Friday, April 08, 2016
Comedy, College, and the Fight to Save Free Speech: Can We Take a Joke?
Reason.com: According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of millennials believe it would be appropriate for the government to restrict speech that offends minority groups. This mindset is manifesting itself on college campuses across the country, from the disinvitation of controversial speakers to top comedians refusing to perform at universities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Wow. I had been thinking about this a lot recently since the Trump painting on the fence and thinking about the idea of freedom of speech and I watched the video attached to the end of the article and it makes a great point. The point was that a while back it used to be the administrators forcing speech code upon students, however now it is students demanding administrators take action on things like the Trump fence. I also totally agree with the idea that the American mind is being coddled. It’s a really hard situation for our generation to be in I think that we are the ones who are going to determine “politically correct” and where the line is. I also now definitely want to watch the documentary “Can We Take a Joke?”. I think that as students and as citizens of our country we should be aware of how our thoughts affect our culture.
I hate this shit. I think I’m gonna stay calm and start by talking about the comedy part. I’m researching the play “The Clean House” by Sarah Ruhl for foundations, and one of the thing’s that has become very apparent in my research is that American humor is centered around sophistication. We want to make fun of another group or we want to have a joke for our group that no other group can understand. For contrasts sake, Latin American humor is much more centered around surrealism and making fun of ones self. I think now that this has been pointed out to me I see it all the time, American’s do not like to laugh at themselves. America wants to laugh at people at others expense. It’s interesting that comedians here say their best material is controversy. I think the notion that if you have the right to be offended you can’t have comedy is ridiculous, and very on track with American style humor. It’s like yeah you have the freedom of speech to say that joke and yeah I have the freedom of speech to fight you on it. In regards to the Trump thing and the political correctness of comedy, I don’t think administration necessarily needs to be involved, but it’s just like all other cases of freedom of speech, you are NOT free of consequences. Like minorities aren’t trying to be coddled, this generation isn’t hyper sensitive to this shit either, minorities have been mad about this for centuries, we’re just finally in the position to do something about it. It sound’s more to me like the privileged want to continue to be coddled from hearing that they’re doing something wrong, like they have been for centuries.
Also let me say that if jokes were jokes and they were a thing of the past, and they weren’t backed up in society we would be having a different conversation, but when we live in a world where institutionalized racism and sexism are alive and well then I really don’t want to hear it.
This is making a lot of big statements, but I would love to talk to people about it IRL because I think this is an important conversation. Whew. Heated.
I'm so glad there is an article about this, and that they have made an effort to speak out about the confusion that surrounds free speech. The most striking thing that I found in this article and interview is when the guest said that as an intellectual person, "it is your duty to seek out smart people with whom you disagree". It's impossible to always agree with each other, and it is impossible to force others to follow your sentiment. But, on college campuses in particular, I think it is important to foster an environment of intellectual argument and discourse. People have a right to be offended, sure, but even more importantly they have a right to speak about why they are offended, and to listen and understand to the other views without just saying "it offends me, it's not allowed". It's important to have a conversation about it, and understand that to have a conversation that is intellectual and important it is necessary to hear both sides.
I think this is a good dialogue to open and it definitely needs to be brought up-- not just in the realm of theater but in life in general. The discussion of the difference between free speech and offensive language impacts everyone no matter what, and so we need to come to a decision as a collective group as to what our boundaries will be. Something I think the article did a good job of bringing up was the fact that this dialogue is much more complex than any of us think it is. It isn't a question of good guys vs. bad guys, and therefore isn't something that can be fixed with a simple rule or, conversely, left up to individual's moral digression. The reason this issue is so complicated is because every person is different, and the things people say could be taken in different ways depending on the person. So does that mean the things people say are just as offensive regardless of how specific people react to them, because they could have just happened to say them to someone who wouldn't be as offended? The subjectivity of the issue is part of what makes it so tricky to talk about.
