badgenome said:
I sense that we may be talking past one another. I'm not talking about "hate speech", which doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US, but rather the practice of universities arbitrarily deciding that what this student said or did is offensive while what another student said or did is not. When the speech in question doesn't come close to crossing any legal lines - into libel, obscenity (which I think is a bullshit concept on par with hate speech, but that's a whole different argument in itself), or fighting words - it amounts to nothing more than someone who is in a position of power having had their own personal sensibilities offended and using their power to shut down people with whom they disagree. That's just unacceptable for a public institution, and when universities pride themselves on being places where ideas can be freely exchanged, it is also monumentally hypocritical. |
First of all, I'm surprised that hate speech doesn't exist as a legal concept in the US. Second of all, what's the justification for banning the speech you mentioned? "Offensive" shouldn't cut it, unless it's applied indiscriminately to assure harmony within the institution or something. Third of all, hate speech laws are quire necessary to protect minorities from majorities (talked more about it in my previous).
"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"
"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."
(The Voice of a Generation and Seece)
"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"
(pizzahut451)