A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus....
An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/
How free speech zones are constitutional for any organization that deals with federal money (which in usa is everyone if we see tax breaks as government hangouts)?
The Bill of Rights only applies to state actors, and receiving money from the government does not, by itself, enough. Essentially, you have to be working as an agent of the government. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_actor.
Now, public universities are clearly state actors, and the First Amendment applies. For such organizations, free speech zones are based on the principle that certain "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech in public areas are Constitutional: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timepla.... It probably wouldn't have been considered a violation of the First Amendment, even in the founder's day, to charge someone with disturbing the peace for protesting in a residential area in the dead of night, even if they were standing on a public sidewalk.
[1] On the flip side there are other people who argue that university grounds are not public forums per se, but are rather private property that happens to be owned by the government. They argue that university campuses are more like a government office building than a public street in that regard. See: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar....
As it notes, people have tried stretching the notion that time, place & manner restrictions are okay into all sorts of impermissible things, like placing unequal burdens on disapproved speech, requiring preapproval to protest, or using the restrictions to stifle speech rather than justifying them as the least restrictive means to fulfill a legitimate purpose.
The short answer is that the Supreme Court has held that restricting protests to particular places on campus is a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction, so long as the regulation leaves open some reasonable place for protests and does not discriminate on the basis of the protesters' message. (This is based on the dubious, but now legally established, principle that "protesting" is a mode of speech and not also a message. Some on the court would have held -- right, I think -- that a law that discriminates against protestors inherently discriminates between speakers' viewpoints.) The wikipedia page is reasonably informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone#Notable_incide...
(Though is leaves out Frisby v. Schultz, the case that held that laws regulating protests can be content neutral, among many other things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frisby_v._Schultz)
Note also that it is not particularly relevant that an organization receives public funds. On the one hand, any school (or other organization) operated by a state is also subject to the federal constitution including the First Amendment (of course, this does not cover private schools). And on the other hand, I think your logic stretches too far: I reserve the right to kick you out of my dinner party because I don't like what you're saying. I receive "federal funds" in the form of various tax breaks. If I do actually kick you out, have I violated the First Amendment? I hope not.
The usual rule is that only the government itself (at any level -- or its agents, under certain circumstances) can violate the First Amendment (and almost all of the other amendments, with the notable exception of the 13th). I think it's probably better this way.
Time, place, and manner restrictions are there to prevent people from doing things in the name of free speech that you can't do anyway, like staying in a campus building after it would normally be closed or protesting in the middle of the street.
Restrictions on political speech in a place and time you can gather with other students to talk about the newest boy band or the unappealing nature of the cafeteria food don't pass constitutional muster for a public institution.
I think anyone who pays tuition at the university should have free speech anywhere, but people who are just random(crazy religious people and abortion activists) should be restricted.
I agree that abortion activists can be zealoted at times, but your statement illustrates precisely why restrictions on the first amendment are exempt from value judgements.
Stifling the speech of someone you categorize as 'crazy' is exactly why the first amendment exists. If everybody wanted to waste their free speech on how cute puppies were, we wouldn't need it.
> “The creation of the free-speech zones, and the enforcement of sound-level ordinances, was not to prevent free speech, but give religious or political speech a time, place, and manner that would allow speakers to address their messages to audiences on campuses without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions,” wrote a retired physics professor commenting on a Chronicle of Higher Education report.
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
The Orwellian term "Free-speech zone"'s meaning is not in defining where people can speak. It defines where people can't speak.
The school is giving them a civics lesson, fortunately not the one the administrators who evidently opposed free speech intended. Instead it's showing what happens when a school breaks the law.
> “Isn’t an institution of higher education’s primary function ... the education/learning and safety of its students?"
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused. The danger of free speech is nothing compared to the danger of its suppression.
Just because you have a right to say what you want, doesn't mean other people have to listen to you.
without disrupting the other fundamental functions of the institutions
IMO this is the key part. You have a constitutional right to say what you want. You don't have a constitutional right to shout it from the front of a lecture hall in front of my professor. (Just as a random example)
That was the purpose of the Constitution, to make the entire country a free-speech zone.
Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
Whoever thinks free speech impinges on safety is confused.
