Berkeley Puts Launches A Free Speech Website

[Kathianne]

While not as concise as the U of C letter to incoming students, where it's 'this is what is, if you don't like it you need to find a place where you will be comfortable,' it's a very good start. Jim and I were speaking awhile ago about universities and the craziness, I said I thought it was swinging back:


https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/...e-free-speech/

Berkeley Launches Website Explaining Free Speech, Denouncing ‘De Facto Censorship’

JOHN SEXTONPosted at 1:01 pm on September 20, 2017


As part of chancellor Carol Christ’s commitment to a “free speech year,” UC Berkeley recently launched a website devoted to explaining the ins and outs of free speech. From the Daily Californian:


The site includes links to articles about free speech, campus policies on hosting speakers and protesting safely, a list of upcoming free speech events and a timeline of the Free Speech Movement. There is also a Q&A page, as well as a moderated public discussion forum.


According to campus spokesperson Michael Dirda, the Office of Communications and Public Affairs began working on the project at the end of the summer and built the website on WordPress with no external costs over the last few weeks. The website will remain online for at least the next year.


You can visit the site here. At the bottom of the page is an FAQ which includes questions like: “Can UC Berkeley cancel a student-sponsored event if the administration or the campus community disagrees with the speaker’s views?” This seems like the kind of thing far left activists on campus might want to know. The good news is that Berkeley’s answer is unequivocal: “No, this would violate established law and the rights of student groups to invite whoever they wish to the Berkeley campus. Only student groups who invite speakers have the authority to disinvite them.”



Similarly, here’s how the site answers the question, “What is ‘hate speech’? Is it illegal?”


The term “hate speech” does not have a legal definition in the United States, but it often refers to speech that insults or demeans a person or group of people on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability or gender. While the university condemns speech of this kind, there is no “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment and it is only illegal if it falls into one of the categories described above. In fact, on many occasions, the Supreme Court has explicitly held that prohibitions or punishments for hateful speech violate the First Amendment.


Just because there is a First Amendment right to say something, however, doesn’t mean that it should be said. The First Amendment protects a right to say hateful things, but as a campus we strive to be a community where no one will choose to express hate.


One more excerpt and this is an important one: “Can people who oppose a speaker’s message use their own freedom of speech to drown out the offending words?”


No, freedom of speech does not give someone the right to drown out the words and speech of others; freedom of speech would mean little if the audience was able to silence anyone with whom they disagreed. Once a society starts down the path of condoning such de facto censorship, it creates the culture and conditions in which anyone’s rights of speech can be compromised.


Well done, Berkeley! The site does contain a page on “Keeping our students and community safe.” Does it undercut what was said in the FAQ? Not at all. The page does offer counseling services to anyone who feels triggered, but it also links to a message from Chancellor Christ which reaffirms that the heckler’s veto is not acceptable:

Defending the right of free speech for those whose ideas we find offensive is not easy. It often conflicts with the values we hold as a community — tolerance, inclusion, reason and diversity. Some constitutionally protected speech attacks the very identity of particular groups of individuals in ways that are deeply hurtful. However, the right response is not the heckler’s veto, or what some call platform denial. Call toxic speech out for what it is, don’t shout it down, for in shouting it down, you collude in the narrative that universities are not open to all speech. Respond to hate speech with more speech.

Chancellor Christ is saying exactly the right things and Berkeley’s free speech site is too. Of course, it would be great if none of this was necessary because students already understood and valued free speech, but that’s clearly not where we are. In addition, the fact that Ben Shapiro’s speech was not canceled or shouted down suggests the school seems to be moving in a good direction. Of course, the real test is yet to come.

[Gunny]

Sounds great. In theory. In practice? Call me skeptical.

[aboutime]

The reason I don't buy it, or believe it is genuine is...IF Berkeley was honestly trying to resolve the problem, and show the country how dedicated they really are to maintaining FREE SPEECH... there would have never been a reason to CREATE A WEBSITE to clear up, what other colleges, universities, and educational centers accept, without needing to defend the 1st amendment...per the U.S. Constitution.

There is NO NEED to defend FREE SPEECH if they are truly Americans.

[Gunny]

Worth the effort if they want to give it a shot. Might be interesting to see what they come up with. Free speech is a tough nut to crack. I don't think anyone's ever won a lost the argument (an honest one anyway) because of all the variable. Individual interpretation that strays from the ideal comes to mind as the the first detriment. Most people cannot honestly differentiate between their opinion and fact.

