In fairness, I think there are a few flaws in this article, though not mostly related to the main point. Anyway, I'm interested in the thoughts of others.

disgusting.

LSU has a free speech zone, in other words, a set area where you can't be censored. It's some bullshit. I've got some kids in the libertarian club together, we're planning to make a serious push to get it abolished next semester.

Texas Tech's free speech zone was ruled unconstitutional, PE. You might find that case useful, even if it has no precedential value.

http://thefire.org/article/5151.html

Abhorrent. Free speech if limited to an area, is no longer free speech.

Free speech is a fantasy. Yell fire in movie theater or post a threat to PORUS on the internet.

Oh hell...make a disagreeable comment on *these* threads and watch all YOU jackasses try to shut people up for having a different point of view. Most of you aren't truly for free speech...you are for *agreeable* speech...

Agreed with Puddle.. nuff said.

"Oh hell...make a disagreeable comment on *these* threads and watch all YOU jackasses try to shut people up for having a different point of view. Most of you aren't truly for free speech...you are for *agreeable* speech..."

Attacking someone for something they said is hardly restricting free speech.

Krellin, you're free to bet four digits on elections any time you want.

shut up krellin

Thanks for the tip semck, I'll check it out and show the crew next Wednesday.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
-Voltaire

How little we have learned.

Voltaire never actually said that.... but he would have defended to the death your right to say that he did. ;-)

I will defend to the death your right to express this absurd idea that Voltaire never said that.

Seriously though, didn't he? It's a quote that's very widely ascribed to him...

Well, if he said it, it's at least not contained in any of his works. Plausibly it's correct oral tradition. See the following for a common opinion on the origin of the quote (although, ironically enough, not a sourced one):

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/voltaire#Misattribution

Thanks. Anyways, you catch my drift. Freedom of expressions should be better defended in American Universities and in Dutch museums (where we had similar problems with islamist extremists who didn't like certain images of Mohamed etc. etc.). I'm not very impressed with islamist extremists so far. They're really nothing a good drone raid can't handle and I'm all down for making funny cartoons about them.

*expression

Interesting, reminds me of something that happened at my school not too long ago. there was a car accident not far from school grounds, and we all received a notice saying not to talk about it to news or media outlets.

We had a debate at my University on the subject of whether it would be right to allow a far right party to take part in a political debate. For even daring to ask the question our debating society president was torn to shreds by the socialist scum press to the extent he was forced to change his name.

Freedom of speech doesn't exist in England

First. Free speech is about the government not restricting it. Private organizations can restrict it all they want. Second, the reason for zones on campuses is so that classrooms are disrupted. That said, if the school receives public money then they should be held to the same accountability standards as the government.

Aren't disrupted...

Draug, I don't think anybody is saying that these private schools are acting _illegally_ or unconstitutionally when they behave this way. You're quite right -- a private university can ban students from talking at all on its property, if it wants.

But free speech is a concept that's well-defined beyond the mere limits of government (even if the first amendment doesn't apply anymore). A private institution can restrict free speech (albeit legally) just as surely as the government can. The point of the article is that universities should be places where that doesn't happen -- where the ideals of free speech are upheld, not just the law.

I went into this article with the expectation that semck was blowing it out of proportion and that there was no chance this was a real problem. Holy cow was I wrong. That is terrible. Glad to say FIRE gives my school a green light. Some of these other schools need to lighten up.

Attempting to limit freedom of speech, I believe, is a symptom of the polarizing of politics, and to some extent even the media itself, in America today. Virtually everybody wants to rally and energize their base in order to "win" rather than engage with those who may disagree in order to come together for a solution. But that's just little ole moi...

I haven't read the article, but LSU is not a private university. It's a public university. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that make it a government institution and therefore subject to all the rules and regulations of a government institution, including a defense of free speech?

I should have figured, rightwing hypocrites whining about people opposing hate speech on campus. Nevermind they have organizations running around compiling blacklists against any professor with remotely leftwing views (see: Horowitz), and force universities to remove tenure from professors who have views they don't like - like Ward Churchill.

Professors can't even speak in their classrooms about their political views for fear of violating state laws, like in Ohio. Free speech is dead at universities, mostly because of conservative crybabies who only recognize the "freedom" to hate others.

@dubm - I'm not saying it is right, but technically they aren't violating the law when they provide a free speech area. It's like have "protrst zones" when politicians come to town. It is morally wrong, but legally acceptable unfortunately.

"and force universities to remove tenure from professors who have views they don't like - like Ward Churchill."

Sorry Plagiarism isn't covered in free speech...

After reading the facts, it still seems that Churchill i a plagiarizer, but the firing was politically motivated. I apologize to Churchill supporters everywhere.

Things I'm not surprised by:

Santa, the lovable liberal:
1) Taking sides with a rightwing witchhunt to remove a tenured professor
2) Doing so without even bothering to look at the case
3) After finally "reading the facts" (aka wikipedia), still continuing to besmirch the academic's name

and doing all of this while supposedly being a "liberal" academic himself, to boot!

No wonder they gave you your dream job. You're a double agent.

I'm not an academic.

Was your PhD in history an honorary one?

and hardly anyone loves me on here to my knowledge. That excludes Muju's savior.

I have a Masters in history

I see. Nevermind, then.

Draug, as much as it pains me to say it, dub's right. Unlike a private university, a public university DOES run very close to the line when it has "free speech zones." As mentioned in my earlier post, a federal judge ruled that Texas Tech was running afoul of the first amendment by having free speech zones. This is the only time the matter has been litigated so far, to my knowledge. In general, they seem quite unlikely to pass constitutional muster for the reasons pointed out in that case.

@putin,

"I should have figured, rightwing hypocrites whining about people opposing hate speech on campus."

I don't know if you were talking about me or the person in the article, but the latter, at least, was actually a liberal.

I should have figured, though, a Communist opposing free speech.

"I should have figured, rightwing hypocrites whining about people opposing hate speech on campus. Nevermind they have organizations running around compiling blacklists against any professor with remotely leftwing views (see: Horowitz), and force universities to remove tenure from professors who have views they don't like - like Ward Churchill.

Professors can't even speak in their classrooms about their political views for fear of violating state laws, like in Ohio. Free speech is dead at universities, mostly because of conservative crybabies who only recognize the "freedom" to hate others."

yes because OBVIOUSLY it is 100% NECESSARY to hold all of these positions if you oppose free speech zones.

god you're dumb sometimes dude

Bot political candidates do it all the time when tye come.to town. I suspect that if the issue gets pushed it will eventually appear beforr SCOTUS and we will get a definitive answer.

Right, the same clown (Lukianoff) who helped make rightwing propaganda films "Brainwashing 101" and "Indoctrinate U", and wrote a book condemning "diversity hustlers", is a "liberal" in your world.

"yes because OBVIOUSLY it is 100% NECESSARY to hold all of these positions if you oppose free speech zones."

This article wasn't about free speech zones. Free speech zones was a throwaway line in all this, said after he Lukianoff condemned harassment codes.

Semck,

Communists were on the forefront of the free speech fights in the 60s when your ilk were on a McCarthyist rampage trying to shut everybody down who opposed the war. We've seen rightwing whining about 'free speech' before and how it seems to never apply to anybody on the left, and only shows up when you want to defend the worst bigots on the planet.

It wasn't my ilk in the 50s, putin. I support free speech for everybody.

"We've seen rightwing whining about 'free speech' before and how it seems to never apply to anybody on the left, and only shows up when you want to defend the worst bigots on the planet."

-The article mentions people being gagged for asking attention for women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Doesn't sound very bigoted to me.