Again, it depends. Suppose that I and a crowd of my friends are dead against spodek, and wish to run all the spodeks out out of town? It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
Now, I'm not endorsing the colleges' position here, which I think has become absurdly restrictive in many cases. But I've seen many absolutist 'defenders of free speech' tip over into shouting down their opponents, and I don't care for ochlocracy any more than I care for institutional authoritarianism.
> Really? I imagine you'd be rather annoyed if I forced my way into your home to express my views to the contrary, or even serenaded you with my opinions from beneath your bedroom window.
If you did, the crime wouldn't be you speaking your mind... it'd be the breaking and entering.
And if you want to serenade me without trespassing, as annoying as that might be I don't see how I could stop you. By that, I mean I don't see how I could ethically petition the government to make you stop (even if they'd do this).
> It's easy to be absolutist about free speech if you don't anticipate being the object's of a mob's hatred.
It's not the speech that would bother me, but the pitchforks.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken:
That (some) speech is capable of manipulating other people to do things they might not otherwise do.
Now, this isn't particularly controversial, and I don't think I'd dispute it (I might remain skeptical, but silently so).
If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
On the serenading example, noise complaints to the police aren't really controversial; the notion of a disturbance of the peace is an old common law one that I think the founders would have recognized.
People who say things like you have just said seem to be implying some sort of sociological theory that remains unspoken: [...] If that theory is true, then is the person who manipulates through communication the criminal, or is it the people who are manipulated into crime? I contend that the latter are wholly culpable.
I think both. If you're exhorting people to commit an act and they do it, you're not morally blameless; the manipulation is itself an activity notwithstanding the fact of its intangibility. This is why we have laws against 'incitement to riot,' as it's a fact that that most people behave differently in crowds and some people make a specialty out of leveraging that to destructive ends.
Well, yelling Fire in the crowded theater is the iconic example of manipulating people into doing things they wouldn't otherwise do.
There's a clear time vs risk component. If you don't have time to evaluate the speaker, and the risk is high, very few people will not believe the speaker.
For regular old speech like "this flavor of ice cream is better" i agree with you.
Zechariah Chafee wrote in Freedom of Speech in Wartime -
"To find the boundary line of any right, we must get behind rules of law to human facts. In our problem, we must regard the desires and needs of the individual human being who wants to speak and those of the great group of human beings among whom he speaks. That is, in technical language, there are individual interests and social interests, which must be balanced against each other, if they conflict, in order to determine which interest shall be sacrificed under the circumstances and which shall be protected and become the foundation of a legal right." It must never be forgotten that the balancing cannot be properly done unless all the interests involved are adequately ascertained, and the great evil of all this talk about rights is that each side is so busy denying the other's claim to rights that it entirely overlooks the human desires and needs behind that claim."
You have a free speech right that extends to every corner of the country. Others, however, also have rights. A balance must be sought, and to strike a fair balance you have to look at what is reasonable not from a law perspective but from a be-a-goddamn-human-being perspective.
Is it a balance to restrict freedom of speech rights on a college campus except to limited areas? No. Because the purpose of a college is to increase knowledge, and the campus is semi-public. It is reasonable to expect someone wishing to speak to you about an issue to back off if you tell them you're not interested, but it's not reasonable to proactively prevent them from doing so. And it is reasonable to expect them to stay out of your house (property rights), but not, for instance, reasonable for them to be proactively banned from knocking on your door to see if you are interested (though as an individual you can proactively indicate you are not interested by posting to that effect, putting up a gate, etc).
But I assume you know that and are just being contrary for the sake of it.
> Suppose you're having dinner at a restaurant. Is it okay for someone to show up, stand by your table, and preach about their religion? Hey, that spot where he is standing: it's part of the country, and the whole country is a free-speech zone!
Yes, actually, it is a free speech zone. However, you're also on private property, and while it's not illegal for you to be there proselytizing, the owner (or someone acting on behalf of them, e.g.: an employee) can certainly eject you from their land if your behaviour does not meet their requirements. The existence of free-speech rights in an area does not give you legal admission to occupy that area.
That argument can easily be extended to cover other opinions. For example, you're enjoying a quiet meal and discussing your religious viewpoint with a companion, but the manager takes offense and demands you leave the restaurant and take your unacceptable opinions with you.
