Harvard writer: Free speech threatens liberalism and must be destroyed

page: 6
59
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


and again...BFFT....you resort to name calling, I would do the same, but when I have in the past, my post gets deleted.... but, that's the limitation of my freedom, not yours....ain't freedom and justice wonderful.
edit on 26-2-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Seems someone agrees with her:



(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.


news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AwrBJR7wKg5TB2cAqR3QtDMD

So much for freedom of speech,expression.

Speech that 'liberals' agree with is only allowed.

And are the antithesis of what true liberalism means.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
The problem is that our institutions of higher learning have always hated the Democratic process where everyone gets a vote and a voice. They consider themselves above the ignorant and uneducated masses. They assume that they know what is best for us so they want to make all the decisions for us, for our own good.

This can be called the nanny state where everyone is treated like a teenager, with the Government the parent to us all.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

neo96
reply to post by beezzer
 


Seems someone agrees with her:



(Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ordered Google Inc to remove from its YouTube video-sharing website an anti-Islamic film that had sparked protests across the Muslim world.


news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AwrBJR7wKg5TB2cAqR3QtDMD

So much for freedom of speech,expression.

Speech that 'liberals' agree with is only allowed.

And are the antithesis of what true liberalism means.


From the same article.


The plaintiff, Cindy Lee Garcia, had objected to the film after learning that it incorporated a clip she had made for a different movie, which had been partially dubbed and in which she appeared to be asking: "Is your Mohammed a child molester?"



Garcia had claimed that her performance within the film was independently copyrightable and that she retained an interest in that copyright. A lower court had refused her request that Google remove the film from YouTube.

But in Wednesday's decision, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said Garcia was likely to prevail on her copyright claim and having already faced "serious threats against her life," faced irreparable harm absent an injunction.

He called it a rare and troubling case, given how Garcia had been duped. "It's disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, that Garcia needed to sue in order to protect herself and her rights," he wrote.


So it was actually initiated by an actress who was getting death threats, they don't seem to mention her or the Judge's political affiliations or leanings in the article. Oh the judge mentioned in the article (Judge Alex Kozinski) was appointed by Ronald Reagan so I do not know how liberal he would be, I believe he is more libertarian...



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

jimmyx
reply to post by squittles
 


so you would fight equally for the freedom of a black professor, who came on as a speaker at the university of Alabama, and said in the classroom that all white southern Christians should be put into slavery to serve and work for the betterment of all black people...you would protect his freedom to do that?


Well, that's crossing the line - someone's who's actually encouraging people to commit crimes against humanity? That's really not much different from someone suggesting genocide, so that's not covered by "free speech" protections - I'd have to protest someone actually employing that professor, though he's still welcome to express his viewpoint.

I mean, I'd not deny him his right to express himself, but would remind him "freedom of speech" isn't the same as "speech without repercussions."

I think the point has been made many times that we wouldn't need a First Amendment to protect "popular" speech - it's there precisely to protect "unpopular" speech.

As for universities:



You can't have a university without having free speech, even though at times it makes us terribly uncomfortable. If students are not going to hear controversial ideas on college campuses, they're not going to hear them in America. I believe it's part of their education. -- Donna Shalala



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Its not name calling. Its an assessment.

But in the case of the post you reference...it was in support of what you are saying. If you'd like to check it out. Maybe even mark it on your calendar or screen shot it for future proof.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   

kaylaluv
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Good point. This is a private college, yes? Doesn't that mean it's a private business? Doesn't that mean that IF the PTB at the university didn't want to hire someone who stands against everything that university stands for - they have that right?

I still disagree with her stance though. I think we should let these racists/bigots speak, then shame them very publicly in the university setting. That does more harm to them than trying to keep them quiet.


The psychological power that authority holds over some people makes it dangerous when that authority is verbalizing immmoral behavior. i realize the term "immoral" is poor, as it is so subjective. perhaps it is better to use "antisocial"...but that is so laden with innuendo as well.

In any event, you get my meaning.

I guess the question becomes more related to whether or not univsersity money should be going to projects that support the curriculum. Or if it is a misappropriation of funds to be spending that money on work that is counterproductive to the university mission and values statements. Were I the controller of that university, it might be a relevant question I would bring up in light of this article.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by moresco
 


I know and I am on the same side as you. I was commenting that she wants to use totalitarian methods to further her agenda of liberalism, which makes me brain sore trying to see some logic in her words.



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by InvisibleOwl
 


Sorry misread and posted too quickly. I actually tried to edit my post but alas I was too late. Thanks for the kinds reply!



posted on Feb, 26 2014 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Are you, or anyone really surprised?

There is a reason why I despise going to just about any college campus.

Can you guess?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Oh please. Beezzer, you sound like a troll. You imply the Left drowns out the Conservative views with deafening rhetoric. Poor ole Republicans can't get a word in because "those" lefties won't allow it! Obviously you, like all other conservatives, feel the merit and wisdom is lost because rational discussion is not allowed on the world stage. If given the chance, i suspect you would seek public sympathy because this "plot" is a conspiracy to deny your right to "enlighten" the rest of humanity.

Over many years I've noticed the conservatives plight to be heard. They claim they are the victims of the unfair left wing who "owns" the airwaves...lol. Now you push a thread that "proves" your point. Now you can be heard over all those who want diminish your efforts...bla...bla...bla.

However, in all reality, conservatives hog the media. Regardless of the issues, the conservative mentality "WILL" be heard, and heard over and over again. A good instance is another thread seen before finding yours, involving the rift over Obama's birth certificate. Now there is now more and recent evidence and bla, bla and bla. After the past six years its apparent the issue holds no water and he will finish his second term. Its not your thread is it?...lol. But again, this is another issue that has been dragged through the mud with nil effect yet someone feels the need to scream from the rooftops like its new news.

