No, I am within my rights to yell at people.
Eve Moran

No, I am within my rights to yell at people.

Sure you have that right, though, I would suggest against it as it isn’t really that productive, other than creating an ulcer.

That is what I am doing now, with you. It does not change your ability to speak.

That is the difference between an open platform and a closed one. We can come here daily, bicker with each other, and debate ideas from politics to floral arts.

Even here, you shouldn’t demand that Medium deletes every post you personally disagree with. There are the terms of service, that as long as a commentator doesn’t breach, his posts should remain as they are. Even if those posts disgust me, you, or both of us.

On a closed platform, like the one given by universities, where a speaker is invited, rather than coming of his own accord, you cannot demand that you get the same treatment or else you disrupt that person talk. The university or the group inviting the speaker have no obligation to give you the same platform.

The same goes for news outlets that have a platform that they build for themselves and can use that platform as they choose without considering either of our sensibilities. The people they invite might push narratives we don’t support and at no time are we in a position to demand a certain speaker be invited — we can only suggest they do so. Needless to say that we cannot march to their studios and disrupt their broadcast to prevent them from saying the things we disagree with.

We can use it to express our ideas, but if we piss off the administrators, they can ban us, and that is not a violation of our free speech rights.

A private company is not bound by the First Amendment but when the same company silences the voices of the marginalized, the public is free to criticize and cease to do business with that company. That is why I keep mentioning the concept of free speech, as opposed to the literal interpretation of it as the First Amendment.

Surely you realize that the concept of “free speech” you are promoting here destroys any concept of property rights. I don’t have a right to commandeer things that are not mine.

That was precisely my point. You assert that the agitator has as much right to disrupt a presentation, as the presenter has the right to give it. In essence, the agitator is taking away the right of the presenter by doing so.

But you also said they have no right to free speech before it, because they may want to use their speech to object to hosting the speaker:
“Put it simply, understand it or not, the right to free speech ends when you try to take it away from someone else.”

A fair point. That was not what I was trying to convey, though.

By “trying to take it away,” I meant the way agitators pull fire alarms, use bullhorns, and shout during the presentation. Not when they peacefully gather to protest the talk beforehand, spreading flyers, and debate others on the merit of the individual.

That actually happens all the time.

No. It doesn’t. Finding the random case of discrimination does not represent the overall treatment of LGBT individuals. Apart from a religious school banning a gay speaker because of ideological decisions, which also seem to be an isolated incident, I don’t really see it on par with what happens in universities who ban more than just a particular conservative speaker.

And if you stand behind the argument of private institutions being able to ban speakers they disagree with, then you should also support a school who doesn’t want to invite a guest speaker based on his sexual orientation. I find the administration banning that speaker quite silly, as the students will eventually meet various people from the LGBT community, whether they know it or not and banning those speakers won’t really protect those students and will create for them problems down the line.

Banning athletes from dating and restricting LGBT people from having an education is discriminatory. The one with the athletes is also hypocritical, with the schools benefiting from the accolades the students give the school but punishing them by taking away the platform they deserve.

I support the students who challenge each other.
Why don’t you?

It seems like they mainly shout at each other with no one getting challenged on anything. The protests are not advocacy. They are spoilt children throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their preferred toy. They don’t have an argument or a cause, other than shutting down their opposition.

We are not talking about a debate. This is not a group of people standing around arguing a certain topic. From what I’ve seen thus far, there is a group of liberal thinkers who can be disgusted with what a certain speaker have to say but will also fight for the right of the speaker to say it, there is another group who shut down any event where a speaker says “the wrong thing,” and a third group, who calls people snowflakes and try to invite speakers they agree with, because the university doesn’t really add those points of view to the classroom.

How will they challenge each other? One group just shuts down debates and discussions they dislike. They label anyone who doesn’t agree with them completely as a sexist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe, bigot, anti-Semitic, and a Nazi and as you know, you should punch Nazis or at least take the platform from them.

I’m sorry, but I fail to see the merits of this type of “students who challenge each other”.

Like what you read? Give Shachar Haad a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.