Free Speech Legislation in Wisconsin

[MomentsofSanity]

Right wing nutjobs are reacting to people who find their horrific opinions horrific, by denying those people their opinions.

Ten bucks says DSF goes on The_Donald.

The same who are calling for Kathy Griffin to be blackballed everywhere because of her reprehensible speech no less.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The "MORE EQUAL" legislating their "MORE EQUAL" into law.

 

[WelshBloke]

Why should the government be writing school rules?

Small government yay!

 

[xthetenth]

Offering students exposure to various mainstream political ideologies is an essential element of higher education imo. Those bigots who cannot tolerate such diversity of thought being made available to the broader student population should consider attending other "educational" institutions where viewpoints are more controlled to their liking.

Okay. So I assume you'll be backing me up in calling for actual outright Communist speakers? Frankly I don't think their ideas can be reconciled with reality, but the same is true of the professional trolls the right loves to tar themselves with by declaring them "conservative".

I don't know when it happened but universities used to be the bastion of free speech and now they are in the news more for preventing/interrupting speakers they hate. We need to accept opinions we disagree with enough to let them speak. Liberal or Conservative they all have a viewpoint that is valid, otherwise it would be a black and white discussion with a right answer and a wrong answer. This is sad our universities are no longer accepting anymore.

As long as you can come out with something that sounds good to conservatives, it doesn't matter how ludicrously disgusting your ideology actually is, you can market yourself on opposition to your ideas to people desperate to pretend their ideology is oppressed rather than simply incompatible with intellectual rigor.

 

[Commodus]

This goes well beyond Milo and Coulter...but I do understand your need to frame it as such. And nobody's life is going to be ruined by shouting out one line of protest (did you read the article?)...but again, I do understand your need to frame it as such.

It's not about how I "frame it as such." It's obviously designed in response to protests like those in Berkeley; I'm not stupid. Yes, I did read the article, and yes, one line could cause a lot of trouble. If you're ordered to go a hearing, that's likely going to stay on your record. And of course, you start facing outright penalties if you dare speak out a second time. This is designed to have a chilling effect on protests, and no amount of weasel language from you will change that absolute fact.

 

[Vic]

Protecting free speech by suppressing dissenting speech. This is ridiculous.

 

[fskimospy]

Protecting free speech by suppressing dissenting speech. This is ridiculous.

I think the phrase 'Orwellian' is massively, massively overused but it's hard to think of many situations where it applies better than in this situation. Supposed small government conservatives are trying to get the government to suppress speech they don't like in order to 'protect free speech'. Absolutely disgusting, and naturally from the same people who think of themselves as defenders of the Constitution.

 

[zinfamous]

Offering students exposure to various mainstream political ideologies is an essential element of higher education imo. Those bigots who cannot tolerate such diversity of thought being made available to the broader student population should consider attending other "educational" institutions where viewpoints are more controlled to their liking.

I agree.

But there is a also a responsibility within the institution from separating out the nonsense yelling, screaming, hateful nonsense from actual political ideologies. Inviting yokels like Coulter or Yeaianaoupolous or Cernovich is rather irresponsible. I mean, give me the comparables to those clowns on the left and I'll make the same claim.

I think you are confusing the mission of education with just "blind exposure to noise" as something that is acceptable. It isn't. We've fallen into this pit over the last couple of decades, through the long, steady priming of bias-confirmation and de-education of what can fairly be called the Fox base and, to a lesser extent, the Mother Jones zealots.

So yeah--if you are going to invite these people and provide them a venue, then the responsible thing is to let them have their venue. But at that point, you've already failed. Simply inviting clowns to speak is its own acknowledgement that they have points worth discussing.

 

[Vic]

I think the phrase 'Orwellian' is massively, massively overused but it's hard to think of many situations where it applies better than in this situation. Supposed small government conservatives are trying to get the government to suppress speech they don't like in order to 'protect free speech'. Absolutely disgusting, and naturally from the same people who think of themselves as defenders of the Constitution.

If we're going to to use literary analogies, my sense of this kind of lawmaking is more inclined to the Star Wars prequels. Use propaganda to create a phantom menace, then use the resultant fear to convince people to give up their freedom under the guise of protecting it.