And lets face it, conservatives own the media. I've lost count of NEOCON blow-hards on the radio dial. From pill popping Rush to Glenn Beck, many are between the two. FAUX News blares out half truths to no truths daily and brainwashed fans wait for their daily orders. And thats another point...when conservatives are proven wrong, they refuse to concede and often whips out a bullhorn to force their point that is nullified with the truth as if being loud and conviction will make their point true. lol.

Personally, if i have to see threads that are politically biased from the Right, that it contain believable newsworthy content rather than just some regurgitated rhetoric from "professional pundits" who's bread and butter is the result of bashing the left on a daily basis.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

dagann
reply to post by beezzer
 


Obviously you, like all other conservatives, feel the merit and wisdom is lost because rational discussion is not allowed on the world stage.


/credibility with that sentence alone.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


A fellow Harvard student has posted in the Crimson an excellent rebuttal to Ms. Korn's rather misguided (my opinion) column. In his rebuttal enitled Academic Freedom Is Academic Justice, Garrett M. Lam makes several very valid points.


Yet my biggest concern with academic justice is the precedent it sets for future research. Neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran once noted that the greatest scientific revolutions—the Copernican, Darwinian, and Freudian—all kicked our notion of what it means to be human off of an artificially elevated pedestal. Copernicus said we aren’t the center of the universe. Darwin noted that we share the same ancestor as monkeys. Freud told us we have no control over many of our actions.

How would academic justice deal with these visionaries? It would strip them of their funding or suppress their results. And why? Because their truths challenged the status quo and threatened long-cherished beliefs. And who would decide whether research countered values? I don’t know and I don’t want to find out—the idea reeks of subjectivity and hidden agendas.


He further goes on to state:


Scientific truths don’t control us morally any more than we control scientific truths. Rather than closing our eyes and plugging our ears (which, by the way, wouldn’t make these truths cease to exist), we’re better off confronting them in the long run. After all, we choose how to apply knowledge, and can leverage it to effect the change we want in the world. But we can’t start making the world what it ought to be before we know what it is. And we know what it is through research.


In Ms. Korn's column, linked in Beezer's OP (The Red Line), she states this as part of her arguement for "justice" over "freedom":

The ASA, like three other academic associations, decided to boycott out of a sense of social justice, responding to a call by Palestinian civil society organizations for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions until Israel ends its occupation of Palestine. People on the right opposed to boycotts can play the “freedom” game, calling for economic freedom to buy any product or academic freedom to associate with any institution. Only those who care about justice can take the moral upper hand.
Bold mine.

Now, taking the bold statement above into account, I find it strange that she accepted a FREE trip (accept for the $250 deposit required) sponsored and paid for by Taglit-Birthright Israel which she writes about in her July 2012 Crimson column entitled The Illuminations of Birthright. In this article she states:

(After all, Birthright gets much of its funding from the right-wing Israeli government and right-wing American Jews like casino magnate and Romney supporter Sheldon Adelson.)


Moral upper hand and justice... indeed. LOL



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Yeah, so one more entitled liberal for the "right" to ridicule and feel superior about... true that many libs are comfy and thus have the time to care a whit about others and look for a fairer system, while many on the right think gov is inherently evil and don't care much for others as long as they got their own butts covered... and so it goes while the super duper right (so far right they're in some other geometric dimension) goes on reaping what the masses sow.

But dropping the left vs. right meme and joining under commonalities to advance ourselves en masse is no fun... how fun is only one team playing and then "winning?" So the little arguments and ego building will continue... carry on.

ETA and that OP chick wondering if silencing opposing views is the answer is just wrong... as people on both sides invariably are. But I sympathize and would love to shove a sock in certain folks pie-hole all the time... myself included.
edit on 2/27/2014 by Baddogma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   
What gives me hope is reading all the reply's to her article. For instance;


"Instead of summoning the thought police, the proper way to combat offensive research is to disprove it. That may take a bit more effort than just whining in The Crimson, but ultimately it is how we progress as a society.

Governments during Galileo's time tried to suppress offensive research. For the sake of humanity, I'm quite glad they didn't succeed."



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

stosh64
What gives me hope is reading all the reply's to her article. For instance;


"Instead of summoning the thought police, the proper way to combat offensive research is to disprove it. That may take a bit more effort than just whining in The Crimson, but ultimately it is how we progress as a society.

Governments during Galileo's time tried to suppress offensive research. For the sake of humanity, I'm quite glad they didn't succeed."


and the Nazi's didn't try at all to suppress offensive research. Wish they would have tried a little harder.
edit on 3/1/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
This disgusting creature needs painful cancer.

The sad part is that college campuses are infected with creatures just like her.



posted on Mar, 3 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
When they are young, liberals are pretty cool people to hang out with. They are fairly freedom loving, idealistic, humorous, relaxed about life and not at all stiff and boring like conservatives. But as they grow older and realize their idealism hasn't manifested in the world, they start becoming frustrated and resentful...thats when their totalitarian-streak rears its ugly head and they turn from happy pink to the dark blood red side.
edit on 2014 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Sounds like first female president material! Take away our, the peoples, opinions along with our morals and liberites, We should be encouraging acedemic freedom in favour of ingenuity, diversity and creativeness. That sounds more like justice to me, I mean how can you justify taking away or giving up on acedemic freedom? just seems wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
...It's sarcasm I think...Get it? An essay saying to get rid of free speech...is free speech. It's sort of an inside joke. I think she was angry with the education system...





new topics
top topics
 
59
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join