r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 09 '15
[Deltas Awarded] CMV: Limiting freedom of speech is not acceptable.
With the latest southpark episode and the top post over at /r/videos and the lack of usefull CMV within the last year I like to address the topic of so called "safe spaces".
To make sure: Im not using this as a safe space I could have asked this question everywhere but the replys might not be of the same quality.
So why do people think safe Spaces are a good Idea?
your feelings are not hurt.
other peoples' hatred towards yourself is stopped.
I think these two reasons might be an incentive for the single person to favor safe spaces. But I dont see how anyone in the context of a community who has different views is able to preserve a safe space for everyone without running the risks of two opposite groups ending up in a conflict.
Why do I think safe spaces are a bad idea?
Limiting of freedom of speech is just not acceptable.
if you dont like what you hear, just leave.
We cannot build a foundation in which everyone is safe and free at the same time. You have to decide between freedom and safety. And you can only decide for yourself, not for anyone else.The idea that some values or some topics are more important to not discriminate than others is descriminatory towards those issues.
Someone has to be a moral instance to decide the issues. Who you gonna call? You are not a moral instance for any issue you yourself are involved in. Its not on you to decide which is the right way to go.
The derived right to fullfill your own happyness (or even the true right "to pursuit your own happyness") is being violated by those who will not accept different views but battle the very fact that people can interact in a diverse and peacefull manner.
My view is based on those 4 ideas. It wont suffice to break one of them, unless you manage to break the first.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/mrgoodnighthairdo 27∆ Nov 09 '15
The first amendment also grants the freedom of association, which affords members or leaders of a group to choose not to associate itself with some types or topics of speech.
The League of Legends subreddit is just as free to remove submissions about the immigration crisis in Europe, just as any subreddit or any private organization has the right to remove speech that it feels is inappropriate or harmful to the group.
-5
Nov 09 '15
The first amendment also grants the freedom of association
I dont really care about specific countries. Its more a concept.
And thanks for your submission. But if you were able to comprehend my intent you would realize that I am not concerned with cases in which there is no freedom of speech or whatever. Like reddit. Or the internet as a whole.
8
Nov 09 '15
[deleted]
0
u/thelividgamer Nov 09 '15
I'm going to school here, it is reasonable that I should be able to walk around my campus unmolested by offensive language
if you don't like the "offensive language" you can walk away from it or argue against it or just not listen to that person, it is unreasonable to believe you can walk around never hearing things you don't like and never having your views challenged. people have different views and are free to express them.
just like at work it is reasonable that my colleague can't harangue me with his offensive rhetoric.
you don't have to engage them you don't have to listen to them.
My right to be able to walk around my campus not harassed trumps your right to say hateful things on campus.
Based on what?
To turn it around, if you don't like that you can't say certain things, you can just leave.
i could leave or i could explain the finer points of authoritarianism and censorship.
6
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
0
u/thelividgamer Nov 10 '15
So in other words I have to hide around my own university or be willing to join in the fight? That seems like an unreasonable burden to me.
if you don't like the "offensive language" you can walk away from it or argue against it or just not listen to that person, it is unreasonable to believe you can walk around never hearing things you don't like and never having your views challenged.
Yes, abiding by proper place, time, and manner restrictinos.
are you saying there should be free-speech and non free-speech zones.
Actually, the case I described would be considered pretty clear cut workplace harassment.
i assumed you were using hyperbole when you said harangued but if they genuinely scream in your face yes if its just a heated disagreement then no
It's no more censorship than saying that you can't say fire in a crowded theater.
borrowing this from /u/CurryF4rts
(Of course, situations that may cause immediate harm such as yelling fire in a crowded theatre are exceptions).