It's not that I disagree with you, just pointing out that mechanstic applications of the rules can easily be subverted or lead to unexpected/unwanted results.
The manager of the restaurant should probably learn to be more tolerant, but it's pretty clear on any plausible reading of the U.S. Constitution that he has not violated the First Amendment. It does, after all, start with the words "Congress shall make no law."
But there is an interesting twist. What if the manager tries to kick you out, but you refuse to leave? Then he calls the police and the police drag you out. At least in a certain sense, the government is now enforcing the manager's intolerance. When it comes to the First Amendment, it's pretty clearly established that even on these facts, the First Amendment still has not been violated. But there are other rights where the situation is more complicated. Courts will not enforce, for example, a racially restrictive covenant preventing African Americans from buying property in a certain neighborhood because to do so would violate the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Shelly v. Kreamer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer) But in many respects, the situations are analogous: the government is asked to enforce individuals' otherwise private biases. It's not at all clear (at least to me, or anyone I know who studies this area of law) what accounts for this difference. Food for thought.
Freedom of assembly is also a form of freedom of expression, one that is also constitutionally protected. People have a right (within reason) to refuse to do business with other people as a form of expression. See the Mozilla/Brendan Eich situation as an example of this.
If a restaurant owner kicks you out of a restaurant, he is also expressing himself, just through association instead of speech. Additionally, he has property rights to consider. He is allowed to control the operation of his building and business. On the balance, the restaurant owner should be favored in this sort of dispute.
Why involve the cops? It's not strictly necessary. In many cases, there are private citizens that do the same job (event security, bouncers). But the cops, at the end of the day, are enforcing the the restaurant owner's rights to property and free association. The enforcement of biases only happens indirectly.
How is that unexpected or unwanted compared to the original argument? You have a right to say whatever you feel like, at whatever volume you feel necessary. The land owner has a right to kick you out of her business for whatever reason she deems appropriate; this includes private conversations.
I've been to places that won't seat individuals, only groups. I've been to places that won't seat you if you wear jeans.
I think most people would be pretty upset if they were ejected from a restaurant half-way through a meal for the content of an otherwise-intimate conversation, in contrast to the case of having a quiet meal disturbed by an unwanted intruder. There's an implicit contract in a restaurant that if you're seated and conduct yourself with decorum that your interaction with the restaurant operators will center on the exchange of food for money.
I've been to places that won't seat individuals, only groups. I've been to places that won't seat you if you wear jeans.
The key difference being that you haven't settled in to enjoy your meal in either of those examples, although you may be disappointed to be turned away.
It has nothing to do with being upset. It has to do with the business owner's right to kick you out for pretty-well any reason s/he sees fit. The person who is loudly interrupting your meal will probably be just as upset for being booted for expressing his opinion.
Not being seated is the same as not being allowed to enjoy your meal, regardless of where you fall on the 'I've already been seated' continuum.
Straw man much? We're talking about public spaces here. The article says this is a state school, so it is funded by tax dollars, and therefore the outdoor campus could arguably be considered public space.
The 1st amendment has _never_ applied to private places. It is between persons and the government.
There is a principle in First Amendment regulation that says that the government should not exercise more control over speech than is necessary to accomplish its specific legal purposes. In this respect, there's obviously a difference between speech in outdoor and indoor settings.
These "free speech" zones would make sense if they were just zones in which you greater rights to speech, such as being overly aggressive. You would not be disturbing the peace by being loud and obnoxious in the one area set aside for being loud and obnoxious.
In actuality the "free speech" just your basic constitutional right to speech and outside of the zone your rights were curtailed by a state actor.
The entire function of "free speech zones" whether on or off of a college campus is to contain protests in order to limit the spread of ideas. I don't know how the legal framework came about which permits this drastic curbing of free speech, but it's here.
Thankfully, sometimes you can still speak quasi-freely on some places on the internet even if free speech in meatspace is dead. Doesn't sound too "free" when I put it that way.
I don't see the online free speech you describe. Instead, what I see is that you can "ally" yourself with a particular viewpoint and shout that particular one loudly. Others will then come to your aid and others will oppose you. But dare to question both sides and think for yourself, and many of those who demand free speech the loudest will be the first to come en-masse to drown you out online without carefully reading what you wrote in the first place.
