01-01-2008, 05:09 PM
[quote Robert M]Hi everyone,
I've kept out of this particular discussion because I can totally understand Peter's point of view. But, something that seems to have forgotten is that we do not in fact have an absolute right to free speech and the government does in fact impose limits on it. For example, we as individuals do not have the right to yell fire and cause chaos in a crowded movie theater when there is no danger whatsoever to be found.
Yes, it could be as construed that we should be allowed to do so because of the constitution. Someone who does it could say, "Hey, I'm expressing myself. I yelled "Fire!" in an artistic manner and was taking an advantage of an opportunity to demonstrate my acting skills in front of an audience!" But, only an absolute moron would think he/she could get away with it. (Yes, it is a ridiculous example but it is as valid as it is inane).
Robert
Actually, the "clear and present danger" standard ("The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic..." ) established in Schenck v. United States was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In which case the court established the intention to incite "imminent lawless action" as point at which free speech could be limited by law.
What might be more on-point, is the limitations placed on student speech while in class or working on school-supported projects.
For instance, I may prevent a student from presenting a paper composed of disinformation cribbed from answersingenesis.com or Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision in front of my Astronmy class. This is because my class is not public space. If I deem that a student is interfering with the instruction on the topic of the course, I can stop him or her from speaking.
Likewise, the content of my lectures and the materials I use as "instructional tools" are subject to review by the school and are not protected speech.
Students sometimes feel disempowered (to use the currently fashionable and thoroughly hateful catchphrase) by this restriction. Particularly in those cases where they feel that a required class is irrelevant or when the subject under discussion challenges the student's beliefs.
Students often complain to department heads and deans about "unfair" treatment at the hands of politically/religiously/ideologically "biased" instructors. Such complaints usually lead to nothing -- because, so long as the course material is being taught honestly and per the curriculum -- the student does not have the right to demand equal time for his or her preferred version of reality.
But this is really not a matter of students exercising their right to speak so much as it is a matter of a website which collects and publishes critiques of professionals without making any apparent effort to verify that the criticisms are valid and genuine.
There is also the problem that -- the "rebuttals" notwithstanding -- there is no way for an instructor to have an inaccurate (never mind defamatory) post amended or removed.
This quote: "Requests to correct inaccurate statements in student comments will probably not be honored, [company president Patrick Nagle] said, “because students are protected by the First Amendment.” From here is pretty interesting.
I wonder how vigorously he would defend the first amendment right of a poster to criticize MTV networks, or to organize a boycott of any of the sponsors of the site?
I've kept out of this particular discussion because I can totally understand Peter's point of view. But, something that seems to have forgotten is that we do not in fact have an absolute right to free speech and the government does in fact impose limits on it. For example, we as individuals do not have the right to yell fire and cause chaos in a crowded movie theater when there is no danger whatsoever to be found.
Yes, it could be as construed that we should be allowed to do so because of the constitution. Someone who does it could say, "Hey, I'm expressing myself. I yelled "Fire!" in an artistic manner and was taking an advantage of an opportunity to demonstrate my acting skills in front of an audience!" But, only an absolute moron would think he/she could get away with it. (Yes, it is a ridiculous example but it is as valid as it is inane).
Robert
Actually, the "clear and present danger" standard ("The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic..." ) established in Schenck v. United States was overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). In which case the court established the intention to incite "imminent lawless action" as point at which free speech could be limited by law.
What might be more on-point, is the limitations placed on student speech while in class or working on school-supported projects.
For instance, I may prevent a student from presenting a paper composed of disinformation cribbed from answersingenesis.com or Velikovsky's Worlds In Collision in front of my Astronmy class. This is because my class is not public space. If I deem that a student is interfering with the instruction on the topic of the course, I can stop him or her from speaking.
Likewise, the content of my lectures and the materials I use as "instructional tools" are subject to review by the school and are not protected speech.
Students sometimes feel disempowered (to use the currently fashionable and thoroughly hateful catchphrase) by this restriction. Particularly in those cases where they feel that a required class is irrelevant or when the subject under discussion challenges the student's beliefs.
Students often complain to department heads and deans about "unfair" treatment at the hands of politically/religiously/ideologically "biased" instructors. Such complaints usually lead to nothing -- because, so long as the course material is being taught honestly and per the curriculum -- the student does not have the right to demand equal time for his or her preferred version of reality.
But this is really not a matter of students exercising their right to speak so much as it is a matter of a website which collects and publishes critiques of professionals without making any apparent effort to verify that the criticisms are valid and genuine.
There is also the problem that -- the "rebuttals" notwithstanding -- there is no way for an instructor to have an inaccurate (never mind defamatory) post amended or removed.
This quote: "Requests to correct inaccurate statements in student comments will probably not be honored, [company president Patrick Nagle] said, “because students are protected by the First Amendment.” From here is pretty interesting.
I wonder how vigorously he would defend the first amendment right of a poster to criticize MTV networks, or to organize a boycott of any of the sponsors of the site?
