George Ciccariello-Maher, a Drexel University associate professor of politics and global studies, is no fan of free speech.
He uses his Twitter account to rail against the American Civil Liberties Union that defends speech rights even for the most noxious of speakers. He has called for other individuals to be fired from their jobs for offensive speech. And he has blocked critics on Twitter — such as this reporter — who say his approach goes too far. (The blocking, in fact, is mutual.)
Ciccariello-Maher is explicit. “We don’t have to stand up for the free speech of eugenicists, racists, and bigots to speak and certainly not the privilege to have access to a platform on campus to spout their kind of hatred,” he said about his campaign to stop Charles Murray from speaking at a nearby campus, during a conversation on free speech on the It’s Going Down Podcast in May.
The ACLU has long argued that it defends even the most odious speech because once some speech is curtailed, it isn’t long before it creeps your way. The truth of that axiom came at Ciccariello-Maher fast.
Ciccariello-Maher’s Twitter feed is a long litany of provocative statements — ranging from admitting he wanted to “vomit” when a student offered a seat to a soldier to his recent claims that gun control was irrelevant to the Las Vegas shooting because it was in fact the result of “white supremacist patriarchy.”
He doesn’t even particularly mind people assaulting white nationalist activists like Richard Spencer. He has also called for police officers to be killed, encouraged people to riot, and endorsed vigilante mass murder.
These social media missives are often highlighted in right-wing media, which sets off a stream of abuse and invective toward Ciccariello-Maher.
Through all of this, his university has not tangibly sanctioned him in any way, but has condemned his comments — which itself is a soft restriction on speech anathema to the academic tradition. Last December, after he tweeted that “when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed,” Drexel put out a brief statement distancing itself from him: “While the University recognizes the right of its faculty to freely express their thoughts and opinions in public debate, Professor Ciccariello-Maher’s comments are utterly reprehensible, deeply disturbing, and do not in any way reflect the values of the University.”
This month, the school went further, placing Ciccariello-Maher on administrative leave. On Tuesday, he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post denouncing the move:
By bowing to pressure from racist internet trolls, Drexel has sent the wrong signal: That you can control a university’s curriculum with anonymous threats of violence. Such cowardice notwithstanding, I am prepared to take all necessary legal action to protect my academic freedom, tenure rights and most importantly, the rights of my students to learn in a safe environment where threats don’t hold sway over intellectual debate.
The Intercept asked Drexel why specifically it chose to put the professor on administrative leave. Niki Gianakaris, the university’s executive director of media relations, told us that it was for “his safety and the safety of Drexel’s community”:
The safety of Drexel’s students, faculty, professional staff and police officers are of paramount concern to Drexel. Due to a growing number of threats directed at Professor George Ciccariello-Maher, and increased concerns about both his safety and the safety of Drexel’s community, after careful consideration the University has decided to place Professor Ciccariello-Maher on administrative leave. We believe this is a necessary step to ensure the safety of our campus.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a free speech nonprofit based in Philadelphia, has been monitoring Ciccariello-Maher’s case for months.
Adam Steinbaugh, a senior program officer and investigative reporter at FIRE, pointed to Drexel’s internal review of Ciccariello-Maher’s public musings and offered some skepticism toward their justification.
“Skepticism is certainly warranted here. Drexel claimed publicly that Ciccariello-Maher specifically, and faculty in general, enjoy freedom to express their thoughts and beliefs. In private, Drexel launched an investigation into the propriety of his views — an investigation that has apparently remained open since February,” he noted.
“If Drexel wants to be credible as an institution that protects academic freedom, then it must be transparent,” he continued. “Vague invocations of safety and references to ‘growing threats’ are not enough. While it shouldn’t be required to publicize details that might risk an active investigation, it should explain the nature of the threats, the steps it has taken to mitigate the risk (short of exiling a professor), and what — if any — law enforcement agencies it has involved.”
Steinbaugh also worried that silencing a professor is more or less giving into the threats.
“That a lot of people are angry is a poor basis to silence a speaker,” he said. “When threats are made with the goal of silencing a speaker, taking institutional action against the speaker will demonstrate that threats will accomplish their goal. ”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Ciccariello-Maher did not respond to a request for comment from this reporter. An editor at The Intercept reached out to him for comment. He asked who would be writing the story, and when he learned the answer, he didn’t reply further.
Top photo: This video still frame shows Drexel University associate professor George Ciccariello-Maher giving a lecture at Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies at Cornell University.
Lefties are speechless. Their reactions range from “you vindictive piece of trash” to just “Disgusting.” And the socialist-worker or whatever it is called, in typical red manner, babbles on and on about their interpretation of historical events and other postmodernist sounding crap.
This George fellow advocates compelling people to refrain from speaking, using the reason that “Violence that could result if the offending speech isn’t stopped”. And now the university grew tired of his genocidal tendencies and essentially played the same move right back at him.
And now he’s crying about it like a typical anarcho-propellerhead would, along with his buddy who advocates for the same GENOCIDAL (their words not mine!) tendencies, Jesse Benn.
Their brand of hateful, “flip-the-script and become the racists they claim to hate” politics reminds me of Maoism in how calculated and vindictive it is. Maoists love to silence unorthodox speakers and enforce conformity, just like George Ciciarello Maher and his angry, smug buddy, Jesse Benn.
A couple articles on this article:
https://academeblog.org/2017/10/15/on-missing-the-point-about-academic-freedom-and-free-speech/
https://socialistworker.org/2017/10/17/we-wont-let-them-silence-left-voices-on-campus
Jilani has done some good work but this is clearly a personal attack, and am embarrassment that it was posted to the Intercept
Hardly, there’s a time to gloat and hope that someone will learn their lesson when they campaign for the curtailment of rights.
Nope, you miss the entire point, and actually bolster Ciccariello’s:
Free speech does not operate in a vacuum, i.e., the political imperatives surrounding ‘free speech’ (today) pretty mean elevate the far right’s speech, which is (ultimately) genocidal in intent, and curtail the left’s. You should be seeing that.
It is essentially separate, and I disagree, but if you want to make a serious argument for ‘free speech absolutism,’ ok— that’s not what Jilani is doing here, plainly. He has an antagonistic history with this guy, this isn’t journalism.
Is it possible that talking more sometimes confuses an issue? Does anyone suspect that what this person believes or wants is muddied by all the opinions, discussions, articles, blocking of speech which may serve to clarify, etc? sometimes it becomes a morass. One thing I fail to understand about “intellectuals” is their disdain for parsimony.
Drexel University, being private, is under no particular obligation to defend the speech of its professors. People often applaud corporations that fire controversial employees, and I don’t see why we should have a different attitude toward a private university.
Have you really never heard of the concept of ‘academic freedom’, which has an entire Wikipedia article on the subject. It’s not good for academia if being controversial in your off-hours outside of the classroom can lose you your job.
