So if a university invites a guest to speak and the audience protests and doesn't allow the invitee to speak(and some put that in the free speech category), is that right?

Where is the free speech rights of the invitee?

How do they "not allow him to speak"? Do they tape his mouth shut?

They shout him down and disrupt the event to the point where it makes no sense to speak.

Well, that's dudes decision to stop. You have the right to speach, not the right to have others listen.

So if a university invites a guest to speak and the audience protests and doesn't allow the invitee to speak(and some put that in the free speech category), is that right?

Where is the free speech rights of the invitee?

Is this about the GlennDanzig incident at Jahnke speech on the EMU campus?

Yeah, I heard that was one helluva combustible atmosphere. Almost had to bring in the National Guard.

So if a university invites a guest to speak and the audience protests and doesn't allow the invitee to speak(and some put that in the free speech category), is that right?

Where is the free speech rights of the invitee?
Why would a university invite a guest to speak, then choreograph things such that no one would be able to listen?

Why would a speaker consent to speak at some university if they know or can reasonably assume no one would be listening?

There's valid answers to both questions.

Well, that's dudes decision to stop. You have the right to speach, not the right to have others listen.

So you have an organized event where peeps pay (or not) or take the time to show up to listen to the invited guest and a group of people can protest that event not allowing the event/speech to go on? If the group of protestors don't want to hear it, leave the fucking event! Some do want to hear it.

Why would a university invite a guest to speak, then choreograph things such that no one would be able to listen?

Why would a speaker consent to speak at some university if they know or can reasonably assume no one would be listening?

There's valid answers to both questions.

I don't think I said the university choreographed it. I didn't mean to do that if you interpreted that way.

If a university invited me to speak, I'd reasonably expect that they would work with me on planning facilities in advance such that I -could- speak:

- microphones, not just for me but for the audience if Q&A
- display stuff (easels, white/blackboards, computer/projector)
- seating, heating/cooling, parking, food/drink as appropriate
- security commensurate with the scope of the presentation
- a reasonable central point of contact for coordination
- advertising the nature of the talk appropriately

Any one of these failing, due to bad/malicious/ignorant planning means that the talk may suck, regardless of the content of the talk.

If a university invited me to speak, I'd reasonably expect that they would work with me on planning facilities in advance such that I -could- speak:

- microphones, not just for me but for the audience if Q&A
- display stuff (easels, white/blackboards, computer/projector)
- seating, heating/cooling, parking, food/drink as appropriate
- security commensurate with the scope of the presentation
- a reasonable central point of contact for coordination

Any one of these failing, due to bad/malicious/ignorant planning means that the talk may suck, regardless of the content of the talk.

So if the content sucks to you, you can disrupt it so the speech has to be canceled?

Having the legal right to free speech is a pretty far distance from having the sense to let a person speak whether you agree or do not agree.

Having the legal right to free speech is a pretty far distance from having the sense to let a person speak whether you agree or do not agree.

I agree.

To me, shouting down someone who comes to speak is just pissing away the amazing right you have to hear all kinds of varying opinions.

However, it's also important to note that some people do not speak in good faith. They are invited in good faith to speak on a topic and instead they use that opportunity to use deliberately inflammatory language and say nothing else of substance. But then again, those people are well-known professionals at what they do and it's probably good to steer clear of any institution gullible enough to give those people a chance to practice.

our president has some pretty well choreographed public assemblies. think you'll ever see someone screem "fuck bush!" at one of those?

Isn't that what his wife yells at the end of another long day of pretending to enjoy greeting a group of Girl Scouts from places like Muskogee, Oklahoma?

I'm locking this thread, discussion over.

So you have an organized event where peeps pay (or not) or take the time to show up to listen to the invited guest and a group of people can protest that event not allowing the event/speech to go on?

They can protest it, they will presumibly face the attached consequences. If enough peopel really want to hear, they will remove the offender.

So if the content sucks to you, you can disrupt it so the speech has to be canceled?
I'd expect there to be security to handle disruptions consistent with the event. If I'm talking about experiences with some specialized waste water retrieval process, I wouldn't expect I'd need much (if any) security coordination. If I were talking about how I love being in the Ku Klux Klan because it's consistent with my Nazi beliefs, I would, and the university should know even if I'm too fucked in the head to know. If I'm famous, I could be talking about how I do my hair and it'd still call for security, audience handling/culling, etc.

That doesn't always work out successfully. Sometimes, universities don't or can't reasonably grok the scope of an event. My point is that a university doing the inviting is typically an active player with a big role in orchestrating the event. It's not just "crowd" and "speaker", and that's where I think the hypothetical you pose falls short. I'd more reasonably expect "don't tase me bro" than for the university to have no one there for a speaker who'd draw potentially hostile crowds. Likewise expect relatively little/no crowd control security if I were in to talk about origami to art students in a classroom and we get into a heated discussion about paper cuts and weaponizing origami to break out of jail.

I'm locking this thread, discussion over.

Come on guys, if not a full-on laffo that was at least worth a guffaw.


some people do not speak in good faith. They are invited in good faith to speak on a topic and instead they use that opportunity to use deliberately inflammatory language and say nothing else of substance. But then again, those people are well-known professionals at what they do

I'm mainly talking about people like Hugo Chavez and Ann Coulter here. It's perfectly fine (and probably morally demanded) to protest appearances by these people, because they are effectively flamebaiters who do not intend to use their right to free speech honestly. They walk into forums where they know they'll be unpopular so they can provoke people and then claim to be the hated victim. But it's threatening to your own academic freedom to disrupt their speech in the process (and it makes you look like a nimrod).