 

[cytg111]

Looks like Wisconsin conservatives have had enough one-sided "free speech" on college campuses and are taking measures to effectively mandate students to tolerate those who don't share their particular ideology. I'm personally good with this and am curious how others feel about it. Please try to keep it civil.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...dents-who-disrupt-speakers-moves-forward.html

Wisconsin bill that would expel or suspend students who disrupt speakers moves forward
Published May 31, 2017

MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Assembly Republicans moved closer to creating tougher penalties for University of Wisconsin student protesters Tuesday, advancing a bill that would suspend or expel students who disrupt speakers.

The Assembly Committee on Colleges and Universities approved the bill on an 8-6 vote. This sends the bill to the Assembly floor, which hopes to take it up in June, said Kit Beyer, a spokeswoman for Speaker Robin Vos, who is also one of the measure's co-sponsors.

All six Democrats on the committee voted against the bill, warning it would chill free speech on campus and infringe on regents' authority to govern their institutions themselves.

"The very bones of this legislation are diseased," said Democratic Rep. Jimmy Anderson.

The proposal's chief author, Rep. Jesse Kremer, said the measure is designed to safeguard democracy.

"This bill is a good balance that will ensure everyone has the right to be heard and has the right to free expression on our college campuses," he said.

Under the bill, complaints from any two people about a UW System student's conduct during a speech or presentation would trigger a hearing. Students found to have twice engaged in violence or disorderly conduct that disrupts another freedom of expression twice would be suspended for a semester. A third offense would mean expulsion. Complaints from any two people about the student's conduct would trigger a hearing before a new UW Council on Free Expression. UW institutions also would be required to remain neutral on public policy controversies.

The measure comes as free speech issues have grown more contentious on colleges across the country, fostering concerns among Republicans that conservative speakers aren't treated equally.

UW-Madison students in November shouted down former Breitbart editor and conservative columnist Ben Shapiro. The University of California-Berkley canceled a speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter in April due to security concerns. Protests broke out at that school in February ahead of a planned appearance by former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. And fights broke out at New York University last year after protesters disrupted a speech by Gavin McInnes, founder of a group called the "Proud Boys" and a self-described chauvinist.

Conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has registered in support of the bill. The League of Women Voters as well as PROFS, a group of UW-Madison faculty, and government watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign have registered in opposition.

Committee Democrats decried the bill as unconstitutional and predicted it would open the door to political witch hunts. Partisan operatives will attend presentations in pairs so they can file the requisite two complaints against students they disagree with, the Democrats said.

"Don't you see a concern about two left-wing or two right-wing students raising an issue with perceived activity by students attending an event?" Hebl said. "Don't you see the floodgates opening?"

Kremer asked Hebl if he had a better idea. Hebl responded that he couldn't see any way to make the bill better.

Republican Rep. Travis Tranel told the committee he had heard from college students in his district that they're afraid to express conservative views in class for fear the professor could dock their grades.

Hebl and fellow Democrat Terese Berceau both cut him off, challenging him to prove his anecdote was true. Hebl accused Tranel of making things up without any evidence, comparing him to Joe McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator who claimed he had built a list of Communists within the federal government in the 1950s.

Tranel said he could think of three individuals who had told him they were afraid to speak out in class.

"I couldn't even get my comments out today without being interrupted," Tranel said.​

I think these cases are tough. Freedom of speech, hell yea. Using freedom of speech to supress freedom of speech, yea that gets rocky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
I dont know, I'd like to go all out on the freedom of speech limb but I also know our society is susceptible to hate speakers and their kin eroding the system from within when its too tolerant.
I cant call it, am not smart enough.

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't know when it happened but universities used to be the bastion of free speech and now they are in the news more for preventing/interrupting speakers they hate. We need to accept opinions we disagree with enough to let them speak. Liberal or Conservative they all have a viewpoint that is valid, otherwise it would be a black and white discussion with a right answer and a wrong answer. This is sad our universities are no longer accepting anymore.

That's the crux of the problem. And no.

 

[bshole]

You have to understand. Free speech means citizens cannot suppress other citizens' speech. It does not apply to the government suppressing the speech of citizens. That shit is actually a good thing.

I mean, what could possibly go wrong when Universities cede the power to expel students to the government? Unicorns and rainbows all the way.

UW is already part of the government so technically it has already ceded the power to expel students to the government.

