I wouldn't now go and shout down intersectional feminist talks. Other people came to hear them. Not me shouting. We simply couldn't function if every talk was yelled over by people who disagreed with it. Just respond in an appropriate time and place.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Eh.
@DavidKlion is wrong. If she was arranged to be there it's kinda bullshit that she was interrupted. But equally I think you're wrong too. Free speech is a two way street. She has her right to speak freely just as much as they have a right to yell over the top of her. -
The point is that we all get to use our freedom of speech however we damn well please. Neither kind of policing from either of you is particularly in the spirit of that.
-
This is a little like saying: "You have a right to write a book, but we have a write to scrawl all over it so that it's incomprehensible before anyone else can buy it." This is not what freedom of speech means in a civil society.
-
No it's like saying if you write a book about something and I disagree with it I'm allowed to show up at your book signing and tell everyone your book is bullshit.
-
That's not what is happen at these seminar. They are scrawling over the book before anybody can read it. If it was a book signing, yeah, I'd agree. Shout all you like. But this is a seminar, a *talk*. I mean, it's in the damn name.
-
Yeah and they came to talk... Which they did... Loudly... This isn't a freedom of speech issue at all. It's just a rudeness one. And we look stupid when we keep crying muh freedom of speech and muh censorship in situations like this.
-
"Yeah and they came to talk... Which they did... Loudly..." Surely you are being disingenuous?!
-
Nope. Just trying to point out that the issue here is the formality of discussion and debate being flouted... Not people's right to freedom of speech.
- 17 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’m pretty sure free speech includes interrupting other people.
-
That's irrelevant to free speech. FS is not about literal speaking. It's about welcoming the expression of views you disagree with so you can address them rather than shutting them down by banning them or preventing them from being heard by people who want to hear them.
-
In the contemporary legal context (which is the relevant context for the happenings at the law school) FS is a Consitutional right that would have been infringed by preventing the students from organizing the way they chose to.
-
So I guess this is a situation in which US and UK understandings of FS are directly at loggerheads
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Freedom of speech entails the freedom of others to listen if they want to.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Speaking freely in a public square is quite different than speaking freely in a rented or arranged space. Entering a space implies acceptance of contractual relationship not to disturb the speaker.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This shouldn't be about freedom of speech. In the public square, I get to talk, but people get to talk right over me. No law regulates that. But it's still fair for people to be allowed to set rules of engagement for their events. Comedians have hecklers thrown out after all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Personally, I've always preferred calm and rational debate. If I have a view you don't like, Tell me why you think it's wrong and try to change my mind. Don't talk down to me, swear or call me names. If you have do that to prove you're right, You've lost the Arguement imo.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well said.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.