A-R wrote:Free speech is only free if you already own the medium upon which the speech is delivered. In other words, you can shout it at the top of your lungs - they are your lungs. But if you want to post your thoughts on someone else's property, you better have their permission/consent.
I'm assuming that the university is public, not private. If so then the boundaries are entirely different than those which apply on private property. In your first post you said that if it's public, then he has no right to free speech, since the accommodations are paid for by the taxpayers. Here you're saying that any property is off limits, public or private. So in your view speech is strictly conditional on wealth: no free speech in public, and of course, private property is off limits unless you own it. So someone who isn't wealthy enough to own property has no rights to free speech. I don't think that's the traditional view of the courts. Usually, because public property is funded by taxes --taxes which are coerced from the public-- fewer limits on speech may be imposed.
Many people with libertarian inclinations seem to balance the practical elements of various "freedoms" --as you do here-- against theoretical concepts of markets and property that don't exist in reality. We see it all the time in debates such as the NFL searching fans entering a stadium. People who otherwise value their rights are ready to give them up on the pretext that the "owners" can do whatever they want because it's "their" property. The problem is, there is no "free market" and often no real divide between public and private property. When a stadium is built using tax dollars or with the benefit of tax subsidies, it isn't really private property; and certainly not in the sense that can be validated by the underlining philosophy of private property rights.
Our enemies on the left don't care about Constitutional rights and they certainly don't care about property rights. I think you know very well that only certain kinds of messages are going to be censored at this university. How often do you read articles about universities censoring leftist speech? I just had a son graduate from UT Austin a couple years ago. His classes were saturated with radical leftist and collectivist nonsense --I suspect this university in Wisconsin is even worse. I don't know what the politics of this professor are, but the first poster he got in trouble over is from a TV show that is basically libertarian in perspective. And let's not forget, the second poster was pure political speech, but it wasn't "approved" political speech, and he got in trouble over that one too. Conceding to these self-anointed arbiters of correct speech on the basis of theoretical rights they don't respect facilitates their thought policing.
VMI77 wrote:If you accept the notion that free speech is conditional upon whether or not someone finds it troubling or offensive then you don't have free speech.
A-R wrote:Of course I accept the "notion" that free speech is conditional, so does the SCOTUS. You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, obscenity is defined by local attitudes and morals, etc. Free speech is not absolute anymore than RKBA is absolute. There are limitations to everything. Since we all enjoy discussing the Texas Penal Code here in this forum, I invite you to read Section 42.01 DISORDERLY CONDUCT, as well as Chapter 43, subchapter B: OBSCENITY
(Please note, I am not suggesting that the case of the university professor fits into either of these parameters - merely using them as examples of "conditions" on the right of free speech).
Fine, but I didn't say there were no conditions. This has nothing to do with obscenity and isn't analogous to shouting fire in a crowded theater.
I said you don't have any free speech if it is conditional on what others find troubling or offensive. There are people who are troubled or offended about virtually everything, so there is virtually nothing that doesn't offend or trouble someone. The relevant SC ruling in this case is that a general remark as quoted on the first poster is not a threat. Again, the poster was a quote from a TV show, not the words of the professor himself. Even equating it to the belief or thinking of the person who posted it is simplistic. I often use signature quotes from my philosophical enemies in my emails. I use them to showcase the thinking of those who would do evil, not because I agree with their message, but because I disagree.
In this case I simply disagree that in the context provided the quote is inappropriate. If it was just a quote posted on his door, absent the TV show context, it might well be inappropriate; but this wasn't posted at an elementary school either, it was posted at a university, and anyone who can't understand the meaning of the quote and process the context that it came from a TV show, doesn't belong at a university. In essence the quote is a statement from the character on the TV show that he will never attack anyone without a reason (context provided by the show but not part of the poster), and that he will never ambush anyone or attack anyone who can't defend himself (context provided by the poster). What's wrong with that?
A-R wrote:And the above is not easy for me to write, nor admit, as I've spent most of my life as flame-throwing absolutest defender of both rights. As my tagline below purports I am a strong supporter of free speech. I worked more than 10 years as a journalist utilizing and defending free speech.
I'm not questioning your journalistic endeavors, there are good people in every profession, but it's been a while now since I can see much connection between journalists and the defense of free speech. Most of the "journalism" I see these days amounts to little more than being a mouthpiece for power.
A-R wrote:I rank the First Amendment equal to the Second - essential to liberty. Period. But again, just because someone has the RIGHT to do or say something, doesn't mean it's advisable. Tact is not required, but it sure is helpful in a good many situations. And following the law - regardless of your feelings about it - is always advisable.
Here I agree. However, he didn't break any laws. Furthermore, I submit that there are also times when your rights need to be asserted even when it's not advisable. I'll also say that while tact may be helpful, it's also not always possible. Some people exploit the tact and manners of others in order to get their own way. The left certainly seeks tact from their enemies but feels superior to them as well, and doesn't feel compelled to grant any in return. IOW, when they don't like the message, tact is often a weapon people with authority use to shut people up. And then, of course, there are people who are so delicate and sensitive that being tactful with them just means shutting up.
A-R wrote:As for the rest of your rebuttal, all good points to be sure, but again you missed the point that I was not defending the university police's threat of criminal charges. A private discussion with his supervisor and being told to take down the poster would have been an appropriate response. And for all we know, perhaps this was tried and he refused?
No, not missed, just concentrated on the other elements. For the most part I agree here as well, with the exception that if "this was tried and he refused" the proper course of action is termination, not bogus criminal charges. In any case, the proper action is in the context of the employer/employee relationship, not law enforcement. I'm just touching on the broader issues, other considerations would also apply once we look at this as a matter of institutional policy --such as what rules are in effect and how they are applied.