There is no ‘free speech’ in the sense that every person is responsible for their utterances. you say hurtful things to someone there are going to be reactions. Someone is going to get sad, or they’re going to get angry, they’re going to tell you what they think if you, or they’re going to call the police if what you said was threatening to them. you just can’t think that your words have no meaning. I think people don’t understand at all what freedom of speech actually means, and then they talk about free-speech as though it’s some kind of amorphous concept, which it is. we need to define these terms .
“There is no ‘free speech’ in the sense that every person is responsible for their utterances. you say hurtful things to someone there are going to be reactions.” True, but that is not what “free speech” means. Thanks for trying to confuse the issue.
He is a known child abuser.
source? you keep posting that so you need to back it up, I think.
This buffoon is by all accounts completely unqualified to be teaching anyone anything. He is an embarrassment and a known abuser of teenagers. That he hasn’t been fired yet is a source of great shame to Drexel.
This is a ridiculous article. Its your personal f***ing grievance and puts none of Ciccariello’s comments in perspective. Obviously not to say I or anyone would agree with everything he says. Still his sentiment and ideological approach is a serious one and this article is petty and dismissive. “He asked who would be writing the story, and when he learned the answer, he didn’t reply further.” Come on man
He is an an embarrassment who should have been fired long ago. He is nothing but a racist abuser of teenagers
Apparently The Intercept didn’t want a story. If they’d wanted the story they would have assigned another reporter. With this short article I’m sure Jilani could have gotten them up to speed quickly. Tsk tsk
Great article Jilani, and don’t expect any thanks from C-M — you’re playing on a higher level.
Caca-m ,-)
This is what happens when people with principles meet capitalists. The capitalists only value money and attention. It doesn’t matter if it debases people and robs them of their respect and humanity, as long as there’s material or monetary gain it’s fair game for the capitalist.
The US system, built by capitalist white supremacist patriarchs, was created to enshrine and protect their dominion over commerce and people. It should be no surprise a man who speaks for human decency and angrily demands respect will be treated like garbage by capitalists who only value flesh bags for their ability to produce cheaply and quietly.
Glad to see the man sticks to his principles despite the harassment. I hope kids are inspried by his strength.
You’re an idiot.
Who has principles? Certainly NOT the “professor” who was suspended! Hypocrisy isn’t a principled stance. Or do you think this RACIST professor would have stood up for the rights of a right wing professor who got suspended (though I appreciate these don’t actually exist anymore!)
When someone like you spouts patriarchs, it is a given you are mentally ill and need SERIOUS help – either that or you are a spoilt brat who mummy & daddy cannot say no to!
You attack capitalism, yet it is the very capitalism you despise that has allowed you to spout you semi-literate incoherent hat speech! I mean WITHOUT capitalism, we wouldn’t have the world wide web, and without THAT, you would be hate ranting into your teddy bear at night about the patriarchy rather than pretending you are all grown up now. Hang on, wait, maybe you were right after all! Maybe capitalism needs to go away; I mean without capitalism, how would scum like you survive? – because without capitalism daddy wouldn’t be able to support your inane pathetic marxist life!
I think we can see in this article how an out of control liability process is a direct threat to constitutional rights. If Drexel is cravenly caving in to cowards who mail in death threats, the cowardice is probably not truly their own — I suspect they are afraid that they would be devastatingly punished for failing to show an expected level of cowardice. We see that in all kinds of shootings in all kinds of circumstances — whatever else happens, the host is always toast! They tore down Columbine, the nightclub in Orlando never came back, and as we speak a bunch of talking heads from another planet are out there savaging the Mandalay Bay hotel in pretrial press motions because they say a hotel should have been suspicious that a guest would have ten suitcases!
America was supposed to be the home of the brave, the home of the sort of universities where a dean could come out and say “Bring it on!” It turns out you can’t really be the land of the free when terrorists and courts work together to try to make you chicken.
Land of the free and home of the brave are phrases from a song. this has nothing to do with how the governing is done. the song represents ideals that we are supposed to try to move towards. it doesn’t represent a reality that every single action in this country is undertaken by brave people. do you seriously believe that or you think that that’s what the song is talking about –that every single person is brave in the United states? there is no person that is not brave? and neither does it mean that every single person in the United States has unlimited, guaranteed freedom from day one until the day that they leave the planet. this is like quoting Emma Lazarus’s poem in the museum of the Statue of Liberty building. completely naïve, unsophisticated, stupid arguments.
This article says that he “called for police officers to be killed”. But the article it cites — which does not disguise its dislike for him — nonetheless quotes his response that his account was hacked and he didn’t say that himself. When dealing with highly partisan material, I think it is important to communicate those reservations to try to keep things from getting so out of control. We cannot afford to reward hackers by making their story incontrovertible fact out of laziness, any more than Drexel can afford to reward people who send in death threats by letting them control who works for them.
Shame on The Intercept for publishing this drivel. It appears the author is more interested in protecting hate speech than he is in supporting one of America’s most progressive professors. The author doesn’t even pretend to hide his pettiness and vindictive attitude towards Professor Ciccariello-Maher.
If you believe that this cretin is one of “America’s most progressive professors,” then your cerebral cortex is on an extended vacation. This “professor” is nothing but a publicity hound at best, a mentally unstable troll at worst. The stupid, inflammatory (it’s disingenuous to call them provocative) pronouncements of Mr. C-M are, of course, his right to make, however idiotic and reprehensible they may be. However, Drexel University is perfectly within its rights to not condone such behavior, particularly when the statements are such to invite discord and mayhem. Mr. C-M obviously has substantial grievances — mostly of his own imaging — and believes he is some (otiose) mission. Good. Let go to a street and play Lenin — but Drexel has wisely said not on turf.
His anger is out of control. Should never be in a position of power.
Ciccariello-Maher obviously does not understand the concept of free speech and therefore should not be teaching in any school or college, full stop. If he cannot grasp that banning the speech of one group on Monday could support someone banning HIS speech on Tuesday, he is an idiot. And if he does not support free speech, he is FAR from a “leftist” of any stripe. People who do not support free speech are fascists, not leftists.
No, I don’t think you understand what free speech is, he opposes universities providing fascists with a platform to spew hate speech and safely recruit for their cause. If you’re ok with that then you are definitely not a leftist, just a centrist who is more concerned with fascists right to organize than for the people they intend to kill much like the author of this article. Opposing free speech means you want the state to intervene and stop someone speaking, something Ciccariello-Maher is definitely not advocating. If you think that a college should pay to host these people then you have no sympathy these individuals want to kill.
“No, I don’t think you understand what free speech is, he opposes universities providing fascists with a platform to spew hate speech”
Exactly….he opposes free speech.
Wow another left wing nazi
In that case as Drexel is not the state, he’s still a hypocrite for demanding they continue to platform his calls for murder while No-platforming those he disagrees with.
