One of the most frustrating things about TIPS (which, for some reason
doesn't seem to occur on other lists I participate in) is the fact that
people tend to respond to many of the arguments voiced here without
placing them in the context of the original thread to which they apply.
This, I believe, has led to misunderstandings in the past, and is the
root of the response below:
Mike wrote:
> 2) On free speech and the like, if I may be allowed a
> simplistic contribution:
>
> Rick Adams wrote a lot of things like:
> >my argument that forbidding such speech even if it _was_ occurring
> >caused far worse harm than permitting it and responding
> >appropriately.
>
> I've been impressed by Rick's general stance on free speech. But, it
> appears to me that Rick is attempting to protect a person's "right"
> to speak freely in every situation, in all forms of human
> interaction. I didn't know persons ever had such a right and I wonder
> where it comes from. In my naive interpretation, the formal right to
> free speech is coming from the Bill of Rights and applies to
> legislation made formally by Congress (and by interpretation other
> governing bodies) to restrict such rights.
Here is where the break from the thread occurs. The original thread
discussing collegestudent.com suggested that the site should not be
ALLOWED to post such evaluations and, in one post, even went so far as to
suggest that faculty members who were concerned with the evaluations
might, themselves, post false and distorted ones so as to render the
entire site useless to its users.
This isn't a matter of the _site_ imposing limitations on speech--which
is its right. It is one of external forces, either through attempts to ban
the site, through attempts to deliberately render it useless, or through
other methods attempting to force the site into compliance with
limitations imposed on it from outside. That, Mike, is censorship and is a
legitimate free speech issue. We have no more right to demand that that
site stop publishing its evaluations, however offensive we may personally
find them to be, than a religious group would have to demand that we stop
teaching students that sex is not "evil" and "shameful" or that sexual
response is normal and healthy in our psychology and human sexuality
classroom! People here were quick to denounce Kansas for its stance on
requiring the teaching of the theory of evolution (they _never_ banned it,
they just banned testing on it as a part of the state evaluation process).
Yet those same people see no conflict in arguing that sites such as
collegestudent.com should be restricted or suppressed.
Free speech is more than simply being free of laws that prevent us from
expressing ourselves (of which we have plenty--look at our obscenity laws
or some of our communications codes); it is a matter of being willing to
allow those whose speech we _personally_ find offensive the same right to
express themselves that we wish to enjoy for ourselves.
The issue moved from the original track, so let's move it back there. The
fundamental issue being discussed was whether it was appropriate for
concerned faculty members to seek methods of stopping sites such as
collegestudent.com from posting evaluations of instructors. I argue that
it is reprehensible for an academic to even CONSIDER attempting to limit
the rights of others (that does not mean we cannot--or should not--contact
them to express our concerns, only that we have no right to do more than
politely request that they attempt to exert some form of control over the
situation). Others feel that in this case, or other cases (i.e., racist or
sexist speech, etc.) it is reasonable to exercise levels of control or
impose sanctions on those who disagree with our standards and who are
(unlike our students or employees) not directly under our legitimate
control.
> Further, in a little irony, it appears as if Rick's posts are
> motivated by one substantive factor: to quiet down the expressions of
> opinions that disagree with his. I'm sure his interpretation of the
> events disagrees, but I can live with that. Nothing wrong with this
> motivation - we all get into arguments and often try to "win" those
> arguments. Perhaps one can think of this as a type of censorship, but
> there is nothing formal about it - nothing that would call into
> action the agencies associated with law enforcement or lawmaking.
What you are arguing is that it is censorship to oppose those who insist
that censorship is appropriate. Sorry Mike, but that's a patent absurdity.
Even if I _did_ attempt to silence those who argued for censorship (which
I don't) it would not be inappropriate--once one takes a stance in support
of an action it is totally appropriate to hold that person to that stand.
I support free speech, therefore I have no right to demand that people
with whom I am not interacting directly not speak freely, even if that
speech offends me personally (i.e., I oppose racism, but I support the
right of the KKK to organize and present its side of the issue). If
someone supports censorship (in ANY public context) on the other hand, it
is totally reasonable to insist that censorship be imposed on them as
well.
> Personally, I find many of the comments coming from the college
> evaluation site repulsive. I think we each have the right - as normal
> people interacting with other people - to negotiate for the
> maintenance or change of that web site. It is not an issue of free
> speech as related to Constitutional protections. It is, like
> discussions of Mike Sylvester's questionable postings, an issue of
> human activity in the context of a social system.
So long as it is _negotiation_ you are speaking about, you are right. I
have even _suggested_ that people contact the site both to express a
concern and to inform them of their potential civil liability. But the
instant negotiation becomes demands or direct attempts to silence or
otherwise harm the site (as in posting false evaluations), it very
definitely _does_ become an issue of free speech--and those who are
attempting to silence the site become offensive as any other
self-righteous censor.
I'm not as inconsistent as you paint me to be, Mike. I simple believe
strongly in rights and refuse to sit by silently while suggestions are
made that censorship be forcefully imposed--whether that censorship
involves a web site, Michael Sylvesters posts, or any other expression of
free speech.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
