Protecting Feelings
Here is an example of an organizations going out of its way to protect the feelings of minorities by violating several of the most important virtues of America.
Clearly, no one favors the action this university office took in dealing with this supposed racist. However, I think a larger point needs to be made. Even those that support the idea of criminalizing speech that can be construed as harmful because it’s content focuses on a minority group need to understand that such regulation by its very nature easily lends itself to abuse. The line separating harmful speech and innocuous speech, in regards to minorities groups, is vague which offers a great deal of discretion to officials charged with making such determinations. Officials with an axe to grind can easily avail themselves of the vagueness in order to rectify what they perceive as social injustice.
It’s better to protect all kinds of speech, even the kind that might actually be harmful to a minority groups, then to subjugate such freedom to the whims of officials whose primary motivation is not to ferret out the most egregious examples of virulent speech, but to find opportunities to remedy delusions of social injustice.
But this only to hits upon a theme prevalent in many of my political positions. Accept the noise that a constitutionally protected right gives. Regulating the noise eliminates the right. Its better to let the moron declare racially virulent statements than give a jaded dimwitted official to much power in determining what ‘racially virulent’ means.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
For more on Steve’s protection of free speech, please see his reaction to Ahmadinejad being allowed to speak on Columbia’s campus.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Sigh…Still conflating providing funding with coercion.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Does this mean you’re also in favor of regulations on businesses preventing them from firing employees for the types of speech you want protected? If not, remember that the people who made this decision at Purdue weren’t elected officials, and were most likely making their decisions as business decisions, to protect the name of the school with their liberal market and to shield themselves from legislation.
My point is that you react to every problem by attacking the government, but that’s simply not sufficient if you want to actually address this problem. This problem comes from the combination of an overly-pc popular culture and a highly litiginous society, neither of which the goernment is responsible for. Aside from not actively persecuting anyone for this type of speech, what specific actions do you want the government to take to protect it?
December 30th, 2008 at 11:31 am
This post does not do a good job of separating private from public organizations. As a libertarian this private university is free to persecute any supposed racist within the mean of their institution.
My larger point is directed at those that wish to use the state to protect minorities from “harmful” speech.
That being said, the federal government has a say in public college policy via the school accepting federal funding. Whether I agree with this law, its completely in the states power to force universities to abandon these policies that blatantly violate citizens constitutional rights.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:50 am
Do you actually mean ‘force universities’ or just ‘deny funding’?
And, who exactly tries to use the state to protect minorities from harmful speech? When things like this happen I usually think of it as being at a private institution. If you’re reffering to hate-crimes legislation it’s a bit of a different issue, although I agree those regulations are bad news. But when has the government actually been used/lobbied to discriminate against racist speech?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“Sigh…Still conflating providing funding with coercion.”
Your argument was that the government has the right to withhold funding for expressions of free speech that it finds distasteful according to political preferences, yes?
If that is your argument, does that not lead to the conclusion that the federal government has the right to threaten to cut off funding to any institution that fails to crack down on this sort of ‘racial harassment’?
December 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Lets say I go to Burger King and by myself Whopper. As I bite into it the beef patty I discover it’s cold and the bun is stale. As a result I decide never to purchase food from Burger King again.
Would you say my actions are coercive?
Lets say that an IRS agent comes to my house. As he searches through my house he discovers I am not reporting all of my income. As a result he has me arrested and charged with tax evasion.
Would you say his actions are coercive?
January 2nd, 2009 at 10:22 pm
The IRS actions are illegal. Since when can an IRS agent come to your house and search through your records without just cause? Since when do they do home visits?
If you are not paying your taxes appropriately then you face the same penalties as everyone else… This is what your legistlature has decided. Your legislature has also argued for free speech and tried to protect it. Yet, you would rather have the state decide which free speech is appropriate…. Sort of sounds like gun laws…. The constitution guanrantees rights to carry arms, yet some folks would like the government to decide which arms that covers.
January 3rd, 2009 at 3:33 am
Totally missing the point.