2nd. Totally well-said.
Yes. Caca-M is talking about content.
I couldn’t agree more! You’d think someone who has progressed this far in academia would be able to grasp this simple concept!
The media has equivocated the ideas of “academic freedom” with “speech protected by the 1st amendment.” It has an incentive to publish the most polemical statements notwithstanding their validity. The more controversial a position, the higher the readership, which spurs advertising revenue. Academic freedom should require some degree of logic, empirical evidence, or peer review –ideally all three.
In December, Ciccarello-Maher (CM) tweeted that “all I want for Christmas is white genocide.” Here, CM is making a satirical observation about retribution for the grievances, both past and present, committed by a white male European hegemony. He believes this hegemony, under the guise of advancement, has committed genocide and destroyed cultures. He juxtaposes his wish to destroy white culture against the largely Christian, the bourgeoisie, and western holiday of Christmas, which symbolizes –wait for it—white culture. We get it. And, while satire is certainly subjective, it’s not original and could have very well been penned by a first-year poly-sci student. It’s not clever or creative. It’s pedestrian.
Fox News reported that CR blamed the Las Vegas Shooting on “white people and men” who will go on shooting sprees “when they don’t get what they want.” However, his argument is more nuanced and evolved than a few decontextualized quotes. He describes a narrative of “white victimization” as the “spinal column” of Trumpism. Clearly, CM has a gift for metaphor but his logic is wanting. Let’s ignore the empirical foundations of his White Victimization Inspired Mass Murder (WVIMM) and assume its true. CM argues white people become entitled at an early age and, when they fail to get what they want, they become enraged. It is when he applies his WVIMM theory to the Las Vegas Shooting, his argument barrels off the tracks.
Simply put, CM’s theory is not logical, scholarly, or empirically supported. Whatever his motivations for putting it out there, he can’t travel under the banner of academic freedom. CM likely just wants followers, fame, and influence. He’s smart and calculated, artfully using rhetoric to plug up the holes in his logic and lack of evidence.
Drexel University should in no way feel obliged to protect CM’s tweets as ‘academic free speech.’ The AAUP (American Association of University Professors) will likely defend CM’s speech under its stated mission of “supporting the principles of academic freedom.” However, this organization is largely a paper tiger and, according to their latest tax filing, is running a deficit of almost -$195,519. Maybe the ACLU will step in if CM gets fired. But this is not a freedom of speech issue –it is an academic freedom of speech issue.
In closing, Drexel has grounds to fire him from a liability perspective. CM has a history of extolling inflammatory rhetoric likely to incite violence. If someone were to act on his tweets, especially one of his students, the university would face exposure, both from a legal liability perspective and regulatory scrutiny.
2nd. Freedom of speech is indeed the right to pretty much say anything— not things like “fire” in a theater is understood not free speech.
Academic freedom means intelligent ideas and facts and Mr. Ciccarriello-Maher has no academia or intelligence in his offerings.
Most half-witted observers will note that anyone who hyphenated their family names to a fifteen spaces-long spelling nightmare is desperately seeking attention! Poor man.
Almost sounds like he’s trolling white nationalists.
This article (if we can call it that, since it editorializes in nearly ever sentence) fails to discern the difference between the right to free speech and right-wing justifications of hate speech under the guise of free speech. Either the Intercept has forgotten this crucial distinction between hate speech and free speech, or it has knowingly collapsed it. Either way, whether intentional or not, the Intercept has published a right-wing attack on a professor that has received death-threats from Nazis. There are many forms of speech not protected by the First Amendment — among them are true threats and defamation. More problematic still, the article participates in an alarming tendency for moralistic conservatives to co-opt the idea of free speech in order to spread hate against those who condemn the emergent rise of white fascist ideology. The problem is not that leftists are determined to shut down free speech. On the contrary, it precisely this moralistic determination to hold on to some ACLU-style civil libertarian tradition that has allowed for the line between objective journalism and active propaganda to become increasingly indiscernible. It is hard to find a more obvious example in journalistic history where the wishful-thinking associated with liberal idealism has helped precipitate the rise neo-fascism …
Did you not know that ‘hate speech’ has been ruled protected as ‘free speech’ by the Supreme Court??
Well, in the legal sense, for it to be illicit, it must rise to the level of threat or harassment. Of course, in the court of law, reaching such a conclusion requires rigorous deliberation, serious debate from numerous sides, and thus nuance. In the article above, however, that kind of deliberation is missing. It upholds the ACLU-style assumption, rather brazenly, that protections on free speech are absolute. That is hardly the case. Words matter. They can be wielded as weapons. Legitimate threats or face-to-face insults that incite a fight fall outside the First Amendment. It is on these grounds that championing ACLU-style free speech protections at all costs actually denies the constitutionally guaranteed right of not being denigrated or harassed. Harassment law protects against any course of conduct which threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety.
> It is on these grounds that championing ACLU-style free speech protections at all costs actually denies the constitutionally guaranteed right of not being denigrated or harassed.
right, the aclu doesn’t know the limits on constitutionally protected speech. the aclu doesn’t know the constitution. good one
My point exactly — Free speech absolutism is an inherently flawed viewpoint due to the manifold “limits on constitutionally protected speech.”
And yet you said nothing about hate speech….which was my only note…that hate speech has undeniably been ruled to be free speech by the Supreme Court. It certainly doesn’t fall under ‘threats’ or ‘incitement.’
Notwithstanding, hate speech takes many forms, as does the threshold of what counts as harm. There are other nebulous court rulings about, for instance, the ‘fighting words’ doctrine (e.g. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).
Neither incitement nor the fighting words doctrine apply to what you call “hate speech” you freedom hating tool.
…all of which has nothing to do with ‘hate speech’. Hate speech is free speech a must necessarily be protected.
Your initial comment foolishly asserts that there’s some difference between free speech and hate speech…there isn’t. They’re the same thing.
the aclu’s “free speech absolutism” means — can only mean — the defense of all speech that is protected by the constitution, which (by definition) does not include speech that has been found (in courts, not comment sections) to be not protected by the constitution. these exceptions are hardly “manifold,” and include neither hate speech nor denigration
critics of “free speech absolutism” don’t argue that it’s an “inherently flawed viewpoint,” they understand it exactly as i’ve explained it, and argue that the first amendment enjoins only the government (which is true, of course), and therefore they can, and should, try to silence whatever speech they consider to be hateful, denigrating, dangerous, violence in and of itself … whatever. it is only at this point that the exceptions to freedom of speech become manifold, and our democratic process devolves into shouting matches and street brawls, and, if you think that’s what you want, keep making the same arguments, you’re doing a fine job
Goodness me, it certainly shouldn’t be legal to use speech that alarms people.
Can you tell me where in the constitution you find the right to not be “denigrated or harassed”? The professor Murray, who this Drexel professor wanted silenced, didn’t threaten or intimidate anyone.
