing free speech. I wish I could be liberal so I could have my cake and eat it too!  :::sigh:::

Matt Walsh had a great podcast last week.  He was talking about the case of the baker who wouldn't make a cake for a same-sex wedding and its upcoming decision.  He spoke about how for decades conservatives and libertarians have been sitting back saying "you do your thing, just leave me alone".  They never do.  Now it's time for non-liberals to push their agendas.  

[Grunt]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Doesn't that fit under the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right idea?

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind -- or so I learned from Fiddler on the Roof.

In some arenas, I'm fine with that.  Change won't come until a few people lose eyes.

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

@The Folk Prophet  You're not wrong. It's just hard to take when the other side is shouting that we're hypocrites, even as they have another half dozen conservatives (or even progressive-but-not-enoughs) in their cross hairs. Case in point, they just settled with Bret Weinstein (the progressive science professor from Evergreen State College, who didn't agree with the announcement that white people should stay off campus on a given day). He got $500K and agreed to resign. The students who demanded his removal won. The super progressives won. Moderate liberalism lost. Any hope for free speech and thought lost.

So, yeah...I'm wrong to want to see this professor forced out. I'm wrong for wanting ESPN to can the sportscaster who opined that POTUS is a white supremist (after they fired one for criticizing kneeling during the national anthem). What has happened as that conservatives cried hypocrisy to the liberal power-brokers, and instead of admitting it, they just threw us a few bones. It's really hard not to eat when the culture beats down, and then places a plate in front of you.  :::sigh:::

The answer, of course, is not to silence the hypocrites.  As a matter of fact, the more the hypocrites shill, the more they make themselves look stupid so much so that anybody defending them would lose credibility.

But yeah, the answer is to expose the microphones that discriminates against the right-to-slightly-left-of-center for their bias.  And that's what you got when Trump got elected President.  One tweet can put mega wattage spotlight on the issue out of the tight narrative control of the discriminatory microphones.

[NightSG]

5 hours ago, Grunt said:

In some arenas, I'm fine with that.  Change won't come until a few people lose eyes.

This; the world needs an efficient, hungry apex predator to force some people to get a real perspective.

[JohnsonJones]

 

On ‎9‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 10:29 PM, prisonchaplain said:

Ah yes. Liberals get to go after conservatives, getting them shamed, fired, sometimes even fired upon, because Liberals don't believe in free speech anymore. However, when conservatives catch that rare liberal that says something so outrageous that the person has to be blamed and fired, conservatives get lambasted for opposing free speech. I wish I could be liberal so I could have my cake and eat it too!  :::sigh:::

I just want to add, you shouldn't lump all liberals into the same category as the ultra leftist super dialogues that make the news.  It's in the same way that you shouldn't lump all right wing individuals into the same category as extremist conservative racists that also make the news (as much as some of the more annoying elements in the media may want you too).  In regards to the Professor...and this applies to conservatives as well....

I think what one states in their personal life should be their own, if it isn't on the job, and they aren't a huge public figure (and I do not view professors normally as huge public figures), they should not be fired for such things.  I do not have problems with him spouting off his fingertips on his own twitter account in that type of conversation, as ludicrous as he may sound.  What he does on his own personal account...let it be.  He hasn't taken any actions in that regard, and free speech, whether you think others should have it or not, is protected in the US.

I find it funny that people are latching onto that instead of what I consider his true problematic actions which are what he was doing in the school itself when he was "educating" students.  That is actually something directly tied to the university.  If he were to get fired, it would be directly related to THAT which I would target.  Free speech is protected, and on his own time, it should be.  On the university time when he is representing the University values...that is NOT free speech when you are talking on another's behalf (and when at the university and educating students, whether he likes it or not, he is an outreach of the university and hence representing it).  They can fire you for that if they want, especially as it is a PUBLIC university.  Speaking such in regards to public officials when employed by something connected to the State or Federal government...not such a good thing.  AS per the article, he freely admitted to teaching the comparison of Trump to Facist leaders which is overdoing it.  I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him and I find much of what he does as reprehensible...but that's a FAR cry of what this professor did.  I would NEVER teach something like that to a bunch of students, nor even lecture on it.  My stuff is on history, not my personal opinion of political events at this time in the most extremists slant that would bring an uproar in class and upset many of the students I was talking to.

Now, universities DO have tenure (to protect such things) as well as other measures, but I think what he did in class crossed a line.  History has opinion, and bias, but there comes a point where you are no longer touching upon history and instead digging more into political science (different major) than History.  They can be connected, but there is a nice little difference.

