Comment by elicash | Hacker News Reader

Comment by elicash | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think all she did was read remarks during the Q&A when it was her turn. Correction: after the heckling started for the purposes of calming things down, she claims.

In those remarks, in addition to disagreeing in very strong terms with the speaker, she said:

> You are invited into this space. You are absolutely welcome in this space. In this space where people learn and, again, live. I really do, wholeheartedly welcome you. Because me and many people in this administration do absolutely believe in free speech. We believe that it is necessary. We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable. And that is a policy and a principle that I think is worthy of defending, even in this time.

I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.

> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers. But you seem to be suggesting she actively did things I don't believe that she did.

There's a ~10 minute video of it. He tries to give his speech, but the students continue to disrupt it. The school's policy allows protests, but not disruption. He asks for an administrator, and she starts her (obviously prepared) 6 minute speech. The crowd quiets so she can speak. He tries to talk, but she tells him to let her talk and puts her hand up in a "stop" signal (so that she can give a speech about how she's not going to stop him from talking).

Your quote comes from that speech, but doesn't convey the overall message. A key point is that she worded it, "it is my job to say you are welcome in this space", preceding that with how this was a reason she was uncomfortable. And then she follows it by saying, "and again I ask is the juice worth the squeeze?" She then talks about how she hopes he can listen to the protestors and learn from them. She finishes by saying she's glad this is going on here, to applause.

> I think all she did was read remarks during the Q&A when it was her turn.

She did not read her remarks during the Q&A. She read them before the speaker had a chance to even deliver his speech, which was never given. She gave her pre-written remarks after taking the podium under the guise of being the administrator who was going to calm the situation.

Why "under the guise" as opposed to a good faith and failed effort?

Because she claimed to be taking the podium for one purpose (to calm the room down), but then immediately pivoted to another purpose (lecturing the speaker with prepared remarks about how he is wrong about various things).

If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.

> If she had asked him if she might take the podium in order to lecture him, I doubt he would have acquiesced.

Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution? Is there a law that was broken? Why does the guest speaker have a first amendment right to speak at a private educational institution, but not the dean of said institution?

> Does the guest speaker have some special right to veto the remarks of a Dean at her own institution?

At a session where she was not scheduled to speak, I would think yes. The judge was invited to speak by a student group, the Dean was not. If the Dean had waited until the Q&A period to make remarks or ask a protracted question, that would have been a different situation. Instead, she hijacked the event before the speaker had the opportunity to give his remarks (which were never given).

> Is there a law that was broken?

No, just the university's own policies, as laid out at length in Dean Martinez's letter.

> Instead, she hijacked the event

Did she use a gun to hijack the event? Did she use a knife? Or did she walk up to the podium, with the speakers permission, and perhaps got a little carried away from the stated intent of her speech?

"Speaker's permission" is disingenuous. I don't think one reasonably expects, when politely handing over a mic before an invited presentation, that the recipient will use it to admonish you and encourage heckling.

She actively discouraged heckling.

This comment itself is in such bad faith that I don't even know where to begin. Imagine this. A progressive event was taking place in which a progressive speaker didn't get to do their planned talk. Instead an administrator gave their pre-written notes (literally printed) and went into a diatribe admonishing the intended speaker when their job was to help moderate the event. Are you seriously telling me that this was appropriate?

I'm not the person you're responding to, but you clearly are laying out a version of facts that is being contested. You're saying she "hijacked" the event rather than attempted to de-escalate an already out-of-control situation, and maybe even suggesting that doing so is out of the normal responsibility of deans.

She clearly failed. And I think she should have enforced existing policy rather than think her speech would be effective (although not 100% sure the best way to carry that out in the moment). But we both agree that part of her role in her position is to act in that moment. I think the two of us even agree about what she should have done. We just disagree about whether she acted in good faith.

She had prepared remarks. Obviously what she did was not in good faith (from the perspective of the invited speaker).

