UPenn’s Liz Magill voluntarily resigned after she faced widespread criticism for appearing to dodge a question at a congressional hearing about campus antisemitism.
House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. — who recently went viral for engaging in a contentious exchange with university presidents at a congressional hearing on antisemitism — on Saturday praised the resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill.
“One down. Two to go,” Stefanik wrote on X. “This is only the very beginning of addressing the pervasive rot of antisemitism that has destroyed the most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions in America.”
It’s not a softball question though when it’s presented in a hearing about free speech. If they’re a school that takes federal funding, then they have to protect students’ rights to free speech even if that speech seems abhorrent. They can’t take action on that speech unless, as they stated in their responses, it moves to being targeted or indicative of an action.
It’s the same question as “is it wrong to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre?”. It’s purposefully ambiguous so as to elicit both sides of the argument - free speech vs. safety. It’s a gotcha even if its not the gotcha you’re thinking it is.
I mean nah, breaking the treaty of tolerance isn’t free speech it’s intentional fostering of a hostile environment.
The notion that free speech should protect hate speech is only something that people who don’t know what hate speech really represents can argue.
You don’t say something like “burn the f*gs” unless you have a specific intent to move the overton window in that direction, and that alone is IMO grounds to stop looking at the free speech bubble and start looking at the harassment and intimidation bubble.
I think you’re being disingenuous. What’s if it’s not as overt as “burn the f*gs”? Then what? Who decides if it’s tolerant or not? What if it’s “love the sinner, hate the sin”? Is that hate speech, then? What if someone who is gay knows that quote and is offended by it?
The entire point is that speech needs to be allowed, even if it doesn’t have to be tolerated, in order for truth to prevail. You don’t have to allow people saying things that foster hostility to give speeches and give them a platform but you also can’t tell them they can’t say those things in public.
You also don’t have to keep providing them an education when they’re obviously calling for the execution of your students based on heritage.
Also, the hate the sin line is absolutely hate speech it directly states that queer existence is sinful in the eyes of the speaker.
And guess what, playing hate speech whackamole is proven to work, cracking down on it makes it go away because over time you get rid of more and more of the bad actors.
No toleration of intolerance is the most effective way to protect freedom of expression, because by adopting the policy you protect everyone else’s freedom to be themselves without fear of persecution in exchange for shutting out a bunch of people who clearly came out of the oven underbaked.
You’re missing the point. Who decides what constitutes “hate speech”? If a conservative, religious person was the head then any pro-LGBTQ speech might be considered “hate speech”. Your response could also qualify.
The last part of what you said is completely false. Nothing of the sort has been “proven”. There’s a reason a paradox of intolerance exists at the same time as a contract of tolerance does.
The point is that toleration is a treaty and hate speech is speech which violates the treaty of toleration, merely existing as a queer person is not hate speech, saying christians are all pedophiles and/or pedophile protectors is hate speech. It is the intent of attack against a group of people for mere fact of their existence, “death to all jews”, antisemitism, “stop palestinian genocide”, specific objection to the policies of a government.
We can back and forth hypotheticals forever but the point remains that we all understand what hate speech is and how to quantify it, enough so that it’s more than reasonable to treat “death to all jews” the same being said as it is spray painted on a synagogue. Literally the only worry anyone has about doing this is centrists who don’t have to endure hate speech and don’t live the difference between it and regular speech on a daily basis, who decides?
How about the fucking victims of it? Have trials, get juries involved, let cases play out same as they would any other crime, unless you want to impeach the justice system as a whole, there isn’t something in it that would make a clear sterile description of it more likely to bounce off a jury than any other sterile description of a law which has been broken or judicial precedent which has been invoked or challenged.
I can see that you’re not someone worth having this discussion with. Everything you’ve said falls apart as soon as the shoe is on the other foot. I’m not sure why you keep ignoring it but the fact that you are means you’re not arguing this in good faith and you’re not being reasonable.
Good day.