• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Free Speech Legislation in Wisconsin

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.​
 
Free speech advocacy is now apparently coercing people into silence by threatening their expulsion.
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.
 
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.

Sounds like their answer to perceived suppression of free speech is... to suppress free speech. Violence is clearly unacceptable but the idea that the government should step in and prevent others from speaking, even in ways they don't like, in order to help other people speak is a perfect recipe for a 1st amendment violation. Also, the idea that any two people can bring someone up on 'charges' is an obvious recipe for rampant abuse that a small child could recognize.

Conservatives need to stop trying to suppress speech while complaining about their speech being suppressed. That's hypocritical.
 
And to think that we could've avoided this by sticking to conservative speakers that don't express utterly repugnant views!

Or maybe there's a reason why they're disproportionately opposed.

Sounds like their answer to perceived suppression of free speech is... to suppress free speech. Violence is clearly unacceptable but the idea that the government should step in and prevent others from speaking, even in ways they don't like, in order to help other people speak is a perfect recipe for a 1st amendment violation. Also, the idea that any two people can bring someone up on 'charges' is an obvious recipe for rampant abuse that a small child could recognize.

Conservatives need to stop trying to suppress speech while complaining about their speech being suppressed. That's hypocritical.

Informing on your peers to get them dragged in front of a tribunal that can destroy their prospects for a good job for the rest of their life is the American way!
 
From the bill, the following are prohibited: "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" that impairs the speech of others. The bill doesn't define what any of those things mean. Better be careful that you don't get too "boisterous" or you may be up for suspension or expulsion from school.

I might actually support this bill if it was limited to violent behavior, but it's far, far broader than that. It could easily be construed as banning any sort of counter-speech or counter-protest on college campuses.

If there was any confusion about how conservatives really feel about free speech, I think this clears things up nicely.
 
I don't like this. There needs to be a larger degree of separation between the legislature and the speech rules at the University.

Rather than directly making the rules, the legislature should direct the Regents to take appropriate measures to prevent student disruption of speeches and if the Regents fail to do so they should then be replaced.
 
From the bill, the following are prohibited: "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" that impairs the speech of others. The bill doesn't define what any of those things mean. Better be careful that you don't get too "boisterous" or you may be up for suspension or expulsion from school.

I might actually support this bill if it was limited to violent behavior, but it's far, far broader than that. It could easily be construed as banning any sort of counter-speech or counter-protest on college campuses.

If there was any confusion about how conservatives really feel about free speech, I think this clears things up nicely.

Yep, although I strongly suspect violence is already potential grounds for expulsion.

As usual it seems that conservatives construe freedom of speech to mean 'freedom of speech free from criticism'.
 
From the bill, the following are prohibited: "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" that impairs the speech of others. The bill doesn't define what any of those things mean. Better be careful that you don't get too "boisterous" or you may be up for suspension or expulsion from school.

I might actually support this bill if it was limited to violent behavior, but it's far, far broader than that. It could easily be construed as banning any sort of counter-speech or counter-protest on college campuses.

If there was any confusion about how conservatives really feel about free speech, I think this clears things up nicely.

I would fall between the two. School rules should permit protests designed to discourage people from attending a speech but should prohibit attempts to suppress the speech so it can't be heard by those in attendance.
 
This doesn't sound very free speechy. I mean, I'd rather dissenters not be raging douchnozzles and try to silence people that were simply invited to speak their hate, or whatever it is they have to speak, but this isn't the rational way to go about protecting the rights of those speakers. The proper way--and hardest, obv--is to encourage people to be civil and refrain from douchnozzlery, and likewise encourage venomous speakers to not be subhuman neanderthal dickmounds. Or like, just not invite them if you disagree with them. No one says you have to invite the assholes. The Coulter types were never out there to foster civil discussion on important topics--they wouldn't know what the hell that means--they simply exist to sell books to the biggest idiots on the planet. No one is required to give them a venue.
 
I don't like this. There needs to be a larger degree of separation between the legislature and the speech rules at the University.

Rather than directly making the rules, the legislature should direct the Regents to take appropriate measures to prevent student disruption of speeches and if the Regents fail to do so they should then be replaced.

Hey look, a sane conservative perspective on this! I 100% agree. I totally agree that the university should take steps to allow controversial speakers to speak more freely as being exposed to viewpoints you don't like should be an essential part of a college education. If the university's administrators can't do that, maybe they should find someone who can.

I hope that liberals and conservatives alike can see the danger in the legislature instructing their state universities to crack down on speech they deem 'boisterous' or 'unreasonably loud'.
 
I hope that liberals and conservatives alike can see the danger in the legislature instructing their state universities to crack down on speech they deem 'boisterous' or 'unreasonably loud'.
We actually agree on something!

Hell must be hosting the Winter Games this year.
 
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.
 
good, its about time something was done to stop the leftist loons from shouting down or causing violence because they dont agree with what the speaker is saying. fuck them.
 
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.

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.
 
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.



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.

Interesting, is that intended to stop universities from complaining about budget cuts? As for the rest it appears that to save the village we must destroy it.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top