The Supreme Court puts limitation on freedom of speech. So does each individual. It's a recipe for an argument. I doubt anything will be resolved by it, but it will be interesting to me to see what thse people say simply because they usually make me feel good about myself when they display all that money and college education and absolute black hole ignorance

[Kathianne]

Sounds great. In theory. In practice? Call me skeptical.

As I said, I like U of Chicago's letter to incoming students much better, there isn't any 'empathy' for those that need 'safe spaces,' no discussion regarding counseling, though I know they do have the services, doubt that melting down over speakers would go far.

The thing about Berkeley is that it really does have a storied history regarding first amendment, free speech in particular. The past few years have seriously tarnished that legacy, I'm betting alumni have made their feelings known.

[gabosaurus]

Berkeley has always been about free speech. What is different is how it is handled.
The last 60's were a very conservative time. People were supposed to shut up and do what they were told. Berkeley became a center of those who opposed the social norm and were willing to speak out. They often did such at their own peril.
Cal was a much different place when I was there. Everyone was free to speak their mind, whether they were far left or far right. There were actually more conservative groups than liberals, since Berkeley students tended to come from affluent families.
The "me generation" is in charge now. Affluent kids now see social activism as a way to promote themselves rather than a way to achieve societal change. They don't understand that there are boundaries and costs for their misdeeds. They are influenced by the 60's movies and videos they see on TV, which often fail to include getting arrested and occasionally expelled.
I think both sides wanted to be protected from their own actions.

[Gunny]

As I said, I like U of Chicago's letter to incoming students much better, there isn't any 'empathy' for those that need 'safe spaces,' no discussion regarding counseling, though I know they do have the services, doubt that melting down over speakers would go far.

The thing about Berkeley is that it really does have a storied history regarding first amendment, free speech in particular. The past few years have seriously tarnished that legacy, I'm betting alumni have made their feelings known.

To kinda quote Hawkeye from the Avengers, "You and I remember Berkeley very differently"

What I don't get is this: What is the purpose? Odds are good you've got a bunch of people who go in with their minds made up. They want to say their piece and ignore the rest. That's completely typical of our society as a whole nowadays, IMO. We try to define how tolerant we are with intolerance. There's a hole in that bucket.

[Gunny]

Berkeley has always been about free speech. What is different is how it is handled.
The last 60's were a very conservative time. People were supposed to shut up and do what they were told. Berkeley became a center of those who opposed the social norm and were willing to speak out. They often did such at their own peril.
Cal was a much different place when I was there. Everyone was free to speak their mind, whether they were far left or far right. There were actually more conservative groups than liberals, since Berkeley students tended to come from affluent families.
The "me generation" is in charge now. Affluent kids now see social activism as a way to promote themselves rather than a way to achieve societal change. They don't understand that there are boundaries and costs for their misdeeds. They are influenced by the 60's movies and videos they see on TV, which often fail to include getting arrested and occasionally expelled.
I think both sides wanted to be protected from their own actions.

THAT is how I remember Berkeley.

[gabosaurus]

What I don't get is this: What is the purpose? Odds are good you've got a bunch of people who go in with their minds made up. They want to say their piece and ignore the rest. That's completely typical of our society as a whole nowadays, IMO. We try to define how tolerant we are with intolerance. There's a hole in that bucket.

Quite a good point. Where I was at Cal, people were a lot more tolerant. I would state my point. Someone else would state a different point. No one felt the need to confront the other. The black activists held their rallies and a few people would drop by. Same with Chicano activists, Young Republicans and those opposed to beans being put in chili. Then we would all attend class together the next day.
Some of the most radical and polarizing figures in society came to campus and spoke to whoever showed up. No one felt their safety was being threatened and no one needed a "safe zone" to hide from opinions different from their own.

[jimnyc]

Berkeley has always been about free speech.

Things have changed then, at least as of late. Their record of "free speech" has been abysmal in the past year or more.

[Abbey Marie]

To kinda quote Hawkeye from the Avengers, "You and I remember Berkeley very differently"

What I don't get is this: What is the purpose? Odds are good you've got a bunch of people who go in with their minds made up. They want to say their piece and ignore the rest. That's completely typical of our society as a whole nowadays, IMO. We try to define how tolerant we are with intolerance. There's a hole in that bucket.

One thing watching Burns' Vietnam Nam series reminded me of is that over time protests can change the minds of the populace. Both here and in Viet Nam, actually. But the other ingredient you really need is a collaborative media.

As for Berkeley, what are they if not a bastion of free speech? It's in their DNA. Whether other more "normally liberal" colleges will follow suit is not guaranteed, but U of Chicago is a good sign.

[Gunny]

One thing watching Burns' Vietnam Nam series reminded me of is that over time protests can change the minds of the populace. Both here and in Viet Nam, actually. But the other ingredient you really need is a collaborative media.

