hannahmarkezich's review against another edition
4.0
I agreed with many of the authors' ideas, and I think this book makes for really great class discussion. They make some excellent suggestions for how campuses should handle hate speech that administrators can put into practice, which was really refreshing. I also really appreciated that they showed both sides of the issue (why students want speech controlled and why it shouldn't be) without taking the classic stance of "this generation is so coddled and needs to get over it." I still disagree with them on some issues since I'm much more on the side of hate speech often being harmful speech that should be regulated. But there are a great many nuances to the situation. This book made me rethink some of my viewpoints and helped me to strengthen others.
However, a lot of their argument rested on past Supreme Court decisions. While that may convince a lot of people, I am not one to believe that a law is right just because the courts said so sixty years ago. That may play a factor in deciding how the law should work now, but as the world is constantly changing and, hopefully, improving, how we view and implement certain laws should evolve. So I wasn't entirely convinced by all of their arguments, but they definitely brought up some great points.
This is a great read if you're a college student or professor, especially if you're concerned about issues of free speech and hate speech on your campus.
However, a lot of their argument rested on past Supreme Court decisions. While that may convince a lot of people, I am not one to believe that a law is right just because the courts said so sixty years ago. That may play a factor in deciding how the law should work now, but as the world is constantly changing and, hopefully, improving, how we view and implement certain laws should evolve. So I wasn't entirely convinced by all of their arguments, but they definitely brought up some great points.
This is a great read if you're a college student or professor, especially if you're concerned about issues of free speech and hate speech on your campus.
emonroe26's review against another edition
4.0
Strong, thoroughly reasoned arguments written clearly and effectively
redbecca's review against another edition
3.0
The authors of this book proceed with slightly more nuance than you'll see in some of the current "campus wars" discourse, but they still take many over-hyped media stories about threats to campus speech at face value, repeating distortions that appeared in partisan media accounts of specific incidents. For example, they get the time-line of the Yiannopoulos west coast protests in early 2017 wrong. On January 20, 2017, a right-wing activist shot a protester outside the Yiannoupolos talk at UW. This story, despite the fact that the person shot nearly died, was not widely publicized until after the Berkeley protest in February, where the majority of action was property damage. The fact that someone was shot by an alt-right activist was an influence on tactics and sense of threat at the later protest, since both groups of activists engaged in these conflicts are known to each other and have had a long history of conflict. The authors also fail to accurately represent the concept of "microagressions" which they describe simply as being about the use of specific words and terms.
cups's review against another edition
4.0
Quite the fan of this book, it's not at all demeaning or condescending towards people who have qualms (soz love that word) with how speech is used on campus. The authors get that you need to create a relatively safe space in order to allow people of vast backgrounds feel comfortable in the learning environment. They also understand why people are so passionate about safe spaces but they firmly believe in the right to free speech and I think I agree.
Hate speech is not a crime in the US (speech that is a call to violence is a crime in the US, which is merely a subsect of European hate speech laws) and therefore cannot be a crime in public universities. The authors go on to say it should not be an offence in private universities either obvs. The more I've thought about this topic the more it make sense, universities ideally are an arena for intense debate about difficult issues. Forcing people to not express their views isn't going to make people more empathetic it's going to further the divide. European hate speech laws in my opinion haven't really helped make a more inclusive society, they just make people feel like they can only say things behind closed doors and then they vote for the alt right and everyone's shocked that the polls were wrong. Not saying Europe and America are that comparable because the history is vastly different, but hate speech laws don't really seem to fix the issue. More speech seems to be the answer to argue against views one holds to be demeaning rather than enforcing silence. (sidenote Obama had response to hate speech policies that sums up this point pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da2AhDCY)
I get that I would have trouble understanding why a lot of students are so adamant on safe spaces and trigger warnings and all that jazz seeing as I'm white and middle class and whatnot so I just tried to reason this with things that would effect me personally. I don't think I would be against Pro Israeli groups coming to my university even if their leader had said death to all Palestinians or that arabs are scum SO LONG AS the format of their speech allows you to respond back, ask questions and tell them why they're wrong. When that Milo guy was coming to uni, it pissed me off but I think looking back it was a bad reaction. Like silencing him isn't really going to fix the issue, the journalism society turning it into a debate or including a Q&A at the end is the best option. Everyone should feel safe to the point that they never feel any physical harm, bullying, or that they can't even be in a classroom because of intense hostility, but otherwise I'd rather not be in a bubble where only people who agree with me are allowed to be express themselves, that seems spookier to me than someone saying a shit ton of racist shit about arabs or saying all women deserve rape or something.
