Toronto Escorts

This is a matter of free speech

Don

Active member
Aug 23, 2001
6,289
10
38
Toronto
I am all for free speech. I hate censorship for all kinds. Unfortunately free speech is just a myth. Too many people get too upset over everything.
 

baci2004

Bad girl Luv'r
Mar 21, 2004
2,573
1
36
53
At the range!!!
DonQuixote said:
There are times when the sword has to be drawn.
To not draw the sword is to betray the blood of the past.
To render those that have paid the utimate price as fools
is more than I can deal with! To get upset is one thing,

To die for your or my beliefs is another. You're too detached, Don!
Nice post, very well said!
 

islandboy

New member
Nov 14, 2004
227
0
0
Respected is a relative word. So is the term free speech.
Yes, he is respected but to those that see a distinction between repression and genocide, he does not really delineate universal chacteristics that distinguish the two. Indeed, there are parallels but what happened in WWII and to the American Indian are distinguishable. One is a lessen on the war and unprincipled expansion, the other a lesson about prejudice, fear and hate. One is a lesson about greed and indifference while the other is a lesson about even baser depths of human depravity.
This started with a at one of our oldest and esteemed small colleges - Hamilton - about his coming as a guest lecturer. Hamilton has a long tradition of controversial guest lecturers and professors but this is particualarly significant as until the early 1800's Hamilton was the first and only school in the country serving the educational needs of the American Indian.

Bold statements make for good press but do not neccessarily reflect good analysis. His statements were so very rash and devoid of academic analysis that he gets the same type of treaetment as he tried to dish out.
 

slowandeasy

Why am I here?
May 4, 2003
7,232
0
36
GTA
bbking said:
This is not an issue of free speech - if anything it might be academic freedom but even that is a bit weak.

Look at it this way - if you were to make a comment that would cast your employers reputation into doubt that employer would have every right to turf your arse and give as a reason that you no longer share the same goals.


bbk

ok guys... someone please help me understand this free speech thing as I just don't quite get it....

Ernst Zundel was tried (i think) for saying that the holocaust did not exist (or something like that)......
Was he not just expressing his right to free speech??? That he did not believe that a holocaust actually happened? Inspite of overwhelming proof that the holocaust did happen????

Can anyone make a statement and claim their right to free speech to protect them from the law?

Secondly, I can understand that this gentleman may have his opinion and his right to free speech and speak his mind. However, does his right protect his employment??? I guess his lawyers could argue that it does.

But does an employer not have the right to terminate an employee for damaging the company's reputation????

If you want free speech, then you should be willing to deal with the consequences, should you not?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,017
5,950
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
bbking said:
This is not an issue of free speech - if anything it might be academic freedom but even that is a bit weak.

Look at it this way - if you were to make a comment that would cast your employers reputation into doubt that employer would have every right to turf your arse and give as a reason that you no longer share the same goals.


bbk
Sorry bbk you are completely wrong on this one!

As Barbara Bintliff, chairwoman of the Boulder Faculty Assembly, SO CORRECTLY PUT IT, "Discussion and debate is what a university is all about."
Universities & Colleges are expected to bring up all topics, ideas, theories, etc., it is what they are all about, it's called education. Good thought rises, bad thought falls, period.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
bbking said:
This is not an issue of free speech - if anything it might be academic freedom but even that is a bit weak.

Look at it this way - if you were to make a comment that would cast your employers reputation into doubt that employer would have every right to turf your arse and give as a reason that you no longer share the same goals.


bbk
This is very much an issue of academic freedom. When it comes to university employers what casts their reputations into doubt is interference with academic freedom. Allowing open debate will never cast a university’s reputation into doubt among those who share the values of the best in academic traditions. It may cast doubt on the wisdom of past hiring decisions but that is another issue.
 

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
slowandeasy said:
Secondly, I can understand that this gentleman may have his opinion and his right to free speech and speak his mind. However, does his right protect his employment???
If he works for any decent university it does protect his employment.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,025
0
0
Last edited:

someone

Active member
Jun 7, 2003
4,307
1
36
Earth
bbking said:
I disagree with you on academic freedom - it doesn't cover this issue. I remember a very famous case or debate at the University of Western Ontario where a Dr. claimed that the races could be ranked in accordance to intelligence - quess who ended up at the bottom of that list. This DR was censured as he should have been, because his so called report was filled with such faulty data and faulty assumptions that it could not be considered as a basis to an argument. I suspect this argument falls into the no real data catagory. Academic freedom does not mean you can say the first thing that pops into your head - it means that you have to collect enough data so that a rational person can make a reasonable argument.

Academic freedom allows people to debate an interpation of data and is important when people are challenging an established theory, that they get a fair hearing. I cannot possibly think of what data could be collected in support of the gentleman now claiming the right of academic freedom.


bbk
I don’t want to say too much about the Western case as it was long enough ago that I have likely forgotten many of the details. However, from what I recall the opposition to him (I forget his name, something like Rusdine wasn’t it) was more based on political correctness than science. Few of those demonstrating against him would have had any real understanding of statistics. Moreover, if you are worried about faulty statistical analysis you will likely have to get rid of many of those in the softer social sciences that have little understanding of statistics but nonetheless try to use them. Sociology and woman’s studies come readily to mind. Once you start down this road, where do you draw the line? In the end, I think that you just end up getting rid of those you disagree with.

In this case, the guy was making a normative argument (as opposed to positive statements). By definition, normative analysis involves value judgments that cannot be tested with data. They can be check for internal logical consistency but that is different than testing. This even if I were to accept your view that Western was right to censure the professor in question (and I don’t) I would still say that the cases are not similar.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts