Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The flag of treason & hate no longer at S Carolina's cap
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2017 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Given the last post in this thread, this seems appropriate:

Views among college students regarding the First Amendment: Results from a new survey
Quote:
College students’ views of the First Amendment are of profound importance for multiple reasons. First, colleges and universities are places where intellectual debate should flourish. That can only occur if campuses are places where viewpoint diversity is celebrated, and where the First Amendment is honored in practice and not only in theory. Second, what happens on campuses often foreshadows broader societal trends. Today’s college students are tomorrow’s attorneys, teachers, professors, policymakers, legislators, and judges. If, for example, a large fraction of college students believe, however incorrectly, that offensive speech is unprotected by the First Amendment, that view will inform the decisions they make as they move into positions of increasing authority later in their careers.

College students’ views on the First Amendment are important for another reason as well: Students act as de facto arbiters of free expression on campus. The Supreme Court justices are not standing by at the entrances to public university lecture halls ready to step in if First Amendment rights are curtailed. If a significant percentage of students believe that views they find offensive should be silenced, those views will in fact be silenced.

To explore the critical issue of the First Amendment on college campuses, during the second half of August I conducted a national survey of 1,500 current undergraduate students at U.S. four-year colleges and universities. The survey population was geographically diverse, with respondents from 49 states and the District of Columbia.


Results from the survey (more expansive breakdown of respondents in the sourced article):

Quote:
Does the First Amendment protect “hate speech”?

44% answered 'no.'

Quote:
A public university invites a very controversial speaker to an on-campus event. The speaker is known for making offensive and hurtful statements.

A student group opposed to the speaker disrupts the speech by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?

51% agreed that silencing speakers by shouting them down is acceptable.

Quote:
A student group opposed to the speaker uses violence to prevent the speaker from speaking. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?

19% believe initiating violence against speech to be acceptable.

Quote:
Consider an event, hosted at a public U.S. university by an on-campus organization, featuring a speaker known for making statements that many students consider to be offensive and hurtful. A student group opposed to the speaker issues a statement saying that, under the First Amendment, the on-campus organization hosting the event is legally required to ensure that the event includes not only the offensive speaker but also a speaker who presents an opposing view. What is your view on the student group’s statement?

62% believe in mandating speech.

Quote:
If you had to choose one of the options below, which do you think it is more important for colleges to do?

Option 1: create a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people

Option 2: create an open learning environment where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people?

53% answered 'option 1.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Sep 26, 2017 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
College students’ views on the First Amendment are important for another reason as well: Students act as de facto arbiters of free expression on campus. The Supreme Court justices are not standing by at the entrances to public university lecture halls ready to step in if First Amendment rights are curtailed.


The students can shout down a speaker. The students are not the government. It does not implicate First Amendment rights. Maybe its rude. Maybe its bad faith. Maybe it stifles discussion. Maybe it rustles your jimmies. But it does not implicate the First Amendment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
The students can shout down a speaker. The students are not the government. It does not implicate First Amendment rights. Maybe its rude. Maybe its bad faith. Maybe it stifles discussion. Maybe it rustles your jimmies. But it does not implicate the First Amendment.

The article addresses interpretations of the first amendment, current trends in approaches to free speech, and how these trends may influence future interpretations of and approaches to the first amendment and free speech. So yes, with the exception of some noise ordinances, shouting down a speaker is legally permissible. Whether this should be considered an acceptable approach to dissenting opinions, however, has implications on how students demand their administrators handle unpopular speakers, which certainly is a first amendment issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
Kuros wrote:
The students can shout down a speaker. The students are not the government. It does not implicate First Amendment rights. Maybe its rude. Maybe its bad faith. Maybe it stifles discussion. Maybe it rustles your jimmies. But it does not implicate the First Amendment.


The article addresses interpretations of the first amendment, current trends in approaches to free speech, and how these trends may influence future interpretations of and approaches to the first amendment and free speech. So yes, with the exception of some noise ordinances, shouting down a speaker is legally permissible. Whether this should be considered an acceptable approach to dissenting opinions, however, has implications on how students demand their administrators handle unpopular speakers, which certainly is a first amendment issue.


Yes. Administrators of state schools are limited in their ability to control speech and speakers. However, this can be a thorny matter susceptible to individual case determination.

-------------------------

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/durham-confederate-monument-charges-dismissed/553808/

Quote:
DURHAM, N.C.—“Let me be clear, no one is getting away with what happened.”

That was Durham County Sheriff Mike Andrews’s warning on August 15, 2017. The day before, a protest had formed on the lawn outside the county offices in an old courthouse. In more or less broad daylight, some demonstrators had leaned a ladder against the plinth, reading, “In memory of the boys who wore the gray,” and looped a strap around it. Then the crowd pulled down the statue, and it crumpled cheaply on the grass. It was a brazen act, witnessed by dozens of people, some of them filming on cell phones.

Andrews was wrong. On Tuesday, a day after a judge dismissed charges against two defendants and acquitted a third, Durham County District Attorney Roger Echols announced the state was in effect surrendering, dismissing charges against six other defendants.

“Acts of vandalism, regardless of noble intent, are still a violation of the law,” Echols said during a brief news conference at the county courthouse. But he said the unfavorable decisions on Monday made clear the state would not be successful. “For my office to continue to take these cases to trial based on the same evidence would be a misuse of state resources.” Additional trials had been scheduled for April 2.

As a legal matter, these dismissals reflect the specifics of this case, especially the shockingly weak case brought by the Durham County Sheriff’s Office and the DA’s office. As a political matter, their effect could be wider. Actors on all sides portrayed the Durham case as an important one. Activists viewed the destruction of the statue as a blow against white supremacy and the hundreds of monuments that dot the country, paying tribute to a rebellion that sought to preserve the enslavement of African Americans. Their opponents—including President Trump—argued that the monuments represented a piece of history, and warned that allowing such destruction would sanction anarchy. The failure of the attempt to prosecute the guerrilla action in Durham shows how activists maintaining a united front can stare down a government divided over the proper approach to the controversial matter of Confederate monuments—and it may offer encouragement to activists elsewhere in the country, including in places where government cannot or will not act, to take monument removal into their own hands.

The destruction of the statue in Durham came two days after violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, left one dead, and it helped galvanize the effort to tear down Confederate monuments and statues across the country.

“This victory is the result of one thing and one thing alone: the conviction and determination of a mighty movement against white supremacy and the racist system that it upholds,” Defend Durham, an umbrella group for activists, said in a statement Tuesday. “Power to the people! Fighting white supremacy is not a crime!”


It might be better to dislodge the statues and heave them in front of museums. Nonetheless, this is civil disobedience at its best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13
Page 13 of 13

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International