April 13, 2017

"Free Speech = Hate Speech."

A sign, photographed on the campus of Brown University.

77 comments:

David said...

It's free nevertheless.

MaxedOutMama said...

Seems like educators have a little work to do, doesn't it?

Once written, twice... said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Once written, twice... said...

Obviously a right winger posted that and then took a picture.

rehajm said...

We'll be so much better at winning once we eliminate the opposition.

mockturtle said...

Ivy League universities have certainly lost their luster.

Richard said...

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. They love Big Brother!

rhhardin said...

What's wrong with hate speech? A magical category dreamed up.

rhhardin said...

Physics = hate speech.

tcrosse said...

It depends whom you hate. I'm sure there's a list of approved Hate-Objects.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Someone doesn't know their mathematical symbols.

Hate Speech ⊂ Free Speech

rhhardin said...

Speech hate has been overlooked.

madAsHell said...

Mom and Dad just keep writing the checks.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Once written, twice... said...
Obviously a right winger posted that and then took a picture.

4/13/17, 8:48 AM

Must be, because we have seen how tolerant and fair-minded campus leftists are when it comes to conservative speakers.

BarrySanders20 said...

I suppose it is possible, Once Bitten, if it wasn't for fake "Free speech = Hate speech" signs, there wouldn't be any "Free speech = Hate speech" signs. So it could be a false flag or a conservative being edgy. We know campus leftists would never stifle speech they disagreed with.

Quayle said...

It is almost as if the last sqauare meter of common ground is eroding before our very eyes.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Ivy League = Bullshit

Otto said...

The equation is incomplete,
Free speech = hate speech + love speech + dirty speech + clean speech + ........

exiledonmainstreet said...

There is a ha8er running around SE Wisconsin at this very moment - a dangerous one who broke into a gun store and stole a zillion guns.

He also wrote a 161 page manifesto to Donald Trump, threatening the President and going on about the evil 1 percent. The loon also hates religion and local authorities are warning churches to keep an eye out this weekend, just in case he wants to make a statement on Easter Sunday. There is also fear, based on his manifesto, that he will target schools.

When you read the comments in today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, you learn that this anti-Trump, anti-religious loon must be - a "disappointed Trump supporter!" Because no leftist would ever threaten violence!

Henry said...

Ce n'est pas un signe

virgil xenophon said...

Of all the Ivies Brown has always had the most outre leftist campus culture..

AprilApple said...

Scratch a progressive, find a totalitarian.

William said...

Is it possible that some currently despised opinion will someday become part of the conventional wisdom and morality of the future? Are all the leftist orthodoxies presently at such a level of pefection and benignity that any effort to subvert them is hate speech?.......Why is it necessary to become a Red Guard in order to defend against the brownshirts.

BarrySanders20 said...

exiled, the nutjob also is a Walker recall petition signer. Not exactly a lifelong Republican.

bagoh20 said...

The only way it makes an intelligent statement is if it's a right winger being facetious.

And isn't it fun how "right winger" now means defender of civil rights. Being conservative means defending the proven principles like free speech. "Liberal" now means nothing but change for change's sake, until you spin all the way round to fascism. I suppose if we just wait long enough they will be back around driving their train with the serious determination they like to sport, and they'll be going the right direction again.

gspencer said...

"Scratch a progressive, find a totalitarian."

Amen !!!

Does this generation, and significant percentages of older generations, not understand and appreciate that controlling the government is the most important part of the Constitution?

Others have said it; so I will again. When the people control/contain/limit the government, peace. When the government controls the people, tyranny.

buwaya said...

These signs are not new. This is just yesterdays example.

The position is derived from ancient Leninism, continuously rejustified by later generations, on slightly different grounds each time. In my day the authority was Marcuse. These days they have other authorities.

Brando said...

Could they at least put "University" in quotes as it quite clearly is not a place of learning if such attitudes predominate?

Big Mike said...

Well, I do hate people who hate free speech.

Big Mike said...

I'm trying to figure out what sort of parents hate their kids enough to send than to Brown.

DanTheMan said...

Your free speech is violence. My violence is free speech.

Tari said...

There has to be a huge market opportunity for schools who push back against this kind of garbage. I truly believe that the majority of the kids at these schools are just keeping their heads down and avoiding the crazies. Why as a parent would you pay for that (for the cost of a Ferrari, mind you) when you could send your kid somewhere that allowed everyone to speak?