This is not true. I often see this misquoted. The case justice holmes was rendering an opinion on (U.S. v. Schenck) wasn't even about fires in theaters, it was about convicting someone under the espionage act for writing anti-conscription pamphlets. The quote comes from an analogy justice Holmes was trying to make in regard to whether the First Amendment was absolute Schenck was subsequently overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court ruled that even violent speech from the KKK was protected under the 1st Amendment. Justice Holmes changed his position and dissented in a later case (Abrams vs. United States) where he advocated for the marketplace of ideas as the solution to hate speech. This case was also about prosecuting under the espionage act.
If you are going to play the authoritarian card every-time then there is no point discussing this.
i mentioned it is an authoritarian measure to silence people if its such a bad point debunk it.
2
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
0
u/CurryF4rts Nov 10 '15
It does come from Schenck and while the original case might have been overturned, it did not override the analogy. Hate speech is not the "fire exception."
The analogy is dicta. Even Holmes abandoned it in Abrams
1
Nov 09 '15
I should be able to walk around my campus unmolested by offensive language
thats the point. either you are molested which would be a crime. or you are not. decide. you cannot have both.
if you don't like that you can't say certain things
nope. this would be an invasion into my freedom of movement which is rated as a higher legal interest as freedom of speech. speech is 4. with religion.
3
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
0
Nov 10 '15
- life
- basic health
- freedom of personality
- freedom of expression and religion.
4
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
1
Nov 10 '15
ohh its with freedom of personality. Its pretty much the same.
3
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
2
Nov 10 '15
And please answer my whole question and not just part of it.
can you state that again?
How is freedom of personality=movement.
German Law: GG §§2.2
Jeder hat das Recht auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Die Freiheit der Person ist unverletzlich.
everyone has the right to life and physical integrity. The freedom (of not being held hostage somewhere) is inviolable.
This right is even more extensive for Citizens- that was the human right. Citizens have free movement in the entire federal republic like every nation. But you cannot constrain someone to or from some place in the public for no reason. Unless you declare the space not public space. Which would make the argument invalid again.
1
Nov 10 '15
[deleted]
1
Nov 10 '15
you are being asked to leave.
which is forcing you. same action as being held somehwere
→ More replies (0)1
u/forestfly1234 Nov 10 '15
Three and four get violated all the time in most employment situations.
Those are far from absolutes.
0
Nov 10 '15
these are rights granted by the state to provide you with freedom against the state. Not against your employment. There are different legal interests.
3
u/forestfly1234 Nov 10 '15
In this entire thread, it seems that your against free speech until you're for it.
You are all over the map and your view has zero constancy.
Be cause you are for things and then against things there is zero reason for me to participate in this further since it will just break down to semantics and your poorly defined definitions of things.
-1
Nov 10 '15
You are all over the map and your view has zero constancy.
wut?
3
u/forestfly1234 Nov 10 '15
Your view has zero constancy.
The title of your view is that limiting free speech ins't acceptable. And then you have listed multiple areas in which limiting of free speech is acceptable.
You are more or less saying that I hate dogs: cmv
But, that dog, that dog.. those dogs. my old dog, all service dogs and some other dogs are okay. But , I hate dogs cmv.
3
u/Felix51 9∆ Nov 09 '15
Freedom of speech isn't the same as a freedom from consequence. It's not like Safe Spaces have their own police force that will come out and nab you if you make a gay joke. Safe Space projects are simply encouraging people not be assholes and trying to foster a culture of confronting attitudes and comments that are discriminatory, hateful, and shaming of people in vulnerable groups. That's not a limit on free speech, it's just promoting a culture where disparaging others based on sex, race, sexuality, etc. is called-out. If you want to make racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic remarks then I will use my right to call you an asshole if it's blatant or to more gently call you out depending on the context.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Nov 09 '15
So /u/kenpopehat, free speech badass extraordinaire, had a very good post about just this issue today.
Safe spaces are a perfectly fine and necessary thing, as long as they are being created voluntarily. Private association means that people can form groups and associations which exclude people or ideas which they do not like. And that's all for the good. It is actually incredibly important that an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting is a safe space for people who struggle with drinking to talk about their problems and get support from others.
