A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article174241076.html Here’s the problem with suggesting that upsetting speech warrants “safe spaces,” or otherwise conflating mere words with physical assault: If speech is violence, then violence becomes a justifiable response to speech. Just ask college students. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.” That’s one finding from a disturbing new survey of students conducted by John Villasenor, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and University of California at Los Angeles professor. In August, motivated by concerns about the “narrowing window of permissible topics” for discussion on campuses, Villasenor conducted a nationwide survey of 1,500 undergraduate students at four-year colleges. Financial support for the survey was provided by the Charles Koch Foundation, which Villasenor said had no involvement in designing, administering or analyzing the questionnaire; as of this writing, the foundation had also not seen his results. Many of Villasenor’s questions were designed to gauge students’ understanding of the First Amendment. Colleges, after all, pay a lot of lip service to “freedom of speech,” despite high-profile examples of civil-liberty-squelching on campus. The survey suggests that this might not be due to hypocrisy so much as a misunderstanding of what the First Amendment actually entails. Those who study history and the Constitution say they're seeing a trend in America that could threaten a principle at the heart of our democracy. As seen at colleges like UC Berkeley this past year, students, teachers, parents and lawmakers are refusing to listen and often blocking others from sharing ideas they don't agree with -- often through protests. The ability of some protesters to block controversial speakers from campus, including Milo Yiannopoulous and Ann Coulter, has raised the question: how do we protect the First Amendment? For example, when students were asked whether the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” 4 in 10 said no. This is, of course, incorrect. Speech promoting hatred – or at least, speech perceived as promoting hatred – may be abhorrent, but it is nonetheless constitutionally protected. There were no statistically significant differences in response to this question based on political affiliation. But there were significant differences by gender: Women are more likely than men to believe hate speech is not constitutionally protected (49 percent vs. 38 percent, respectively). Students were asked whether the First Amendment requires that an offensive speaker at a public university be matched with one with an opposing view. Here, 6 in 10 (mistakenly) said that, yes, the First Amendment requires balance. The most chilling findings, however, involved how students think repugnant speech should be dealt with. Villasenor offered a hypothetical that may sound familiar to those who recall recent fracases at California State University at Los Angeles, Middlebury College, Claremont McKenna College and other institutions: Let’s say a public university hosts a “very controversial speaker,” one “known for making offensive and hurtful statements.” Would it be acceptable for a student group to disrupt the speech “by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker”? Astonishingly, half said that snuffing out upsetting speech – rather than, presumably, rebutting or even ignoring it – would be appropriate. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to find this response acceptable (62 percent to 39 percent), and men were more likely than women (57 percent to 47 percent). Even so, sizable shares of all groups agreed. It gets even worse. Respondents were also asked if it would be acceptable for a student group to use violence to prevent that same controversial speaker from talking. Here, 19 percent said yes. (More at above url)
Try commenting on Breitbart that goes beyond their propaganda and see how much Cons love free speech. Or try The_Donald subreddit where it says NO DISSENT in their rules. Hypocrites.
College students have become brainwashed by Lefty professors. The Kids don't realize that the Constitution and 1st Amendment have been "defended to the death" by many. The kids don't know what they've got. Anti-Constitution, Anti-America. Too bad for all of us.
Note - these are privately owned platforms they can remove or allow whatever they want. Same as ET, Facebook, Twitter, etc. Don't like the policies or posters than complain to the owners or gripe to the media. The one thing it is not is a constitutionally protected free speech issue. The concept that 20% of students believe it is proper to squash free speech in public with violence is concerning.
Irrelevant. They have the same attitude as these kids but at least we can call these kids kids, what's the excuse for 40 year old virgin alt-righters?
Let's talk about the violent Antifa protestors wandering the streets beating up anyone who looks like they might disagree with them.
Why would I give a shit about anarchists/communists? Why don't you deal with all the Nazis on your side killing people before you get all triggered about some dumb kids.
I never supported Trump, Nazis, or violent alt-right characters. However you lump all people who don't support the your left-wing Antifa agenda as legitimate targets for violence. Your assertions regarding others are not only incorrect (another example above), but dangerous --- because you are not only unwilling to condemn violence from Antifa and Islamic terrorists but active applaud their actions.
Blah blah blah Try talking to the alt-righters (many on this board as well) and get back to me with better non-strawman arguments.
Go back to cheering on your Antifa terrorist buddies beating up innocent people and reporters in the streets.