You can’t just say you feel alarmed and then use that as an excuse to silence people. I find your diatribe alarming, for example.
What we are saying is fascist nazi white supremacist speech is SUPER dangerous, and should not be allowed to proliferate. In fact, we should all be unified to defeat it. Yet you are worried that you will lose your “rights”, and instead protect the fascists…instead of us. This is totally warped. Time to think differently.
It doesn’t spread like a plague. Why do you think letting Nazi’s speak will convert the masses over night?
The problem I have with censorship is that it leads to groupthink, which leads to stagnation and death.
There’s so much absurd conflation and intentional ignorance in your comment.
“What we are saying is fascist nazi white supremacist speech is SUPER dangerous, and should not be allowed to proliferate.” <—That comment, right there, is where you just turned into the fascist against which you think you're fighting.
Your idea of meting out speech allowance is far more dangerous than any actual hate speech.
"Yet you are worried that you will lose your “rights”" —-EXACTLY
"and instead protect the fascists [SPEECH]…instead of [OURS]" —What are you talking about?…I haven't called for your censorship. I totally support your right to peddle your fascist ideas…as terrible as they are.
"This is totally warped. Time to think differently." I totally agree…you should take your advice.
Strange how this guy is even being called a “leftist,” because anti-fre speech is a right wing thing.
Maybe I missed the memo.
BTW: is this sort of thing properly named “Israelification,” or is “ADLification” the right term to use?
No, lately being anti free speech is a left wing thing. Black Lives Matter just stormed the stage of an ACLU speaker to stop her from speaking. Left wing groups stopped speeches at Berkley. Show me a recent case of a left wing speaker being stopped by a right wing group.
Black Lives Matter is NOT a leftist group. Marxists are left wing. I am a Marxist. All the rest of these groups are what we call “pseudo leftists”, because they are bourgeois radical groups. Stop slandering the true leftists. Read the World Socialist Web Site to learn more what true leftists are. http://www.wsws.org
Note that birds cannot fly without their left wing; your heart is on your left. Silly? Yes. Balance.
First off I’m glad to read some actual articles of trolling. This professor is an idiot as far as I can read. But he’s getting paid to stay way from his job? Or did they put him on the unemployment roll? Either way, this kind of reads like the Sufi with Swiss comment kerfuffle. I personally think this so-called educator wanted an extended holiday and blithered his way into one. I think he’s a lot less intelligent than his position requires and he should actually be fired. Not because of any one thing he tweeted but the pattern of these selected tweets shows intent as far as I’m concerned. Intent toward what crime? Conspiracy. To do what? To use the ‘nazis’ on twitter to create an environment of ‘violence’ and threats of violence around himself to make his continued presence far beyond Drexel’s security budget. You folks are commenting about 800 k for 10 minutes of smiling scuzz at uc? The amount Drexel would have to spend if even one student was injured during an attack on this jerk. With Drexel knowing full-well the threat level by other jerks against this jerk? He shouldn’t just be fired with all benefits including unemployment vigorously with-held. He should be prosecuted for fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud.
Petty, man. Try a bit harder or publish this under personal essay.
This is one of the cringiest articles i’ve ever read. Hoping for higher standards from The Intercept…
why is Zaid writing for The Intercept and not MSNBC
Ah yes, that’s the “pro-free-speech” group of libertarians I’ve come to know. If someone whose opinions you disagree with is put on leave for those opinions, you write several paragraphs about how much you loathe that person and how evil and terrible their ideas are, followed by a little desultory muttering about how someone you know has phoned someone and asked about something. FIRE will definitely be writing a letter or two before dropping the case as uninteresting.
Alternatively, you can start off with a long paean to free speech in general, introduce the person you are defending, detail his crimes, pour into words your righteous revulsion and contempt for his awful opinions, and then inform the reader (whose hand by this time is surely itching for the axe) that even such a despicable person can be granted the protection of the First Amendment if his ideas are not “dangerous.”
If you want the left wing to care about free speech, give it some. Why expect Ciccariello-Maher to protect others’ free speech when he has none of his own and never did?
Opposing free speech is genocide. We are thinking beings. Opposing free speech is to oppose free thought. To oppose the very idea of being human. If we do not fight now we will be arrested for the dreams we have at night. We should give those who oppose free speech their wish. Those who oppose free speech should have their eyes removed, their eardrums burst and their tongues cut out.
So the people who use free speech to argue against free speech should be barred from having free speech? Do you not see how unbelievably stupid that is?
Just like the 2nd amendment has restrictions, so does “freedom of speech.” And it should. If you could have stopped Nazi rallies in Germany are you really saying you wouldn’t have? There’s a limit to everything.
“Just like the 2nd amendment has restrictions, so does “freedom of speech.” And it should. If you could have stopped Nazi rallies in Germany are you really saying you wouldn’t have? There’s a limit to everything.”
That’s extremely ironic.
Did you ever wonder why there weren’t any counter-protesters at those Nazi rallies???….because it was illegal! The limitation/banning of free speech was Hitler’s tool to keeping him in unchecked power!
The only way anyone could have stopped the madness was with free speech…which you’re Orwellianly arguing needs ideological limitations.
You’re well on your way to being a brown-shirt…
I can’t speak for Jilani, but I didn’t get the impression that he opposes free speech for Ciccariello-Maher. He’s just using his case to show the dangers of C-M’s opposition to freedom of expression. I just signed an online petition supporting C-M’s freedom of expression, even though the man appears to be a posturing asshole. Because posturing assholes are also protected by the First Amendment. Seems to be difficult for many people to grasp.
Opposing free speech is genocide. We are thinking beings. Opposing free speech is to oppose free thought. To oppose the very idea of being human. If we do not fight now we will be arrested for the dreams we have at night. We should give those who oppose free speech their wish.
If you end your comment here, I think it would work. Allow those people, who do not want free speech, to censor themselves.:)
This piece makes me question The Intercept’s editorial practices pretty severely. Zaid notes in the first paragraph that he’s been blocked by the article’s subject, and that he’s returned the favor. At the end, he reprises their personal grudge.
Why let a staff member write a personal takedown of someone they’re feuding with? Is that what these pages are for? Why let him insert himself, repeatedly, into the story? Why let him pound his chest?
Your publication is above letting your writers use it to grind personal axes and nurse petty grudges.
Agreed. This is concisely put, and completely true. This reads like an article from Breitbart.
They’ve done it a dozen times with their gawker refugees, what’s a few more?
George Ciccariello-Maher and his behavior seem to be a very poor example to use to make a point on this issue, but it’s the example the author chose, so here goes.
There is a HUGE difference between terminating a professor, even temporarily as here, and disallowing unwanted speakers onto campus. In Berkeley, the university had to pay $800,000 for security for Milo Yiannopoulos to “speak” — he was on campus for about 10 minutes and didn’t speak — and had to cancel classes for several days for a “Free Speech Week” — again, a bunch of unwanted right wing jerks — that never happened. In this case, no additional money was spent on security, and no classes were canceled. So horrible analogy, these incidents have nothing to do with each other.