I agree with Jasmine, I believe that every person has the right to say whatever they want, but they do not have the right to be free from punishment. If someone is saying something racist/sexist/etc etc etc, and they say "I can say this because FREE SPEECH," well, I get to tell them that I think they are dumb. And I am not stifling them, I am not reverse-oppressing them or whatever, we are both stating our opinions.
My one thing that I think is ACTUALLY tricky about this is punishment. I believe it is different for each situation. In specific regards to the fence, I do not think administrative action needs to be taken. I believe that as a community of ADULTS we should be mature enough to spark the conversation and deal with this ourselves, we do not need anyone to get arrested for breaking "Fence rules" or whatever, we need to open the conversation up. There is already sufficient social backlash at a predominately liberal college against Trump supporters anyways so I don't think they need to be arrested either. But their message is not harmless, it is not immune to criticism. Buck up, deal with the consequences of your words.
Alrighty, here we go. Let’s try and break this down, because I’m seeing an issue (both in the article and some comments) that crops up a lot when people discuss freedom of speech and the issue of opinion-“coddling.”
First, let’s talk about Freedom of Speech. I’m glad Lukianoff views himself as such a scholar of freedom of speech that he needs to tell us that it’s “actually very sophisticated.” Let’s be clear, Freedom of Speech is not complicated. What becomes confusing is when people wrongly apply the concept to a situation, or make claims about freedom of speech that aren’t 100% true but still based in the true concept.
Hence, the argument being made by people like Lukianoff is “problematic” because it /seems/ OK, and some of what he is expressing is very valid, but the solutions he provides actually do more to support damaging systems than to create an accurate evaluation of freedom-of-speech issues. Like Jasmine points out, the rhetoric coming from this article sounds like an effort in defense of self, and therefore the status quo of the privileged. When someone of privilege tries to victimize themselves in an issue about expression of ideas, you know it’s time to be suspicious.
Let’s look at the claims:
- Coddling: Yes, some things are getting out of control with PC speech and the improper use of trigger warnings—to the detriment of the understanding and important use of trigger warnings in the situations where they are needed. The response of Lukianoff counters this extreme with another, however, taking us from one unproductive direction into an even worse one.
- The argument that “having a right to be offended” prevents the existence of comedy is completely false and misguided. Jasmine breaks this down a bit in her comment.
(cont. in another comment)
(cont.)
- And lastly, Diversity of Opinion: Diversity of opinion is important because if problematic views are not expressed we cannot address them. Basically, we need to allow stupid people to say stupid things so that we can call them on it, and so that the other stupid people in the crowd who have kept their pie-holes shut can hear both opinions and (hopefully) understand why their views are not properly backed-up. Allowing those views to be expressed is allowing that diversity of opinion, but that does not mean we won’t rebut those views. We cannot allow uninformed, flat-out wrong views to go uncontested. Freedom of expression does not protect you from consequences.
HOWEVER: While it is important to allow difference of opinion in discussion (variance in voices in a debate is inherently required) this does not mean we can allow seriously misinformed views to be considered with the same value as ones which are backed by research and serious consideration. For an art-school metaphor: It would be like displaying a half-baked idea next to a thesis project, but arguing they are both equally valid and that any questioning of the half-baked idea is an “attack on half-baked-ideas.” This moment of attempted defense is important: if we WANT to allow difference of opinion, people should not freak out when we say “OK, let’s talk about why these opinions disagree.” If your only defense for your opinion is “freedom of speech,” you’re the one who doesn’t understand the right to free speech.
This is where the idea that “freedom of speech” is only used to defend the “bullies” comes from. This is glossed over in the article. The reason this phenomenon occurs is because people often pull the “freedom of speech card” in situations where they are not really validated to do so. Freedom of speech is a governmental protection, so people are distracting from the issue when they claim “freedom of speech” when they are being cut from a TV program or being uninvited to speak. Constitutional rights do not protect you from people thinking you are an asshole, just as how saying “no offense” or “but that’s just my opinion” doesn’t either. “Diversity of opinion” does not equal “un-questioning protection of opinion.”