I'm not sure I understand the problem with preparing remarks. Preparing remarks seems like a good thing. It was known that students were upset with the speaker in advance.

I just wish the remarks would have been different than what they were and focused on enforcement of the rules, rather than the failed attempt at de-escalation.

If Tirien Steinbach was acting on good faith to de-escalate, she wouldn't stop saying "is the juice worth the squeeze" to the speaker ad nauseum. I watched the 9 minute video of her speaking uninterrupted. In fact she loves asking "is the juice worth the squeeze" so much to the point that it becomes a subtitle in her Wall Street Journal article (https://www.wsj.com/articles/diversity-and-free-speech-can-c...).

That's not a good faith attempt at de-escalation in that moment nor do I believe she was ever trained to de-escalate in such a manner. It's a prepared, written piece of dramatic, performative theater and she wanted a stage to deliver her thoughts.

She said it twice, and then a third time only when the speaker asked her to explain what she meant by the phrase. Here's the full context of that second time:

> When I say “Is the juice worth the squeeze?” that's what I'm asking. Is this worth it? And I hope so, and I'll stay for your remarks to see, because I do want to know your perspective. I am not, you know, in the business of wanting to either shut down speech, because I do know that if they come for this group today, they will come for the group that I am part of tomorrow.

Sounds like good-faith to me. That said, by nature I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. I find most people say what they think.

It was not in good faith. She delivered prepared remarks and basically hijacked the event to do so instead of doing her job. She was not doing her job in good faith.

What good faith is there when someone continually makes the speaker out as a bad person with ill intent?

"I’m also uncomfortable because it is my job to say:"

"We believe that the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less. And not to shut you down or censor you or censor the student group that invited you here. That is hard. That is uncomfortable."

"They are here because they feel harmed not just by your speech."

"if you can listen through your partisan lens, your hyper-political lens and just look and see human beings"

"we ask that you come with good intentions and respect."

Then she goes and basically condones whatever the protesters were going to do:

"You all chose to be here today. Many people go before Judge Duncan who do not necessarily choose to be there. And they have to listen to everything he says. Literally thousands of people. You have a choice. You do not need to stay here if this is not where you want to be. You can stay if this is where you want to be right now. But make that choice."

There was zero good faith effort on her part.

I think, ironically, you just like the hecklers fail to understand that you can find somebody highly objectionable but still defend their right to speech. She was trying to make that distinction.

Edit: Also, you cut off the point she was making in that last part. She was trying to say that hecklers don't have to listen if they don't want and they can leave but if they stay they should listen and "make space" for the speaker.

(I have not read the article)

> I think she has blame for NOT TAKING action against the hecklers.

Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?

Because I get the idea of absolute free speech, but that'd include shouting over someone to drown out their message. If you start imposing restrictions on some forms of speech, it's not absolute any more and I think you ought to weigh reasons for imposing restrictions on any speech -- since freedom of speech isn't absolute any more.

> Does that imply that, for you, (at least some forms of) heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech?

It implies that I favor schools having rules like what they have at Stanford Law School regarding heckling inside of events and think they should be enforced. Are you suggesting these rules are unconstitutional and/or a free speech problem? You'd be the first.

It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard. These are organized mobs that filibuster points of view they disagree with from being expressed.

> It is unreasonable to allow people to start chanting, shouting, and blasting air horns when anyone they disagree with attempts to be heard.

Why is that unreasonable? I'm asking, not to disagree, but to understand and arrive at a general rule on when to ban what types of speech.

For example, I think filibusters are an accepted part of free speech... but perhaps subject to restrictions? If so, what are reasonable restrictions?

The linked statement mentions how Stanford's policy is that protest is acceptable at these events, but disruption isn't. This seems reasonable to me, and possible to enforce as well. I think the level of free speech absolutism you're talking about is not actually on the table for any of the parties involved.

Freedom of speech has never been absolute. As a general rule, "time, place, and manner" restrictions — such as not disrupting a public event — are perfectly allowable.

