Dawkins on Alien Rubbish

[tattuchu]

That's a president though. Most teachers deserve at least a little respect.

English Bob: If you were to try to assassination a king, sir, the, how shall I say it, the aura of royalty would cause you to miss. But, the president [chuckles] , I mean, why not shoot the president?

[Coito ergo sum]

Mustn't they? Or, are they free to disregard teachers' instructions? They're little kids, after all.

So all these kids are "little" now? It sounds to me a bit like you do not want them to be free at all. What are your frightened of?

Where would you get the idea that I don't want them to be free at all? I want them to educated and cared for at school. They have to be supervised, and freedom for children doesn't mean unrestricted free speech. You already admitted that. Why are you continually creating straw men? I've told you exactly what it should be like, and "not wanting them to be free AT ALL" isn't anything I ever implied.

My response was in keeping with the spirit of your youtube video.

Well I'm an atheist, I don't believe in spirits.

That depends where and when. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the President couldn't get up and speak at a dinner or something without being heckled.

Really? You'd want the President to be immune from heckling?

No more or less immune than anyone else.

I want the opposite - and only because everybody has the right of free speech, and that includes heckling.

Next time you're at a wedding, heckle the best man during the toast. Exercise your free speech.

Our 'leaders' want sanitized, stage-managed speeches where they can be seen to be the perfect speechifiers, skilfully handling every problem. And President Obama in that clip handled the situation very well, with good humour n'awl, but let's face it he had more than a little support from some paid thugs who eliminated the problem for him in short order.

Well, if loud hecklers could veto our right to hear the President speak by simply yelling and screaming during his speeches, we'd never hear what he had to say.

And where do you draw the line? What about this 82-year-old man who famously shouted "rubbish!" at our Home Secretary in 2005 and was quickly bundled out of the Party Conference Hall for daring to exercise his right of free speech?

If people are in public spaces, they can say and do what they want, in line with laws that apply to everyone every day - disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, etc. If the President is at a private event at the Kiwanis Club and someone sneaked in to disrupt it, then he ought to be thrown out. Seems pretty easy to draw the line to me. What's so confusing to you?

And, like heckler at a debate or conference, people don't have the right to disrupt meetings. Hecklers at city council meetings ought be removed, for example.

Very, very wrong. We have a free-speech society. Hecklers at city council meetings cutting services or forcing people into poverty should be applauded, not 'removed'. I think this is the difference between us. It is not some small, detailed argument about visiting speakers in schools, it is your fundamental misunderstanding about the right of free speech in general, and your inability to trust people in general to exercise their right of free speech productively.

Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.

My misunderstanding about the right of free speech? Please, be real. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of every topic you've commented on.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

[klr]

...
Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.

My misunderstanding about the right of free speech? Please, be real. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of every topic you've commented on.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

Damn straight

[Bella Fortuna]

...
Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.

My misunderstanding about the right of free speech? Please, be real. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of every topic you've commented on.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

Damn straight

But it's easier for those who wrap themselves in the 'free speech' mantle to disregard the responsibility and respectful temperance that goes along with that freedom.

[Coito ergo sum]

...
Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.

My misunderstanding about the right of free speech? Please, be real. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of every topic you've commented on.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

Damn straight

But it's easier for those who wrap themselves in the 'free speech' mantle to disregard the responsibility and respectful temperance that goes along with that freedom.

It's all in the time, place and manner. The content of speech is unrestricted, or nearly so. But, time, place and manner is always an issue.

If I'm in your house, I can't say what I want without you being able to exercise your right to throw me out, or condition my presence on limiting free speech.
If I'm at a meeting of the city council, they can follow parliamentary procedure, which does not allow anyone to speak anytime, anyhow, anyway they want. There is order.
If I'm in a courtroom or in the county building, I can't just scream and yell stuff.
When one is in a public park, or in the street, of course, then one's right to do and say what one pleases is much broader.

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

[Exi5tentialist]

Where would you get the idea that I don't want them to be free at all? I want them to educated and cared for at school. They have to be supervised, and freedom for children doesn't mean unrestricted free speech. You already admitted that. Why are you continually creating straw men? I've told you exactly what it should be like, and "not wanting them to be free AT ALL" isn't anything I ever implied.

I'm getting no sense of what you think freedom is. All you're talking about is restrictions; they must be quiet, do as they are told, follow instructions. Where's the freedom?

Hah! Abuse will get you nowhere!

That depends where and when. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the President couldn't get up and speak at a dinner or something without being heckled.

Really? You'd want the President to be immune from heckling?

No more or less immune than anyone else.

In that case it sounds like you want the President to be treated equally to everyone else by audiences. But later you go on to contradict that.

I want the opposite - and only because everybody has the right of free speech, and that includes heckling.

Next time you're at a wedding, heckle the best man during the toast. Exercise your free speech.

Well, no - because the people who invite me to weddings trust me not to do that. That's the bit I think you're missing. Trust.

Our 'leaders' want sanitized, stage-managed speeches where they can be seen to be the perfect speechifiers, skilfully handling every problem. And President Obama in that clip handled the situation very well, with good humour n'awl, but let's face it he had more than a little support from some paid thugs who eliminated the problem for him in short order.

Well, if loud hecklers could veto our right to hear the President speak by simply yelling and screaming during his speeches, we'd never hear what he had to say.