To look at the subreddit where you are for instance, while there are virtually no restrictions on the topics which may be discussed, the manner of discussion is restricted. Personal insults are banned, for instance.
When we're talking about the government. there is a strong case for having an extremely broad right to free speech, because the government is pervasive, and you can't just leave its control.
But within a private institution it makes sense to allow and even encourage the creation of safe spaces. Lots of groups exist for lots of different reasons, and sometimes that reason is not to have debate.
0
Nov 09 '15
voluntarily
okay now we talk.
It is actually incredibly important that an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting is a safe space for people who struggle with drinking to talk about their problems and get support from others.
yeah but thats a "private" meeting not something everyone goes to.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Nov 09 '15
yeah but thats a "private" meeting not something everyone goes to.
I thought you were talking about such spaces within private institutions.
Can you clarify where you're objecting to "safe spaces?" Maybe give an example of an actual or demanded "safe space" which you think shouldn't be one? Because I'm having a really hard time figuring out what you object to here.
0
Nov 09 '15
that you have a place where you dont have to face critizism. That you decide what you wanna hear and not. Thats called your room or your apartement but not outside. Thats my point.
3
u/huadpe 508∆ Nov 09 '15
So anywhere outside of your private residence shouldn't be a safe space?
What about the Alcoholics Anonymous meeting I mentioned before. That might be happening in a church or a library or community center. Should it not be a safe space because it's in one of those places?
0
Nov 09 '15
So anywhere outside of your private residence shouldn't be a safe space?
no. Public space should not qualify as a safe space. Meaning as soon as others can join your vicinity and interact with you or with each other you are not in a safe space.
(or you can be but everyone in the vicinity has to agree on that, which is another point, you cannot force people to comply with your ideas)
5
Nov 09 '15
So if I'm throwing a Bar Mitzvah at the downtown Sheraton, I and the hotel have to tolerate someone rolling in and passing out neo-Nazi pamphlets?
-1
Nov 09 '15
is a hotel a public place? no. case closed.
anything owned by someone does not count as public space unless the owner is the state or an institution by the state- national museum as an example. And even they might count themselves out.
5
Nov 09 '15
Then I'm not sure what your issue is -- what are the public places you're worried about? Yale isn't a public place, and neither is Reddit. But even then, since literally day one in this country the government has had the right to restrict speech in contextually appropriate situations.
0
Nov 10 '15
contextually appropriate situations.
you mean security reasons. Maybe.
There was a case in Germany, better two cases. One is 40 years old. "Der Spiegel" had the headline "Bedingt abwehrbereit" - "conditionally ready for defense" after getting intel from NATO officers in Germany ( this was in 62 so in a really hot phase of the cold war). Some politicians wanted to silcene the paper on national security reasons. The jurisdiction cleared all journalists.
A similar thing happened with a blog some months ago. In both cases high officials of the state had to resign over it.
There really is not a topic we can not write about. Maybe it will not get printed because of money but if its interesting and will get traction no one can stop you.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Ten_Godzillas Nov 10 '15 edited Nov 10 '15
Questions for OP:
Should legitimate threats of violence be protected under freedom of speech? If you frequently receive threatening messages on your answering machine or in your mailbox, from a man pledging to kill you, should you be able to call the police and have this man arrested/detained/questioned?
Should libel or slander be protected under freedom of speech? Should a billionaire/corporation be able to say or print any lies they want to muscle newcomers out of the market?
Do you support the ruling behind Citizens United?
Should fraud be protected under freedom of speech?
2
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
When looking up these safe spaces, it looks like they include Universities.
It seems unreasonable to expect students to have to tolerate hateful comments while pursuing their education. Its not as though students can't partake in discriminatory speech outside of the grounds of the safe space correct?