If his contract is not renewed, it should be over something on that matter, rather than something he does on his own personal time on his own personal account which had all of 28 followers (whoop de doo) until the Daily Caller drew attention to it (which is the fault more of the Daily Caller I'd say, rather than some professor's personal account which had no one watching it before that anyways).

On the Baker's situation, it's far more tricky.  My instinct is to say I HOPE the Baker wins.  I hate having people coerced to do something that does not flow with their religion.  In addition, I think many of these cases are done by individuals who do not necessarily NEED IT FROM THAT SHOP, but TARGET that shop specifically for cases like this.  I don't agree with that type of action, nor that type of hostility.  I'd want them to lose just on that BASIS. 

On the otherhand, I see discrimination in my area from "good" Mormons constantly.  The soccer team is a good example.  We have some kids that now play on college level and professional level soccer teams but COULD NOT GET ACCEPTED TO OUR SCHOOL TEAMS when they were younger.  Many of those who did, don't play anymore as they were not good enough to make it in the pro or college.  The only reason the good players didn't get in...their race was a major factor.  We see that occasionally at different shops occasionally too...where they'll sell if they have to, but won't aid or promote or talk to those they think are lesser than them.  This could give them VALID excuses (right now, if it can be proven against them, they have no recourse and would suffer the legal consequences).  I fear, if we start saying religion can play a factor into WHO we can serve, it also plays into this factor of saying one's religion allows any and all sorts of discrimination.  That includes Gay Marriage.  If one has a public store or shop, that means they serve to anyone in the public.  If it is for the public, why should they be allowed to discriminate against any of the public on that basis?  Perhaps we should have a business type thing where one can specify they are ONLY A PRIVATE business instead, and not open to the public?  Hence, no walk in's, only reservations and such.  Probably not the best business move, but I think a separation like that I could see one using all the discrimination they wanted.  However, in a public business...one could use religion for all sorts of excuses, even if the original excuse was against Gay Marriage.  Who is to say it won't be utilized (as legal recourse seems to get wider as it goes) into other avenues later.  A Public business should serve ANYONE in the public, regardless of race, gender, religion, or disability (or in this instance, orientation).

So...yes, I suppose that makes me a flaming lefty Liberal here, but I think when one does a public business (as opposed to private, and by that I mean truly private, not just privately owned, but one that is PRIVATE in regards to customers and otherwise and NOT OPEN to public walk-ins and public browsing/shopping) it by necessity should be open to ALL the public...not just those who they agree with politically.

Of course, as I said before...in that Baker's situation though, I am of two minds.  I also don't like it that they were trying to force the Baker to do something that did act against his religion and other wise...so...more tricky in my mind than just a straight win or lose type thing.

Despite not being allowed to discriminate, at the same time, I think we all should have and respect the freedom of religion.

 

Edited September 26, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[prisonchaplain]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I just want to add, you shouldn't lump all liberals into the same category as the ultra leftist super dialogues that make the news.  It's in the same way that you shouldn't lump all right wing individuals into the same category as extremist conservative racists that also make the news (as much as some of the more annoying elements in the media may want you too). 

One of the miseries of social media discussions is the need for brevity, which often leads to an us/them type of writing. The problem is compounded by today's politically-angry environment, in which most liberals and most conservatives are too quick to defend the extremists on their sides for fear of losing even one battle. All that said, there are many liberals/conservatives who are frustrated with the foolishness on both sides. I'm one of them.

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2017 at 7:44 AM, prisonchaplain said:

One of the miseries of social media discussions is the need for brevity, which often leads to an us/them type of writing. The problem is compounded by today's politically-angry environment, in which most liberals and most conservatives are too quick to defend the extremists on their sides for fear of losing even one battle. All that said, there are many liberals/conservatives who are frustrated with the foolishness on both sides. I'm one of them.

I am with the @The Folk Prophet  on this one.  What a person says is not that big of a deal.  Lots of people say lots of stupid things – myself included.  Now – if I were talking to the person that said a stupid thing – I would call them out and point out that I disagreed with both their method and intent.  I may even go so far as to tell them that they said a stupid thing and should apologize – even eat a little (or perhaps a lot of) crow. 

But I am not talking to the person saying something stupid – rather I am talking to a group of Christians.  Christians that should understand walking the “extra mile” and “turning the other cheek”. 

We live in a precarious time.  I believe it is possible that anger and differences are likely to open up increasing opportunity for violence in our society.  I believe the advice Jesus gave his followers - were to “flee Jerusalem” rather than getting caught up in who is wrong and what should be done about it.

 

The Traveler