What Jilani and Glenn Greenwald (the latter with whom I agree on every issue that I know of except this one, though our priorities are totally different) simply don’t get is that everything, including speech, has limits. Where speech causes or in fact IS violence, when speech disrupts communities or college campuses, then we have every right to shut it down.
What these people also clearly don’t get is how power works. I strongly suggest watching Game of Thrones, probably the best explanation of power you can readily find. Those in power will silence those with whom they strongly disagree and whom they see as a threat to their power or the power of those who they support. We can argue forever about which if any speech should be silenced or limited, but in the end those with power will exercise it to do what they want. My point here is that it would be much better to allow prohibition of speech that is either better characterized as violence, that directly results in violence, or that disrupts our communities (our farmers market was shut down one day) or college campuses, than to all this kind of crap. As in this case, those who rule will shut down people they won’t tolerate regardless of the law.
Sorry, the end of the next to last sentence in previous post should read, “than to ALLOW this …”
> Where speech causes or in fact IS violence, when speech disrupts communities or college campuses, then we have every right to shut it down.
Are you kidding or lying? The only people disrupting communities and college campuses are the violent authoritarian ‘leftists’ who won’t let right-wingers assemble or speak. Who was responsible for the disruption and violence at Middlebury College when Charles Murray attempted to speak there? It certainly wasn’t Murray or the people who wanted to hear him speak.
And last Saturday, Richard Spencer led another rally in Charlottesville, and this time there was no violence whatsoever. The difference? Antifa wasn’t present.
It’s authoritarians like YOU who are primarily responsible for all the violence we’ve been seeing.
Too bad if your Nazi asshole friends can’t speak where they’re not wanted. I might have a strategical issue with Antifa regarding violence, but I totally ideologically support their fight against fascists like you and your ilk. These types of speakers are not wanted here, and I’m outraged that $800,000 of our tax money was wasted on security for them and that classes and a farmer’s market had to be canceled because of them. Screw any of that, no speech is worth it, especially the phony “speech” of these jerks, which is more incitement than speech and which adds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the political discourse.
> where they’re not wanted
that’s the authoritarian speaking. these are often invited speakers being disrupted and shut down. invited means wanted. it’s authoritarian assholes like you who don’t want others to be allowed to speak freely. (if you identify me as a right-winger because i defend their rights, i’m going to identify you as an asshole.)
> outraged that $800,000 of our tax money
AGAIN, it’s the violent authoritarian enemies of free speech — such as antifa — that you support who are ENTIRELY responsible for the security costs. that will be obvious to any fair observer. on this point, you are just lying
Zaid, you should print this reply out and hang it on your office wall. We don’t want The Intercept becoming Vice…
Speech is incapable of being violence by definition, and it is impossible for speech to cause violence in and of itself. Ideas to the contrary are assorted varieties of nonsense typically born of some ill-considered desire.
You sound like a privileged white person with nothing to worry about. The white supremacists, Nazis, and KKK marching in Charlottesville, was violence, not speech. And if you don’t think that speech can cause violence, you should learn about Hitler’s speeches, for just one example.
Real speech is about the exchange of ideas, not about spewing racism or other hatred. And if you consider things like racism to be legitimate ideas, we have nothing to discuss.
Censorship in Nazi Germany was extreme and strictly enforced by the governing Nazi Party. It was implemented by the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels.[citation needed] All media—literature, music, newspapers, and public events—were censored. Attempts were also made to censor private communications, such as mail and even private conversation, with mixed results.
The aim of censorship under the Nazi regime was simple: to reinforce Nazi power and to suppress opposing viewpoints and information. Punishments ranged from banning of presentation and publishing of works to deportation, imprisonment, or even execution in a concentration camp. Hitler outlined his theory of propaganda and censorship in Mein Kampf: “The chief function of propaganda is to convince the masses, whose slowness of understanding needs to be given time so they may absorb information; and only constant repetition will finally succeed in imprinting an idea on their mind.”[3]
How ironic that you cite Nazi Germany. You suggest that we should limit/ban free speech to prevent another Nazi Germany. ****It was strictly BECAUSE there was no free speech that no one could counter Hitler’s bullshit.****
When you limit/ban free speech, you become the functional equivalent of a nazi.
The vast majority of your comment is completely irrelevant to anything I said, and you obviously don’t know what Nazis were. Nazism was a peculiar form of fascism wherein only the master Aryan race (total fabricated BS, there’s no such thing) would be allowed to survive and would be created and/or enhanced through eugenics (sounds totally psychotic when one articulates it, doesn’t it?).
More to the point, you totally failed to respond to my points: violence is not speech, and white supremacists, Nazis, and KKK marching in the streets is violence. It’s easy to say that it’s just speech if you’re white, but I don’t know of any Black people who think that’s just speech. And certainly hate speech that incites violence is more violence than speech too.
Please address these points or don’t bother to respond.
Jeff….your ridiculous point is that ‘speech can be violence, that hate speech shouldn’t be free speech, and that Nazi Germany is proof of that’.
What you ignore is that Nazi Germany could only get to that level by….BANNING FREE SPEECH. Nazis, like you do, apparently also fervently thought that free speech was violent and dangerous and a threat to mankind.
1.) No one said “violence is speech”, because it isn’t; but certainly, speech is NOT violence (as you absurdly assert).
2.) White supremacists, Nazis, and KKK ***marching*** in the streets is ***NOT*** violence.
It’s a sad display of ignorance, groupthink, and hatred….which happens to be protected by the 1st Amendment.
Your line of reasoning is an excellent example of nouveau hipster nazi rationalization.
You CAN punish speech that leads directly to violence, but only after it’s uttered and does lead to an issue.
The First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. Get over it.
Excuse me. Where in the First Amendment does it say this? Nowhere.
So we should defend the free speech rights of white supremacists who call for the ethnic cleansing of black people, but we should not defend enslaved black people who revolt against white slave masters. Got it.
I didn’t know the internet was around in the 1850s…
You’re comparing two totally different things. I support and defend the “free speech rights” of white supremacists, *and* I support and defend enslaved people of any color who revolt against their masters. Revolt is not sppech, however, and it certainly is not covered by the First Amendment. I’ve noticed a lot of people like you deliberately (or cluelessly) confusing speech and violence, which is your right under the First Amendment, but it’s also mine to point and giggle and make rude noises at you.
“when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed”
Wasn’t it this comment that started all the fuss over this guy? At the time, it reminded me of the Trayvon Martin shooting — when confronted by the fact that George Zimmerman’s mother was Peruvian and his father was Jewish, the response on the “activist left” (antifa and the like) was, oh well, he must have just adopted the “white mentality”.