People "drowning you out" is not a limit on your free speech, It only limits you right to be heard. A private website is like a private restaurant, you are free to speak, but If people don't like what you say the owner is free to demand that you leave.
This happens in places that are more like public squares. The drowning out is done not by website employees, but by other commenters. My comment is not about legality. It's about society. A society as I've described doesn't value free speech, it's just a bunch of short sighted individuals who only value their own speech. It values free speech in the same way a political party that wins elections to abolish democracy values democracy.
Underlying free speech: Does the society value the interchange of ideas, or does everyone just value their own ideas?
Free speech is a right. Listening to people (when they are polite and reasonable) is common courtesy. I agree that many communities, especially online communities are lacking in that area.
Rights are legal, so they represent minimum viable behaviors. Value in a society is embodied in behavior that goes beyond this. It's the difference between an organization where people are really working toward a goal like quality, or if they are lawyering the rules.
Looks like these kinds of policies are creeping out of high schools and making their way into public universities. Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's? I thought this fight had already been won.[1] Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.
> Where would we be if we didn't allow free speech at universities in the 1960's?
In the actual 1960s ... the Free Speech Movement of 1964-1965 that you point to was a response to the fact that denial of free speech was the status quo.
> I thought this fight had already been won.
Sure, there was ground gained, at least temporarily, by the Free Speech Movement, but victory wasn't durable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the violent suppression of non-violent on-campus free speech in 1970. [1]
> Free speech seems to be one of those things that institutions and governments need to be repeatedly compelled to respect.
Yeah, there's a reason that it is said that "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [0] This case illustrates one of the permanent forces to guard against: Well-meaning people routinely make shortsighted decisions to address a problem, at the expense of things that are far more important.
None of us is immune to the tendency. Each of us must eternally watch ourselves too. Political maturity comes when we can check our decisions by seeing both sides of an issue and carefully weighing the costs.
In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them.
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.
While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river.
A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information.
I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman.
Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism."
Hooray for judging books by their covers.
If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.
I think it all stems from a lack of understanding of subtlety in arguments. For example, when you watch mainstream news, all you see are the extreme points of an issue. You never really see the middle ground, and you never really see any rational arguments. You see either fire and brimstone, or puppies and sunshine.
Take climate change for instance. The only arguments that come up are that either (a) it's not happening, so go fuck yourself; or (b) WE'RE ALL GOING TO CATCH ON FIRE THEN DROWN AND IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. It's never; the world is headed in a direction that we may have control over, but even if we don't, we should probably try to do a better job than we've been doing.
I don't know when it started, but it seems that anytime an even remotely controversial issue comes up, we never see a rational explanation, it's always hyperbole and ridiculous nonsense. It's like people believe that every other human is mentally incompetent, and need to be shown the most extreme example that could possibly exist for an argument to be effective.
For good examples see global warming, immigration, and my recent favorite source of 'the sky is falling' hyperbole - CISPA.
Please note, I am neither endorsing, attacking, nor am I any other verb-ing the items I listed. I am simply saying that a majority of the arguments about those items come across as ham-fisted and ridiculous.
The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious.
A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent.
The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious.
Better than an argument, how about a nuanced discussion of reality? How about we get people away from the marketing caricature of reality, and we have them discussing reality?
A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent.
Human language and human models of the world are ill-formed and inconsistent. This is why honest nuanced discussions that aren't arguments are the best.
Reality is boolean. Any "nuance" is a reflection of poor reasoning ability on the part of the humans involved. We only make a caricature of reality when we project our own uncertainty onto it.
We should strive to overcome the limits of language. Mathematics is, in general, neither ill-formed nor inconsistent, and we should try to imitate it in our arguments in other fields.
Reality is boolean. Any "nuance" is a reflection of poor reasoning ability on the part of the humans involved. We only make a caricature of reality when we project our own uncertainty onto it.
I'm 100% on board with this.
We should strive to overcome the limits of language. Mathematics is, in general, neither ill-formed nor inconsistent, and we should try to imitate it in our arguments in other fields.
Uh, maybe not so much. Trying to apply the logic of sets to geology and geography could result in arguing if a particular rock is in North America or South America or if a particular grain of sand is in the Cambrian or afterwards. These are nonsense arguments.