As for Berkeley, what are they if not a bastion of free speech? It's in their DNA. Whether other more "normally liberal" colleges will follow suit is not guaranteed, but U of Chicago is a good sign.

The media is DEFINITELY the driver of the bus. They determine what is covered and ignored. In reference to Vietnam (that era), we had 3 network channels and if lucky, 2 newspapers for info back then. What they said was "fact". If you lived on a military base, the media was seriously controlled. For instance, I lived in Monterey, CA in 66, 68, and 71-72. Only for real hippies or protestors I ever say was when we were stationed in DC. I lived on base in CA. Never saw any hippy crap or protests on base.

In Texas, you didn't dare be a hippy and nobody cared who anyone was in FL.

A simple point about freedom of speech that is sorely lacking, even in the 60s and now: Your right to freedom of speech ends where MY Right to freedom of the pursuit of happiness begins. When you block my travel, force your viewpoints on my children/try to pressure me to live by them, I've long quit listening to any point you may being trying to make and am wondering why you are acting like a two years old throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way.

None of THAT is part of the process for redressing grievances. Taking over a city block and looting and burning it down is NOT a "proper forum".

Not to mention, the loudmouths who think they must be heard give cover to the thugs that commit crimes in their midst and in their name. Brilliant strategy for redressing grievances. And protesting violence (Nam) and calling the right Nazis (now) while being violent fascists in action is just mind-boggling in its stupidity.

[aboutime]

One thing watching Burns' Vietnam Nam series reminded me of is that over time protests can change the minds of the populace. Both here and in Viet Nam, actually. But the other ingredient you really need is a collaborative media.

As for Berkeley, what are they if not a bastion of free speech? It's in their DNA. Whether other more "normally liberal" colleges will follow suit is not guaranteed, but U of Chicago is a good sign.

Abbey. I recorded it last night. Saw the beginning. Emotional. Even though I never went to NAM. I did feel what it was like. Coming home in 1965 from Norfolk on a Trailways bus into Philly. As I walked from the bus station to Reading Terminal on Market st..two guys came up behind me. I was in uniform, and they punched me in the back of my neck, then stole my handbag with dirty underwear, and some toiletries I was taking home. A few months later. In Reading Terminal, again, in uniform waiting for my train. I waved to a little guy in a stroller, he waved back. His mom looked at me, then took him away as she said something I couldn't hear, but she wasn't happy THIS CHILD MOLESTER IN UNIFORM dared to look at her child.
Finally. I know six of the names on the Vietnam Wall in DC. I grew up with them.
EMOTIONAL to today. I can't visit the wall anymore.

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey. I recorded it last night. Saw the beginning. Emotional. Even though I never went to NAM. I did feel what it was like. Coming home in 1965 from Norfolk on a Trailways bus into Philly. As I walked from the bus station to Reading Terminal on Market st..two guys came up behind me. I was in uniform, and they punched me in the back of my neck, then stole my handbag with dirty underwear, and some toiletries I was taking home. A few months later. In Reading Terminal, again, in uniform waiting for my train. I waved to a little guy in a stroller, he waved back. His mom looked at me, then took him away as she said something I couldn't hear, but she wasn't happy THIS CHILD MOLESTER IN UNIFORM dared to look at her child.
Finally. I know six of the names on the Vietnam Wall in DC. I grew up with them.
EMOTIONAL to today. I can't visit the wall anymore.

Thank you for sharing that, AT. It was disgraceful how you all were treated.
My oldest brother was in Nam, and he was treated badly at home as well.

The first two two episodes are mostly about the history of French involvement in Viet Nam, etc., and the third starts our own serious involvement beyond advisers. And starting to touch on the protests back home.

What I find particularly interesting are the comments from various Vietnamese soldiers, both north and south.

[Gunny]

Thank you for sharing that, AT. It was disgraceful how you all were treated.
My oldest brother was in Nam, and he was treated badly at home as well.

The first two two episodes are mostly about the history of French involvement in Viet Nam, etc., and the third starts our own serious involvement beyond advisers. And starting to touch on the protests back home.

What I I find particularly interesting are the comments from various Vietnamese soldiers, both north and south.

Was a war we should never have involved ourselves in. Ho wanted to unify his country and independence from French colonial rule. He actually asked us for help with France before going to Russia. We were commie-paranoid at the time.

The military did not lose the Vietnam War. The people here of which we speak in collusion with the media did. To be exact, the second Walter Cronkite, who was God's gift to truth in the media then, said we could not win, we were done politically.