Why free speech infringes on “liberty”

It depends on how we define liberty. From Tom Knighton at PJMedia:

…. professors at Wellesley College are claiming that non-politically correct speech is an abridgment of liberty:

In a faculty listserv message obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the two-year-old Presidential Commission on Race, Ethnicity, and Equity said the recently invited Laura Kipnis and previous controversial speakers were exhausting students with their offensiveness.

The six faculty on the women’s college commission cited the left-wing historian Jelani Cobb’s theory that certain ideas “impose on the liberty of another” if the person hearing those ideas is “relatively disempowered”:

There is no doubt that the speakers in question impose on the liberty of students, staff, and faculty at Wellesley. We are especially concerned with the impact of speakers’ presentations on Wellesley students, who often feel the injury most acutely and invest time and energy in rebutting the speakers’ arguments. Students object in order to affirm their humanity. This work is not optional; students feel they would be unable to carry out their responsibilities as students without standing up for themselves.

Apparently referring to campus reactions to Kipnis — the subject of a two-month Title IX “inquisition” at Northwestern University, where she teaches film — the commission members said “dozens of students” have told them “they are in distress as a result of a speaker’s words.”

What the professors should have done was tell these children to shut up and deal. Not everyone in life is going to give a flying fig about how they feel about things. More.

Reality check: Those students do not belong at a traditional university, but Wellesley is no longer a traditional university. It is, like many others today, a training camp for Orwell’s Outer Party. Except that the proles whose lives the graduates will rule, are not useful. The graduates will be marketing the proles’ wounded identity, helplessness, and grievance to government. To fully understand the new proles, Wellesley students must become like them, must in fact be them, except for having a position of some power.

At heart, two definitions of liberty collide here. Naturalist vs. non-naturalist. The naturalist does not believe in the reality of the mind. Thus, traditional ideas of liberty are not only meaningless but offensive.

On the naturalist view, humans are just another animal, and consciousness is an illusion. What animals need is the liberty to indulge their natural feelings unhindered. Claims about intellectual “liberty” just maintain an illusion, with risk or harm to others.

Anyone who contributes to the system that entrenches this point of view deserves the outcome. The rest of us must look to our defences.

See also: Power, not reason, rules at Yale, and that’s just fine with the profs

Share
  • Oracle9

    The intent of free speech laws is being abused. This is essential to understand. The abuse of these laws are a powerful tool in the left’s divisive push towards identity politics – the essential dynamic which powered the rise of totalitarianism in Europe in the 1930s and everywhere else its ugly head has risen.

    It follows, in light of this abuse, to abolish the free speech laws ASAP.

    http://canadafreepress.com/article/the-real-hate-crimes-hoax#.WN-NwcY6ClE.twitter

  • Ego

    You can overcomplicate it until nothing makes sense any more, but free speech is a dead-simple concept: You can speak your mind, and so can everybody else.
    If someone doesn’t like what you say, they can debate you on merit or return the insult if they know no better.
    That’s all.

    non-politically correct speech is an abridgment of liberty

    On the contrary: politically correct speech is an abridgment—more accurately: the death—of liberty.