Although I have to say, between these kinds of issues and things like co-ed bathrooms, it's become ridiculously easy for a conservative/libertarian to put together a college list. 85% of the schools in the country don't make the first cut.

Francisco D said...

The answer to perceived offensive or "hate" speech is more, not less speech.

However, the anti-free speech movement appears to be growing in leftist enclaves.

Rick said...

MaxedOutMama said... [hush]​[hide comment]
Seems like educators have a little work to do, doesn't it?


Since they caused the problem in the first place I don't think more of their work is going to help.

hawkeyedjb said...

And we know we can't have any "hate speech." The only goal of the hate-speech definers is censorship, which of course isn't really censorship, since you shouldn't go around saying things that are unapproved or incorrect.

By the way, I'm applying for the presidency of the board that's going to define "hate speech." Lotta people gonna have to shut up when I start making the rules.

Mike Sylwester said...

Check all the squares that contain telephone-pole signs.

Bob Boyd said...

It's even worse than you think.
They tore down a Missing Kitty sign to put up their sticker.

That's the kind of people we're dealing with.

Fernandinande said...

"The sun, the darkness, the winds are all listening to what we have to say." -- Geronimoooooo

YoungHegelian said...

As BP says above, why is anyone surprised at this? Since the days of Marx, "free speech" was a bourgeois value that only advantaged the bourgeoisie in their oppression of the proletariat. There were only two types of government -- the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat. The dictatorship of the proletariat also had true freedom of speech because it spoke the truth -- the viewpoint of the international proletariat. The "lying voices" of the bourgeoisie were suppressed in the interests of "truth".

So, nowadays, just replace "bourgeoisie" with "white supremacy", "hetero-normative", "patriarchal", or whatever is the buzz phrase of the hour & "proletariat" with the speaker's favorite oppressed sub-group, & ---voila!--- a perfectly sound reason for the suppression of what classical liberals call "free speech". 'Cause, it's time those "marginalized voices" get their say, ya know?

There's absolutely nothing new about any of this on the Left.

Owen said...

Tari: "...Although I have to say, between these kinds of issues and things like co-ed bathrooms, it's become ridiculously easy for a conservative/libertarian to put together a college list. 85% of the schools in the country don't make the first cut."

What you said. This screening/rating process could be a nice little business. Because I have to think a lot of parents, and an increasing number of increasingly-unhappy parents, are trying to figure out what their very fat checks are actually buying. In a world where a Harvard diploma guarantees a six-figure salary, hey, OK, the PC stuff can be ignored. But in a world where the ROI is far less obvious, and where Harvard's PC culture is actually making its diploma LESS valuable, the calculus is very different.

The calculus is changing as we speak. Somebody who can help guide investors --kids and their parents-- could do very well indeed. Call it the new US News and World Report ranking system.

Fernandinande said...

Mike Sylwester said...
Check all the squares that contain telephone-pole signs.


I was going to say it was just a telephone-polish joke, but it didn't look much like a telephone pole. Does that make it subtle?

Rick said...

Tari said... [hush]​[hide comment]
85% of the schools in the country don't make the first cut.


How do the 95+ percent of students repelled by campus radicalism fit on the remaining 15% of campuses? You can see the hive-mind at work: if people have no alternatives they will have to accept left-radicalism dominating politics on campuses.

This has additional benefits later off-campus because everyone is conditioned to both accept left wing proselytizing and to remain silent about all other politics. Since effectively all elites go through college all our institutions are dominated by this thinking, including businesses. A clear example is Silicon Valley where CEOs routinely push left wing nonsense (Melinda Byerley, Ellen Pao) while heretics (Brendan Eich) are punished even when their heresy is not business related.

Luke Lea said...

Free speech = all kinds of speech

Static Ping said...

Free Speech = Hate Speech --> Civil War

That's basically the reason why Freedom of Speech exists. When a view is censored, the only alternative to advance their ideas is violence. This is something the Founders were quite familiar.

TWW said...

And...Hate Speech = Speech I Hate.

mockturtle said...

"Liberal" now means nothing but change for change's sake, until you spin all the way round to fascism.

Cliche alert: bagoh20, you and April at 9:18 have really hit the nail on the head.

Gahrie said...

When you are incapable of winning an argument due to the weakness of your position and your ignorance of history, you have to prevent the argument. In order to prevent the argument you must shut your opponents up.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Many minorities have a great fear of freedom and especially of democracy. They want to become the client people of a powerful state that values them and will protect them from the majority.
This isn't just an American thing, it happens in other countries as well, but in America it has more of a racial aspect, and it is more in opposition to our American republican values.

