Where should the line between not offending people and free speech be drawn?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I thought this article was very interesting in the broader context of Free Speech about difficult issues:

http://time.com/3818372/islamic-feminist-duke-speech/#3818372/islamic-feminist-duke-speech/

From the article:

Tuesday night, while Islamic State fighters gained new ground in Syria, I walked onto a stage at Duke University to argue for a progressive, feminist interpretation of Islam in the world. Staring into stage lights, I counted the number of people looking back at me: nine, not including my parents and son.

I would have come here to speak to just one person. To me, it is simply a victory to stand before you, I said.

Five days earlier, the Duke University Center Activities and Events had cancelled my talk after the president of the Duke chapter of the Muslim Students Association sent an email to Muslim students about my views and me, alleging that I have a nefarious alliance with Islamophobic speakers and noting that a Duke professor of Islam, Omid Safi, had condemned me. After I asked for evidence against me, the Center for Activities and Events re-invited me. A spokesman for Duke said the university regrets the misunderstanding.

This experience goes beyond feminism to a broader debate over how too many Muslims are responding to critical conversations on Islam with snubs, boycotts, and calls for censorship, exploiting feelings of conflict avoidance and political correctness to stifle debate. As a journalist for 30 years, I believe we must stand up for Americas principles of free speech and have critical conversations, especially if they make people feel uncomfortable.

By standing on stage, I was standing up to the forces in our Muslim communities that are increasingly using tactics of intimidation and smears such as Islamophobe, House Muslim, Uncle Tom, native informant, racist and bigot to cancel events with which they disagree.

These dynamics of silencing are often used against women such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born activist and author of a new book, Heretic.

Where should the border between people being offended and someone trying to discuss uncomfortable and difficult topics be drawn? Is anyone else bothered by campaigns to silence and shun people who are discussing difficult and controversial topics?

[Errant Bard]

Depends, drawn by who, how and under what authority?

ETA: Note, if we are talking of the legal side of this, I don't think there should be any line drawn preventing people to legally publish offending material... On the other hand if we were talking about, I don't know, raising kids, I think offending speech can call for swift action.

As for speeches cancellation, well, I support a right to decide to not host someone: he can speak, just not on your premises. It's not a free speech impediment, just lack of support -and a political act-.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

In this case I'm asking about public pressure. This woman was attacked for daring to suggest there is some misogyeny in Islamic Nations and that Islam needs to look at how women are treated within Islam. Should she have been shunned and demonized for seeking discussion of these issues?

[Swordfish]

In this case I'm asking about public pressure. This woman was attacked for daring to suggest there is some misogyeny in Islamic Nations and that Islam needs to look at how women are treated within Islam. Should she have been shunned and demonized for seeking discussion of these issues?

Whether we like it or not, the people criticizing her have the same right to expression as she does. There's no guarantee of a platform for anyone's opinions..

[Errant Bard]

In this case I'm asking about public pressure. This woman was attacked for daring to suggest there is some misogyeny in Islamic Nations and that Islam needs to look at how women are treated within Islam. Should she have been shunned and demonized for seeking discussion of these issues?

No she *should* not. But I'm not going to confuse not giving her a platform (as well as being a bigot/lobbies bitch/politician/ex-fan/islamist/whatever can turn you off the deal) with an attack on her free speech.

I'm OK with someone who gets reported by a good number of a community to get banned, as a principle.They can still talk, only elsewhere.

But once again: what lines are you talking about, who gets to decide them, and how are they implemented/enforced? What's the plan, in actual reality? Make a law? What should be in that law that isn't there already?

[MinDonner]

Right to speech is not the same as the right to a platform. But at the same time, the common conflation of "offence" with "harm" is something we definitely need to move away from imo. No time to get into this right now but this article makes some pretty solid arguments. I'd happily separate out the two if only for the sake of avoiding the same damn arguments over and over.

[Magnar of Skagos]

Being offended does not grant an individual any special rights or free their actions or views from criticism. If nothing can be criticized, nothing can ever be improved upon.

That being said there is a line between criticism and hate speech (which I think most people agree is unproductive), though it is not always clear, especially to those being criticized.

[maarsen]

Scot, the line should be drawn at the point where yelling and swearing starts. Talk and I may listen but loud and disruptive arguments make me go away, no matter how cogent your argument.

[Inigima]

Relevant words by Garry Trudeau and a response by David Frum, both in the Atlantic.

[Castel]

No she *should* not. But I'm not going to confuse not giving her a platform (as well as being a bigot/lobbies bitch/politician/ex-fan/islamist/whatever can turn you off the deal) with an attack on her free speech.

I'm OK with someone who gets reported by a good number of a community to get banned, as a principle.They can still talk, only elsewhere.

But once again: what lines are you talking about, who gets to decide them, and how are they implemented/enforced? What's the plan, in actual reality? Make a law? What should be in that law that isn't there already?

The administrations in academia stop caving in situations that don't call for it? How did we decide that X was now offensive and that it was okay to cave to any group that complained about it (even if that group was relatively small)?

[Larry of the Lawn]

***Holds up hand like he's conducting a traffic stop*** The line is wherever Chuck Norris says it is.

[Errant Bard]

The administrations in academia stop caving in situations that don't call for it?