Furthermore, when you're discussing reality with humans, you're always doing it through the lens of an imprecisely constructed social model of reality that's been passed down and modified by everyone over time. Avoiding this model and its distortions entirely is going to be near impossible. You're going to have to buy an island and declare that everyone speaks in Lojban and engage in social engineering that makes The Great Leap Forward look like a meeting icebreaker.
That said, I love the precision of math and programming languages. But trying to get human society to run on it is going to be epically hard.
>Trying to apply the logic of sets to geology and geography could result in arguing if a particular rock is in North America or South America or if a particular grain of sand is in the Cambrian or afterwards. These are nonsense arguments.
Only if our definitions of geographical locations are ill-defined.
>Furthermore, when you're discussing reality with humans, you're always doing it through the lens of an imprecisely constructed social model of reality that's been passed down and modified by everyone over time
Maybe we should try our hardest to avoid doing that.
That way, we must explicitly state our axioms re. messy stuff like biology and morality.
Only if our definitions of geographical locations are ill-defined.
They are. They were invented by non mathematicians to facilitate communication about objects in the real world through human language -- in a non-mathematical field.
we must explicitly state our axioms re. messy stuff like biology and morality.
Sounds good, but it's kind of hard to do perfectly. Lots of geniuses have been at least peripherally aware of and have been wrestling with precisely this problem for millennia! But if you have it solved, please blog about it and show us the way! Also, don't be surprised when people start poking holes in what you write.
There are many statements we would agree to be neither true nor false; here are a couple:
1. The sun will rise tomorrow. 2. This statement is false.
Note that this is not the kind of information which is controversial in our society and germane to decision making. (Other than that we will assume the sun will rise tomorrow as a given, but we can't stop with that.)
If you're going be that pedantic, you rule out all statements of moral or value judgement, all statements pertaining to the future, and most things relating to abstract nouns. This makes it impossible to discuss anything political at all.
Then they're not valid for anyone else who doesn't have exactly the same set of axioms. You can only form sentences of the form "I believe it is wrong for me to ..." and not "I believe it is wrong for you to ..."
wyager either doesn't want to construct such a logical language system and is just pedant-trolling us, or he's too naive about the underlying inconsistency of human languages to bother talking to.
The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
(context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)
I attend the College of William and Mary in Virginia. In 2009, the College dropped its speech codes and became one of the most free-speech-friendly schools in the US. This has its ups and downs (in my opinion, mostly ups).
We have a fairly diverse studentry, but I haven't seen that many people with incredibly strong opinions. Most people (myself included) don't really regularly say or do things that would fall under PC speech codes. That said, I do know a few activist types, and they relish the freedom they have at the College. I've known people who go to DC to participate in protests on the weekends, people who write articles on why the "government has failed its mandate to protect our right to privacy" or "how the liberal media uses misleading language to paint climate change as something that's actually happening" (obviously different people). We've got EFF activists, marijuana legalization activists, sexual health activists, hard-line family-values conservatives -- basically, what should be the regular college gamut. It's a shame that appears to be contingent on a free-speech policy that is relatively extreme.
Free speech also has its downsides. Earlier this year, we made state and national news when a fraternity member distributed this extremely misogynistic letter, that various headlines describe as "The most hideous thing I've ever read"[1] and "vomit-inducing"[2]. We drew censures from practically everyone, and many people I talked to around that time wanted the College to boot the offending fraternity. The College, of course, did no such thing, and the fraternity voluntarily suspended operations (there could have been some under-the-table coercion there, but I doubt it).
Anyway, the point is, if colleges allow free speech, they must also stand by while some vile, vile things get published. All communities result in emergent standards of discourse and systems of self-governance when those standards are violated (after all, the backlash from that letter was strongest in the student community), and these systems dull the effects of those vile things, but they affect the community regardless. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs.
When I was a student at Auburn, we had one of these. It was right in the middle of campus, along the most heavily trafficked path through central campus. There was a sign designating it a "first amendment area."
But I think it only applied to people not associated with the University. Student organizations weren't required to use this space, and could set up nearly anywhere outdoors, collect signatures, recruit, and generally do whatever they like as long as they weren't disturbing classes.
Really, the only people who used it were the crazy itinerant preachers who would come through campus a couple times a semester preaching hellfire and brimstone. It always made for good fireworks when the new freshman would get into yelling matches with them.
