It's a question of how broadly you want to define the illiberalism you're challenging: the impulse to silence disfavored speech, or the broader impulse to shame and shun those who are on the wrong side of values disputes. From a legal perspective, the first is easier to define and challenge. But it stems from the second.
It's a question of how broadly you want to define the illiberalism you're challenging: the impulse to silence disfavored speech, or the broader impulse to shame and shun those who are on the wrong side of values disputes. From a legal perspective, the first is easier to define and challenge. But it stems from the second.
<quote>After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said</quote>
You draw a pretty compelling distinction. And law school policy ought to uphold it.
In practice, the distinction can sometimes get blurry between shaming, harassment and intimidation. Making someone walk through a gauntlet of silent masked people sounds scary. What if they're all saying, "Shame, shame!" or shouting "Fascist!"
"liberal science". what a term. Friedersdorf is a technocrat. Who knew? "Governance Studies". Brilliant. And Platform regulation is the state's indirect means of controlling information.
I hate linking to Taibbi who thinks the old FBI was great and a to libertarian rag. but the "Virality Project" is ex Google lawyer Daphne Keller again. Because Stanford Law loves "speech moderation" and Big Gubmint luvs Big Bidness, and neither are interested in democracy.
It's a question of how broadly you want to define the illiberalism you're challenging: the impulse to silence disfavored speech, or the broader impulse to shame and shun those who are on the wrong side of values disputes. From a legal perspective, the first is easier to define and challenge. But it stems from the second.
I define it as silencing violates rights and shaming and shunning are exercises of rights.
<quote>After Martinez left the building, Schumacher said, the protesters began to cheer, cry, and hug. "We are creating a hostile environment at this law school," Schumacher said</quote>
Thoughts?
You draw a pretty compelling distinction. And law school policy ought to uphold it.
In practice, the distinction can sometimes get blurry between shaming, harassment and intimidation. Making someone walk through a gauntlet of silent masked people sounds scary. What if they're all saying, "Shame, shame!" or shouting "Fascist!"
"liberal science". what a term. Friedersdorf is a technocrat. Who knew? "Governance Studies". Brilliant. And Platform regulation is the state's indirect means of controlling information.
I hate linking to Taibbi who thinks the old FBI was great and a to libertarian rag. but the "Virality Project" is ex Google lawyer Daphne Keller again. Because Stanford Law loves "speech moderation" and Big Gubmint luvs Big Bidness, and neither are interested in democracy.
https://reason.com/2023/03/17/researchers-pressured-twitter-to-treat-covid-19-facts-as-misinformation/