Scan barcode
A review by cups
Free Speech on Campus by Howard Gillman, Erwin Chemerinsky
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.