Bob Ellison said...

Brown is the college where in 1984, the students voted to ask the school health services to stockpile suicide pills in case of nuclear war.

What can Brown kill for you?

Gahrie said...

The modern meaning of the word "liberal" is nothing more than licentiousness. Which is why the Left switched back to Progressive. Of course, they have run that into the ground too....it will be interesting to see if they shift back to liberal...or perhaps move on to populist?

mockturtle said...

Lewis, I'm not sure about 'many minorities'. It does apply to Muslims, whose ideology is antithetical to democracy.

buwaya puti said...

The being a client people of a powerful state, or sovereign, was the ancient Jewish situation, as also that of the overseas Chinese. Both had a problem with local populism.

SeanF said...

The sign is ambiguous. Does it mean that "free speech" must be restricted, because it's "hate speech", or does it mean that "hate speech" must be protected, because it's "free speech"?

Bob Boyd said...

They just want people to be nice.
Don't you think everything would be so much better if people would just be nice? Or at least, if they can't be nice, they should be quiet, right?
And let's face it, that's never going to happen unless we make people like super sorry for not being nice and quiet.
What's wrong with trying to make things so much better for everyone?
I don't get why this isn't like so obvious to people.

Rick said...

Marc Black It seems the parameters of the debate are, on one side, the alt-right people who claim the right to say anything negative or hurtful about people who are Muslims, LGBTQIA, poor, disabled, black, Latino, Asian, women, men, or anyone else (and sorry to people I've left off this list). On the other side of the debate are pc people (remember "the thought police") who claim the right to be protected from hearing people who make them "feel uncomfortable." I disagree with both sides. Perhaps the issue is not really about free speech vs hate speech, but is more meta and more about the debate of free speech vs hate speech.

Here's one left commenter believing he supports a "reasonable" left position but whose positions in fact support left extremism while denying responsibility for it. He claims to be pursuing a third (moderate) way but in doing so both denies that those on the right are already pursuing the middle path and validates the mis-presentation of reality by the left extremists. As a result he's supporting their vision.

In reality it is simply not true that free speech conflict is limited to alt-right racism.
Anti-free speechers routinely describe any dissent from left-extreme orthodoxy as racist and more recently anyone who disagrees with them as white supremacists. By supporting these far left positions those who claim to be pursuing a reasonable liberal position reveal themselves as delusional or deceitful.

Sam L. said...

I'm guessing it was put up by a Brown Brown Shirt.

Owen said...

Sean F: "The sign is ambiguous. Does it mean that 'free speech' must be restricted, because it's 'hate speech', or does it mean that 'hate speech' must be protected, because it's 'free speech'?"

I confess to the same confusion. It looks like an equivalence but I keep trying to map it from A to B and then from B to A. Thus: for me it can mean (should mean): "Hate Speech is [contained in] Free Speech, therefore even it is protected." While of course those who put up the sign want into mean "Free Speech is [contains] Hate Speech, therefore it must be attacked."

Ignorance Is Bliss @ 8:56 hit this on the proverbial head. "Hate Speech ⊂ Free Speech"

Just to be tedious, I want to point out the sleazy move when one goes from Free Speech to Hate Speech as logical categories. Free Speech is about maximum (total?) play. One can objectively test for this condition: has anything been banned? Answer, if no, implies that free speech is present.

Whereas Hate Speech can only be tested subjectively. The veto has passed to the crybullies. Anyone can invoke this condition and thereby defeat Free Speech. Somebody out there in the audience has the sadz --or says xe does-- so everything must stop.

Real American said...

not all free speech is hate speech, but all hate speech is free speech.

buwaya said...

As in so many things, this matter does not reward logical or philosophical analysis.
Some people like to do that, but it is entirely irrelevant.
This is pure power politics, and its mode of warfare is propaganda.

Owen said...

buwaya: word.

But I do think there's a business out there, steering future investors away from the sickest environments. Right now we seem to be limited to F.I.R.E.'s green/yellow/red ranking of speech codes on campus, and similar efforts along one or two dimensions of the problem.

Unknown said...

With one exception, the Brown undergrads that I've met in my life as an academic have been the most strident and the stupidest. Moreso than students from other ivies, though it's a narrow call.

The one exception did not like his time there.

Clark said...

I hope the reflexive property of equality applies.

Owen said...

Ivy is becoming a pejorative.

Owen said...

