To clarify, wanting to kill somebody and having a mere thought about it are VERY different. Let me just clarify that point. Geez. Anyway, just pointing out that Aussie Rocket's post is silly by saying something silly myself. Did I succeed?
this isn't a black and white issue, colleges should encourage freedom of speech and dialogue. fortunately and sometimes unfortunately, freedom of speech is for everyone. as long as they aren't promoting violence or discrimination, which is illegal, they have a right to speek their voice.
Let ideas of intolerence succeed or fail on their own merits in the free market of ideas. I think, and would hope, that intolerence would not be successful, and that there would be no need to make rules against it.
The whole point of the article is fighting for the 'right' to discriminate. Whether discrimination against homosexuals is legal or illegal is currently a disputed thing, as evidenced by the various rulings in the article, just like it was at the beginning of the process of making discrimination against black people illegal. And, as it is now, there were people then who fought hard for their 'right' to discriminate against blacks. If the internet was around back then, many seemingly reasonable people would have posted thoughts identical to yours here. Anti-gay bigots do have a right to speak their minds on this issue, just as anti-black bigots continue to do. But they also deserve to be marginalized for it, even before discrimination against gays and lesbians becomes universally illegal in this country.
Should we get rid of laws against discriminating against a person based on their gender, religion or race? Intolerance has been sickeningly successful in this country as a rule. That's why there are laws against discrimination.
Discrimination was in fact standing on its own. It only was stopped because of legislation. Women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't vote. That was only changed because legal action was taken. Without legal action intolerance would still be the rule of the day. It was succeeding not on its own merit but because those in power had the power to exclude others.
not only that, slavery was proven to be less economical than freedom but it still took a war to end it. when it comes to discrimination, decisions aren't based merely on economics.
I agree with SM and I think we need to distinguish between discrimination and harrassment versus voicing an opinion. Discrimination in terms of denying access to jobs, education, healthcare or other things is clearly illegal and so is harrassment. At the same time though someone voicing their opinion should be allowed under the First Ammendment even if it is unsavory and offensive to most people. I agree this isn't an easy issue but free speech isn't about what is easy or acceptable to society. If it was then we wouldn't need the First Ammendment.
Should the Catholic Church be compelled by law to accept gay priests? How about gay janitors? Should a mosque likewise be forced to employ gays?
Okay, but then you absolutely do NOT agree with SM. Unless I somehow completely got him wrong (and I dearly hope I did) you fundamentally disagree with him. Nobody but nobody is saying Americans shouldn't have a right to free speech including something as extreme as hate speech, so I really don't know why you and pgabriel feel the need to defend free speech. It isn't under any threat whatever, unless you regard harassment and discrimination to be free speech. The only issue here -- and the only issue in the article -- is a fight between one side that wants harassment and discrimination against gays and lesbians to be legal and one side that wants it to be illegal. The woman in the article wants to retain a 'right' to harass and discriminate against gays and SM says we should leave those issues to market forces rather than enacting laws to protect against harassment and discrimination against gays. Again, that's unless I read him wrong.
I also really don't get how this isn't an easy issue. Gays and lesbians only want the same protection under the law that every other American enjoys. The 'right' to discriminate against gays is no more a free speech issue than the 'right' to discriminate against women, minorities or a religious person.
That actually is a difficult issue. I don't have an easy answer when asked if a religion for which discrimination or bigotry is a basic tenet ought to be forced to comply with laws against that discrimination. It may be that they ought to be awarded an exception in that case the same way that certain American Indians are allowed to ingest peyote. It's a tough question. But I would certainly argue that if a religion was out of order with federal civil rights laws (which protection for gays isn't, but eventually will be) they ought not to retain their current tax status. I could say plenty about what I think about the anti-gay bigotry that is common to so many religions now, but maybe that's for another thread.
its a slippery slope argument. if you can force independent school organizations who are santioned and act accordingly to university rules, but are still separate entities to not discriminate, who else can you force not discriminate. and if you can't force them to stop discriminatory practices, who else can you not force.
yeah..i don't think i've gone there. that's not a pat on my back...i just don't think i ever experienced that kind of anger. i hope i never feel that way.
So if a democrat says he "Hates" a republican, should that be considered hate speech? I think the slippery slope is the slow evolution in having the "Thought Police" patroling around telling everyone what we can and can not say. Thats the "Brave New World" we live in...
By the way, did I mention in my earlier post that I'm a direct descendant of John Wesley Hardin on my paternal grandmother's side? He was so mean he once shot a man just for snoring. I'm not quite that prickly... I would have just thought about slapping him around.
But a distinction needs to be made. Yes she is preaching outright discrimination against Gays. But that is all she is doing. No one is legislating anything or legally restricting rights. It's just speech. But this is evidence of a larger problem on university campuses today. The average university speech code restricts speech in ways that are unthinkable in public society. Court decisions have allowed for Nazi marches through predominantly Jewish neighborhoods, KKK demonstrations, Black Panther marches with AK 47s, etc.. and yet universities have restricted speech in ways that seem ridiculous. I find her views to be offensive. But StupidMoniker pointed this out above, there is a marketplace of ideas. That is the point of college. We preach about diversity and the need to hear all viewpoints but let college be that. University speech codes have not only restricted what we can say but have also created an environment of excessive political correctness that threatens to short circuit the learning process. A great example would be a university in Minnesota where a professor accused the school of denying him tenure because he was jewish. Well guess what happened? The university paid him off with 6 figures and then built a "jewish studies center" to combat the perception of anti-semitism. Never mind the fact that the university was later aquitted of all charges and that a court ruled that they had legiitmate grounds to deny him tenure. It's ok to hear different and even radical views. A few weeks ago at an Israeli event at UT, a group of "Palestinian supporters" marched around in protest. Yes it was annoying but no one cared. Even when one of the people yelled out and stated that Israel was promoting genocide, most people ignored it and a few people even started having a discussion. That's what speech is about. Yes she's offensive, so rally some friends and yell back at her. But don't go off and state that because she has a viewpoint so radically different from the norm that we can use speech codes to shut her and her ilk up. What a way to build tolerance and diversity in our schools by restricting speech in ways that the government cant. Now I dont have a problem with workshops and what not that promote tolerance of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, etc.. but I think its foolish and dangerous to outright restrict speech.
