Has the Left Flip Flopped on Free Speech?

So asks the New Yorker:

What happened next is a tragedy of betrayals. During the seventies, the left’s commitment to free speech began to unravel. The “no-platform movement”—the turn where the left started sounding like the right—was founded in 1974, by a British student group that banned any speaker “holding racist or fascist views.” One influence was Herbert Marcuse, who argued that liberals’ commitment to open debate was absurd, because free speech had become a form of oppression. Another influence, beginning in the eighties, was the field of trauma studies, which understood words as harm. By the nineties, more than three hundred and fifty American colleges and universities had adopted hate-speech codes, which were often used against the very people they were designed to protect. In less than two years under the University of Michigan’s speech code, more than twenty white students accused black students of racist speech. Had such codes been in place in 1966, Carmichael’s Berkeley speech would have violated them.

The whole article is interesting.  The article goes on to question if the left and right has switched sides.  I don't think the right is for free speech exactly.  The people who are defending free speech most effectively as far as I can tell is what is known as the Intellectual Dark Web.

The IDW is made up of people across the political spectrum who believe in the free exchange of ideas.  Even when they disagree they typically have robust and civil debate.  Alas, many people who are members of this phenomenon have been victims of character assassination by progressives and mainstream media outlets.   

Enjoy,

Terp

No.

From Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

No.

See Jill Lepore’s commentary from seven months ago in The New Yorker.

The Brookings study:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/09/18/views-among-college-students-regarding-the-first-amendment-results-from-a-new-survey/

The New Yorker summarizes one of its findings this way: “One out of two students believes that colleges should prohibit ‘certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people.’” The question, however, was not about what colleges should do. It told students they had to choose the more important priority between two options, saying Option 1 “would create a positive learning experience for all students” and Option 2 “would create an open learning environment.” Loaded descriptions, and a required choice. Is it any surprise that responses were evenly divided?

(What’s a little surprising is the methodology of the survey: no sign that it was randomized, with only a guesstimate of the margin of error.)

oy

and a website which has the temerity to display the photo of that rank piece of crap, Ben Shapiro, as some sort of leading light of intellectualism, well....

this strikes me as one of those topics in which people draw their conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it. 

A few observations:

1.  You're throwing this out there like it just broke through the surface as a topic of discussion an controversy.  The retreat of free speech on campuses has been filler for right leaning pundit for years and years now.  It's an easy go to subject when someone doesn't have anything fresh to write or speak about.

2.  Is this really a broad problem of the "left."?  How active and powerful is the movement, if there is one, to forcefully shut people up outside of the campus hate speech context?  

3.  We live in a bipartisan "shout down" era as far as political discussion goes.   "I don't think the right is for free speech exactly" is an understatement.  If you want to hear political opinion that is civilized, reflective and respectful of intelligent disagreement, definitely do not listen to or watch the more popular right leaning media figures and definitely definitively do not surf the net for all of the vile "libtard" talk and much worse (both ways).  

the frustrating thing for me is that Ive posted a study on free speech on campuses about three times in the past. Could have even been four times. I think daveschmidt has posted it twice. It concluded that while a few incidents that occurred mean that we need to remain vigilant about protecting free speech, there is no significant curtailing of speech on campuses. Just goes to show that you can post research all day long and if it doesn't conform to certain folks' preconceived notions, you may have just as well not posted it at all. 

With that in mind, I don't have the energy to search for it again and post it for the third or fourth or fifth time. 

https://www.salon.com/2017/04/...

and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

DaveSchmidt said:
No.
See Jill Lapore’s commentary from seven months ago in The New Yorker.

ml1 said:
and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

 Followed by many liberal journos who have to say it was in bad taste or mean or crossed a line in fear of losing access to their Whitehouse sources.

What a bunch of cowardly lions the lot of them.

ridski said:

ml1 said:
and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

 Followed by many liberal journos who have to say it was in bad taste or mean or crossed a line in fear of losing access to their Whitehouse sources.


What a bunch of cowardly lions the lot of them.

 yup.

The interesting thing is that the parts of the monologue that have people freaked out are completely based in truth.  

I think the press was most offended by the closing lines.

"You guys are obsessed with Trump. Did you used to date him? Because you pretend like you hate him, but I think you love him. I think what no one in this room wants to admit is that Trump has helped all of you. He couldn’t sell steaks or vodka or water or college or ties or Eric, but he has helped you. He’s helped you sell your papers and your books and your TV. You helped create this monster, and now you’re profiting off of him. If you’re going to profit off of Trump, you should at least give him some money, because he doesn’t have any."

sort of like this:

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president’s side, and the vice president’s side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished. 

Over the last five years you people were so good — over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know – fiction!
http://www.editorandpublisher....

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

 Followed by many liberal journos who have to say it was in bad taste or mean or crossed a line in fear of losing access to their Whitehouse sources.


What a bunch of cowardly lions the lot of them.

 yup.
The interesting thing is that the parts of the monologue that have people freaked out are completely based in truth.  

 Except they were misunderstood and poorly reported. The press literally fake news'd this for their own clickbait.

ml1 said:
sort of like this:

As excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president’s side, and the vice president’s side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished. 

Over the last five years you people were so good — over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president makes decisions. He’s the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know – fiction!
http://www.editorandpublisher....

Exactly.  It's déjà vu all over again.  Of course, that last time, the year after Colbert they featured Rich Little.  Maybe next year the dinner speaker will be Carrot Top.

bub said:

1.  You're throwing this out there like it just broke through the surface as a topic of discussion an controversy.  The retreat of free speech on campuses has been filler for right leaning pundit for years and years now.  It's an easy go to subject when someone doesn't have anything fresh to write or speak about.

