The Issue with "Free Speech"

[ImQuiet]

While this is true, most you’re not permitted on most public college campuses unless you attend. Obviously there are exceptions such as campus tours, college days, etc. The point is, an institution can deny and permit someone to speak on campus property.

What college are you going to? I’ve never seen that happen.
If you’re trying to have an assembly of some kind, then yeah, it’s not like you can waltz into a building and start a rousing speech, but I haven’t heard anything about someone not being permitted on campus due to a difference in opinion.

However, banning hate speech is not censoring one side or the other. No one should use a media platform to spread hateful ideas and opinions.

This would be trying to fight a battle that can’t be won. Major social media companies already have hate speech policies in place; closing down hate speech sites has proven to be a fruitless endeavor. Even The Daily Stormer, which was actually shut down, just moved.
You’re right, hate speech sucks, but it’s not worth the resources it would take to curb it on the internet.

 

[redbetta]

While this is true, most you’re not permitted on most public college campuses unless you attend.

I just saw this. Are you even in college or have gone to college? I just graduated from a private institution last year and members of the general public came on campus all the time to use our gym, our libraries, eat at our on-campus restaurants, etc. It is really only dorms and certain buildings after-hours that were restricted.

 

[dochawk]

As this discussion is fundamentally political, and not casual, I"ve moved it to world news.

 

[Ender]

However, banning hate speech is not censoring one side or the other. No one should use a media platform to spread hateful ideas and opinions.

This demonstrates a complete failure to understand what free speech means. It all seems so reasonable that “hate speech” be banned until one realizes that by allowing someone to arbitrarily define what constitutes “hate speech” any speech can be prohibited. Speech is not free if one side gets to censor what the other side wants to say.

Claiming the right to ban “hate speech” is nothing less than a justification for eliminating the right of free speech.

 

[CatholicBlobfish]

The primary issue with censoring “Hate Speech” is that the definition can be heavily manipulated by whatever side controls the censoring. I know pro-life groups (and not those weirdos at AHA, we don’t talk about them) have been censored in a lot of cases because some social media sites consider anything anti-abortion to be bordering on hate speech. Sure, private sites may have a legal right to censor anything they don’t like. That doesn’t mean what they’re censoring is actually a “hateful ideology.”

Allowing actual hateful ideologies to exist is a price of free speech, sadly, but it’s better than the alternative of extreme censorship. Hateful ideologies can be defeated through debate and good ideologies. Censoring them just makes them feel persecuted, and they further entrench themselves in that hateful ideology.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

While this is true, most you’re not permitted on most public college campuses unless you attend.

Most? That doesn’t sound right. While there are areas that are not available to random people walking in off the street (ex: hanging out in a class room during class) if it is a public school you can certainly come to visit the campus and talk to people. I go to campus libraries from time to time to get information that isn’t available online without paying. I’m not a student.

By the way, I made this thread because I had a thought and wanted to share it and get some feedback. It’s purely for discussion.

For what it’s worth, if you take a look at the multitudes of court cases against social media companies (most recently the second PragerU v YouTube case) their rulings have all pretty much been the same; these companies are not state actors and are not sufficiently necessary for free speech.