Objectionable speech should be free on universities. Engaging in boorish behavior is not an appropriate nor effective response.

That being said, the standard of evidence to bring charges seem pretty damn pathetic. Two witnesses?! I would think the evidence to bring charges must include an actual recording of the event. The political persuasion of the "judges" could also be problematic. The panel should include at least one hard core liberal and one hard core conservative and the decision to expel must be unanimous. That would help to remove politics from the expel decision.

 

[chucky2]

"chill free speech on campus and infringe on regents' authority to govern their institutions themselves."

Translation: It won't allow our screech whining activists to shout down anything we don't like and won't allow us to do nothing about it so as to protect said whiners.

 

[UglyCasanova]

I don't agree with this legislation and I agree with the D's that voted against on the grounds that it would chill free speech.

The reason this legislation came about in the first place is equally worrying. SJW's pushing to ban speech they don't agree with on campuses is just as bad. Disagreeing with someone is absolutely no grounds to limit their freedom to speech and it's absurd in the year 2017 we can't see this.

 

[crashtech]

While I can't get behind legislation restricting free speech, the death of civility in campus discourse is a troubling thing to witness. Is there a way civility can be revived without trampling freedom?

 

[Zorba]

I don't know when it happened but universities used to be the bastion of free speech and now they are in the news more for preventing/interrupting speakers they hate. We need to accept opinions we disagree with enough to let them speak. Liberal or Conservative they all have a viewpoint that is valid, otherwise it would be a black and white discussion with a right answer and a wrong answer. This is sad our universities are no longer accepting anymore.

It doesn't make the news when a speech goes off without an issue at any random university. My university used to have politicians come a decent amount and I never saw any real protest against them, even when W came.

 

[brandonbull]

How does Milo or Ann Coulter represent a mainstream political ideology? Protecting professional trolls is not exposing people to diversity -- it's just rewarding publicity-seeking assholes.

I wouldn't object to this legislation quite so much if it weren't obviously intended to suppress dissent against those sorts of people in particular. It's vaguely worded and suggests that you could have your academic life ruined just for shouting one line of protest. I won't be surprised if this is successfully challenged in court.

Last time I checked, people are under zero obligation to attend the speech of "professional trolls". Don't like what they have to say, don't attend.

 

[brandonbull]

The same who are calling for Kathy Griffin to be blackballed everywhere because of her reprehensible speech no less.

Promoting the killing of someone is out of bounds for free speech.

 

[Commodus]

I don't agree with this legislation and I agree with the D's that voted against on the grounds that it would chill free speech.

The reason this legislation came about in the first place is equally worrying. SJW's pushing to ban speech they don't agree with on campuses is just as bad. Disagreeing with someone is absolutely no grounds to limit their freedom to speech and it's absurd in the year 2017 we can't see this.

I agree with this. If you think it's okay to try and scare students into silence, you're opening a can of worms. What do you think schools are going to do? They just won't take those controversial speakers -- they might not accept a Milo type if they know they'll be scheduling hearings for every student that dares speak up.

 

[fskimospy]

Last time I checked, people are under zero obligation to attend the speech of "professional trolls". Don't like what they have to say, don't attend.

Why not attend the speech and counter with speech of your own? Nothing more American than a good protest.

 

[ivwshane]

Why not attend the speech and counter with speech of your own? Nothing more American than a good protest.

Counter? How do you post YouTube videos and gifs in real life?

 

[xthetenth]

Last time I checked, people are under zero obligation to attend the speech of "professional trolls". Don't like what they have to say, don't attend.

If what people are saying advocates your rights, freedom or safety being treated as negotiable, you can't opt out of the effects.

 

[Xellos2099]

Ain't the students who shut down speech they do not like also violate Freedom of Speech as well? Everyone know university protect student who protest at event they do not like. It go both way. If there is a liberal speaker and conservative come to protest, you will see liberal want blood.

 

[dainthomas]

Promoting the killing of someone is out of bounds for free speech.

Isn't that equivalent to burning someone in effigy? Shouldn't take me long to find a couple thousand pictures of people doing that to Obama.

 

[ivwshane]

Promoting the killing of someone is out of bounds for free speech.

Yep and I remember you coming out strongly when Ted Nugent was calling for Obama to be hung and when Palin put target sights on congressional opponents.

Do you remember your posts?








/s