It’s this kind of thing that makes people want to throw their hands up.
I agree with your take on antifa, but please. Antifa and BLM are NOT–repeat NOT–“leftists” of any kind. You slander socialists by calling these bourgeois radical groups “leftist”. Antifa, et al., are what socialists call “pseudo left” because they are not Marxist and most of them support the Democratic Party. And no Marxist would EVER support identity politics. All of this “white mentality” bullshit is typical identity politics and worthy only of the ash heap.
I agree up to a point. The problem is there is no good word for this phenomenon — i.e., the tendency and susceptibility of organic movements in this country to be co–opted, de–fanged and de–clawed, and turned into machines whose purpose is to perpetuate themselves and a closed language of ideas — a brand identity if you will. For example, some time ago I found that BLM was being funded by the Soros “Open society foundation”. When I heard this, I knew it was over — the branding process had begun. Maybe I’m wrong.
CICCARIELLO-MAHER is a masters of the same dark art that Donald Trump practices: attracting attention to himself by creating controversies with carefully calibrated offensive statements about identity and cultural sensibilities. The guy is a fraud.
you’re a bigger idiot than zaid, champ
“The guy is a fraud.” So true! On Twitter, he’s a clown and a narcissist who seeks attention by making provocative statements. He performs being radical–as radical as he can be–on Twitter. He fully supports punching neo-Nazis and white nationalists, but when asked by Lee Fang on a podcast debate whether or not he would punch Richard Spencer, he avoided answering the question. When Fang followed up and asked how hard should people punch Nazis, he again avoided answering the question. He assumes this macho attitude on Twitter that comes off as disingenuous.
That being said, I fully support his right to be an idiot and fraud on Twitter. And I believe that Drexel should not have put him on administrative leave–this is an attack on academic freedom and freedom of expression.
Drexel University is a private institution and employer and can therefore put some parameters around behavior of their employers, right? Do I understand that correctly? Why is this an infringement of his free speech? The First Amendment doesn’t protect all speech. It just protects your speech from government interference? I don’t see the government interference here. Aren’t there more pressing and real first amendment violations that merit stories? There are so many problems in the US now, it’s important to pick your battles. This iteration of “speech control” isn’t even up there in the top 20.
After this article, maybe even I wouldn’t want to talk to this journalist.
Mind, Ciccariello didn’t say no to the intercept but asked who was going to write the article.
I’d do the same (asking) and refuse in case the Journalist in question is not one I believe will honestly report what I said.
The only thing I can decipher from this poorly written article is that the author has a personal vendetta against this professor, and is really sad he got blocked on twitter. This article could (should) be an important discussion about an academic institution capitulating to right-wing threats of violence, but instead smacks of petty grievances. Disappointed to read this on The Intercept.
Free speech is pretty simple, every American has a right to express their views, even when they are crazy and repugnant to others. This professor should be permitted to share his views even though they are offensive to so many of us. It’s when we squelch freedom of speech it takes a dangerous turn. If his views have merit, let them be debated in the public forum and disinfectant of sunlight!
This article does not live up to the usual high standard that I’ve come to expect from The Intercept.
It seems petty.
Man should be allowed to speech, University should be allowed to not condone, their free speech. America gives US the freedom to be absolute asses if we choose. I as a citizen can judge what I find unhelpful, rude and/or irrational, we all have this right. Note idiots are often damaging to even just cause and causes.
Should tuition payers be allowed to not pay for his speech?
I’ve read this article three times. I have no idea what the point is, other than both the author and the subject sound like jerks. Is that it? Brought to you by The Intercept: one jerk attacks another?
Greg is a big name on the left. He’s been making the rounds on podcasts encouraging teenagers with rhetoric such as ‘punch Nazis and cops’. In debate, He attempts to overpower thoughtful, determined left professionals like Citations Needed’s Adam Johnson (successfully) and reporter Lee Fang (unsuccessfully).
People need to be informed about Greg’s overall portfolio of work (I had no idea he was so prolifically awful), and also academia’s response to him. That is the point of this article.
The article is written with personal touches. This is appropriate, because anyone who knows Zaid and Greg online knows there is context here. I didn’t know they had a spat, but it’s not in the least surprising as both drive me nuts online at times. I respect Zaid’s professional work and have no exposure to Greg’s.
Zaid does a professional job in this article.
If you want my take on ‘the point’ of the article, here goes:
‘Ppl like Greenwald, Fang and Jailani argue that lefties should not seek to shut down alt-right provocateurs via calls for violence or state curtailing of free speech. Greg Cicc and people like Nima Shirazi, Adam Johnson, and many people in groups like antifa vehemently disagree. They are out in the public firmly on the side of ‘it doesn’t matter whether you know they’re a Nazi, stop hand-wringing and punch them.’
‘This Drexel episode demonstrates the logic behind the reasoning of the Greenwald/Fang/Jailani/ACLU camp, who argue that curtailment of free speech- if envisioned as a club wielded by the powerful center or right – is often swung round to clobber voices in the left; Voices that say things like, ‘Cops are Nazis, every citizen should punch Nazis first, ask questions later.’ ‘
I’m very interested in what happens going forward. I’m sure safety is indeed an issue given the types of people Cicc is provoking and how belligerent he’s being. I’m skeptical it’s the prime motivator for Drexel.
That said, Imagine a Drexel classroom getting attacked, with attackers naming Cicc as motive, then lawsuits against school.
But anyway I’m just glad I got to read about Greg’s oeuvre so I can more comfortably laugh and cringe at those who fall victim to his traps
His name is George.
Going far enough to the “left”
you may find that you are part of the “right.”
Advocating violence is definitely a preferred right wing characteristic
which is often promoted by those who think they are left wing.
Any advocate of violence (like the vast majority of congress and any
administration) is not trustworthy.
> Going far enough to the “left” you may find that you are part of the “right.”
That’s the important point, but it’s also tactically suicidal.
Noam Chomsky: Antifa is a ‘major gift to the Right’
Reminds me of the meme:
KKK: let us beat & kill blacks
Antifa: fuck nazis
Liberals & trump: I can’t tell the difference
spoken like someone that needs to lose more elections, Bob.
Centrists have no problem with violence, they just prefer that the state delivers it for them.
That’s very simple-minded and absolutist. You would have preferred that Hitler and the Nazis took over the world than that they were violently defeated?
Whether to act violently or nonviolently in political situations is a strategic decision, not a moral one. All animals, including humans, naturally defend themselves violently when attacked. Considering that white people have been attacking the rest of the world for at least 500 years, I’d say that a successful violent response would be totally warranted.
What a pathetic attempt by you. Waaah, those evil white people… Like all leftists, you need a pacifier. Hide in your safe space with your coloring book and cocoa, pajama boy. Nice for you to ignore the 1300 years of attacks by Muslims on Christians and Jews, their massacres of millions, and their enslavement of tens of millions of black Africans and white Europeans. Just remember, whites and Muslims learned from blacks about slaughtering people, torture, and slavery, after all, blacks like to say that they were the ones who were responsible for the first great civilizations which did initiate all 3 activities.
