Re: They were creating a safe space for America's youth

is pretty much the opposite of the idea of having free speech, and pretty much believing that is the definition of censorship. The modern "safe space" concept explicitly denies others of having free speech (regardless of what the outcome or retribution of expressing that free speech may be).

I did a 2 second google search and did not see our gov't has been doing any such thing as setting up safe space zones for "2 generations". From wiki, it appears safe spaces originated in the women's movement:

The concept originated in the women's movement, where it "implies a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance...a means rather than an end and not only a physical space but also a space created by the coming together of women searching for community."[4] The first safe spaces were gay bars and consciousness raising groups.[4]

In 1989 Gay & Lesbian Urban Explorers (GLUE) developed a safe spaces program. During their events including diversity-training sessions and antihomophobia workshops, they passed out magnets with an inverted pink triangle, "ACT UP's...symbol", surrounded by a green circle to, "symbolize universal acceptance," and asked, "allies to display the magnets to show support for gay rights and to designate their work spaces free from homophobia."

If you feel that is wrong, I'd suggest you correct the wiki entry.

But the safe space concept origination is not important, really. The idea that a college campus will support and provide an area (commonly deemd "multi cultural" centers) that is expressly used to foster "reverse" discrimination and "reverse" hate speech, is as perverse as setting up a free area for the American Nazi Party to espouse their ideas. In reality, it's the same thing--its just culturally acceptable now to blame the problems your professor says you have in life on someone else, who is normally white and male..

You can yell all day about the benefits of being a devil worshiping, cross dressing lesbian, and while I may not like it, I'd defend your right to say it. The safe space folks don't share that attitude, and have asked college administrators to prosecute not only speech the speech they disagree with, but even the ideas[/] they deem offensive, by tracing and identifying the sources of "hate speech" from internet searches and posting geo-locations and having those people who posted them arrested. For what is really, free speech.

There are a thousand articles out there that express the slippery slope argument of "safe spaces" more succinctly I ever could. Do a quick search if you'd like to see them.

But the "issue" I have with them is that seemingly everyone now is a victim, and that at some level, they are all being discriminated against and want teh rst of use to deal with it on their terms. How this crap will shake out when these folks hit the real world has yet to be seen, but I'd imagine it won't end well. Most bosses, or hiring managers (I am both) don't much give a fat schitt what your gender studies professor opinion on women in post modern society is. I just care if you can do your job, and don't need excuses to get it done. I doubt I'm not that much different from any hiring manager.

As to safe spaces and Facebook, either you aren't reading my posts, or just ignoring them, but I don't care about Facebook, or what they do. It's not surprising to me that they would suppress conservative speech, but frankly, I don't care because I don't use their "service". It seems childish and petty and serves no purpose for me.

johnnyscarecrow

Starter [356]

TigerPulse: 82%

Posts: 879

Joined: 6/3/08

Re: The idea that free speech will only be speech you agree with

May 9, 2016, 3:39 PM [ in reply to The idea that free speech will only be speech you agree with ]

I'm not in total disagreement about the ills of safe spaces, but you are incorrect on your thoughts regarding their legality and their effect on free speech, and how free speech plays into this. I've read everything you have posted, from your first invoking of "free speech" in regards to facebook suppressing speech and comparing corporate practices to "safe spaces" to your hypothesis that "safe spaces" are the "antithesis of free speech." I get your point, and I agree with many of the issues that you have raised. However, your methods are flawed.

I am not sure what your issue with Safe Spaces is. Are you mad that you do not have a safe space? Why not create your own. People with differing opinions have staked out their territory, why don't you stake out the safe for yourself and like minded individuals?

And even though I have read everything you have posted, it is hard to have a discussion as you keep moving goal posts. First the original thread was about corporate speech. then you want to make it so a corporation can't express a viewpoint, then it moves to an organization requesting time place and manner restrictions on speech from a government organization, and finally it rests on the premise that you are upset about the government itself engaging in protected government speech. Each one of these clauses would be an entire course of study in law school, and are at best, tangentally connected.

These are all different issues under the First Amendment and offer different explanations and have different rights and tests associated with them. I am merely trying to keep up with the goalposts as they move. I encourage you to read the source material on this stuff and come to your own opinions rather than using things like wikipedia and media sources. The issue regarding safe spaces is very nuanced, and depending on the facts

The Government creates "safe spaces" through Time, Place, and Manner restrictions. You should google the legal term for these things.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm

And again, there is nothing stopping you from creating your own space right next to the safe space to express your ideas. I don't understand why you think "safe spaces" restrict free speech, they are a method by which an organization or government expresses their own free speech, which you are more than welcome to disagree with. However, Free Speech does not mean that you get to be heard by everyone, and that you get to voice a differing opinion at their table.

And please, don't cite to wikipedia when we are talking matters of law. Use legal websites. Cornell Law school has a very extensive legal library online that may help you in your research of this area. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/) What the people asking for Safe Spaces are requesting is a time place and manner restriction on speech in certain areas, which is protected by the First Amendment, and a power which the government has. Further, the government (just like corporations and individuals) has speech protections as well, which all these things fall under, and add additional steps to allow. Male your own opinions based on the laws, don't read an article or an aggregator and then spout off like you have reviewed the source material yourself and come to a conclusion.

You mention that you would fight for my right to talk about devil worshiping and cross dressing lesbians (I'm confused on the cross dressing lesbian, is that someone that was born with a ###### that is sexually attracted to women, that dresses like a man?), but the thing is, your actions and issue with safe spaces show you are being hypocritical. They can have a safe space to talk about how great satan is with a side of #####, and you can do the same regarding whatever your heart desires, just use the proper government methods to request such a space, so long as you do not violate any other rights or clauses in the Constitution, whoever is in charge of granting such spaces cannot deny your request save for a "compelling governmental interest" and the restriction is "narrowly tailored to achieve that interest." If you are unsuccessful, contact a lawyer, and believe it or not, the ACLU would JUMP on your case.

I do believe that your confusion on this issue stems from lack of knowledge regarding the (often confusing, even for judges and experienced lawyers) complexities of the First Amendment, not based in hate or wrongness or anything sinister. I am attempting to give you access to more information that may help you.

It's like when math teachers made you show your work. Getting the answer correct is a good step, but if your methods are flawed, you don't understand the material.

Safe spaces allow associations (which we are free as individuals to join) the right to express their opinions and views (which they are allowed to do), but just like numbers give associations clout and a louder voice, they make it harder to change views that you or I disagree with. And just like I don't care what the group you linked to has to say on Clemson's campus, I don't care what wikipedia says. Its not my job to inform them, or add knowledge to wikipedia. And not only do I support their ability or power to do so, I actively do this. But in having a discussion with them (or you), I will certainly point out the flaws in their (or your) ideas, but in doing so, I will also give you the tools to learn more about a very nuanced area of law that I have devoted a good part of my career to, because the First Amendment is, in my book, the most important part of the entire Constitution. And I actually fight for people like the group on campus at Clemson, as well as people like the Westboro Baptist Church, and the National Alliance, no matter how detestable I personally view their opinions.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I'm shocked I tell ya

They must have missed my feed.***

Re: I'm shocked I tell ya

Re: I'm shocked I tell ya

Re: I'm shocked I tell ya

Re: I'm shocked I tell ya

They were creating a safe space for America's youth