Poetic protest sparks protest for the right to protest

It's really quite poetic:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...y-7575770.html

Student suspended for seven terms for reading a poem (protesting decisions re. tuition fees) that ultimately disrupted Willett's speech.

One hopes the kid at least learns a bit about the nature of the world from this incident.

I just skimmed it but let me get this straight... the goal of the protest was to silent a speaker?

"
The crime which brought down this draconian punishment? He read a poem out loud. Being Cambridge, he called it an "epistle", but no matter. What matters, at least in the eyes of the university's Court of Discipline, is that he read his poem at an event featuring the higher education minister David Willetts, right. He was one of 60 students and academics involved in the anti-fees protest. "You are not a welcome guest because you come with a knife beneath your cloak", they chanted. "We are not consumers; we are students."

Eventually Willetts gave up – heaven knows how the poor lamb copes with the spittle-flecked hecklers in the House of Commons – and went home without delivering his speech. There was no threat to his safety, no criminal damage done. The protesters used verse, not vandalism to make their point. You might argue, as the Court of Discipline did, that freedom of speech goes both ways and Willetts should have been allowed to say his piece.
"

I'm glad they punished the little twit.

Yeah, I expect that kind of sentiment from you. After all, every kind of person with an IQ above room temperature must seem a threat to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Yeah, I expect that kind of sentiment from you. After all, every kind of person with an IQ above room temperature must seem a threat to you.

---

Disruption of events and not allowing someone to speak is something that everyone should be against. Its hilarious that liberals want the freedom the silence people... Well actually its kind of sad but expected.

The uni's legal counsel sought a suspension of 1 term from what I've gathered, and if that's true I'm even more surprised by the ridiculous 7 term sentence.

A single English-lit major can't disrupt a speech by reading out "poetry". It takes a large crowd. God hates ministers

Interestingly, there was a not-too-different case at a speech by Michael Oren (Israel's ambassador to the US) at UC Irvine. The rhetoric was rather less pleasant than a poem, of course, but the basic point was the same. The students were criminally prosecuted for infringing on Oren's right to free speech, and sentenced to 50-odd hours of community service as well as a 3-year probation (sentencing was about 6 months ago). While I agree they infringed on free speech rights in both cases (though I don't know how those rights are codified in the UK), I feel like such things should be dealt with administratively, and then with a punishment that's likely to be instructive rather than overkill. Just IMO.

Don't they usually have police at these things to remove people one-by-one if they are being disruptive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Interestingly, there was a not-too-different case at a speech by Michael Oren (Israel's ambassador to the US) at UC Irvine. The rhetoric was rather less pleasant than a poem, of course, but the basic point was the same. The students were criminally prosecuted for infringing on Oren's right to free speech, and sentenced to 50-odd hours of community service as well as a 3-year probation (sentencing was about 6 months ago). While I agree they infringed on free speech rights in both cases (though I don't know how those rights are codified in the UK), I feel like such things should be dealt with administratively, and then with a punishment that's likely to be instructive rather than overkill. Just IMO.

---

People follow the law for two reasons. Moral belief is one. IE - Its not right to hurt, kill, suppress, steal ect from others. If someone lacks a moral compass (however you want to define it) the only other reason is fear of the consequences. This is why harsher punishments are better because they create fear.

Society *wants* little twits like this to sit down and shut up and be *afraid*. If they have complaint they can debate, writer letters, argue and convince; NOT disrupt an event and not allow someone to speak.

I think you're wrong, Lewk. I think that the students probably genuinely believe in free speech and just haven't been convinced that this applies to officials they disagree with just as much as it applies to them. A punishment is appropriate, no question - but I think a ridiculously severe one just victimizes rather than instructs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Interestingly, there was a not-too-different case at a speech by Michael Oren (Israel's ambassador to the US) at UC Irvine. The rhetoric was rather less pleasant than a poem, of course, but the basic point was the same. The students were criminally prosecuted for infringing on Oren's right to free speech, and sentenced to 50-odd hours of community service as well as a 3-year probation (sentencing was about 6 months ago). While I agree they infringed on free speech rights in both cases (though I don't know how those rights are codified in the UK), I feel like such things should be dealt with administratively, and then with a punishment that's likely to be instructive rather than overkill. Just IMO.

---

What were they criminally prosecuted for? I.e. what were the charges? As not-so-different goes, successful prosecution under a legal system with pretty heavy rules protecting speech strikes me as something more on the "different" side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I think you're wrong, Lewk. I think that the students probably genuinely believe in free speech and just haven't been convinced that this applies to officials they disagree with just as much as it applies to them. A punishment is appropriate, no question - but I think a ridiculously severe one just victimizes rather than instructs.

---

How am I wrong? Their moral compass is skewed if they think its OK to disrupts and shout down someone legally attending. In that situation the only way to keep them from doing this is fear of the consequences. If someone wants to do something the only way they aren't going to do it is if they decide its immoral or they fear the consequences of taking the action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

How am I wrong?

---

In every way, as usual.

