Segregation in the name of free speech

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Segregation in the name of free speech

Postby ucim » Sun Dec 15, 2013 9:33 pm UTC

johnny_7713 wrote:If I understand the case correctly I think a key point is that these speakers are not invited by the university directly, but by organisations (student unions or the like) that have been granted use of a certain space
I didn't get that from the link in the OP (which seems to be more of an opinion piece than a piece of actual reporting). Further, from the first sentence in the link, it seems to me that the University is deciding to mandate segregation "just in case" a speaker might be offended (and thus unable to speak?) by mixed seating.

Further, from the video, it seems that the speaker is refusing to speak. That is the speaker's prerogative. It is not (and should not be) the obligation of a venue to prevent a speaker from refusing to speak. I caught something about a promise ("you promised it would be segregated"?) but that's a different issue, if I even heard it right.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Segregation in the name of free speech

Postby Derek » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Further, from the video, it seems that the speaker is refusing to speak. That is the speaker's prerogative. It is not (and should not be) the obligation of a venue to prevent a speaker from refusing to speak. I caught something about a promise ("you promised it would be segregated"?) but that's a different issue, if I even heard it right.

Jose

FYI, the video was actually showing the opposite case. One speaker walked out because the audience was segregated (at the demand of the other speaker).

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6858
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Segregation in the name of free speech

Postby ucim » Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:54 am UTC

Derek wrote:FYI, the video was actually showing the opposite case. One speaker walked out because the audience was segregated (at the demand of the other speaker).
Thanks... it was unclear to me. In fact, a lot of it was unintelligible, and "related" videos weren't any help to me. But in either case, it is the speaker that made the decision to not speak. Nobody prevented the speaker from speaking.

Now, to make this a more relevant case, suppose the speaker were allergic to peanuts, and requested that nobody have peanuts in the room when he spoke. Suppose knowing this the University refused to prohibit peanuts. Would there be a problem here? Suppose additionally, that the speaker's views were antithetical to the University, thus giving the University motivation for preventing the speech.

Then, would it make a difference if there was some degree of indirection - such as it being a club that was granted the use of the space by the University, or that prohibiting peanuts would be costly in some other way?

At least this wouldn't be a silly example.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Segregation in the name of free speech

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:10 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Derek wrote:FYI, the video was actually showing the opposite case. One speaker walked out because the audience was segregated (at the demand of the other speaker).
Thanks... it was unclear to me. In fact, a lot of it was unintelligible, and "related" videos weren't any help to me. But in either case, it is the speaker that made the decision to not speak. Nobody prevented the speaker from speaking.

Now, to make this a more relevant case, suppose the speaker were allergic to peanuts, and requested that nobody have peanuts in the room when he spoke. Suppose knowing this the University refused to prohibit peanuts. Would there be a problem here? Suppose additionally, that the speaker's views were antithetical to the University, thus giving the University motivation for preventing the speech.

Then, would it make a difference if there was some degree of indirection - such as it being a club that was granted the use of the space by the University, or that prohibiting peanuts would be costly in some other way?

At least this wouldn't be a silly example.

Jose

If you can prove that having women sitting next to men would be a reasonable threat to your physical wellbeing, then yeah, it would be a useful analogue, and reasonable to acquiesce to the speaker's request. For example, some very bizarre medical condition.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests