Greg Lukianoff on the Battle for Free Speech on School Campuses

|

This week, a 'feminist studies' professor at the University of California Santa Barbara was accused of attacking a 16-year-old female student for opposing abortion with a graphic pro-life sign. 

The incident is a reminder of the battle over free speech on school campuses. Watch Greg Lukianoff from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education with The New York Times' John Tierney for a discussion on FIRE's ongoing fight against campus speech codes.

Produced by Jim Epstein. About 52 minutes. Original release date was June 4, 2013 and original writeup is below.

 

"The U.S. Department of Education just redefined harassment to make every single man, woman, and child arguably guilty of harassment in one fell swoop," says Greg Lukianoff, who is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which advocates for free speech rights on campus.

Lukianoff is referring to a recent letter sent by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice to the University of Montana that redefined harassment as "any unwelcome sexual speech." The letter also stated that it's intended as a "blueprint for colleges and universities throughout the country."

Lukianoff joined The New York Times' John Tierney for a discussion of the implications of this letter and FIRE's ongoing fight against campus speech codes. Lukianoff also discussed his recent book, Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate.

The discussion took place at New York City's Museum of Sex on May 14, 2013, at an event sponsored by the Reason Foundation.

UPDATE: Two weeks after Lukianoff spoke at the event, the U.S. Department of Education responded to the controversy, claiming that its letter was "entirely consistent with the First Amendment, and did not create any new or broader definition of unlawful sexual harassment under Title IX or Title IV." Lukanoff responded that the DOE's "weak attempt to walk back its disastrous May 9 letter is too little, too late." You can read more about the ongoing controversy here.

In December, Lukianoff sat down with Nick Gillespie to talk about his book.

In August, Gillespie also sat down for an in-depth conversation with University of Pennsylvania professor Alan Charles Kors, who is FIRE's co-founder. They discussed speech codes, libertarianism, and much more.

About 52 minutes.

Camera by Jim Epstein and Anthony Fisher, and edited by Epstein.

Advertisement

NEXT: Sheldon Richman: America Is in No Position To Lecture Russia About Imperialism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Come on man lets roll with it dude.
    http://www.Anon-VPN.com

    1. Hot libertarian lesbians — KISSING!

      http://youtu.be/58zn8v4lc4w

  2. Salon writer complains that, thanks to the thieving feminist-studies professor, “…we have a tale in which radical anti-choice protesters wind up being depicted in the media as good guys….

    “…Our reproductive rights are being chipped away in this country. We are in a full-blown crisis. And the last thing on earth we need right now is to look like we’re the out of control ones here.”

    God forbid the public should get that impression!

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/1…..protester/

    1. Why not paste in a dozen riveting comments?
      I love that stuff!

      1. ??

        1. It is Mary Stack. She is insane. Ignore her until the Reason webmaster banns her and deletes her posts.

          1. Careful, John. You’ll break your brain again!

            1. All of your posts will be deleted at some point. I just hope you don’t ever hurt anyone. You are a deeply disturbed person.

              1. You’re the delusional one, John.
                Mary hasn’t posted here in years.
                You’re chasing ghosts.

          2. the Reason webmaster banns her and deletes her posts.

            You have a soft spot for heavy-handed authoritarianism, don’t you!

            1. Its for your own good Mary.

              1. Huh. That’s just what Stalin used to say!
                Is your first name really Joseph?

          3. It is Mary Stack. She is insane. Ignore her until the Reason webmaster banns her and deletes her posts.

            But John….the cheekbones…those fabulous cheekbones….how can you deny them?

            1. She has nice cheekbones?

              1. She thinks so….when not emotionally gamboling and trolling reason.com under multiple alias she managed on her site to go on at length about the plastic surgeons endless compliments about her cheekbones.

                1. Holy shit, Mary is Elizabeth Warren!

    2. The very title of that article, “Why you should never engage with an abortion protester” is unintentionally funny. I consider myself moderately pro-choice, but I don’t find myself uncontrollably driven to assault when I have a conversation with someone who disagrees with me on the subject. Maybe I’m just weird that way. If you feel that the only way you can interact with someone who disagrees with your views is to beat them into agreement, odds are you don’t have very good arguments.

      1. They don’t. But they are so emotionally attached to their position they can’t moderate it yet can’t defend it either.

      2. We would have open conversation sessions in my college Spanish classes. The professor would set the topic for discussion. His favorite was abortion, it was guaranteed to blow up within ten minutes.

        1. I’ve read arguments for the technique of using controversial topics to stimulate discussion in foreign language pedagogy journals. One of the arguments is that the interlocutors become invested in the conversation and have explicit motivation to communicate their point of view in the other language. However, I disagree with this technique, personally, as I believe it can turn off as many people as it tends to favor the “dominant” voices in the classroom who already have the language skill to express themselves. Someone who has an equally passionate but opposing view, and not as much language skill might just turn off and not pay attention.

          Just my 0.02.

          1. It was more of a scream match in our classes that would devolve into English as the token Catholic and feminist went at it. The rest of us just sat back and watched the action.

            The professor would always get a smirk on his face.

            1. Ah, then he was just wasting time and calling it a “discussion” because he probably had nothing else to teach that day or was just too damn lazy.

          2. I can certainly see that side of things as well as another. Negative reinforcement can be quite effective. Hearing things one vehemently disagrees with can be a powerful vehicle for memory, particularly when one has no agency to respond. If the class engages in the flash-topic repeatedly and knows it’s coming it can also be significant motivation to learn how to communicate those passionate views.

            I think, however, exposure to such an environment should be something that is advertised ahead of time, to draw in personalities that would profit from it, and let those that would be harmed by it chose a different path.

            1. exposure to such an environment should be something that is advertised ahead of time

              That’s true, and I believe a teacher has a moral obligation to inform the students just what the classroom environment will be like. I strongly believe that as a teacher, you are ultimately responsible for everything that goes on in the classroom, and if you are introducing a culture where the students are going to passionately debate controversial topics, you are responsible for any negative affect it has on a particular student’s learning. That is assuming the teacher can resist indoctrinating the class with his or her preferred view, of course, which is a whole other discussion.

              Personally, in my classroom, I prefer instructional delivery that is based on collaboration rather than conflict, but I recognize there is an element of personal taste in that.

    3. And the last thing on earth we need right now is to look like we’re the out of control ones here.

      Salon writers are irony-impaired.

      1. Ever tried to find even a joke on there? Salon.commers are not happy people. No surprise they would defend a miserable person.

    4. “Our reproductive rights are being chipped away in this country. We are in a full-blown crisis.”

      Full blown Derp is more like it.

      1. I suspect that coming up 25? short at the check-out is a crisis for her, if her dog didn’t shit before she had to go to work in the morning… Crisis! A skunk knocked over her garbage? Crisis! Revelation that her cat is actually a tom? Crisis! There can be no perpetual outrage without cranking every facet of life up to Crisis Mode?, and snapping the knob off…

        1. ^Great.

          Time to start a “crisis” meme? T-shirt and mug time? Hmm. We really should try to be good capitalists and make products that essentially mock the progdementals.

          Anyway, as a progressive, I find the comments here to be a crisis.

          My water was too cold – crisis!

          The restaurant only had jelly on request – crisis!

          The refrigerator has more than one temp setting – crisis!

          My left arm is numb – nah, that’s okay, Obama’s got it!

          Red light! Crisis!

    5. Remember when you posted that link to this story yesterday:

      http://www.rawstory.com/rs/201…..1286808641

      We’ve managed to stir up such a shit storm over there Queen Vag herself has actually started responding:

      urpaul
      14 hours ago
      “I don’t owe that couple a free couch to sleep on while they come to my city to check out the local orphans, so I sure as shit don’t own them my body.”

      Huh, interesting statement coming from a progressive. So you don’t owe anyone any of your resources, but apparently the rest of us do to fund all your government pet projects. I thought we were all in this together for the common good or something derp derp.
      0 Edit Reply
      ?

      1. Amanda_Marcotte urpaul
        2 hours ago
        I don’t see where my obligations as a citizen are null and void. Of course, as someone who is a beneficiary of living in the great country of the United States, I should pay my fair share through taxes. If people didn’t pay their taxes, this country would fall apart.

        I’m sorry, but the country will not fall apart if I am not forced to breed. The world does not depend on my offspring.

        As for employers being forced to pay their employees, well, my objections to exploiting and oppressing people for their labor without compensating them appropriately was expressed in the post. It’s wrong when it’s slavery. It’s wrong when it’s wage slavery. It’s wrong when you’re refusing to compensate your employee for her labor because you think you deserve to control her private life. Paying your employees what they’re owed is not oppression. If you wish to opt out, you can simply stop hiring people. If I invite people into my home, I am obliged not to kick them or set booby traps around the house to hurt them. Same principle. You invited people to work for you, which means you are required to compensate them.

        1. I’m sorry, but the country will not fall apart if I am not forced to breed. The world does not depend on my offspring.

          Believe me Amanjaw…..a grateful nation applauds your decision!

          1. Ha, that was my first thought as well.

        2. I should pay my fair share through taxes. If people didn’t pay their taxes, this country would fall apart.

          I’d be willing to bet Amanda doesn’t pay a dime in Federal Income Tax, yet she’s pulling her weight…

          Just say no to thieves.

          1. I’m eagerly awaiting her definition of “fair share”, along with a description of the programs it’s intended to fund. We’ll see what she says, but I’m not optimistic.

            I just half ass tossed that comment out there to give the hive a little bump on my way past, I had no clue it would generate a full blown swarm with the queen herself making an appearance. Just like a bunch of butt hurt wasps they are.

            1. I’m eagerly awaiting her definition of “fair share”, along with a description of the programs it’s intended to fund.

              Anyone who is rich (has more stuff than you) has not paid their fair share, otherwise they wouldn’t be rich. See?

              1. That’s more or less what I’m expecting. Or more likely, just some kind of BS nonanswer progspeak.

        3. I’m sorry, but the country will not fall apart if I am not forced to breed. The world does not depend on my offspring.

          The nation would not fall apart if i did not pay taxes.

          Libertarians only make up 15% of the population at most. Nation would not fall apart if they didn’t pay.

          1. Hmm. Don’t tell her the little secret – less progdementals means…less of them, heh heh heh. Evul Libertarian scheme unfolding while I twirl my imperialist moustache…

  3. Stories like this are why I’m so skeptical of the bogeyman of the religious right offered up to libertarians. The average member of the average university’s humanities departments has bigger designs on individual liberty than the most uptight fundie could ever cook up in their fevered imaginations. Yet, the more cosmopolitan segments of libertarianism keep urging us that the future of libertarianism lies in making common cause with them.

    1. the more cosmopolitan segments of libertarianism

      ;^)

    2. Go tell your most uptight fundie friends about your “moderately pro-choice” views. I’m sure they’ll be happy to keep you underneath their “big tent”.

      Or are some bovines just more sacred than others?

      1. I disagree with the religious right on abortion and have no problem saying so. So, I fail to see what your argument is here.

        On the other hand, if you want to argue that libertarianism has less to fear from people who argue that opposing views should be banned and every drunken hook-up should be classified as a rape than it does from people who think a fetus is a person, I can see where we’re liable to disagree.

        1. Considering that I think a fetus is a person, that might actually be our true point of contention.

          Nevertheless, I don’t see why we need to play the game of my threat to liberty is bigger and badder than yours (and if you disagree, well, you’re just a faggity-ass Cosmo).

          1. Nevertheless, I don’t see why we need to play the game of my threat to liberty is bigger and badder than yours (and if you disagree, well, you’re just a faggity-ass Cosmo).

            Because I consider one of the threats either made up, or at least grossly exaggerated for 2014 America. And the progressives pushing that narrative the hardest are some of the people most inclined to limit my freedom.

            1. my freedom.

              Then might I humbly suggest that you widen your myopic view of liberty to liberty as a whole and pay attention to how the liberty of people different than you is being impinged in 2014 America?

            2. They’re both wrong. I have no problem saying that out loud. Unless your motivating principles are aligned with mine, the conclusions you draw will diverge. Socons and progressives alike believe in the power of the state to modify/limit behavior and choice beyond that which is necessary to protect the rights of the individual.

              In some cases the statists on both sides agree totally, the WOD being the best example.

    3. The average member of the average university’s humanities departments has bigger designs on individual liberty than the most uptight fundie could ever cook up in their fevered imaginations.

      Disagree. I’d say that they are similar personalities with different ideas about what paradise on earth we should all be forced to live in.

      I’d say that the left wing variant is currently more dangerous due to circumstances, but both should be heartly rejected.

      1. Except when was the last time you heard a socon pushing for an active reduction in liberty (sure, you can suggest abortion, but I’d argue that they don’t consider that a victimless crime)? Sure, they’re all too happy to resist expansions of liberty. But, I’d argue that I haven’t heard much on reducing freedom (again excepting abortion) from them in the last twenty years. The progressives, on the other hand, are actively calling for reductions in liberty on an ongoing basis. It may be the circumstances you suggest (the religious right has fought their culture war and lost). Or it may be they’re not really as coercive as has been suggested. Really, though, it doesn’t matter. In terms of threats to liberty, the proggies pose a more clear and present danger.

        1. Fundie socons threaten the government’s constitutional right to teach preteens how to put condoms on bananas.

        2. the last time you heard a socon pushing for an active reduction in liberty

          Every time a new Grand Theft Auto comes out?

          1. Except two of the biggest proponents of banning violent video games were those foaming-at-mouth religious fundies Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton.

            1. I don’t know what Clinton’s deal is, but yes, Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. Your point?

              1. If you’re going to argue that Joe Lieberman is a religious fundamentalist then we’re pretty much at the point where fundamentalist means “someone who disagrees with Heroic Mulatto”.

                1. I was under the impression that “religious fundamentalist” meant someone who strongly believes in the fundamentals of their religion. Are you suggesting that an Orthodox Jew doesn’t strongly believe in the fundamentals of their religion?

                  I think the case is more fundamentalist means “someone who Bill will special plead out of his arguments when they detract from them”.

                  1. I was under the impression that “religious fundamentalist” meant someone who strongly believes in the fundamentals of their religion.

                    HM, anyone who has a religious belief believes in the fundamentals of their religion. That’s just a tautology. Unless you want to claim that anyone who is religious is a religious fundamentalist, your argument doesn’t hold water. Outside of your…idiosyncratic definition, it is generally recognized as any religious movement demanding strict and literal interpretation of religious principles. Very few people would characterize Orthodox Judaism as fundamentalist. That would suggest only Reform Jews would be considered non-fundamentalist.

              2. Oh, and if we consider local news stories a legitimate measure of political assumptions,
                http://www.nj.com/politics/ind…..o_ban.html

                You know those right wing fundamentalist NJ Democrat Assemblywomen.

                1. And how does that detract from my observation that SoCons are right their with them? Again, you seem to be arguing from a faulty premise that the existence of one automatically excludes the other.

            2. And the Gores and their fundy friends with the PMRC wanting to get rid of, well, music.

          2. That’s true, but in fairness there are usually a bunch of progressives standing right there with them. Exhibit A being Dianne Feinstein and her “death simulators”.

            1. That’s a feature, not a bug. Remember, the original Progressives were highly religious Protestant elite who believed that alcohol, prostitution, etc. should be outlawed in America because it was “immoral”. Far from being the matter/anti-matter that Bill suggests, Progs and SoCons make common cause more often than SoCons and libertarians do.

              1. “Excessive corporate CEO salaries are immoral…Foies gras is immoral…driving an SUV is immoral”

                SOCONZ!

                1. You can hand-wave and stick-your-fingers in your ears all you want. Doesn’t change the truth though.

                  Or do you deny that the Statist spectrum is really more of a “U”-shaped curve?

                  1. Is opposing the government teaching public elementary school students how to have safe anal sex statist?

                    1. Are you referencing a particular incident or is that just hyperbole?

                    2. You’re just trying to get me to add “teaching anal sex to elementary school students” to my search history.

                      Here

                    3. You’re just trying to get me to add “teaching anal sex to elementary school students” to my search history.

                      That’s what duckduckgo and proxy servers are for.

                    4. Control-Shift-N in Chrome

                    5. I see. I would oppose that as well. However, the angle of opposition in this case would determine statism or not. I oppose that because I don’t believe the government should be teaching elementary school students anything, much less how to stick it in the dumper. Given choice, if I didn’t homeschool my child, I would find a private institution that would teach in line with my personal moral principles.

                      On the other hand, if I’m hunky-dory with the state teaching my kids, as long as they follow what I imagine to be the moral principles of my community, then that is still statism. I can’t speak for the parents of the kids involved in the linked article, but the author of the article seems absolutely ok with government funding of schools, what she disagrees with is government funding of what she calls “sex indoctrination programs”.

                    6. Is opposing the government teaching public elementary school students how to have safe anal sex statist?

                      On what level?

                      Government provided schooling- yes
                      Sex Ed (provided government schooling is a given)- no

                    7. Mandating every courthouse display the 10 Commandments would be an example of socon statism. Opposing federal law forcing the removal of 10 commandments plaques donated to county courthouses is not.

                    8. That’s a fair cop. Though, one could question the prudence of accepting such gifts in the first place.

          3. Ah, the old “progressives are really socons” argument.

            1. Yes, as easily debunked as the “gravity pulls things down” one.

            2. Progressives and SoCons are cut from the same damn cloth.

        3. Except when was the last time you heard a socon pushing for an active reduction in liberty

          Rick Santorum on Civil Rights

          I agree with hearing gay ideas but disagree with some. (Jan 2012)
          Marriage is a federal issue; we need one definition, not 50. (Jan 2012)
          Right to gay sex implies right to bigamy, incest, & adultery. (Jan 2012)
          No polygamy; no gay marriage. (Aug 2011)
          Repeal Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell; punish behavior. (Jun 2011)
          Same-sex marriage is unprecedented social revolution. (Apr 2006)
          Marriage Protection Amendment is last resort, but needed. (Apr 2006)
          Affirmative program for minority business-building. (Apr 2006)
          Leave marriage definition to state legislatures & the people. (Jul 2004)
          Same-sex marriage takes us away from purpose of marriage. (Jul 2004)
          Homosexual orientation ok; but homosexual act are sodomy. (Apr 2003)

          1. Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
            Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
            Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
            Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
            Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
            Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
            Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
            Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
            Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
            Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
            Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
            Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
            Rated 25% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

            1. Rick Santorum doesn’t like gay people. That’s supposed to be news?
              And you seem to be missing the point I was making. Opposing same sex marriage is not instituting a restriction on liberty. It’s opposing an expansion. There is a difference. And how is opposing “adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes” some sort of reduction in liberty? It strikes me that adding protected classes by itself constitutes a restriction on liberty. Is “setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women” an expansion of liberty? If so, I don’t see how. Voting against “prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation” seems a pretty clear matter of preventing a reduction in liberty.

              1. Dude, I just copy-pasta. Yes, a lot of the above were gay issues, and some I even agree with, but you can’t tell me the following are not pushing for reductions in liberty.

                Marriage is a federal issue; we need one definition, not 50. (Jan 2012)
                Repeal Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell; punish behavior. (Jun 2011)
                Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
                Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
                Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)

                1. Meh, part of me would love to see a Santorum Presidency. The absolute foaming insanity from progressives would be worth the price of a full fledged SOCON goofball in charge.

                  1. Punishing stupid with imbecile is rarely a good idea.

                    1. Not so sure. Obamacare is teaching America a wonderful, yet painful lesson right now.

                2. C’mon. I had to at least tweak you on it.
                  And point taken. Rick Santorum would be perfectly happy to violate the rights of people he doesn’t agree with. But, what’s the chance of his ever getting anywhere near the seat of power? 2.5%? And that’s probably being generous. The guy couldn’t even win his own state. My impression is that even the socons look at him as a clown.
                  The progressives, on the other hand, are in power. Right now. Their views are flowing through from academia to policy.

        4. Well, I’m pretty sure socons are well represented among the “dey took ur jerbs” crowd.

          1. Lies. I went to one of those “Ban Sharia Law and Muslim Immigration” protests and every single one of them were Che t-shirt wearing Leftist moonbats.

            I pinky swear.

            1. It’s true, whenever I go to Breitbart or PJ Media the folks there are constantly aghast about this very fact.

              1. Though they, like myself, would have minded seeing a young Malkin in a Che t-shirt. (And nothing else)

          2. They probably are. But, they aren’t in that crowd in their capacity as socons, but in their capacity as idiots. I’ll agree that there is a high degree of correlation between the two. But, that’s not suggestive that they wouldn’t be screaming “dey terk ur jerbs” if they weren’t socons.

        5. I love the wordgames people like SIV and Bill play so that anytime a SoCon pushes for restricting liberty, they’re not really doing it out of their social conservatism.

          1. Calidissident,

            Would those same people be out there bitching about “Dey terk ur jerbs” if there was no such thing as social conservatism? If not, then I’m open to having you explain all the union lefties on that spiel. Otherwise, then it isn’t because of their social conservatism.
            A lot of libertarians like science fiction. That doesn’t mean liking science fiction has anything to do with libertarianism.

            1. “Would those same people be out there bitching about “Dey terk ur jerbs” if there was no such thing as social conservatism?”

              I’m sure some would, and I’m sure a lot wouldn’t.

              “If not, then I’m open to having you explain all the union lefties on that spiel.”

              The fact that not everyone who says “Dey took er jobs” is socially conservative doesn’t mean the latter has no influence on some people who do say that. The fact is that overall, “Dey too er jobs” is a far more common sentiment among social conservatives than other groups. And one can be a union-guy who is far left on economic issues, while still being socially conservative. Furthermore, you’re ignoring the large number of SoCons who justify opposition to immigration on social and cultural grounds.

              There are plenty of issues where social conservatives are motivated by their social conservatism to restrict liberty. Gay rights (not just marriage – it was just 10 years ago that sodomy was illegal in some states, and polling since then has shown that a large number of conservatives, possibly a majority, would still support outlawing it if the courts let them), drug laws, prostitution, pornography, blue laws, teaching Creationism as science in public schools, etc.

            2. And before you point out that many progressives agree with a few of those things, I’ll simply say that different people can have different motivations for supporting a certain policy. The fact that not everyone who supports the War on Drugs or illegal prostitution is a SoCon doesn’t mean that many SoCons do not support those things as a product of their social conservatism.

    4. Hmm, who is the more intolerant, the hard core religious socon or the hard core proggie? Tough question as they both are often among the most intolerant people you are likely to meet. Once again it comes down to individuals.

      (But personally I might rather share a dinner with a religious socon than a feminist professor from UC.)

      1. who is the more intolerant, the hard core religious socon or the hard core proggie?

        I could give a fuck about moral sermonizing. I ask myself who is more likely to use violence to achieve their ends and I still can’t see much of a difference when either group is in power. Who, specifically, they use it on differs, but violence it always seems to be.

        1. ” I ask myself who is more likely to use violence to achieve their ends “

          You haven’t seen the video yet.

          Minds may be changed.

        2. Both use violence. The difference as I see it is that for progressives it is their first resort, and for the right it is their last.

          1. That has as much to do with current culture than inhibition, imo. Proggies are currently more culturally reinforced, leading to a greater feeling of volition for the initiation of random violence. That is also totally leaving aside the WoD and WoT socons many of whom would be more than pleased to launch a massive bloodletting were they in control.

            1. What SOCON blood baths have we seen in the past 100 years ? Maybe a couple in S. America ? I’m vastly more concerned with the Proggie ones. Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.

              1. It’s worth noting that even as a young man in Shanghai, Mao was known as a notorious prude. One of his first actions was to criminalize homosexuality, prostitution, and pornography.

                Likewise, the entirety of Hilter’s worldview was a return to what he imagined as “true” German culture based on the sanctity of family and a populist valorization of agrarian hard work and honesty.

                Stalin? Stalin was just a fucking hipster.

                1. Shame about what the Nazi’s did to the Institut f?r Sexualwissenschaft

                  A few days later, the Institute’s library and archives were publicly hauled out and burned in the streets of the Opernplatz. Around 20,000 books and journals, and 5,000 images, were destroyed. Also seized were the Institute’s extensive lists of names and addresses.

            2. Both sides trade in appealing to the reptilian brains. Proggies go for the envy and socons go for the fear. Identity politics exists on both sides as well.

              The socons/neocons had their chance during the Bush years and fucked it up royally. The end result was the progressives got to take over and make it even worse.

            3. The War on Drugs was initiated and advanced as a progressive cause. To the extent “socons” push the WoDs they are being progressive.

              The US was much more socially conservative in 1900 yet a junkie could send her 10 year old daughter to the druggist to pick up her laudanum supply.

              1. Socially conservative =/= Socon

                1. To expand a bit.

                  The key point in differentiating an individual with socially conservative values and a SoCon proper is that one wishes to live by their values and the other demands that everyone live by their values.

                  I have no problem with one and a gigantic problem with the other.

              2. The US was much more socially conservative in 1900

                That’s a tautology. Of course from our viewpoint 114 years ago was more “conservative”, because that’s what conservatives do, maintain the traditions and viewpoints of the past. The question is, in the US circa 1900, did most people want to return to the values of 1800?

                1. The question is, in the US circa 1900, did most people want to return to the values of 1800?

                  Well, The Victorians…

        3. I could give a fuck about moral sermonizing

          Dude, the libertarianism of this site is little if not moral sermonizing. Just today, you have Richman working himself into a lather over US officials condemning Russia.

  4. I think anyone who is or was openly libertarian or Republican on most college campuses knows exactly how much academia values free speech and frank exchanges of ideas.

    1. You know who else gets picked on all the time?

      Yup, Fox News.

    2. Fox News Republicans and Christians — America’s persecuted minorities!

  5. POOF!

  6. When feminist-studies teachers ‘attack’: the video =

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/16673/

    It involves a lot of build-up, a lot of “OMG, uhm, NO? *MY* rights, and like, rights, and you’re such a bitch!? You *touched* me?? Now I’m totally like a ‘survivor’ and need a support group and OMG you’re fat too”

    Watching that video will make all of you pro-abortion.

    As in= “abort them all, right now.”

    ‘Its UCSB, Jake’

    Welch Alma Mater FTW!

    1. The point is that Frau Professor, according to California Penal Code, is guilty of the crime of petty theft and, in a just world, should right now be concerned about making bail and how this misdemeanor will negatively affect her career.

      1. ‘Its UCSB, HM’

        She’ll get state-funded counseling to help her deal with the trauma of having to deal with the hate-speech of a pro-life theocon mind-criminal who ‘othered’ her and drove her into a state where she was no longer responsible for her actions, resulting in ‘scratches being made’.

        And I suspect I’m not being creative enough to fully encompass how in fact this will be dealt with on Planet UCSB. The outcome will likely be far, far more ridiculous.

        1. As I said, “in a just world”. Alas, our world is neither sane nor just.

          1. Perhaps, “in a just world” they would euthanize her, and cut her head off inspect the brain tissue for rabies…

  7. Tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. Thus all this professor was doing was being tolerant.

    True intolerance is those libertarians and conservatives who, when they see speech that they don’t like, choose to ignore it.

    Tolerant people shut down speech that they don’t like, because it is their moral duty to crush intolerance.

    1. This is what Progressives actually believe

    2. Proggies didn’t flood the FCC with petitions when nipplegate happened. Or when Disney had the audacity to have a show with lesbian parents.

      Also it’s probably not progressives that put “And Tango Makes Three” or “Daddy’s Roommate” on the American Library Associations most challenged books list.

      That’s fine if folks want to argue that liberals are more aggressive, but it’s disingenuous to claim that conservatives and libertarians are in the same place when it comes to silencing speech.

      1. I don’t see anyone clamoring to get MSNBC off the air, but I hear calls to shut down FOX News all the time.

        I see a big difference between prude socon parents not wanting their children to be exposed to sexual things that they disapprove of, and progressives wanting to silence outlets that air opposing political viewpoints.

        1. MSNBC and FNN are apples and oranges. Fox News is a major player and MSNBC has a tiny relative viewership. Conservatives don’t need to do anything about it.

          sexual things that they disapprove of

          Like two penguins raising a rock until a zookeeper gives them an egg. sodimitical indoctrination for all!

          1. Now you’re just moving the goalposts. So much for an intellectually honest debate. Whatever.

            1. Not really. You’ve chosen a particular example that ignores what SoCons are really worried about: cultural pollution, while dismissing SoCons petitioning for the use of political power to control what is seen on television, including, but not limited to the expansion of FCC regulatory power over cable, and public libraries as irrelevant.

              So I find it rich that you’re accusing me of moving goalposts when you’re defining the terms of the debate so narrowly that you have to be right.

              1. but not limited to the expansion of FCC regulatory power over cable, and public libraries as irrelevant.

                That’s an ambiguous looking sentence. {regulatory power over cable} and {public libraries}. I don’t think anybody has tried to claim FCC power over libraries.

                This is what I get for having tea instead of coffee this morning.

                1. You’re the one who brought up nipplegate as if that’s the same thing as trying to get Rush Limbaugh off the air.

                  I’m pointing out the distinction between opposing speech “to protect the children from sex,” and opposing speech in order to stop the free flow of ideas.

                  You appear to be trying to equate the two.

                  Are you distinction-challenged like our friend Tony?

                  1. I see. So trying to ban Tango Makes Three, a book about two penguins, from public libraries is protecting children from sex, so it’s more acceptable. Even though there’s no sex in it. It has nothing to do with a group of people attempting quell speech they don’t like because it is associated with a political agenda they have strong feelings about.

                    1. I don’t know what you are talking about, nor do I care. Looks to me like you’re picking an obscure case, trying to paint it as the norm, and then expecting me to defend it. Whatever. If you choose to ignore the point then that’s your choice.

                    2. I don’t know what you are talking about, nor do I care. Looks to me like you’re picking an obscure case, trying to paint it as the norm, and then expecting me to defend it. I’m speaking in generalities and you’re cherry picking. Whatever.

                    3. Victim of the 3 o’clock squirrels.

                    4. And I never said it was acceptable. I said it was not the same thing.

                    5. That’s fine if folks want to argue that liberals are more aggressive, but it’s disingenuous to claim that conservatives and libertarians are in the same place when it comes to silencing speech.

                      That was my point. I agree that liberal progressives are more aggressive on quelling speech, but I don’t think that means libertarians are aligned with SoCons on the application of state power. I think that libertarians are probably more likely to find natural allies with social conservatives as defined more broadly, but not the ones who are politically motivated by their religious and social beliefs to invoke state power.

                2. Personally I find this whole thing about protecting children from stray nipples to be dumb.

                  When I was a child I thought Three’s Company was hilarious because of John Ritter’s physical comedy.

                  Now that I understand all the sexual connotations I think the show is stupid.

                  But my socon mother was horrified that I liked the show.

                  Again, that’s not the same thing as trying to shut down people with opposing political viewpoints.

                3. You drank tea? Instead of coffee?!?!?

                  What kind of unAmerican communist Limey are you, anyway? Tea?!?

                  Don’t you remember how we tossed that stuff overboard two hundred years ago?

      2. No; they flood the FCC to get it to regulate political speech they don’t like.

  8. Hypothetical:

    If it becomes technically trivial and very convenient to detect pregnancy, prevent pregnancy, and to abort a pregnancy very early would it not be expected that there would be a push to lower the time at which a woman can legally have an abortion?

    Looking at poll numbers I have a suspicion that that is what is happing today.

    1. Ultrasound baby pictures are pushing society to the “pro-life” side.

      1. For me Ultrasound makes them look like something out of an Aliens movie and therefore something to be destroyed.

        Other people may be different.

        1. Well there’s a nice emotive argument,but it actually draws the line where I would draw it. If they look like aliens: Abort! If they look like babies, then leave em alone.

          1. I for one, welcome our new alien overlords…

          2. I’ve long argued that the socons have to use some science to point to a Time n during fetal development, when the entity in question deserves to be treated as a legal person due to its sentient and/or sapient qualities. Yahooey blessing a newly divided cell with a soul doesn’t cut it. We don’t all believe that, not even a majority of religious people.

            No matter how baby-like a fetal picture looks, it doesn’t tell you a thing about the development of the brain, the nervous system, or most important, the mind.

            My opinion is too rationalistic for most people, with both PL/AA and PA/PC types refusing to give an inch, fearing the “thin edge of the wedge” might collapse their carefully constructed shouting points.

            Ironically, if we privatized all higher ed, El Colectivo para la Educaci?n de la Ciudad de Senora Barbara or whatever they named it, could have banned the Aquinas students’ display, based on property rights.

            Kevin R

          3. If the fetus appears to be an alien, then abortion as we know it is doomed, because Progressives will recognize a potentially new protected class.

            Aliens have rights, too, you know!

            1. I draw the rights line at “humanoid”, or sufficiently advanced enough to assume humanoid form.

        2. You say that until it’s your kid you’re looking at.

          1. The only time i can see that happening is when i want to have the child.

            lots of emotional stuff already built into that moment.

            Yeah I am pretty sure i would cry and/or faint if it was my child, that I wanted, growing inside the woman i love.

            Without that built in emotional package, even if it was mine (some woman I slept with after a night at the bar sends me an email for example), it would look like a creepy Alien.

  9. Kind of ironic that Reason is censoring comments on a free-speech thread.

    1. Quiet… They’ll hear you..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.