The AAUP gives us a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority. Every lynch mob is direct democracy after all. Would excluding Jews be ok if the majority were in favor? Oh, I forgot, that already happened. Certainly, professors wouldn’t exclude Asians? Oops, did that too. White males? Yup. Nothing ever changes.
"The court noted that restrictions that bar offensive or otherwise unwelcome speech are impermissible regardless of the forum in which officials seek to impose them: “Enduring speech that irritates, frustrates, or even offends is a ‘necessary cost of freedom.’”"
While I am generally in agreement with FIRE and a strong defense of Freedom of Speech, this statement coming from a court seems blatantly contradictory to the existence and frequent usage of "contempt of court" against people actually in a courthouse who engage in offensive, personally directed, or obscene language before the court itself. Using "offensive or unwelcome speech" before a judge is a fast way to find yourself in worse legal trouble than you were before.
We have multiple laws that penalize disruptive conduct impairing official proceedings, do we not? In what way are these "decorum" standards dissimilar? This stance seems to be veering dangerously close to a heckler's veto of sorts, where time provided for people to express actual ideas and arguments may be diverted to screaming tantrums laden with curses and the vilest verbal abuse, derailing the proceedings and preventing the public comment period from serving its intended purpose. Freedom of Speech does not obviate the responsibility of adults to conduct themselves as mature citizens when engaging in official proceedings.
The AAUP gives us a textbook example of the tyranny of the majority. Every lynch mob is direct democracy after all. Would excluding Jews be ok if the majority were in favor? Oh, I forgot, that already happened. Certainly, professors wouldn’t exclude Asians? Oops, did that too. White males? Yup. Nothing ever changes.
"The court noted that restrictions that bar offensive or otherwise unwelcome speech are impermissible regardless of the forum in which officials seek to impose them: “Enduring speech that irritates, frustrates, or even offends is a ‘necessary cost of freedom.’”"
While I am generally in agreement with FIRE and a strong defense of Freedom of Speech, this statement coming from a court seems blatantly contradictory to the existence and frequent usage of "contempt of court" against people actually in a courthouse who engage in offensive, personally directed, or obscene language before the court itself. Using "offensive or unwelcome speech" before a judge is a fast way to find yourself in worse legal trouble than you were before.
We have multiple laws that penalize disruptive conduct impairing official proceedings, do we not? In what way are these "decorum" standards dissimilar? This stance seems to be veering dangerously close to a heckler's veto of sorts, where time provided for people to express actual ideas and arguments may be diverted to screaming tantrums laden with curses and the vilest verbal abuse, derailing the proceedings and preventing the public comment period from serving its intended purpose. Freedom of Speech does not obviate the responsibility of adults to conduct themselves as mature citizens when engaging in official proceedings.