It has worked very well for is. Preventing and actually doing something about hate speech is fully supported by the overwhelming majority of Canadians.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
The public university I went to is paying $20,000 to transphobic racist (aka conservative) Ben Shapiro for him to speak. Why is this allowed?
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
This, so much.
Note that other groups like Young Americans for Liberty are joining the grifting because people are wise to TP's antics/raison d'etre.
It's safe to assume that most College Republican clubs in colleges are either advancing the programming of groups like this directly, or are "maintaining their independence" by having these groups establish named chapters on campuses as clubs instead.
Can we just ban all right wing views and politics? Think how easy it would be if left wing was the only political view. No more racists, xenophobes, homophobes transphobes etc etc. No more bigots at all! Just the whole world on a true, left wing progressive path.
To answer your question OP, no they should not be paying this right wing scum. They shouldn't even give him a platform!
To answer your question OP, no they should not be paying this right wing scum. They shouldn't even give him a platform!
Now, if you want to go with the American exceptionalism argument and say that the US in particular would not be able to adjust the first amendment in a way that combats hate speech without simultaneously sneaking in ways to attack the underprivileged, that's a different argument than saying that the first amendment isn't significantly flawed in the form that it's in.
But, at least to an outsider, the argument does feel a little like how people look at gun regulation and say "clearly nothing can be done" while literally fucking everyone is already doing it.
This is another angle too many people don't consider. Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Steven Crowder, a lot of these people aren't academics interested in an amicable sharing of novel ideas. They're grifters shadow puppeteered by insidious and regressive special interests who want to advance gross agendas and recruit vulnerable minds into harmful ideologies whose entire point is focused on making the human species worse as a whole. Inviting people like this and paying for the courtesy is a path with zero likely positive outcome and rather only bolsters the ranks and pockets of the worst society has to offer.
UK here. I know a young black man who says that the Black Lives Matter movement is bollocks. He then explained that he doesnt always agree with Shapiro but his arguments for certain topics are compelling, and that he is 'just a statistician". I tried to point out that he's a dangerous far right grifter who presents some very carefully selected and innaccurate statistics.. Young black man says to me that all statistics are inherinently carefully selected. Young Black man also asks me what could possibly be dangerous about Shapiro. I reply "I dont know, a young black man might start saying that the Black Lives Matter movement is bollocks?"
Helium is very expensive these days and Ben is more Helium than man so it makes sense.
I started to tune him out to be honest. It's a losing battle. Also RIP my Facebook account for the same reason.
Honestly, a public school really shouldn't be paying for any speakers who are politically motivated. They should remain neutral in all regards.
The school is UCF and has very clear codes of conduct for respect of their student body. Ben Shapiro stands in opposition to many people outlined as respected parts of the community. He is a bigot who wants policy and religion to oppress minorities.
So why do public universities keep doing this? Why should the school use the student activity fee from student's yearly dues to help pay speaking fees for someone who wants to make a more dangerous and oppressive climate for many of the students you claim to respect?
- He has said black people aren't poor because of systemic oppression and that there's isn't any modern oppression of black people in the USA.
- He says trans people are mentally ill and reiterated this in recent years. He was on a radio panel with a trans woman in 2015, who he repeatedly misgendered with "he" and "him" pronouns.
- He says Islam is a radical ideology and that at least half of Muslims are radical. He said in 2019 that Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar holds many of the views of the anti-Semitic San Diego mass shooter.
- He says Palestinians should be forcibly expelled from their land.
- He says abortion should be banned, including in cases of rape or incest. He believes doctors who perform abortions should be prosecuted.
- He opposes same-sex marriage and asserts that there isn't discrimination against gay people in the USA.
I read the logic of some of the people who voted for it in the University government and it ranges from their own bigoted views, to being one minority who is privileged enough to have nationwide legal rights so they don't think about others when they speak, to claiming he doesn't encourage physical violence so it's free speech (he absolutely is in favor of policy to endanger minorities and also threatened to "pick up a gun" when Beto O'Rourke said tax exemption shouldn't be given to organizations that engage politically in opposition same-sex marriage like many churches keep doing).
It sounds privileged and incompetent as hell to me for people to say students should hear all sides and many students want speakers like Ben Shapiro to be hired for events, so they choose to abide. Excuse me but condemning the communities in your student body with their own cash is ok? Free speech doesn't mean give a paid platform to horrible ideas at a public university.
UCF Student Government votes to bring Ben Shapiro to campus
On Thursday, UCF's student government voted 25 to 15 to bring Shapiro to campus.www.wesh.com
Sounds like a student newspaper op ed piece to me.
Shapiro's "ideas" can be boiled down to bigotry and dishonesty.
Deplatforming works.
Educational institutions should debunk lies and equip students with the tools to see through them.
Deplatforming works.
When scientific facts and minority rights are politicized, remaining neutral by disallowing political discussion is being complicit with disinformation and injustice.
Educational institutions should debunk lies and equip students with the tools to see through them.
