Free at last, free at last, thank GOD ALLMIGHTY I'M FREE AT LAST!

The general point is that people can't beat, kill, jail, etc. you for saying what they don't want to hear.

Being an asshole is something of an open question, asshole. I think you're being an asshole and pitching dangerous ideas in your comment. Not kidding.

In a university context, fully preventing speech in practice may as well break the charter of the university. It's just a research institute after that, with a polemics wing.

Saying that there are ideas that "shouldn't" be taught at university makes you a true libtard JHM. But you know that already. "Hate speech" creeps in its definition, you know that, too.

That's just the problem though; who gets to decide who's being an asshole?

I think you're being a giant asshole right now, for instance, but I would never ever dream of trying to stop you from doing so, and I'd be furious at anyone who thought they should.

This is the very reason why free speech is the cornerstone of a free society and anyone who actively and aggressively attempts to shut up people who say things they don't like is either evil, or a moron (or both).

So are you saying Oxford needs to teach holocaust denial, or they don't have any intellectual integrity? And are you saying that Oxford should be forced to teach holocaust denial?

If you don't, you basically agree with me. And if you do, that makes you the asshole, who opposes intellectual freedom. Unless Oxford has the right to choose to NOT teach holocaust denial, there's no intellectual freedom.

>>That's just the problem though; who gets to decide who's being an asshole?

I don't see it is a problem. I didn't say that freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to be an asshole, only that being an asshole isn't the point of freedom of speech. There are some people, especially on the internet, who really don't get that, people who foolishly equate criticism with being censored.

You support free speech, That guy? DEFEND HOLOCAUST DENIAL! The point is that we should all edit ourselves from saying the dumb things that pop into our heads.

Examining the ideas of Holocaust Denial to see if they hold water, first of all... and then... why people claim them, how you argue against them, etc is completely appropriate to a university setting.

I'm not equating criticism with censorship.

At a university, for what a university does.... totally 'no-platforming' ideas that are unliked by the orthodoxy, including liberal orthodoxy, is censorship and is bad.

It's not censorship for Oxford University to decide what Oxford University is going to teach. You can argue that they should teach holocaust denial under certain conditions (how is "certain conditions" not censorship, by the way?)

It's completely within the mission of a university to set some standards for their curriculum, but their power does not extend beyond the university. This is not only how we maintain standards in a free society, it's how we ensure multiple points of view. Suggesting that Oxford University should be an enforced free-for-all, and Harvard should be an enforced free-for-all, and POE TV should be an enforced free-for all is likely to result in in the same voices being heard everywhere, and the same voices being drowned out elsewhere.

*everywhere.

My stars go to this comment. Really well written.

^

Please turn in your 1st rough draft, 2nd rough draft, and peer critique of that comment.

^*****

As a man in his 30's going back to college again, I've realized that the average college student is a blithering moron. They're children who are allowed to drink and screw. Liberal arts education is important, but the real positive results of it don't begin to sink in until you've also got some life experience under your belt as well.

I'm close enough to 30 and I'm considering going back and finishing off my BA. I have a strong feeling I'm going to hate everyone there.

I think that often 'free speech' is used as an excuse for people who want to intimidate and threaten the disenfranchised. For example, in the case of sexual harassment, a group of men might use their freedom to say offensive things as a way to remind the women they work with who has the power. I think that's a real problem.

Yeah. What you said.

jerks to each other in a work context is one thing

saying that 'offensive' is a rights violation all by itself is another

I don't believe being offended is in itself a rights violation. I actually believe in free speech (with a line drawn at threats). But I do believe in the responsibility that comes with it. I mean, if you want to use "free speech" as an excuse to be an asshole, be prepared for consequences.