The right to speak freely in no way translates to the right to be heard. Dipshit government official has the right the to speak, as does dipshit poem-reading junior comrade. That poem-reading comrade is more popular, and the 60 other people had no intention of listening to dipshit government stooge is of no consequence. Government stooge chose not speak to a hostile audience, and this should no be a matter of law.

And try as I might, I can't see you exercising any degree of consistency: had the poem-reading moron been a Bible-thumping fucktard screaming about how God hates faggots, I somehow suspect you'd defend him to the death.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

In every way, as usual.

The right to speak freely in no way translates to the right to be heard. Dipshit government official has the right the to speak, as does dipshit poem-reading junior comrade. That poem-reading comrade is more popular, and the 60 other people had no intention of listening to dipshit government stooge is of no consequence. Government stooge chose not speak to a hostile audience, and this should no be a matter of law.

And try as I might, I can't see you exercising any degree of consistency: had the poem-reading moron been a Bible-thumping fucktard screaming about how God hates faggots, I somehow suspect you'd defend him to the death.

---

The issue of free speech is irrelevant here. Neither Cambridge nor the student in question is part of the government. Cambridge is a private institution that has clear rules and interests. By disregarding both, the student embarrassed the university, worsening its reputation, and made it much more difficult to recruit similar speakers in the future. While the punishment was probably too harsh (a year would make more sense), it was fully within the rights of the university to "refuse to do business" with an individual who was too stupid to follow important rules.

They still do receive funding from the government, though. As such, they're still part of the government - especially if they invite some government official to hold a speech.

Not to mention that the university lists "freedom of speech and thought" among its core values.

If our universities in Germany did the same thing, our campus would be pretty empty.

The punishment was decided by an "independent" court

Riiiight. Independent court consisting solely of government-friendly, 80-year-old coots, I dare say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

They still do receive funding from the government, though. As such, they're still part of the government - especially if they invite some government official to hold a speech.

Not to mention that the university lists "freedom of speech and thought" among its core values.

If our universities in Germany did the same thing, our campus would be pretty empty.

---

So what? Is this the backdoor socialist way of forcing all private entities to bow to your will? Receiving government funds doesn't make you a government institution. Or perhaps you are a government institution because you get money from the government?

I'd like to know which interpretation of free speech and thought allows one to shout down those you disagree with.

I'm wondering where you're getting that from. Maybe it's some particular Loki-esque disability to read and the bizarre inability to not pull facts from thin air.

Maybe you could point out the passages I wrote which allowed you to come to your hare-brained conclusions?

For the record: While disrupting such a speech is definitely not good manners and should carry some kind of punishment, I'm also a firm believer of "the punishment should fit the crime". In this instance, it definitely doesn't fit. A German university would not be able to get away with something like that - the courts would slap them down hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Riiiight. Independent court consisting solely of government-friendly, 80-year-old coots, I dare say.

---

I was addressing this bit from Loki's post:

Quote:

---

it was fully within the rights of the university to "refuse to do business" with an individual who was too stupid to follow important rules.

---

The uni sought a much shorter suspension, ie. wanted to do business again with the student much sooner. The court is outta whack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

They still do receive funding from the government, though. As such, they're still part of the government - especially if they invite some government official to hold a speech.

Not to mention that the university lists "freedom of speech and thought" among its core values.

If our universities in Germany did the same thing, our campus would be pretty empty.

---

Allowing someone to speak is supporting freedom of speech. Heckling an event is the opposite of freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

The issue of free speech is irrelevant here. Neither Cambridge nor the student in question is part of the government.

---

How are they irrelevant if the government isn't involved? That matters if we're only concerned about this as a matter of legal rights. Cambridge, like most higher-education institutions, claims to honor or even embody free thought and expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

How are they irrelevant if the government isn't involved? That matters if we're only concerned about this as a matter of legal rights. Cambridge, like most higher-education institutions, claims to honor or even embody free thought and expression.

---

Which is why they should have a zero tolerance policy on anyone who attempts to suppress speech via heckling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

How are they irrelevant if the government isn't involved? That matters if we're only concerned about this as a matter of legal rights. Cambridge, like most higher-education institutions, claims to honor or even embody free thought and expression.

---

Because freedom of speech is a right you have vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis private actors. You don't have the right to say what you want inside of my house or inside of your workplace.

There are still rules, Loki. You can't do everything you want to do inside your house or company.

I can prevent people from entering it for any reason I choose and I can kick people out for any reason I choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Because freedom of speech is a right you have vis-a-vis the government, not vis-a-vis private actors. You don't have the right to say what you want inside of my house or inside of your workplace.

---

Yes, freedom of speech as a right does speak specifically to an agent's relationship vis a vis the government. I don't think I saw people referencing that though. I saw them talking about free speech. We may use that phrase as colloquial shorthand for the political right to freedom of speech but free speech is hardly exclusive to that venue and the context here is plainly not regarding the political right. I'm not objecting on a "rights" platform Loki, I'm objecting on a hypocrisy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Yes, freedom of speech as a right does speak specifically to an agent's relationship vis a vis the government. I don't think I saw people referencing that though. I saw them talking about free speech. We may use that phrase as colloquial shorthand for the political right to freedom of speech but free speech is hardly exclusive to that venue and the context here is plainly not regarding the political right. I'm not objecting on a "rights" platform Loki, I'm objecting on a hypocrisy one.