Furthermore, if a view is so misinformed to a degree that it is outright dangerous, calling out and preventing the propagation of that view is not an affront to freedom of speech. If people have an issue with your views, you’ve clearly already exercised your freedom to speak them. That freedom does not give you any right to travel the land, spreading hatred and misinformation. The most relevant example of this is Donald Trump. When he first said offensive, stupid, wrong things during his campaign, people called him on it. But he has continued to speak, and continued to spread this hatred, all while acting to silence any opposition or refuse any debate or discussion of these views. Allowing him to continue spreading his ideas is in fact dangerous and damaging. It provides a bad example which others are rallying around. Trust me, such people are not fans of “diversity of opinion” – this is where the efforts of activists like Lukianoff, who means well, turn dangerous.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
So, TL-DR: YES, we need to allow sometimes offensive opinions to be expressed, but NO that doesn’t mean those opinions and those expressing them are protected from rebuttal or more serious consequences. When an offensive opinion is silenced, it is silenced NOT because it is offensive but because it is dangerous: it has the potential to further misinform people or propagate hatred, both of which harm freedom of expression and healthy dialogue and debate.
I was almost reluctant to comment on this because this is such a proverbial loaded gun. There is a part of me that would really like to deal in absolutes on this, that would like to assert that free speech should be unequivocally free, be it right or wrong. But the fact that individuals might be made uncomfortable also rankles.
The "coddling" that has been spoken of numerous times is an accurate assessment I think. This problem has also come up in terms of banning content involving rape from classrooms. While I would be one of the first to advocate for trigger avoidance, just because something is difficult for some to confront does not mean no one should be forced to confront it. Eliminating rape content from classrooms would be damaging to the utmost, removing it from the immediate consciousness of the students, and relegating it to the world of the fictional. But the question remains: how do you educate someone on the topic of rape *without* triggering the assault victim next to them? Though this article highlights slightly different circumstances, the same question stands. How do you protect one person's freedom of speech, while protecting the peace of mind of the student next to them?
This is very relevant, considering the past week, and what the fence was painted, and repainted, and then painted again. I don't know if I agree with the government restricting what we can and can not say. Although I do think that anything that offends minorities, or is out of date language, should refrain from being used. All that being said not sure that government has a place in what we can say. Free speech is an important part of what makes our country, our country, but with free speech comes consequences. The CMU community was outraged for many different reasons when the fence was painted in support of Donald Trump, and then painted over. I was angry because I can not understand supporting a candidate that so horrible in every way, but people on campus were mad because the people that reprinted the fence "broke the rules". They did, but they didn't infringe upon free speech. The trump supporters spoke, and the campus spoke back. There was discussion, and that is what is important. I don't think that the government should stop us from saying things, but I think if you're gonna say something offensive you have to know that people are going to paint right over you, and that I'll be supporting them.
The topic of free speech on college campuses certainly seems to be becoming more and more controversial every day. The thing I find scary about this censorship is not just about other people being “swayed” by a radical opinion into a position that might be detrimental but actually I’m terrified I might lose my own moral compass. Some of the most valuable dialogue’s I have been a part of have been ones where I initially thought the other side was simply a radicalized minority that had gotten to that perspective because they hadn’t talked to anyone who disagreed and had just kept hopping down the rabbit hole. By the end of these though I often find my own perspective is swayed. Maybe not fully but slightly. I like to think that these little changes in opinion actually do make me a better citizen and neighbor. Sometimes you really do need a minority to be very vocal about an idea that everyone else thinks is radical for a new idea to enter the arena. If that means listening to the 95 % of radical opinions that don’t meet those criteria I’ll do it.