Last edited:
I have no idea. I mean I remember my large public college hosting all sorts of purposefully provocative gimmick debates over religion, war, crazy hypothetical situations and such, it was the only way to get people to attend, but it was never anybody like Ben Shapiro who is seemingly being used for the sole purpose of how disliked he is. Inviting Shapiro just means the Republican student group gets to play victim again when people are upset and protesting. It gets them a sort of attention that the boring old conservative invitees cannot provide. It's a reflection of how bad that political party has gotten.
Weirdly enough though you share his sense of irony.
Last edited:
No, they are essentially a troll. Go into every thread, drop a one sentence hot take of a few words, never respond again.
I agree. Hate speech shouldn't count as free speech.
This country does a piss poor job against hate speech in general.
Is UCF particularly conservative? Honestly, I'm shocked. I can't imagine a student government at any major university voting to allow it.
Write a letter to the dean outlining how this person would likely to be outside of the schools code of conduct with examples of Ben breaking specific parts.
Kind of unnecessary personal attack there, it's obvious what Shugga means is that *all* speech being protected equally can and has caused significant issues.
I somewhat agree
But I think its important to think about how laws are written and make sure they can't be abused if someone worse is in power.
When Obama was in office republicans stonewalled him to the point where democrats felt they needed to change the rules of congress in order to get anything done. Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to basically make it harder to filibuster. Mitch McConnel very famously said that democrats will regret this action a lot sooner than they think.
And guess what? Now we regret it. Republicans with just a very minor majority are able to push problematic shit through.
That is what I fear when very well intentioned people want to change certain rules and laws like this. Because if we get another racist/fascist president that transforms an entire political party we can essentially go back to McCarthyism. Antifa and BLM and their speech could be classified as hate and violent, even racist. Considering conservatives DO call BLM movement racist against white people.
Not unnecessary at all. Only idiots would be against the first amendment.
You want Trump to have the power to determine what speech isn't protected? It's asinine to even suggest.
You can allow political discussion, you just shouldn't pay for it. Like you could pay to have Bill Nye come and talk about science but shouldn't pay to have a leftist such as Cody Johnston from Some more News talk about the downfalls of capitalism.
This is the most American thing I've ever read. Plenty of countries manage to have hate speech laws, and amazingly our heads of state can't interfere with them. Calling those of us that don't want the hate speech of bigots protected doesn't make us idiots.
I think this election has maybe made us a little more weary considering the checks and balances of our amazing freedom and democracy seem to have fallen off the wheels.
The first amendment already has caveats. We need reform like other nations have against hate speech. Nobody is saying they want Donald Trump to be the sole arbiter of speech. If this had been done before he was elected, maybe we wouldn't have gotten to where we are. I don't think it's a fight we give up.
I think your analysis is correct but how many countries can you name that treat corporations as people? The Citizens United decision can be directly traced back to Ralph Nader bringing a consumer protection case before SCOTUS in the 1970. Also, how many of these first world nations have a two party system?
Last edited:
Good grief, pretend I said the Republican-controlled senate then. You got the point.
Your countries aren't America, and as you pointed out, American sensibilities are different. If not for the first amendment we would have people in power who would suppress leftist rhetoric. Right now for example, criticizing Israel would almost certainly be a criminal offense. Any discussion of socialism almost certainly would be as well. Hell, we managed to do that before even with the first amendment.
Without the first amendment we Americans would be living under actual tyranny. I'm baffled that I even have to explain this.
I can't speak for the original poster(s) who said to get rid of the first amendment, but my opinion is more 'the first amendment is actively causing harm as is' and not 'the first amendment needs to be abolished and replaced with nothing'.
And I get that constitutional changes are basically impossible for the US right now too, but it's important to recognize not only the benefits the 1st amendment have lead to, but the role it plays in white supremacy and other bigotry.
I guess I'm conflating the posters who are reacting to those calling simply for the repeal of the 1st, and those that are against stronger regulation of speech, and for that, I apologize.
Or it doesn't like in most other first world countries.
Not everything is a slippery slope.
He's saying you are where you are because the first amendment as is gives too much leeway to bigots, racists, and assholes.
Last edited:
This particular slope definitely is. Like others have said, a reformation of 1A can easily lead to almost any political opinion being criminalized, including many leftist ones. It's happened before already. Education reform is the answer, not "tell government to ban anything we say is bad"
Anyway kinda getting tired of the constant smug **enlightened european** america-bashing hot takes on this forum
The funny thing about arguing "what if bad actors abuse Canadian/European style free speech" is that the exact same bad actors we're hypothesizing about are already abusing American-style free speech. You've got Fox and Breitbart trying to suck people into the conservative media bubble. You've got Nazis rallies. You have KKK chapters. You've got paramilitary organizations preparing for race wars. You've got fundamentalists trying to dehumanize LGBT+ people.
Part of the reason why this is how it is and why there would be so much resistance to changing it is that it's already provided a lot of benefit for those bad actors and they have good reason to keep things how it is right now. Those bad actors aren't just going to vanish overnight if you were to change how free speech works, no, but we're already in the hypothetical territory where we're changing a legal policy that's been compared to a religious document in how it's viewed. I don't see how imagining that the idea of the law being made by people who actually care enough to craft it in a way that minimizes abuse is any more outlandish than the idea of changing a 230 year old law that the average person knows by name anyhow.