I’m not a leftist. I just agree with the left on most issues. I’m a radical environmentalist who supports traditional indigenous people and advocates turning modern humans from gluttonous consumers destroying the Earth into people whose main goal and priority in life is expanding their consciousness.
The logical conclusion of your argument, that we all came from Black Africans originally, is that humans are all evil. Unless you’re claiming that only you and whatever group you identify with are good, that is.
” You would have preferred that Hitler and the Nazis took over the world than that they were violently defeated?” Ah found the wannabe antifa. of course, it was much better that half of the planet was handed over to Communism for the next 50 years, right?
“Whether to act violently or nonviolently in political situations is a strategic decision, not a moral one.” Totally, when you find out fascism was a REACTION against the violence of communism (Russian revolution, anyone?) You give, you take.
While I’m not a leftist (see my response to jsjs…), I will say that communism is far superior to crapitalism. But real communism only works if it’s voluntary and not imposed or authoritarian, like the Kibbutzim in Israel, and how people organize the movements of little green pieces of paper is really a very minor issue compared to big issues like war & peace and the environment.
However, capitalism is pure evil and is still destroying indigenous communities and their people, and the Earth itself. Capitalism promotes, and in fact requires, gluttonous overconsumption of everything, all for the most unevolved of reasons like greed an materialism.
You sound like quite the fascist.
The “violence of communism”? Wow, you’re either clueless or a capitalist propagandist. The Russian revolution was fought and won because the ruling Czar brutally oppressed the people and denied them halfway decent living conditions, while of course living lavishly himself. My grandmother lived under the Czar and constantly railed against what an asshole he was.
Communism, in stark contrast, was supposed to give everyone decent living conditions and promote a society where everyone is in it together. Communism is basically a system where the government owns the means of production. You wanna explain how any of this is violent?
” I will say that communism is far superior to crapitalism.” HAHAHA. What did communism invent apart from the Gulag (where millions died) and crappy cars?
“violence of communism”? Soo you’re in denial, just like those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1921%E2%80%9322 in your imaginary world, this NEVER happened? YOU’RE A JOKE
Riiight, like Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot who murdered 100 million. Rightwing like that? There’s no way to rationalize leftist inspired murder. Own it.
You do not see that you are showing exactly what I’m saying.
Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were more right wing than left.
They used leftist ideology as a starting point while they embraced the
same vicious right wing techniques as all dictators do.
The same is true of Hitler, Napoleon, and every other would-be
megalomaniac. The rise of Obama and Trump is based on the same
kind of scheming and the same dependence on right wing methods.
Don’t be a schmuck… You cannot redefine ‘rightwing’ to mean everything bad, and ‘leftwing’ to mean everything virtuous.
Pot, Mao, Stalin were quintessential leftist goons.
Poor article. Public institutions have a responsibility to their students not to invite speakers like Charles “Cross Burning” Murray and Milo “Trans-Doxxing” Yiannopoulos. It’s not a free speech issue, they are free to spread their noxious views online and elsewhere. I’ve never been invited on Fox news, is my right to free speech being violated?
“He has called for other individuals to be fired from their jobs for offensive speech” . This is where a teacher made a racist post on facebook justifying police brutality against black children at a pool party in Texas. Zaid evidently thinks that confirmed racists teaching black students is OK? Will someone please think of the children.
Zaid’s free speech absolutism is an easy view to hold but it doesn’t bear scrutiny. It’s lazy and dangerous.
> Public institutions have a responsibility to their students not to invite speakers like Charles “Cross Burning” Murray and Milo “Trans-Doxxing” Yiannopoulos.
You don’t get to impose responsibilities. That’s the new ‘leftist’ authoritarian reflex — ad hoc bullshit justifications for shutting down the speakers you don’t like. In reality, universities have the freedom to invite (or disinvite) whomever they wish. No one has the right to (demand to) be invited, but when someone is invited, they have the right to speak and be heard by their audience, otherwise the concept of free speech is meaningless.
Of course they have the freedom to invite whoever they wish. But what is the argument FOR inviting speakers whose speech threaten their very existence?
*their students’ very existence
Maybe the people extending the invitation don’t believe that the speaker threatens THE VERY EXISTENCE of the students? Maybe that point is debatable?
In what universe does Charles Murray’s white supremacist theories not threaten people’s existence?
Charles Murray doesn’t identify as a white supremacist; that’s an inference that some people make based on his work (nytimes.com/2017/04/15/opinion/sunday/charles-murrays-provocative-talk.html).
Almost everyone would probably agree that permitting hate speech is dangerous. Yet far from everyone agrees that it should be prohibited. And, as you probably know, it’s protected by the Constitution.
So, you can choose to shut down the speakers you dislike, whenever you can, for whatever reason you have, and “threatens the very existence of —” will do as well as any other. People like myself will choose freedom and defend the rights of the people you’re trying to silence.
Again, it’s not a free speech issue. Not inviting Charles Murray to a university isn’t censoring him. Likewise my not appearing on the news is not censorship.
> Not inviting Charles Murray to a university isn’t censoring him.
Ugh. I agree. I already covered that. “In reality, universities have the freedom to invite (or disinvite) whomever they wish. No one has the right to (demand to) be invited, but when someone is invited, they have the right to speak and be heard by their audience, otherwise the concept of free speech is meaningless.”
Free speech is about what Congress can’t do. Congress. Read the First Amendment.
The concept of free speech is that the state should not establish laws to limit our speech. If Congress passed a law denying Murray and Milo the right to speak and be heard by their audience, then you’d have a point.
> Free speech is about what Congress can’t do. Congress. Read the First Amendment.
everyone knows this. that’s why no one made the point except you. that’s why in a reply to Bob Hope, a little bit above your reply, i said he was making a choice. i said i was making a choice. i never suggested that it was illegal to shut down speakers, although in some cases disrupting speeches might possibly be prosecuted as disorderly conduct or trespassing
in the end, it doesn’t matter terribly much if censorship is performed by the government or private citizens. if enough citizens were to adopt Jeff D’s attitude, and grant themselves the authority to shut down the speakers they don’t like — then no one would get to speak, except — the most powerful members of society! power and wealth will always be able command or purchase a platform. (this is why the antifa strategy is so unbelievably self-destructive.) on the street level, when right-wingers start behaving like antifa, violently disrupting left-wing rallies and protests, then there will be no street-level political speech, only violence. who do you think that favors?
so, as you said, the constitution only protects us from censorship by the government. as private citizens we can choose whether to let each other speak, or shut each other up. we can choose freedom and democracy, or the kind of ‘leftist’ authoritarianism that Jeff D preaches. i suggest you give it some thought
I’m done feeding this troll, but for the record: I’m not advocating shutting down speakers I don’t like. What I’m advocating is that tax dollars should not be wasted in order to provide them security. I AM advocating that classes or other normal community activities like our farmers market should take priority, and if their unwanted invasion of our community or campus would cause so much disruption that those normal community activities have to be cancelled, they should not be allowed. This has nothing to do with speech that I don’t like.