Or... he'd have to make the sanitisation even more obvious by limiting himself to lone speeches from the Oval Office, thus demonstrating how incapable he is as an individual of dealing with hecklers, and leaving people to realise that the President isn't quite as immune from failing as many people seem to think he is. Maybe they'd end up reducing the role of the President as a result. What do you think?

And where do you draw the line? What about this 82-year-old man who famously shouted "rubbish!" at our Home Secretary in 2005 and was quickly bundled out of the Party Conference Hall for daring to exercise his right of free speech?

If people are in public spaces, they can say and do what they want, in line with laws that apply to everyone every day - disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, etc. If the President is at a private event at the Kiwanis Club and someone sneaked in to disrupt it, then he ought to be thrown out. Seems pretty easy to draw the line to me. What's so confusing to you?

Nothing is confusing me, thanks. The Labour Party Conference is a private event, not a public space. So I presume that means you think that it was right for the heckler to be chucked out, just for shouting "Rubbish!" at the Home Secretary.
I think this private / public divide is a bit of red herring. Of course, it was crap that the heckler at the Labour Conference was thrown out. It was an affront to democracy. I think you need to come up with a better reason that public / private for justifying it.

And, like heckler at a debate or conference, people don't have the right to disrupt meetings. Hecklers at city council meetings ought be removed, for example.

Very, very wrong. We have a free-speech society. Hecklers at city council meetings cutting services or forcing people into poverty should be applauded, not 'removed'. I think this is the difference between us. It is not some small, detailed argument about visiting speakers in schools, it is your fundamental misunderstanding about the right of free speech in general, and your inability to trust people in general to exercise their right of free speech productively.

Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.

Surely the city hall is a public building by your definition. Having disposed of hecklers in meetings like the "private" Labour Party Conference, you are now moving on to clamping down on hecklers in city hall. Soon, you'll be moving on to declaring the space outside to be private property. This is the way presumptions about democracy are going nowadays. There is always, always, always a reason to clamp down on free speech in our televised, sanitised democracy.

The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

True, that would be contempt of court (under an elected judiciary... otherwise I and several thousands of protesters in your city might just take up the right to shout there too, unlike you or your obedient students!)

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

[Exi5tentialist]

But it's easier for those who wrap themselves in the 'free speech' mantle to disregard the responsibility and respectful temperance that goes along with that freedom.

I agree, it is. It's just as well I don't disregard those things then, isn't it Bella?

[Magicziggy]

In a school(*) democracy and free speech are introduced through the mechanism of Student Voice. Students reps are peer elected, often with some staff vetting of suitability. Ie students with poor behavioral records may not have their nomination accepted. Student Voice is powerful and meaningful in the school context. Members are given additional support in the form of training and staff involvement. Student Voice can raise their own issues or be consulted on ongoing issues. It is required that consultation of Student Voice is part of any decision making process that affects students.

In schools I have worked, student voice has been an important and integral part of the school ethos.


(*)South Australian public high school

[Jason]

Yes, I seem to remember there being a student council or some such thing.. I don't remember if I hated it because I was too cool or not popular enough.

Ethos, maybe.. but I definitely ignored that in highschool. It has no effect on school policy and curriculum, which I'm sure is legislated by the state.

[Ronja]

...
Free speech doesn't give you the right to stop city or government business or to disrupt someone else's private function.
...
The right of free speech doesn't give you the right, for example, to stand up in a courtroom and start shouting such that the judge and the lawyers can't do their job, for example.

Damn straight

But it's easier for those who wrap themselves in the 'free speech' mantle to disregard the responsibility and respectful temperance that goes along with that freedom.

It's all in the time, place and manner. The content of speech is unrestricted, or nearly so. But, time, place and manner is always an issue.

. - all of

Thank you, Coito and Bella!

[klr]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

Where did CES say all heckling should be banned then?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

Where did CES say all heckling should be banned then?

Where does Exi2 say he will be commenting on something anybody actually said?

[HomerJay]

I can't believe people are even entertaining the idea that this could be a freedom of speech issue.

Pages and pages of tedious rot.

[Exi5tentialist]

Exi thinks that anyone ought to be able to jump up and heckle anyone anytime. That way nobody will hear anyone.

... And you think all heckling should be banned, punished and stopped. Oh you deny it? But in every post you have only talked about restrictions. I get zero sense from you about where you think heckling is ok. Not in a local town hall - it is a private building. Not in the street - the streets nowadays all belong to the shopping centre management committee. Not in a party conference - conference halls are owned privately by municipal companies. Where? Nowhere. Definitely not in school. You want a sanitized, unproblematic speechifying opportunity for every politician that wofts round the country making pretty pictures for himself to be distributed on television to the masses. Free speech is out, in your book: dead as a dodo, you are so keen on listing all the places where it isn't allowed that you have forgotten to defend where it is, and in the meantime it has been taken away from you and the worst of it is, you don't mind.

Where did CES say all heckling should be banned then?

Read my post (quoted here, above). I'm inferring what CES thinks from what he has said. Read my post (quoted here, above). I am not like Ronja, Zilla and you, I do not accept edicts that I must naively take everything at face value and not infer anything from what is said. Read my post (quoted here, above). It answers the point you made after the event. Please feel free to comment on my answers, not regress to questions that have already been dealt with, if you would only read my post (quoted here, above).