When you think of the history of free speech, you realise the importance of maintaining it. You never know what speech we consider now to be fucked up that will eventually become the norm. A lot of movements I believe in would not have been possible if these hate speech policy existed then. For example, the ability to protest the Vietnam war would not have been possible under current hate speech policies due to the chants and signs students put up but those protests were what helped change public opinion. I dunno I think there's a line and we've sort of cross too far over into censorship for my taste but always keen to hear that I'm wrong so HMU. SOZ for the long review but had a real good time with this book.
Hate speech is not a crime in the US (speech that is a call to violence is a crime in the US, which is merely a subsect of European hate speech laws) and therefore cannot be a crime in public universities. The authors go on to say it should not be an offence in private universities either obvs. The more I've thought about this topic the more it make sense, universities ideally are an arena for intense debate about difficult issues. Forcing people to not express their views isn't going to make people more empathetic it's going to further the divide. European hate speech laws in my opinion haven't really helped make a more inclusive society, they just make people feel like they can only say things behind closed doors and then they vote for the alt right and everyone's shocked that the polls were wrong. Not saying Europe and America are that comparable because the history is vastly different, but hate speech laws don't really seem to fix the issue. More speech seems to be the answer to argue against views one holds to be demeaning rather than enforcing silence. (sidenote Obama had response to hate speech policies that sums up this point pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da2AhDCY)
I get that I would have trouble understanding why a lot of students are so adamant on safe spaces and trigger warnings and all that jazz seeing as I'm white and middle class and whatnot so I just tried to reason this with things that would effect me personally. I don't think I would be against Pro Israeli groups coming to my university even if their leader had said death to all Palestinians or that arabs are scum SO LONG AS the format of their speech allows you to respond back, ask questions and tell them why they're wrong. When that Milo guy was coming to uni, it pissed me off but I think looking back it was a bad reaction. Like silencing him isn't really going to fix the issue, the journalism society turning it into a debate or including a Q&A at the end is the best option. Everyone should feel safe to the point that they never feel any physical harm, bullying, or that they can't even be in a classroom because of intense hostility, but otherwise I'd rather not be in a bubble where only people who agree with me are allowed to be express themselves, that seems spookier to me than someone saying a shit ton of racist shit about arabs or saying all women deserve rape or something.
When you think of the history of free speech, you realise the importance of maintaining it. You never know what speech we consider now to be fucked up that will eventually become the norm. A lot of movements I believe in would not have been possible if these hate speech policy existed then. For example, the ability to protest the Vietnam war would not have been possible under current hate speech policies due to the chants and signs students put up but those protests were what helped change public opinion. I dunno I think there's a line and we've sort of cross too far over into censorship for my taste but always keen to hear that I'm wrong so HMU. SOZ for the long review but had a real good time with this book.
redbecca's review
3.0
The authors of this book proceed with slightly more nuance than you'll see in some of the current "campus wars" discourse, but they still take many over-hyped media stories about threats to campus speech at face value, repeating distortions that appeared in partisan media accounts of specific incidents. For example, they get the time-line of the Yiannopoulos west coast protests in early 2017 wrong. On January 20, 2017, a right-wing activist shot a protester outside the Yiannoupolos talk at UW. This story, despite the fact that the person shot nearly died, was not widely publicized until after the Berkeley protest in February, where the majority of action was property damage. The fact that someone was shot by an alt-right activist was an influence on tactics and sense of threat at the later protest, since both groups of activists engaged in these conflicts are known to each other and have had a long history of conflict. The authors also fail to accurately represent the concept of "microagressions" which they describe simply as being about the use of specific words and terms.
cups's review
4.0
Quite the fan of this book, it's not at all demeaning or condescending towards people who have qualms (soz love that word) with how speech is used on campus. The authors get that you need to create a relatively safe space in order to allow people of vast backgrounds feel comfortable in the learning environment. They also understand why people are so passionate about safe spaces but they firmly believe in the right to free speech and I think I agree.