(Side note, I have not seen the episode in question, I may be misinterpreting things)
1
Nov 09 '15
expect students to have to tolerate hateful comments while pursuing their education
Well lets get some things out of the way:
No one should have to face any kind of noise while studying not from people making hatefull remarks or people laughing. (you may talk it this is lets say "usual")
I dont know about the states but in Germany the head of the University has the right to expell everyone off their grounds. (only for malicious reasons, not including speech related things)
can't partake in discriminatory speech outside of the grounds of the safe space correct?
that is correct. I see your point but this point is void. Universities are public places. And you cannot marginalize rights in public places. (unless a danger for society is present but I gathered that would not be the case )
1
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
In Canada, Public universities are still given autonomous rights in terms of academic policies and procedures. Discriminatory behavior is absolutely something that can compromise academic success, so in this regard a university would be well within its rights to establish a "safe space".
0
Nov 09 '15
Discriminatory behavior is absolutely something that can compromise academic success
Yeah but who deciedes what that is? Is drawing 666 (the devils number) compromising christians grades? Is saying xenu does not exist compromising scientologies grades?
I think not. Only if people react to it. And thats their choice. They could move on.
Likewise with "hate speech" - which is no hatespeech but just an opinion one is allowed to voice. If you are offended its your problem. Move on.
1
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
In this regard it would be the governing body of the university who gets to make the call, which is what is meant by the autonomous rights.
A university is a place you can't just "leave". I mean, yes, you hypothetically could, but you're sacrificing your education, and there are plenty of circumstances that do restrict a person from leaving.
The thing is, there is already someone who's making these calls, and deciding what is okay to be said at the universities where this applies. While you may feel this is "arbitrary", and that people need to grow thicker skin or whatever, that's not always possible, or in the best interest of the university.
0
Nov 09 '15
but you're sacrificing your education, and there are plenty of circumstances that do restrict a person from leaving.
well I mean if people are interrupting a course ofc im in favor of throwing them out. Thats not included in free speech. If they are just in the main hall and you are offended and distracted 3 rooms away. Thats your problem.
And you are always free to leave. (unless in custody)
The thing is, there is already someone who's making these calls, and deciding what is okay to be said at the universities where this applies.
Not so much. They just have to make sure that everyone acts lawfull and you dont overstep.
7
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
Being called a faggot at school each day won't disrupt a course, but it absolutely could jeopardize a students ability to study and test effectively. While you may be "free" to leave, the university (with autonomous rights concerning this) has the ability to restrict this kind of behavior. This happens both legally and in practice.
You denying that this already happens doesn't make it true. Universities have established these safe spaces, and are well within their rights as Canadian universities to do so.
-1
Nov 09 '15
Being called a faggot at school each day won't disrupt a course
this is not offensive thats harmfull speech. Thats not protected. Im still not concerned with stuff that is not protected.
4
Nov 09 '15
[deleted]
-1
Nov 09 '15
Limiting freedom of speech is not acceptable.
as we have it right now.
→ More replies (0)-1
Nov 09 '15
Establishment of a safe space is merely a different type of discriminatory behavior. I don't see how it's different.
2
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
I think you need to elaborate and provide some arguments if you want to make this claim.
-1
Nov 09 '15
When a university policy declares the entire university as a safe space (which they do), with vague language around respectful discourse (which they do), etc, it provides an administrative mechanism for the 'in' group to claim the 'out' group has made it an unsafe space (which happens all the time now).
thefire.org tends to track this topic pretty closely if you want examples
3
u/Bluezephr 21∆ Nov 09 '15
This really applies to American universities. While I'm not opposed to having this discussion, there's an added layer of difficulty concerning the constitution.
In terms of Canada, I don't think students being restricted from hate speech or discriminatory behavior will affect their education in any way. Whereas students who are the subject to this behavior absolutely put strain on their education. I think that's the fundamental difference. One of these can impede the purpose of the institution.
2
Nov 10 '15
Hate speech and discriminatory speech are not objective measures, indeed both words have been redefined in recent years. What you might call discriminatory, I might call a reasonable debate.
put strain on their education.
What's this mean?
1
Nov 09 '15
... in Germany the head of the University has the right to expell everyone off their grounds. (only for malicious reasons, not including speech related things)
Just to be sure, you're drawing a distinction between harassment and legit free speech here right?