No, YOU don’t get to impose your unwanted bullshit on us! The University of California at Berkeley just wasted $800,000 on Milo Yiannopoulos and had to cancel classes for several days because of other like-minded assholes trying to force their way onto campus (the latter never happened, but classes had already been canceled).
This position is not authoritarian, it’s sensible. Right wing jerks are still free to spew their ignorant hateful ideas, but they don’t get to waste our money and resources or disrupt our communities by coming where they’re not wanted.
The need for security is due entirely to those who use violence to disrupt and shut down speakers. People like Murray and Yiannopoulos just want to speak. That’s how they make their living. There are people who want to hear them speak. Just let that happen without interference and there will be no need for security.
OK, you’re either a right wing troll (most likely) or really stupid (or both). These assholes are NOT WANTED HERE, get it? There is no substantial number of people on the Berkeley campus or in Berkeley who want to hear them. When they come here, the people who come to see them are outsiders. They can go to where there supporters are if they really just want to speak, which they don’t (see below).
Furthermore, they don’t “just want to speak,” they want to disrupt our community. If they just wanted to speak they’d go where their supporters are, not to communities like ours where they’re not wanted.
> There is no substantial number of people on the Berkeley campus or in Berkeley who want to hear them.
Murray was invited to Middlebury, asshole. The ‘Free Speech Week’ at Berkeley was planned by a conservative student group. THEY wanted to hear Yiannopoulos speak. Are conservatives a minority at Berkeley? Rights exists only if they are granted to everyone, including and especially minorities, asshole.
You are an authoritarian asshole, nothing more or less.
Here’s the Chomsky quote again:
My opinion is identical to his. Does that make Chomsky “a right wing troll (most likely) or really stupid (or both)”?
You’re an asshole.
The “conservative student group” to which you referred is the Berkeley College Republicans. Republicans are about 5% in Berkeley, probably even less on campus. This group only exists because it represents one of the political gangs that runs the country and is funded by rich outsiders. They should have no more influence than any other tiny minority on campus, but their influence is greatly and illegitimately oversized because of who they represent.
You’re a troll because you come to the website for an online investigative journal for progressives and argue against those values. That’s the definition of being an internet troll.
You’re an idiot because you didn’t respond to even one of the issues I raised. I’ll simplify them for you:
1. Why should our tax dollars meant for public education be wasted on security for unwanted speakers? In this case, it was $800,000.
2. Why should the speech of unwanted outsiders take precedence over regular activities that the community wants and pays for, like classes and the weekly farmers market? HINT: it should not.
i’ve already answered your questions.
AGAIN, this is the single reason for the security costs.
Drexel is a private school, son.
Drexel University is private. That undoubtedly matters for First Amendment purposes.
If he has tenure, chances are he is being paid and reaping benefits, whatever those would be were he on sabbatical. (This is generally less than what a prof makes teaching a full load, but not necessarily.)
I’m curious whether this is the case.
Mao said academicians would do well to shovel manure for two years and learn from the peasantry. As I get older and older I wonder whether the Chairman wasn’t on to something.
True, if academics had never done hard physical work before. But what they would learn would be very limited. On the other hand, physical laborers would learn far more by working in academia.
How does that work? If academia has become the disconnected/insular problem, how will elevating workers to that problematic club of academicians solve anything??
Because they’ll learn something, as you obviously need to do.
“Because they’ll learn something.” Then what stops them from becoming the disconnected/insular problem that befell the other academicians??
“as you obviously need to do.”
Careful….your cognitive dissonance is showing.
Disconnected and insular? Utter bullshit. Everyone in this society is disconnected from other types of people, so what? Elitist maybe, but that’s true of all rich people as well. And rich people are far more disconnected and insular than academics.
You sound like one of these anti-intellectual idiots. Can’t have none o’ that damn learnin’!
Mr. Jeff D.: Have you ever thought of being respectful in your posts ?
Joe kopeck
October 14 2017, 9:28 a.m.
Mao said academicians would do well to shovel manure for two years and learn from the peasantry. As I get older and older I wonder whether the Chairman wasn’t on to something.
Jeff D Joe kopeck
October 14 2017, 4:20 p.m.
True, if academics had never done hard physical work before.
Jeff D OraleHohms
October 16 2017, 11:36 p.m.
Disconnected and insular? Utter bullshit.
Then explain what current problem[s] exists among academicians that merits their being forced to “shovel manure”.
> Through all of this, his university has not tangibly sanctioned him in any way, but has condemned his comments — which itself is a soft restriction on speech anathema to the academic tradition.
No. The university has its own right to speak. It is never an abridgment of free speech when speech is merely criticized. If one is certain that they can speak freely without fear of being ‘tangibly sanctioned’, even the harshest criticism will have no chilling effect.
Other than that little mistake, this is a fine article. Hopefully we’ll soon be reading similar articles in defense of the numerous right-wing speakers — including Charles Murray — who have had their free speech rights tangibly curtailed by ‘leftist’ authoritarian shitheads like Mr. Ciccariello-Maher. No such article has never appeared in The Intercept.
no, they’ve cancelled his class in response to right wing threats of violence
it’s a disgrace that scum like murray and milo are invited to campuses, and entirely justified to disrupt them
“No. The university has its own right to speak. It is never an abridgment of free speech when speech is merely criticized. If one is certain that they can speak freely without fear of being ‘tangibly sanctioned’, even the harshest criticism will have no chilling effect.”
So “tangibly sanctioning” a professor by putting him on administrative leave is ok? Or are you saying NO ONE should ever be “tangibly sanctioned” because this creates a “chilling effect” which is a bad thing?…
(Not sure your point was clear here.)
Mr. Jilani
The title of the article indicates that Professor Ciccariello-Maher is a leftist – but his positions are extreme. His rhetoric and actions are radical by any standard used to define the left side of the political spectrum. He is a radical leftist.
Something is wrong here: “He uses his Twitter account to rail against the American Civil Liberties Union and defends speech rights even for the most noxious of speakers.”
The link is to this tweet:
Free Speech Absolutism is Not a Leftist Position
12:20 PM – 7 Mar 2017
Is it supposed to be, “He uses his Twitter account to rail against the American Civil Liberties Union, which defends speech rights even for the most noxious of speakers”?
I believe you’re right. The beginning makes no sense to me either. Other than that it strikes me as a valid article which again shows — in my understanding — how muddled our thinking can get if one is not aware of the strong human tendency to self-righteousness.