There’s this wonderful quote that I try to live up to, “'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But supporting someone’s freedom of speech is difficult when you completely disagree with them. Some comments have mentioned the Trump fence incident last week. Now, was it in poor taste to cover up the memorial with something so polarizing? Yes, of course it was. But there were students who wanted the painters to be punished for vandalism, but the people who originally painted the fence completely obeyed the rules and by no stretch of the imagination could be called vandals, whereas the people who then altered the fence during the day could. I think some of this inability to hear opposing viewpoints comes from the age of the internet and the ability to pick and choose our own news sources as well as just surround ourselves with similar opinions to our own so that all we hear is one side of an argument being shouted all around us and we come to think of it as fundamentally “right.” I have a friend on Facebook who is deeply pro-life, and she kept posting so many articles, pictures, etc. supporting the pro-life argument that I almost hide her posts from my feed. But then I realized, almost all my friends are liberal, posting political statuses that I at least mostly agree with, and I'm fine with them. If I hid Jessica’s posts I would be following to the trap that I think a lot of my generation have by surrounding myself exclusively with people and new sources that just echo back my own opinions to me, instead of challenging them in any way.
When I read articles like this, all I here are racist, misogynistic, homophobes complaining that they aren’t allowed to be racist, misogynistic, or homophobic anymore. The truth of the matter is that this younger generation of people, namely those in or around college age, are of a different mindset then generations past. So when they see something they don’t like, of course they are going to say something. It’s what every generation has done for years and years and years. And it’s what the next generation will do to my generation and so on. It’s how humans better themselves. People can try and spin this as college students being ‘coddled’ or ‘throwing temper tantrums’ but it’s really just college students seeing the problems in our society and trying to right those wrongs. And as for the free speech argument, it’s completely invalid. The first amendment guarantees every person the right to speech without government action. It says nothing of forcing people to tolerate another’s shitty opinion. You have the right to say whatever you want and not get arrested. You don’t have the right to say whatever you want and not face the social and cultural consequences. So if a controversial speaker is uninvited to speak at a college campus, their first amendment right isn’t being violated. It’s just everyone collectively saying ‘That’s your opinion and we don’t have to listen to it’. And if someone can’t deal with the fact that this generation is showing them the door, then maybe they should rethink who’s truly ‘coddled’.
Alright, it seems we have some heated comments already. I have some heated feelings on the topic as well, but I'm going to try to keep this brief and clean (mostly because I have 2 more comments to do in the next 18 minutes). Free speech is a beautiful concept that unfortunately covers the good and the bad. Censorship is never the right option, unless (as Scott writes) the message turns from opposing to dangerous. Last week, when the fence was painted for Trump 2016, I was ashamed. I was embarrassed. I hated being on a campus where that name is proudly exclaimed. And I thought about all the prospective students, who would think that we are a university that stands behind a racist and bigot who is so crude that only those whose cruel thoughts are being voiced can support. I thought about the current students walking by the fence who were women or minorities, feeling like they were in a place where Trump's beliefs about them were validated and esteemed highly enough to be broadcasted on the cut. Those are horrible feelings, which is why I fully support whoever decided to change Trump to "Drumpf" that day. I do not wholly support the censorship of the whole thing, when it was painted white, but I can appreciate the intention of covering up what was really a smear across our campus.
Freedom of speech is essential for a society to be fair and just, but I feel like in the past few years I've seen freedom of speech warped, twisted, and abused. Freedom of speech is being able to speak out against injustice, being able to speak your mind, and being able to challenge already existing beliefs. It is not, or shouldn't be, for tearing down other people without consequence. Like Cassidy and Jasmine said, if you say something hateful then you can't avoid punishment through freedom of speech. If you say something offensive or harass me then I have the right to call you out on it or seek some kind of punishment or consequence for you. I don't think that censorship in necessarily the right route to take, but I do think that people need to take responsibility for what they say and do. However, hate is still hate even if it's disguised as freedom of speech, and even if it's painted as a "political beliefs" on the fence.
Post a Comment