Just a random thought here: as our media enable Everyone to sample more stuff, respond more directly, organize outside the usual or traditional channels of influence, do we not see brands becoming more vulnerable? Not only to being attacked or undermined by snark or inconvenient reportage, but by wholesale redefintion? The role of the President of Brown University is, IMHO (and roughly speaking), to protect the brand and raise money on it. And here come these feral children messing up his game. And there is almost nothing xe can do about it.

A big shift in power is happening.

Sigivald said...

Well, we might as well just close those universities, then.

If they're giving up on liberal education, they give up on their raison d'etre and the justification for tenure and academic freedom, after all.

William Chadwick said...

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

n.n said...

Abortion anywhere is debasement everywhere.

Tari said...

Owen, you're right - there is (or should be) something more to go on, to find out what kind of school you're really dealing with. So far we're using Heterodox Academy's college list, reading the IRI guide they recommend, and generally keeping an eye on stories from College Fix, etc. Since the IRI guide is a few years old, though, I'm having to check on residential life web pages at each school, to see if things have changed w/r/t co-ed baths, rooms, floors, etc. It's tiring.

What I don't understand on the co-ed bathroom issue: why do leftist parents go along with it? They're supposed to believe the stats that colleges are all about "rape culture", and that women are less safe on campus than they are in biker bars. If that's the case, why do they want all those knuckle-dragging, misogynist men showering with their precious wittle daughters? Why aren't colleges quietly walking away from this idea for that very reason (hello liability if something goes wrong)? It all makes no sense to me. And buwaya is right, this is about power, not logic. But still ...

buwaya said...

"They're supposed to believe the stats that colleges are all about "rape culture", and that women are less safe on campus than they are in biker bars."

Leftists don't believe any of this stuff is true, not really. They are not logical in disputation. Its part of the pattern. There is a huge lot else where their behavior diverges from their assertions. They just want to win arguments, and feel good about that, and don't have a deep concern with the truth of it. You see it all the time with Inga and Once.. and PB&J for instance. These are typical.

Its all about power, or the second-hand perception of power, and they will use whatever means are to hand.

buwaya said...

I go back to good old Alan Bloom. He described the process of intellectual decadence and its consequences. Reason is irrelevant in modern universities.

Yes of course anyone with good sense will attempt to reject such an understanding. It is I guess the way one must accept that an insane person, or say a drug addict, cannot be reasoned with, or has severe limits to reason. We can keep fooling ourselves that they have normal capabilities, or can be cured, but they can't.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Leftists don't believe any of this stuff is true, not really. They are not logical in disputation. Its part of the pattern. There is a huge lot else where their behavior diverges from their assertions. They just want to win arguments, and feel good about that, and don't have a deep concern with the truth of it. You see it all the time with Inga and Once.. and PB&J for instance. These are typical."

In other words, Fen's Law: "Liberals don't really believe in the stuff they lecture the rest of us about."

JaimeRoberto said...

It would have worked better as a Venn diagram.

Robert said...

D-

Show your work.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Blogger buwaya puti said...
The being a client people of a powerful state, or sovereign, was the ancient Jewish situation, as also that of the overseas Chinese. Both had a problem with local populism.

4/13/17, 10:44 AM

Not just the Jews in ancient times, Buwaya. There is a strong anti-populist streak among modern American Jews as well. Stronger than in the general population, anyway.
Ta Nahesi Coates explicitly rejects democracy as dangerous to Black people.
Lincoln was able to argue for political equality of Blacks without resorting to pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about the biological equivalence of the races. We know longer seem to be able to do that.

Owen said...

Buwaya: your ref to Alan Bloom wins you extra points.

Not that you need any.

Not that it will make a difference.

Sigh.

Leigh said...

The next sign will be shorter: "speech = hate"

Somebody said...

Rather embarrassed to admit here that I went to Brown, many, many years ago. It didn't have an "outre leftist culture" when I started. Socially, it was a mix of preppies, jocks and geeky engineers, alot of them Harvard or Yale rejects. Politically, everything was about the Viêt Nam war. Nobody admitted to being gay. The idea that a movie star like Emma Watson would go there would have seemed laughable.

Then the administration "reformed" the curriculum, eliminating almost all required courses. Applications shot up and celebritry offspring, who didn't have to worry about getting a job after graduation, started to arrive. The children of the Democratic elite all seemed to go there and the Hollywood glitterati soon followed. That led to the situation now, where concern about actually learning something in college seems quaint.

For years I was a loyal alum who made modest annual contributions. No more.