The University of Michigan code mentioned in the OP’s excerpt, for example, was struck down in 1989. Two passages from the ruling speak to the same complexity and tension that the New Yorker writer reminds us are at play.

From the Introduction:

It is an unfortunate fact of our constitutional system that the ideals of freedom and equality are often in conflict. The difficult and sometimes painful task of our political and legal institutions is to mediate the appropriate balance between these two competing values. Recently, the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor (the University), a state-chartered university, see Mich. Const. art. VIII, adopted a Policy on Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment of Students in the University Environment (the Policy) in an attempt to curb what the University's governing Board of Regents (Regents) viewed as a rising tide of racial intolerance and harassment on campus. The Policy prohibited individuals, under the penalty of sanctions, from "stigmatizing or victimizing" individuals or groups on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status. However laudable or appropriate an effort this may have been, the Court found that the Policy swept within its scope a significant amount of "verbal conduct" or "verbal behavior" which is unquestionably protected speech under the First Amendment.

And from a conference paper cited in the Addendum:

This article attempts to begin a conversation about the First Amendment that acknowledges both the civil libertarian's fear of tyranny and the victims' experience of loss of liberty in a society that tolerates racist speech. It suggests criminalization of a narrow, explicitly defined class of racist hate speech, to provide public redress for the most serious harm, while leaving many forms of racist speech to private remedies . . . . This is not an easy legal or moral puzzle, but it is precisely in these places where we feel conflicting tugs at heart and mind that we have the most work to do and the most knowledge to gain.

ml1 said:
the frustrating thing for me is that Ive posted a study on free speech on campuses about three times in the past. Could have even been four times. I think daveschmidt has posted it twice. 

You and me, kid, passing notes in class to reinforce biases and blind spots since 2012. 

DaveSchmidt said:

ml1 said:
the frustrating thing for me is that Ive posted a study on free speech on campuses about three times in the past. Could have even been four times. I think daveschmidt has posted it twice. 

You and me, kid, passing notes in class to reinforce biases and blind spots since 2012. 

 well, you know how it is when we're talking only to each other.

ridski said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

 Followed by many liberal journos who have to say it was in bad taste or mean or crossed a line in fear of losing access to their Whitehouse sources.


What a bunch of cowardly lions the lot of them.

 yup.
The interesting thing is that the parts of the monologue that have people freaked out are completely based in truth.  

 Except they were misunderstood and poorly reported. The press literally fake news'd this for their own clickbait.

 yes.  Hard to believe that anyone truly believed that Wolf made fun of Sanders' appearance.  She made fun of her lying for jeebus sake.  There were no jokes making fun of appearance (unless someone thinks having great looking eye shadow is a bad thing.)

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:

ridski said:

ml1 said:
and at the same time we have snowflakes on the right freaking out over Michelle Wolf, who said "mean" things about conservatives at an event that celebrates the freakin' 1st Amendment.  You can't make this stuff up.

 Followed by many liberal journos who have to say it was in bad taste or mean or crossed a line in fear of losing access to their Whitehouse sources.


What a bunch of cowardly lions the lot of them.

 yup.
The interesting thing is that the parts of the monologue that have people freaked out are completely based in truth.  

 Except they were misunderstood and poorly reported. The press literally fake news'd this for their own clickbait.

 yes.  Hard to believe that anyone truly believed that Wolf made fun of Sanders' appearance.  She made fun of her lying for jeebus sake.  There were no jokes making fun of appearance (unless someone thinks having great looking eye shadow is a bad thing.)

Most of the criticism from the non-Fox world is coming from the people who love going to this dinner and hobnobbing with Washington power. Their criticisms are just another example of how they cowtow to power so that they can maintain their access and party invitations.

Which just shows exactly why this tradition should finally be deep-sixed.

I'm starting to wonder if the night already set Maggie Haberman on edge as the butt of a serenade from Our Cartoon President prior to Wolf taking the microphone.

drummerboy said:

Which just shows exactly why this tradition should finally be deep-sixed.

 also shows why it's kind of silly to refer to anyone in that room as a "liberal."  They are all insiders' insiders.

...for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

Karl Popper was prophetic here.

And honestly I've never heard of the "no platform movement." But I've known of the "free speech movement" since my early teenage years in the early 70s. How influential is it? I'm guessing hardly at all.

One more thought. It's yet another false equivalence. A little known movement in Europe plus a few isolated and long-abandoned sets of rules; set off against the whole right wing publishing industry plus Fox news and a president who calls the media the enemy of the people. 

And presto, both sides are intolerant.

tom said:
And honestly I've never heard of the "no platform movement." But I've known of the "free speech movement" since my early teenage years in the early 70s. How influential is it? I'm guessing hardly at all.

 Tom........can't agree.  The speech of Mario Savio outside of Sproul Hall at Berkely inspired a generation.........including this lonesome traveler.  We woke up from the safe but deadly dull Eisenhower years.  We confounded our parents and crated a phenomenon that moved a country.

And the the usual progression followed where the children of radicals grew up as liberals.

But my daughter passed what she saw as the better values unto my palikars....brave young warriors in Greek.  She found time to help build housing for Habitat while I cannot drive nail straight.

The Free Speech movement sure did not solve all the world's problems........but a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step

A few people have said stupid things about free speech. You could call them leftists. But the left, as a whole, has not flipflopped on free speech. A few examples do not indicate a trend. We must be vigilant and criticize these opinions.