Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

There was an activist professor at a university in Colorado [mr Churchill, I believe] who used to say some foul things about some people --but said it in sympathy to native Americans.

He said the US deserved 9-11 and so on.

This professor was protected by the university in spite of calls to have him fired because they said the university needs diverse voices, even if they are violent and they would protect his 1A rights...

Things have changed...

View on HN

I don't remember it that way. He did say the US deserved 9-11, and called people who worked in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns".

But his essay was kind of ignored until 2005. Then CU Boulder investigated him for academic misconduct and fired him. The committee concluded it wasn't serious enough to fire him, and he later successfully sued the university for firing him. Media was reporting on his firing as having major free speech implications.

Academic misconduct should be punished. But to me it looks like one of the major motivations for his firing was his extremely offensive comments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill#Activism_on_Nat...

> Things have changed...

Let me get this straight: someone who expressed hateful left-leaning political opinions was _not_ fired, and then later someone who expressed hateful right-leaning political opinions _was_ fired? What changed, exactly?

I think there was more willingness to defend these kinds opinions on principle based on the 1A and, importantly, defending someone on principle wasn't conflated with supporting that PoV. But now that is no longer the case. Now people claim that there are exceptions and also that while the 1A exists, it does not protect individuals from repercussions (job loss) even if state jobs.

I think that is a significant shift (even if yes, we do see a free pass for the likes of Sarah Jeong[1] for example.

[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45052534

I agree with you that there's been a shift in general attitudes towards freedom of speech. I disagree with you regarding where that opinion has shifted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you view this shift as occurring "across the board". I don't think that's the case. To me it seems that left-leaning people have shifted into very pro-censorhip views (against anyone who disagree with them), while right-leaning people have not shifted into pro-censorship views. You have now provided 2 examples of people who have (arguably) spewed hateful rhetoric, but didn't face harsh consequences for their actions. Both of those examples are left-leaning people. It does not strike me at all surprising that these left-leaning people were not censored, because the pro-censorship movement appears to be facilitated exclusively by people on the left, and of course they're not going to censor their own.

I think that's correct. There is less acceptance of free speech if it's "alt-right" than if the speech is coming from the "alt-left". I agree.

It's frightful to see that defending the 1A on principle is seen as an endorsement of objectionable views.

It's more that defending the spirit of the first amendment only on principle is seen as being disconnected from reality and ignoring the effectiveness of rhetoric in eroding the rights of vulnerable populations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com