Ok, sure, and how do you -who is most likely not in academia administration- do that, or force them to do that?

How did we decide that X was now offensive and that it was okay to cave to any group that complained about it (even if that group was relatively small)?

"We"? I was not part of that decision, were you?

Understand me: I know there is some moral outrage, about what should be done. All I'm saying is that this kind of talk is meaningless if you cannot find a way to translate it into actions. Like, you know, did one-liner like "how did 'we' decide that idea X was worth a civil war" or "How did we decide that it was OK that some people on Earth would starve so that a minority could die of obesity?" solve war and hunger? You don't solve stuff like this with righteous thoughts... and when you actually try to find a way to enforce your idea you can eventually notice that some remedies are worse than the disease.

So once again: how are the good indignant people in this thread proposing that what they think should be done, should be actually implemented?

[Solmyr]

Didn't we have a very similar thread recently?

Anyway, fuck people, who feel offended. Abdication from discourse is the voluntary forfeiting of expressing your opinion on a subject. Just because you are incapable of producing arguments to support your opinion does not mean you have the right to prevent others from expressing theirs.

The new trend of people feeling offended and thus abstaining from debate might also be a sign of deepening intellectual sloth.

[emberling]

The conflation of "free speech" with the ideology that all topics must be open at all times for 'free' and 'reasoned' debate (regardless of whether the debater-provocateur knows their arse from their elbows) - the assumption that a refusal to debate is a concession, that a person's time, patience, and desire are naturally subordinate to the Search For Truth as determined by debater-provocateur - is profoundly stupid and reflects an unfortunate prevalence of non-arse-from-elbows-knowers.

I would tentatively place the rising prevalence of polarized discourses as a side effect of the decline of influence of hegemony and of efforts to give voice to subaltern: i.e., previously those who did not conform with hegemonic values were universally denied a platform; now, platforms are divided between pro-conformist, anti-conformist, and most commonly a neutral hybrid where conscious impulses strive toward diversity of opinion and unconscious assumptions propagate hegemony. one may note that refusal of debate or platform on the left is often itself in protest to something that chills or devalues speech of, or gaslights, casts as invalid, entire groups (e.g. hijaabi, sex workers, sexual assault survivors) whose voices are rarely acknowledged, who are at risk of being silenced entirely. or on the twitter/forum/comments level of discourse it is simply because y'all aren't as original as you think you are and who can be fucked to individually correct the 978th idiot to strut by thinking he invented 'equalism'

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Emberling,

What is your take on what happened to the author of this article? I ask because I'm surprised more leftist groups on Duke's campus didn't stand up to defend her opportunity to speak about improving the lives of women in Islam.

[Ormond]

In this case I'm asking about public pressure. This woman was attacked for daring to suggest there is some misogyeny in Islamic Nations and that Islam needs to look at how women are treated within Islam. Should she have been shunned and demonized for seeking discussion of these issues?

Scot, in moral terms I don't think people should be "shunned and demonized" for almost ANY reason. But in practical terms the great majority of what we call "shunning and demonizing" is also covered by free speech. I don't like it when any criticism of Muslims is considered "Islamophobic", or when any criticism of Israel is automatically labelled "anti-Semitic" or any support of same sex marriage is labelled "anti-Christian." But one can't stop the idiots who have such knee-jerk reactions from expressing them. It's their right to be touchy and irrational. Those of us who disagree just have to be more vocal with our own counters to their illogic.

[JoeyBanana]

Not really bothered by this. Denying someone a platform to speak or protesting a speech is a legitimate form of political activism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Joey,

I've never cared for attempts to pre-emptively silence speech you don't care for. That's how I perceive the Duke groups actions in this context.

[Happy Ent]

A University should be the place where freedom of speech, in particular freedom of voicing offensive opinions, should be favoured. A university is supposed to be such a platform, in my opinion.

(A kindergarden, on the other hand, I’d expect to prioritise insult-free codes of conduct.) I like the principles from U Chig, just signed by Princteton.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S42/84/36I47/index.xml?section=topstories

The whole text is good, but let me quote one part because it’s topical here:

it is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive. Although the University greatly values civility, and although all members of the University community share in the responsibility for maintaining a climate of mutual respect, concerns about civility and mutual respect can never be used as a justification for closing off discussion of ideas, however offensive or disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.

[Jo498]

I completely agree that the most obvious place where controversial ideas can and should be freely presented and discussed is a university. I can understand that some muslim student groups would protest (and it should be their right to protest but not to completely block such a presentation) but the university administration should be neutral.

I also think that there are borderline cases, e.g. say a neo-nazi group or Klansmen giving a presentation about race relations. In such a case neutral organisation like a university would be tainted for even allowing such speech on campus (so I actually think that such a case would not be borderline, but a university should not allow it). But I cannot see how the presentation at Duke would qualify as such a case.

Unfortunately, the fact that the range of topics where some people apparently show extreme sensitivity and claim to feel personally hurt by the mere statement of diverging opinions has been growing so large that now American universities have "trigger warning" for class reading material. This is of course ridiculous.