What is a black professor in America allowed to say?

[Nearly Sane]

Fascinating article, and one that leaves me unsure what I think about what is the 'right' thing here.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/03/what-is-a-black-professor-in-america-allowed-to-say-tommy-j-curry

[jeremyp]

I think it's fairly straight forward. Professor Curry expressed controversial views (which, personally, I think are wrong). An alleged journalist then spins them to make them appear worse than they are and the Professor starts getting death threats etc.

So, genuine question, no snark intended: what is it that you are unsure about?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm wondering what Sam Harris's take on it is............Apparently he has a big weapon.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's fairly straight forward. Professor Curry expressed controversial views (which, personally, I think are wrong). An alleged journalist then spins them to make them appear worse than they are and the Professor starts getting death threats etc.

So, genuine question, no snark intended: what is it that you are unsure about?

First of all, that if I believe in free speech as far ad I do, then Dreher's views are just as allowed as Curry's. I'm not sure why you want to colour that by referring to alleged journalist and spin. Secondly, I don't think that Dreher is responsible for the death threats and we need to be careful that we are not then looking to censor people because others are lunatics. There's ni incitement that I can see in Dreher's position.

Thirdly, and this is where I am most ambivalent, if the views of Curry can be equated to Stephens which the university tried to get banned then that seems odd. The interplay between Curry's own freedom of speech, and the university as an institution's freedom to not approve of personal views seems to me to mean that it's not their duty to defend the statement in the way Curry seems to have wanted.

In the end, what I am unsure about is whether in any way this was avoidable. It looks inevitable and yet is obviously not an ideal conclusion.

[jeremyp]

First of all, that if I believe in free speech as far ad I do, then Dreher's views are just as allowed as Curry's. I'm not sure why you want to colour that by referring to alleged journalist and spin.

It looks very much like he spun Curry's words.

Secondly, I don't think that Dreher is responsible for the death threats and we need to be careful that we are not then looking to censor people because others are lunatics. There's ni incitement that I can see in Dreher's position.

I don't think Dreher is responsible for the death threats either. In fact, he is on record as deploring them.

Thirdly, and this is where I am most ambivalent, if the views of Curry can be equated to Stephens which the university tried to get banned then that seems odd. The interplay between Curry's own freedom of speech, and the university as an institution's freedom to not approve of personal views seems to me to mean that it's not their duty to defend the statement in the way Curry seems to have wanted.

They don't need to defend any statement he made. They do need to defend his person and right to make the statement given that it was not an incitement to com it violence - at least not in my opinion.

In the end, what I am unsure about is whether in any way this was avoidable. It looks inevitable and yet is obviously not an ideal conclusion.

It's the modern way. It doesn't take much to start a mob frenzy on social media these days.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem with simply defending the right to say it, which they do actually do, is there is the added nuance of distancing themselves from the comments being representative of them, which they have distanced themselves from. Add to that their attempt to ban Stephens, which in terms of whether it is justified or not, seems to link them to remarks that they would otherwise ban.

[SteveH]

As a supporter of the right to bear arms, he is to some extent the author of his own misfortune.