Hacker News Reader

Comment by HWR_14 | Hacker News Reader

If by "shout someone down" you mean "refuse to engage with them", then it's sometimes required. Nutjobs need to be ignored sometimes.

View on HN

I’m pretty sure they meant “shout someone down”, because the students here were definitely fully engaged in actively trying to derail a speech.

I think the Judge is a piece of shit. I don’t like him as a human being. However, “ignoring” is precisely what should have happened here.

No, they most certainly didn't refuse to engage. Exactly to opposite.

Also, if you watch the video the entire thing was staged - the students shut up on command - to get that lady dean up on stage where she could present her prepared speech about how valorous it was for her and them to shut him up. Pure hypocrisy.

If you read the PDF linked in the article, it states that the speaker was literally shouted down.

Nobody is obligated to let people spew propaganda

Yes they are. There is no "propaganda" exception to the First Amendment or free speech in general.

I don't think the 1st Amendment requires you to open your school up to speakers that students don't like, nor does it require students to sit and listen or to not actively heckle. In fact, as far as I know, the only thing the first amendmendment does is prevent the government itself from silencing your speech. Are these kids or the school the government itself? Then the first amendment doesn't apply.

You are correct, the conduct of the hecklers, while contrary to the principle and spirit of free expression, is not prohibited by the First Amendment. It is contrary to Stanford's own written rules protecting open discourse; by refusing to enforce its rules, Stanford is violating their written committments.

The government is obligated to let you speak, no private citizen or organization is obligated to let you speak without interruption

Reply on news.ycombinator.com