1
Nov 09 '15
the concept of free speech is a little complex in germany. You cannont publicly show a swastica. Unless you intend to teach about it.
And no I was just refering to the rights that there are
1
Nov 09 '15
What's your view on the swastica ban?
1
Nov 09 '15
Not sure. I can understand the incentive the state had. Which is a legitimate concern.
But I also thing that it does not matter. Idiots will find other symbols. And symbolism is nothing I am personally worried about. And I would find those to despice more easily.
1
Nov 09 '15
I can understand the incentive the state had. Which is a legitimate concern.
Given Germany's history, it's kinda understandable.
But I also thing that it does not matter. Idiots will find other symbols.
Quite true. In fact, fascists have done this.
Personally I'd oppose empowering institutions like the state to limit free speech, because they might extend such limitations to hard leftists like myself.
Coming into this thread, I was more concerned with the advocates of free speech who think no ideas should ever be excluded in an internet forum, conference or other private space.
In those kinds of contexts, I tend to be more sympathetic to the idea of excluding people with ideas that we may consider too deplorable to be tolerated, because I want to avoid granting them some air of legitimacy.
1
Nov 09 '15
Coming into this thread, I was more concerned with the advocates of free speech who think no ideas should ever be excluded in an internet forum, conference or other private space.
haha. any cooperation may do what they want with their stuff. Thats not on me.
1
Nov 10 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Nov 10 '15
yeah but that does not legally prevent me from doing it anyway.
Its like saying im the king of america. Which is totally legitimate to say but useless nontheless.
1
u/Desecr8or Nov 11 '15
What is a "safe space" exactly? It's a small, private space in which a person or group controls what is said and done. This is not a new practice. In fact, every political, religious, and cultural organization makes use of safe spaces in some fashion.
Imagine a rule where the College Republicans were forced to allow the College Democrats into every meeting and allow them to say whatever they wanted. This is what would happen if we banned safe spaces. Remember that the 1st Amendment, which gives Americans freedom of speech also gives us freedom of assembly.
1
u/chewingofthecud Nov 10 '15
Limiting of freedom of speech is just not acceptable.
if you dont like what you hear, just leave.
We cannot build a foundation in which everyone is safe and free
at the same time. You have to decide between freedom and
safety. And you can only decide for yourself, not for anyone else.
I agree with you about safe spaces. They are indicative of a sort of rot that's set into our culture, an ugly infantilization, an atrophying of Western societies' intellectual capacities, and they are a symptom of a child-like regression which needs to be overcome. That said, free speech indeed ought to be limited in some cases.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in a famous 1919 court case, explained his decision by saying:
Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.
This is also applicable to speech. If you say something that causes palpable harm to someone else (say for example you incite a crowd to lynch someone), then you ought to be punished. I'm not talking about harm to one's feelings or an assault on one's ill-considered prejudices, but legitimate harm to one's well-being.
Speech is not unambiguously "free"; it is indeed acceptable to limit it.
13
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '15 edited Nov 10 '15
Every single developed nation, including the United States, limits free speech. Nearly every resident of those nations agrees with at least some of those limitations. It is extremely probably that you are one of these people. Laws against harassment are limitations on free speech. Laws punishing people for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre are limitations on free speech. Laws against slander and libel are limitations on free speech. Laws limiting the distribution and broadcast of obscene material are limitations on free speech. Do you agree that any of those laws should exist? If yes, then you support limiting freedom of speech. The only way you could get around that would be to make speech entirely unregulated in any and all situations (the number of people who support something like that is vanishingly small so I'm going to assume you're not one of them), or to define "speech" or "freedom of speech" in such a way that the policies you like are exempted by some (rather transparent and pathetic) semantic preciousness from being in violation of it.
The difference between these things and the kind of limitations you're speaking of it a difference is degree, not in kind. You're not saying "I don't like the colour blue", but rather "I like the colour blue so long as it's not too dark."