If the protestors would have protested in a different place, or in a non-disruptive manner, they would have been in compliance with the policy.

Freedom of speech -- the nature of your speech is unrestricted. That doesn't mean you can go anywhere at any time just because you're speaking.

Exactly.

Freedom of speech - the government will not prosecute for speech that's critical of the government, government personnel, or government actions. You may make this speech in public places on government-owned property.

Free speech has never meant you can say whatever you want, wherever you want, to whomever you want. You can't spread lies about people (slander), you can't threaten to injure someone (assault), you can't incite a panic (yelling Fire! in a public area when there is no fire), you can't say lies in a court of law (perjury), and if it's a privately owned area then the property owner has the right to remove you from their premises. Online properties have the right to boot you off their forums.

I don't know where Americans have recently gotten this idea that they have a constitutional right to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's never been the case.

Well, no, that isn't freedom of speech. That's the 1st Amendment, acknowledging the existence and inalienable nature of freedom of speech.

Suppose Martin Shkreli wanted to go on a diatribe in Hillary Clinton's bedroom. Would her excluding him from her domicile be a violaton of his first amendment right? Obviously not.

Now suppose he were already invited to her domicile, but she and Bill found him annoying so they told him to either stuff it or leave. Would that violate his first amendment right? Also no.

Now replace the Clintons and Shkreli with Stanford and the protesters, respectively.

I think you may be misunderstanding me - I was saying that the comment I replied to was describing the limits of the 1st amendment, not freedom of speech. Free speech is a principle, not a right granted by the constitution.

People all too often conflate the two. What people commonly think of as "free speech" when referring to their 1st amendment right goes way beyond your actual legal rights to speech as delineated by that 1st amendment and centuries' worth of case law.

I suggest that you read the pdf linked in the article, which is a letter from the Dean of the Stanford Law School. He covers the topic of freedom of speech and the heckler's veto at length. It's a notable document.

Heckling that is designed to shutdown speech is not free speech but an attempt at weaponizing the concept of free speech into a tool to shut actual free speech down.

Especially in a situation with a Q&A heckling is not a form of free speech but is just an attempt at restricting and impeding other's right to free speech.

Thank you for that comment - it gets to the underlying feeling I didn't express.

A problem with any form of regulation of speech is that there can be speech that is abhorrent. I feel there is an underlying idea behind the strong stance on free speech, namely (to quote @elicash) "the way to address speech that feels abhorrent, that feels harmful, that literally denies the humanity of people, that one way to do that is with more speech and not less". An obvious way to do that is to just blast noise over someone's speech. In a very absolutist's view on free speech, that works.

In a slightly more nuanced view, you would argue that heckling / making noise to drown out speech is not free speech but weaponising speech. And, you may continue to argue, weaponised speech does not deserve protection.

I would counter that in the last few years, I have seen US politicians and certain TV channels doing things with speech which -- in my view -- easily cross the bar of "weaponising speech". (Note: I am sure most of you can come up with instances of this from either side of the political divide, so I am not even going to hint at examples. Your examples work equally well as mine.)

To me, this raises the question of whether the government should step in and stop this sort of speech. That sounds terribly iffy.... major eeks! On the other hand, if not, why would we allow that while not allowing other weaponisations of speech? Are some weaponisations of speech worse than others? Feels exploitable.... Or is it because regular citizens deserve less rights than politicians? That also feels very iffy...

I'm not sure what a good answer is, nor that any country has found one. (That includes the USA.)

"heckling should not enjoy freedom of speech" exactly, this is just the marketplace of ideas deciding that the speaker is either bringing nothing of value to the table or that his reputation for previous speech is too poor. The idea that a Federal Judge is somehow having his free speech rights violated by a bunch of college students is insane, the man has argued before the SCOTUS and has a lifetime appointment which allows him to affect the lives of millions of Americans. It's becoming increasingly clear that "Free Speech" is just the idea that the powerful speak and the commoners listen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com