I love the explicitness of “they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”
> "The Institute may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute."
Which is vague enough that an enterprising and determined individual or group could use to stifle discussion about things like gender, race, etc (all the hot/touchy topics atm).
As an aside, the "violates the law", is a trojan horse that (I understand covers them legally) but also enables laws that violate free speech. Here is a list that speaks to just that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country#So...
They use the word "hate" speech, but it might be very far from what we'd see as hateful.
The "violates the law" thing is a different story, but the South African law you linked to has no parallel in the United States, so I think we can give them the benefit of the doubt until such law exists.
This is true.
Ultimately no manifesto or written commitment can constrain a people into freedom. The best we can do is strive to say what we intend, see reality clearly, change structures that stand in the way, and then trust ourselves to act with courage.
Thats why elites have outsourced the censorship to private entities. Ironically most universities, since they are public, violate the law when they deplatform someone they don't like and have lost numerous court cases.
Of course they keep doing it because litigation is an insignificant cost for rich non-profits, theres no personal risk for the administration and it makes them feel virtuous.
This statement is pretty clear that the intent is to allow speech that some people find offensive.
Purging and rebuilding the entire administrative apparatus of the US university system is actually a great idea, and for more reasons than just freedom of expression.
You are free to trust whomever you want, of course. FWIW, I am on your side, I know some of the people who signed the doc, and I don't see anything nefarious going on.
I think this is what's being referred to. Surely he wasn't made to retract his statements or fired but it does seem weird. After all said statements have little to do with his lecture. Also whilst i also disagree with the bits you mentioned i don't think they're what started this controversy or made up most of his standpoint to begin with.
That said, declarations can be meaningful within a greater overall context.
In my (backward) country a disturbance of the public order is illegal. Some old vices are hard to get rid off.