This was 10+ years ago, though, and that area now has a building right in the middle of it, so I wonder what the current policy is.
I'm actually in favor of free speech zones on campus. this author and the person talked about in it are twisting things. their grievance is actually confusion over the talk between two people and FSV. what happened to them (at least from the account provided) is wrong, but what they are attacking is something else. obviously everything has limits
being a person that works on campus, when walking down the walk during certain times of the year its a gauntlet. people lined up from one end to another screaming over each other and stepping on front of you to offer you a pamphlet.
thank god its only for certain times of day/days of the year.
I would equally defend their right to present their ideas, as I would defend your right to tell them to fuck off if they get in your face. You can't have freedom by limiting some else's freedom.
#1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely.
#2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between.
#3 protesting / picketing, etc are quite different than soliciting (even if they are ideas). theres a line in there somewhere, and a place and a time for both former and later. they are not without limits, and all a FSZ is sets some of that.
you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets. see where you end up, heck, try it any government building. and thats 'public' property. universities are private property, and they do have the right to make decisions on how they see fit for creating the best environment for the campus.
guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses.
> #1 unis are non union so picketing would be extremely unlikely.
I didn't assume that you were in a union, but I was trying to paint a picture that might be more relevant to you. Just because it's not directly relevant to you doesn't mean that the general idea isn't sound though.
> #2 you'd call the police if someone followed you around and screamed in your face and kept trying to give you pamphlets. obviously theres a line somewhere in between.
Someone following you around screaming at you is harassment, not protest / free-speech. We already laws against that. There's no need form a designated 'protest zone' where no one is allowed to protest / express non-status quo ideas outside of this 'zone.'
At the same time, there is no 'right to not be annoyed' either. So there is that.
> you disagree? why dont you go into the local police station and start screaming some cause while trying to give people pamphlets.
You keep repeating "there is something in the middle," yet you assume the worst of me and use it as a strawman to proclaim victory over in the furtherance of 'proving' your point.
> guess what? guns are legal, its legal to be registered and to carry a concealed weapon. but you are NOT allowed to carry them on most college campuses.
So... free speech is analogous to concealed weapons?
again, i said there was somethign in the middle and showed you the extreme that was wrong. i guess what you're not seeing is that YOU are in the extreme. I consider people preaching/soliciting harassment if it goes overboard, and thats what a FSZ would help circumvent.
and yes, exactly yes. Free speech is exactly analogous with the right to bear arms, its why its in the bill of rights. No right in the bill of rights is less important than any of the others.
most campuses do not have narrow, unavoidable choke points as gathering places to distribute pamphlets/flyers. in fact, the popular locations are often intentionally chosen to be large plazas.
you have the choice to walk around them and avoid this "gauntlet".
College, where it's okay to think freely, but only when, where and how the administrators decide to.
Formal education is mainly about obedience, so this idea of a free speech zone is just an expression of that.
Colleges (and most other educational places) aren't really concerned about your thinking and growing. They are about making sure you obey and do what they say.
The number one thing we learn from formal education is: do what we say, when we say it.
No wonder most young, well educated people struggle with life outside the bubble.
I had no idea US campuses even had "free speech zones". Here students can do whatever they want and there's never been a problem. Everyday some group was handing out pamphlets on the way into the student union building for whatever cause it wasn't the end of the world.
There shouldn't be free speech zones on any campus, public or private. Unless what people are saying is malicious, inappropriate or offensive then they should be allowed to do whatever they want.
I'm not sure what right you are concerned about. There is no "right to not be bothered by political nonsense", but there is a right to free speech for other students. Just as you can't argue that billboards and talkative salespeople should be outlawed, I'm not sure you can realistically argue that students who want to talk politics should not be allowed near you.
Simple: you don't have that right. Consider a nation with a different set of laws, a greater degree of tolerance and open-mindedness, and/or home schooling.
A number of other universities have also abandoned similar policies. The biggest step is probably the state of Virginia passing legislation designating all outdoor areas of public colleges as public forums: http://www.thefire.org/virginia-bans-unconstitutional-campus....
An organization called FIRE has a great tool that lists speech-restrictive policies at various universities: http://www.thefire.org/spotlight/