Part of the reason why this is how it is and why there would be so much resistance to changing it is that it's already provided a lot of benefit for those bad actors and they have good reason to keep things how it is right now. Those bad actors aren't just going to vanish overnight if you were to change how free speech works, no, but we're already in the hypothetical territory where we're changing a legal policy that's been compared to a religious document in how it's viewed. I don't see how imagining that the idea of the law being made by people who actually care enough to craft it in a way that minimizes abuse is any more outlandish than the idea of changing a 230 year old law that the average person knows by name anyhow.
Last edited:
I'm not European but okay, and this isn't America bashing.
And it's their First Amendment Right to do so. They can (and should imo) raise hell that their student's fees are being paid to this guy.
If he wants to speak he can get a permit and talk at a public park or something
I'd like to think that too. But we live in a world where antivaxxers are considered a rising health concern, where Fox News is touted as a legitimate news source, where climate scientists and generations of climate research is ignored both by politicians and many people among the citizenry, where lying criminal bigots can rule countries bolstered by armies of fervent worshipers, where American life is plagued by mass shootings and the path to curbing that trend is basically turned into a fairy tale, and where genocidal ideologies continue to be regurgitated and accepted despite multiple generations dealing with the fallout of them.
People in general, not just university students, should be smarter than to fall for obvious rhetorical & historical pitfalls yet they still do. No amount of trusting in the reliability of human common sense or base intelligence will ever trump the reality of there always being people with zero empathy who will look for whatever loopholes and cracks in societywill allow them to exploit the vulnerable to their own ends.There will always be people who want to oppress and those who want to oppress will always use whatever inch they're given to advance their agenda to disenfranchise those they consider less than human.
I'd love it if people were always able to discern fact from fiction and sincerity from manipulation but they aren't. Even educated people aren't free from buying into 100% bullshit as long as it appeals to their egos or fears or lusts. There are some very smart people who think women are only fit to be mothers and nothing else. There are some Ivy League graduates who don't think Black people should be considered human. There are people of very high IQs who think trans panic defenses for murder are reasonable. People utilizing their critical thinking skills at all times to always make informed rational decisions wouldn't ascribe to ideologies like these. Students using their critical thinking skills would recognize a person like Shapiro would have zero value as an educator with ideals worth being shared.
We've just had that topic about the University girl who crapped her pants and made a profit off of spreading untruths and harmful prejudices being shooed off campus while simultaneously being defended for her "free speech rights" by other students and fully grown adults who should definitely know better. Her bullshit should be unequivocally reviled but people are still decided because of the basic fact that as long as dishonest people can pretend to be genuine, they can always amass sympathizers and followers.
If people have the ability to mitigate or short circuit the paths that people like that have towards platforms and profits and power it needs to be utilized.
Last edited:
The guy who's plan for climate change is selling homes to aquaman is getting 20k for a speaking gig?
insane.
insane.
This isn't even a first amendment issue. Shapiro has no entitlement to speak at a university, and certainly no entitlement to get paid to speak.
First amendment just protects people from government surpression/retaliation/prosecution against protected speech
Hmm. While I support the idea of challenging speech at universities it should certainly be a academically credible at the very least. I mean if they are inviting a controversial figure just because they are famous then where does the buck stop? Should we let Ninja lecture about social studies now just cos?
The First Amendment applies to public universities. Once a university - or just about any government body, such as a city council or school board - allows outside people to come speak, then they are typically considered a limited public forum. This means that, while the university can place reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speeches, they can't engage in viewpoint discrimination. So if a school has allowed other speakers to come in and talk about the kinds of things Shapiro will talk about, then preventing him from speaking out of concern regarding his position on these topics could be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
And it's the same for the speaking fees. If there's a history of paying fees to outside speakers to come to campus to give speeches, then not allowing it for Shapiro could be a first amendment violation as well.
Thanks for the PM Shugga. How pathetic:
[Mod edit: content removed. Please report hostile PMs to moderation instead of posting them publicly.]
[Mod edit: content removed. Please report hostile PMs to moderation instead of posting them publicly.]
Last edited by a moderator:
You are correct. I missed the big "public university" part in the title.
User banned (3 weeks): Sending hostile PMs to another member + long history of infractions for hostility
What's the matter, couldn't take the heat on your anti abortion stance?
This isn't about Shapiro being allowed to speak. It's about inviting him to come speak.
But, they're allowed to invite him. File complaints with the university, the student body, the state boards, etc etc. Put up posters saying he's bad. Encourage students not to attend. Get some stats on the number of students who attend vs outsiders. Try to make the seats empty so he's not invited again.
But trying to make it illegal to invite him is a bad idea.
Because I listed the movie Unplanned as my 10th favourite movie of the year in the voting thread?
What's does that even have to do with this thread? What's wrong with you?
Next time how about showing everyone how you really feel in a thread instead of being a pathetic coward with a private message.
The thread title literally asks why paying him to speak is allowed, and I addressed that while explaining the first amendment implications in general to another poster. I'm not really sure what the importance of the distinction you made is, or what it had to do with my post.