Hate speech is not a crime in the US (speech that is a call to violence is a crime in the US, which is merely a subsect of European hate speech laws) and therefore cannot be a crime in public universities. The authors go on to say it should not be an offence in private universities either obvs. The more I've thought about this topic the more it make sense, universities ideally are an arena for intense debate about difficult issues. Forcing people to not express their views isn't going to make people more empathetic it's going to further the divide. European hate speech laws in my opinion haven't really helped make a more inclusive society, they just make people feel like they can only say things behind closed doors and then they vote for the alt right and everyone's shocked that the polls were wrong. Not saying Europe and America are that comparable because the history is vastly different, but hate speech laws don't really seem to fix the issue. More speech seems to be the answer to argue against views one holds to be demeaning rather than enforcing silence. (sidenote Obama had response to hate speech policies that sums up this point pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da2AhDCY)
I get that I would have trouble understanding why a lot of students are so adamant on safe spaces and trigger warnings and all that jazz seeing as I'm white and middle class and whatnot so I just tried to reason this with things that would effect me personally. I don't think I would be against Pro Israeli groups coming to my university even if their leader had said death to all Palestinians or that arabs are scum SO LONG AS the format of their speech allows you to respond back, ask questions and tell them why they're wrong. When that Milo guy was coming to uni, it pissed me off but I think looking back it was a bad reaction. Like silencing him isn't really going to fix the issue, the journalism society turning it into a debate or including a Q&A at the end is the best option. Everyone should feel safe to the point that they never feel any physical harm, bullying, or that they can't even be in a classroom because of intense hostility, but otherwise I'd rather not be in a bubble where only people who agree with me are allowed to be express themselves, that seems spookier to me than someone saying a shit ton of racist shit about arabs or saying all women deserve rape or something.
When you think of the history of free speech, you realise the importance of maintaining it. You never know what speech we consider now to be fucked up that will eventually become the norm. A lot of movements I believe in would not have been possible if these hate speech policy existed then. For example, the ability to protest the Vietnam war would not have been possible under current hate speech policies due to the chants and signs students put up but those protests were what helped change public opinion. I dunno I think there's a line and we've sort of cross too far over into censorship for my taste but always keen to hear that I'm wrong so HMU. SOZ for the long review but had a real good time with this book.
Hate speech is not a crime in the US (speech that is a call to violence is a crime in the US, which is merely a subsect of European hate speech laws) and therefore cannot be a crime in public universities. The authors go on to say it should not be an offence in private universities either obvs. The more I've thought about this topic the more it make sense, universities ideally are an arena for intense debate about difficult issues. Forcing people to not express their views isn't going to make people more empathetic it's going to further the divide. European hate speech laws in my opinion haven't really helped make a more inclusive society, they just make people feel like they can only say things behind closed doors and then they vote for the alt right and everyone's shocked that the polls were wrong. Not saying Europe and America are that comparable because the history is vastly different, but hate speech laws don't really seem to fix the issue. More speech seems to be the answer to argue against views one holds to be demeaning rather than enforcing silence. (sidenote Obama had response to hate speech policies that sums up this point pretty well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi5da2AhDCY)
I get that I would have trouble understanding why a lot of students are so adamant on safe spaces and trigger warnings and all that jazz seeing as I'm white and middle class and whatnot so I just tried to reason this with things that would effect me personally. I don't think I would be against Pro Israeli groups coming to my university even if their leader had said death to all Palestinians or that arabs are scum SO LONG AS the format of their speech allows you to respond back, ask questions and tell them why they're wrong. When that Milo guy was coming to uni, it pissed me off but I think looking back it was a bad reaction. Like silencing him isn't really going to fix the issue, the journalism society turning it into a debate or including a Q&A at the end is the best option. Everyone should feel safe to the point that they never feel any physical harm, bullying, or that they can't even be in a classroom because of intense hostility, but otherwise I'd rather not be in a bubble where only people who agree with me are allowed to be express themselves, that seems spookier to me than someone saying a shit ton of racist shit about arabs or saying all women deserve rape or something.
When you think of the history of free speech, you realise the importance of maintaining it. You never know what speech we consider now to be fucked up that will eventually become the norm. A lot of movements I believe in would not have been possible if these hate speech policy existed then. For example, the ability to protest the Vietnam war would not have been possible under current hate speech policies due to the chants and signs students put up but those protests were what helped change public opinion. I dunno I think there's a line and we've sort of cross too far over into censorship for my taste but always keen to hear that I'm wrong so HMU. SOZ for the long review but had a real good time with this book.
More...