Firstly, university management ensures no harmful or extremists speakers enter universities, based on legal and professional standards. Secondly student unions adopt democratic motions to limit access. Thirdly, protest groups exercise the democratic right to protest.
-
-
Replying to @johndjordan31 @MurphPsych and
2. Protest can never be limited to a set of 'acceptably protestable' ideas, as that would impinge on the freedom of protest. Personally, I would like to see a shift in protest tactics to picketing. However, many recent events have been grossly misrepresented by the Right.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndjordan31 @MurphPsych and
You're missing the point. No one is suggesting students can't protest whichever ideas they disagree with. The criticism is that they're not protesting peacefully, they're preventing speakers from speaking.
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @safeortrue @MurphPsych and
In some cases, this hasn't even been true - for example this did NOT happen in either of the cases that Adam Perkins says he was no platformed. In some other cases, it is simply totally inappropriate for the speakers to be in unis. If you don't want protest, don't invite them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndjordan31 @safeortrue and
You are still missing the point. No one is objecting to protest. To respond "if you do not want protest..." is to respond with an irrelevancy. The problem is preventing those who have the right to speak from doing so. It is preventing those who wish to listen from doing so.
1 reply 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @PsychRabble @safeortrue and
Don't be ridiculous. Their books, websites and other outlets still exist. But just llike they don't have a 'right' to TV air time, so they don't have a 'right' to rock up at unniversities and speak. It is up to universities to protect students fom, e.g. white supermacists.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndjordan31 @PsychRabble and
If a university wants to be more than an indoctrination center, its primary mission ought not be protecting students from exposure to ideas; indeed, in none of these cases are students compelled to attend scary speeches. Last week a talk I attended was shut down by protesters.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @HenstockStephen @PsychRabble and
I'm pretty sick of this stupid lie. Discussing controversial ideas happens at every university. No one is 'protecting' students from them - quite the contrary. But It is NOT a university's 'duty' to bring in the holders of those ideas to indoctrinate students. Stupid, stupid lie.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndjordan31 @HenstockStephen and
What's more, it's a dangerous stupid lie, as free speech grifters attempt to use the misrepresentation of a tiny number of events, out of thousands of universities, to push for rules that allow fascists and white supremmacists a seat at the legitimisng table of speaking at unis.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @johndjordan31 @HenstockStephen and
Hey, Stephen, Uri, we should be following
@mjaeckel's twitter rules here. If someone's followership is lower than the avg person's IQ, they are probably not worth engaging with. It is an interesting rule.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Advanced method: calculate the tweet to follower ratio. When it's very high, it indicates loud mouthed person no one cares about. More sophisticated version: tweets/day/follower count, to control for account age.
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.