University’s Student Government Bans Offensive Speech

kaylaluv
This isn't a house. This is the internet. People from all over the world can view what we have written here. This isn't some private home, where it's just a couple of people and the owner.

In the end, regardless of the end result, this place in which we engage in speech, is private. Our words are held privately and with knowledge that we are to ascribe to certain parameters to engage in civil discourse. While what we state may be public, in the end, it is created within the confines of a private institute.

For example, while all can read (your definition of "public"); not all can engage unless they agree to the terms in which we have all done. That is not the definition of a "traditional" public space. That is, by definition, a private space.

ETA: Another poster, badger, pointed this very argument out before I arrived at it in the thread....

kaylaluv
My point was, it's not just the owner that sees what we write. The owners aren't just worried about their own sensitivity, as they would be in their own home. The owners are concerned about all the people reading our posts. It's a very "public" house, therefore our speech is public. Should our public speech be restricted, as it is on this site?

I think you are not understanding the complexity of it. For instance, should a newspaper (which is and has been held as a private outlet) be subjected to your views as being a "public space"? What about television? A Youtube video?

While our words are public, the act of engagement is not; it requires agreement to terms from a private venue in which we all understand is theirs; not public and therefor, not under the purview of your rant.

What will doom this Nation is not those that work to take our Liberty but the failure of the majority who in response talk and complain via the internet, never leaving their chairs.

AnotherSorryGuy
What will doom this Nation is not those that work to take our Liberty but the failure of the majority who in response talk and complain via the internet, never leaving their chairs.

Actually, I'd be more optimistic if there were more people willing to use the internet to complain about censorship.

Frankly, if you get into a discussion on more mainstream forums about censorship, at least 80% of the people will be for censorship. If it comes down to a situation like the WBC, people are willing to let any amount of freedom go to stop people like that even if 99% of offensive speech doesn't come near that level of nasty. It's the one instance they'll use over and over to get people all riled up and primed to support censorship anywhere.

So on the contrary. People on the internet barely complain about any kind of censorship unless it's socialists who are being censored. Otherwise, they don't care.

reply to post by beezzer


What happened to college being a little edgy and more like the "real world"? And what kind of problems were they having there to begin with to warrant such ban on speech?

ItCameFromOuterSpace
reply to post by beezzer

 

What happened to college being a little edgy and more like the "real world"? And what kind of problems were they having there to begin with to warrant such ban on speech?

It's the social engineering that has been a constant onslaught on the psyche of the populace.

reply to post by beezzer


It is beyond obvious that the Student Goverment of this University is filed with total politicaly correct #s who´d raher have no opinion on things because somebody may get offended! MOMMY HE SAID.....NO SHE SAID.....BUT....#ing #s. Cry me a river.

I hope that they are so consumed with debating what is and what isn't offensive speech over the next few months that their grades drop. After all what is most important at university is learning to debate you point of view isn't it?

ownbestenemy

kaylaluv
This isn't a house. This is the internet. People from all over the world can view what we have written here. This isn't some private home, where it's just a couple of people and the owner.

In the end, regardless of the end result, this place in which we engage in speech, is private. Our words are held privately and with knowledge that we are to ascribe to certain parameters to engage in civil discourse. While what we state may be public, in the end, it is created within the confines of a private institute.

For example, while all can read (your definition of "public"); not all can engage unless they agree to the terms in which we have all done. That is not the definition of a "traditional" public space. That is, by definition, a private space.

ETA: Another poster, badger, pointed this very argument out before I arrived at it in the thread....

edit on 8-12-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

And how is this any different than the story in the OP? From what I can see, it is the student government of this university making rules applying only to the members of the student government - not for anyone who steps on the campus. If you are going to be a member of the student government, you have to abide by these rules, even though your speech may be heard by everyone on campus. Same situation as ATS, right?

kaylaluv
And how is this any different than the story in the OP? From what I can see, it is the student government of this university making rules applying only to the members of the student government - not for anyone who steps on the campus. If you are going to be a member of the student government, you have to abide by these rules, even though your speech may be heard by everyone on campus. Same situation as ATS, right?

In which you haven't been arguing but now you are for? Of course its the same point; that is why I made the equation and highlighted how this forum is not public speech. Your earlier posts suggested, if we were to infer, that neighbors within earshot will negate the private nature of your speech in your own home and make it public because "everyone can hear it".

You have constantly minced words and meanings here in this argument. For instance, earlier in this thread you asked the following:

"But should ATS be allowed to restrict what we say on such a public forum, when our speech here is truly public, and not private in any way?"

First off, my post in which you responded to, explained how it is not public, even though the public can see it; it is still private speech.

Second, when it was said that ATS does have the ability because it is a private (owned) site, you responded with a twist of logic with:

"So you're saying that public speech SHOULD be allowed to be restricted to avoid being offensive. I agree."

This is all based on your false premise of what "public" speech is; in this instance, both ATS and the ASB of the college is not public speech at all and can frame the rules of that speech to a degree to ensure such notions as: decorum, civility, politeness, etc.

When you were called out that you are confusing the issue and understanding of "public"; you responded with yet again a complete misunderstanding of:

"It IS public speech. What we write can be seen by everyone on this planet (who can access the internet). I don't know how you can get more public than that. It may be a privately owned forum, but it isn't a private forum - what we write is very public."

Enter my post and explanation that you have yet again not listened but instead decided to somehow contort it to your understanding.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Here is my point, which I obviously have not made very well: the posters on this thread who are up in arms over the OP's story, are the same people who say it's okey-dokey for ATS to do it, because "it's different". Well, it's obviously NOT different. They were trying to say that the student government was banning free speech, but ATS is not banning free speech. I was trying to point out that it is exactly the same situation. I was trying to get them to understand that what the student government is doing is the same thing as what ATS is doing. If you are okay with one, then you should be okay with the other. I am okay with the student government doing what they did, as I am equally okay with ATS doing what they do. I was "trying" to point out the hypocrisy of the posters on this thread, who claim that it's not the same situation.

It seems like you agree with me, so I don't think we are arguing with each other.