
Freedom of speech memo, President of the university of Alaska, March 2001 - hileceeser
https://www.cs.uaf.edu/users/chappell/public_html/misc/freesp.html
======
gpm
I don't think the contents of the poem are really particularly relevant, but
for anyone else who is curious here it is:

[https://www.thefire.org/linda-mccarristons-indian-
girls-2/](https://www.thefire.org/linda-mccarristons-indian-girls-2/)

------
throwawaysea
Looking at all the downvotes in this discussion is telling. There are many who
are so radicalized on the left at this point, that they literally fear and
dislike the open exchange of ideas. Free societies are durable over the long
term when they protect these rights at all times, for all people, for all
ideologies. As a rule of thumb, if the speech in question is not advocating
for direct physical violence, it should be permitted.

It is especially important to understand this today, when large privately-
owned platforms carry so much discourse across society, since censorship and
deplatforming in those spaces has the same impact as governmental censorship,
for most intents and purposes.

~~~
dgllghr
Your assumption that this is only a problem on the left is completely
baseless. The right likes to use the freedom of speech argument when they feel
it works against them, but they also support scare tactics to suppress the
speech (and votes) of minority groups often with the support or tacit
acceptance of the government.

It doesn't appear that the right even understands freedom of speech. Freedom
of speech does not mean that private organizations cannot censor you, it means
that the government cannot censor you. Further, freedom of speech does not
mean freedom to espouse hateful views, advocate physical violence (as you
said), or cause false panic (whether you yell fire in an airport or yell
conspiracy theories on the radio). If you believe that we should have open
platforms on the Internet free from the censorship of Internet giants, then
that is a different issue than freedom of speech.

It's not that the left dislikes freedom of speech, it's that the right has
twisted the meaning and use of freedom of speech to promote hate, conspiracy,
and fear. I recommend you check out the Paradox of Tolerance, and idea put
forth by philosopher Karl Popper.

~~~
throwawaysea
I don't think it is a problem _only_ on the left. However, I've seen it more
consistently on the left in recent times in the US. That's the only reason I
mentioned it. I'm happy to hear and learn about counter examples too though.

I do not agree with the definition of 'freedom of speech' you are using, and I
don't think most would. Why would it be defined only in terms of the
government? It is a general concept that is useful at all times, since it is
about the open exchange of ideas. An open exchange of ideas is useful in
governance, at work, among friends, etc. And yes, it is useful when discussing
private organizations, particularly when there they harbor immense control and
face little competition to create choice (as is the case with some platforms
like Twitter or with payment processors).

And as I mentioned elsewhere, Karl Popper was very clear about preferring not
to suppress speech but to use rational arguments against differing opinions.
In fact, using freedom of speech to suppress freedom of speech was the main
problem he was talking about in the context of the paradox.

~~~
iamdave
_Why would it be defined only in terms of the government?_

"Freedom of speech only applies to the government" exists as an argument that
is technically true if one were to go to court over the matter, so it is often
used as a philosophical escape hatch to avoid having the tougher conversation
on the larger implications of what 'freedom of speech' practically _means_ ,
why the framers of the Constitution bothered with it in the first place-I
would wager because having that discussion would reveal some ugly truths about
someone who responds to a discussion like this by saying "freedom of speech
only applies to the government" and what their true goals and intentions are
in the face of unpleasant or disturbing information and opinions.

The irony of such philosophical laziness isn't lost on me, but surely no one
would say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are only ideals that
can be granted by the government-yet there they are, in one of America's
operating manuals. Clear as day.

The argument falls apart at the surface, and if I'm being honest, sometimes I
wonder if the people who like to deploy that tactic know this.

American political discussion, in observation, is full of carefully picked
cherries it seems like.

------
zeckalpha
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
pidu87
Is there some kind of violation?

It would be better to state it vs posting a link with lots of
information/suggestions......

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're
evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters,
or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-
topic.

This was trending/upvoted super fast so it was "On-Topic"..... and clearly was
gratifying "one's intellectual curiosity."

~~~
zeckalpha
Please, tell me what speech is appropriate. Sharing a link is inappropriate
speech?

------
pidu87
SIDE NOTE: I miss watching college debates!

If your ideas or views are so weak/undebatable you fear and quickly move to
censor and silence any differing view or opinion that's pathetic. Reminds me
of a little kid "I'm right, you're wrong, and now I'm gonna punch you!"

Do they still have college debates or have those been labeled archaic,
hurtful, and unnecessary? lol

------
pidu87
+1

"Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators
don't have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be,
however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I
insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of
Constitutional rights."

Seems like 18 years later Colleges/ Social Media / etc love to censor and
silence speech. THIS site included.......

~~~
devereaux
Not being on the left has always carried consequences.

Nothing new, unfortunately. I feel that every day.

------
minikites
There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "freedom from
consequences of speech". Many people try to hide behind the protection of the
former but actually mean the latter and claim persecution when they have to
face consequences (boycotts, bans from privately run services, etc).

~~~
pessimizer
Looks like this controversy was about a condescending poen written by a white
woman about native girls, that _specifically_ referenced the tribal group of
the woman who led the protest (that the author learned of from the protester),
and implied some sort of generalized drunken molestation and abuse of native
women by the men of that group.

I still don't think that the university should have censored the poem, but

1) a protest isn't just for the university; maybe the author would see the
point and withdraw the poem, or maybe people who heard of the controversy
would be influenced to think in a different way by hearing the details and the
protesters reaction to them, and

2) I'm pretty sure the reaction would have been different if the native woman
had written a poem called "Stupid White Whore In My Class" and mentioned the
other woman's hometown and family name, and how her uncle probably molested
her. The free speech advocates that get super-mad about 10 people picketing in
the courtyard of an Alaskan university for 3 days 20 years ago would instead
be super-mad about "how you can say anything about white people and get away
with it."

It shouldn't be the job of universities to censor speech, though. But
protesting speech is also speech.

~~~
gpm
I think you're misreading this letter if you're reading it as objecting to the
protesting.

I think it is objecting to vague threats made by university employees towards
the author along the lines of "The University supports the right of free
speech, but we intend to check into this matter", or "The University supports
the right of free speech, but I have asked Dean X or Provost Y to investigate
the circumstances".

