Sunday, March 09, 2008
At Yale, feelings are more important than free speech
Since Mindles has come on board we have to be a little more circumspect in picking on Yale, but we cannot let it go unlinked that Yale is -- again -- at least considering prior restraints on speech to protect, well, feelings, which lawyers call "reputational interest." Yale is not the government so it can do what it wants, but Glenn Reynolds has rather obviously nailed it:
When you have a university whose first response to unwanted speech is to try to ban it and punish students who take part, it's a bigger problem.
True and righteous as that view may be, Yale has in fact codified the subordinate position of speech on its campus. From the School of Medicine's anti-discrimination policy (for example):
It must be ensured that our school is free from discrimination and acts of intolerance such as those based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, or physical handicap. This commitment remains consonant with the obligation to protect open and wide-ranging public discourse.
The principle of freedom of expression that might otherwise protect even the most offensive public speech does not protect, nor does it even encompass, a right to threaten the dignity and privacy of an individual. Such personally directed behavior will not be tolerated; it is antithetical to academic values, debilitates its victims, compromises the offenders, and undermines the University's fundamental commitment to individual freedom and respect for all its members. Furthermore acts of intolerance may destroy the very atmosphere wherein freedom of expression is otherwise tolerated and cherished.
So it is not as though Yale did not warn people. You have no right, even by speech alone, to "threaten the dignity" of somebody. Whatever that means.
20 Comments:
By 
, at
Sun Mar 09, 01:33:00 PM:
In order to protect the "atmosphere wherein freedom of expression is tolerated," Yale will not tolerate speech that displays intolerance.
Eat your heart out, George Orwell.
By 
Andrew Hofer, at
Sun Mar 09, 01:36:00 PM:
Don't hold back on my account. Yale has always been near the forefront of this sort of silliness. Perhaps the restraints have come off now that Buckley's dead.
Hopefully a little alumni pressure will check the impulse. Don't they realize that these loose rules empower the stupidest among the administration and faculty and 'threaten the dignity' of the university. Hmm - perhaps I've spied an angle of attack....
By Andrew Hofer, at
Sun Mar 09, 01:41:00 PM:
..on the other hand - I do think libelous posts should be prosecuted and treated harshly.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Mar 09, 04:41:00 PM:
Drek, I've got a little problem with that if you use the British definition of Libel (I disagree with you, and can kind-of prove you wrong, therefore I can sue you for every penny you own, even if you are in the United States). I prefer the US version of libel (I can prove you wrong, and I can prove you knew it was wrong when you published it, and I can prove you acted with malice) somewhat, but I prefer the Government to keep its nose out of my speech period.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 05:33:00 PM:
So to satisfi the whinny minorities the brownshirts at YALE are dictating speech codes i wonder how they would fel about losing several thousand dollars to goverment money and have the whole place movied to cuba
By Sissy Willis, at
Sun Mar 09, 06:08:00 PM:
Some call it "reputational interest," others, status signals. It all comes down to the great Darwinian leveler, the importance of being noticed.
By rhhardin, at
Sun Mar 09, 09:06:00 PM:
I suppose ``asshole'' is out, then.
By Andrew Hofer, at
Sun Mar 09, 09:07:00 PM:
Well - the cited incident involves people posting that a girl had genital herpes. Having the right to say something doesn't mean you are immune from the consequences or damage done. Suing in the courts for libel is akin to a privatized solution for that.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 09:08:00 PM:
In order to save free speech at Yale, we had to destroy it.
Didn't that used kind of explanation used to be held up as the quintessence of double-talk?
By Unknown, at
Sun Mar 09, 09:15:00 PM:
It's become a problem at Yale because of the "guaranteed" anonymity. If you can't find who's writing libelous things about you, you can't sue.
Yale should simply keep a log of the traffic that goes through Yale's system to the Juicycampus, and let it be knows that the traffic is logged. If someone sues the logs are available. Sure, some will go to the trouble of using proxies or even going off campus to post - but I'll bet it's not worth the trouble for most.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Mar 09, 09:36:00 PM:
I have no problem with the libel remedy, and this would seem like a good use of it (unless the accusation is true). My objection is to imposing a prior restraint on speech, which is something we are very loathe to do and for good reason.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 09:49:00 PM:
My take is that Yale student and faculty are a bunch of whimpering wusses so uncertain of their identity that taunts, no matter how harmless, send them into bouts of suicidal depression. It's no wonder they need the protection of a speech code. Let's have a little sympathy here.
By , at
Sun Mar 09, 10:12:00 PM:
I'll bet conservatives, Republicans, and Christians get their dignity threatened and insulted every damn day at Yale.
Chester White
By Insufficiently Sensitive, at
Sun Mar 09, 11:02:00 PM:
I'll bet conservatives, Republicans, and Christians get their dignity threatened and insulted every damn day at Yale.
Of course! What a compliment! That confirms that Yale is a smashing success in providing a liberal education to almost every member of its community.
By Michael, at
Sun Mar 09, 11:11:00 PM:
So since this is from the med school, it's basically saying that, for instance, it would be punishable to say that a blind person or one with tremors shouldn't be allowed to be a neurosurgeon?
By Tucanae Services, at
Sun Mar 09, 11:31:00 PM:
" By Blogger Sissy Willis, at Sun Mar 09, 06:08:00 PM
I suppose ``asshole'' is out, then. "
Hmmm. Did you mean that anatomically or as a derisive comment? For a Yale med student it might make the difference being expelled or graduating. :)
By , at
Mon Mar 10, 04:31:00 AM:
I'm not totally well versed in free speech issues so do with my comment what you will.
But don't local communities get to determine whether specific speech is obscene, and so not worthy of free speech?
I don't know what constitutes a "community" but could a college campus fulfill the meaning?
And since the speech presented by JuicyGossip is almost certainly obscene(vulgar and baseless claims made by anonymous people).
Could Yale not then ban that speech?
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Mar 10, 05:11:00 AM:
Yale, not being the government, can do whatever it wants. The question is what it ought to do in this situation.
Look, we live in a world where pretty much anything can be said and is said online about pretty much anybody. The downside is that a lot of people get their feelings hurt. On the other hand, internet gossip per se is sort of inherently not credible, and most people understand that and therefore believe very little of what they read. If I read on an chat board that a particular person was a "slut" or whatever my first reaction would not be belief, but suspicion at the motives of the person posting the attack and sympathy for the target. I think that most decent people would have that reaction. Yes, there are morons out there who would not think that way, but most of them are not reading Ivy League social networking sites.
By Howard, at
Mon Mar 10, 07:33:00 AM:
I'd get around this one real fast, and take my cue from Mark Antony's speech over Caesar in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. I'd also lace every comment with praise about who I'm slamming. "But Cassius is an honorable man, and so are they all, Honorable Men" when you mean the exact opposite works for me.
By , at
Mon Mar 10, 09:50:00 AM:
john,
you are actually not too far away from right on free speech issues. Local communities can determine what is "obscene," as you said. I'm not sure if a campus could be considered a community or not, but it's possible.
But, according to the US Supreme Court, obscenity only refers to sexual matters (matters appealing to the prurient interests, as they put it). Therefore, unless this was an issue of sexual obscenity, it wouldn't fly. (This definition of obscenity doesn't make much sense to me, but it is what it is). I doubt that gossip, even if it had some bearing on the person's sex life, could rise to that level, unless (maybe) it fell into graphic descriptions of a specific act or something along that lines.