---

And as has already been pointed out in this thread, I fail to see how shouting someone down is an example of using free speech.

I actually agree with Lewkowski on this one - silencing someone by, e.g. shouting them down or preventing them from being heard, should not be regarded as a legitimate form of protest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I actually agree with Lewkowski on this one - silencing someone by, e.g. shouting them down or preventing them from being heard, should not be regarded as a legitimate form of protest.

---

And the Angel broke the 4th seal....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I can prevent people from entering it for any reason I choose and I can kick people out for any reason I choose.

---

The whole thing becomes rather different as soon as you enter a contract with your visitors.

This is akin to an iPod with pirated music being worth 1 billion Dollars of punitive damages. Equally absurd arithmetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I actually agree with Lewkowski on this one - silencing someone by, e.g. shouting them down or preventing them from being heard, should not be regarded as a legitimate form of protest.

---

Indeed. However if true the "punishment" doesn't seem to fit the "crime". But then I hardly take the source seriously, see this below the article on the same link:

Quote:

---

* The Special Relationship is safe - held together with hotdogs, chummy manhandling and colour-blocking wives. And gifts, of course. This week the Camerons gave the Obamas a customised ping-pong table. As if the White House doesn't already have 20 ping pong tables; the 40,00sqft Presidential jet probably has at least three - one per deck. Official souvenirs are rarely about utility or suitability, but the Obamas' reciprocal offering of a barbecue is revealing nonetheless.

Barack Obama may have attempted to "natter" like a Brit this week but he clearly has no idea about the British weather. If he had, he would have realised that his $2000 custom-made Braten 1000 Series grill (with essential American and British "friendship flags" engraved on the utility shelf) is destined to sit dusty and unloved behind a row of wellies in the garage only to be dragged out in a panic for an annual spin one unseasonally warm evening in April.

Still, there was thought there. The present is a nod to the barbecue the Camerons hosted for the Obamas' state visit last May. Isn't that rather like inviting someone over for tea and scones and them enclosing their own – implied superior – recipe for scones with the thank you card? This, booms the Braten's 67ins grill, cast-iron wheels and "top-loading firebox", is how you barbecue. Forget that puny little tabletop number from Homebase you flipped burgers on last summer, this barbecue is bigger, better and made in America. As I said, the Special Relationship is safe.

---

Talk about reading too much into something :bulb: - if this guy can read insult from a gift, then I wonder what else has been misrepresented above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And as has already been pointed out in this thread, I fail to see how shouting someone down is an example of using free speech.

---

So, that's why the 59 people heckling and shouting slogans got expelled, while the poem-reader got offohwaitasecondhere... :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

So, that's why the 59 people heckling and shouting slogans got expelled, while the poem-reader got offohwaitasecondhere... :bored:

---

Welcome to the real world, where the main/most blatant transgressors get punished while the rest are not? I'm not sure what you find unreasonable about going after the main culprit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

The whole thing becomes rather different as soon as you enter a contract with your visitors.

This is akin to an iPod with pirated music being worth 1 billion Dollars of punitive damages. Equally absurd arithmetic.

---

You mean the part of the contract which specifically lays out what kind of behavior is expected of guests, i.e. the type every student going to a university agrees to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Welcome to the real world, where the main/most blatant transgressors get punished while the rest are not? I'm not sure what you find unreasonable about going after the main culprit.

---

Well, first of all, why do you ID poemboy as the main culprit?

And more to the point, why are you so quick to jump on the argument that the speaker was being shouted down? Cambridge didn't provide him with a microphone?

The actual issue at bar here seems to be that a speaker came to give a speech no one wanted to hear. Well boohoo, the life of a bureaucrat is sooo rough. Doesn't matter that he may have even been right, or that his hostile audience were a bunch of whiny junior-comrades, or that some other bureaucrat saw fit to invite him. He still didn't have anything to say that anyone wanted to hear, which is why the only people in attendance were protestors. And in the context of a protest, there's nothing wrong with what they did, and they in no way prevented the government agent from stepping up to the mic and delivering his speech to no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

Well, first of all, why do you ID poemboy as the main culprit?

And more to the point, why are you so quick to jump on the argument that the speaker was being shouted down? Cambridge didn't provide him with a microphone?

The actual issue at bar here seems to be that a speaker came to give a speech no one wanted to hear. Well boohoo, the life of a bureaucrat is sooo rough. Doesn't matter that he may have even been right, or that his hostile audience were a bunch of whiny junior-comrades, or that some other bureaucrat saw fit to invite him. He still didn't have anything to say that anyone wanted to hear, which is why the only people in attendance were protestors. And in the context of a protest, there's nothing wrong with what they did, and they in no way prevented the government agent from stepping up to the mic and delivering his speech to no one.

---

You think Cambridge just randomly went after the guy?

Depending on how large the room was, it might very well have been impossible to give a talk while someone was reciting a poem. And quite frankly, the politician was doing Cambridge a favor by appearing there; he's under no obligation to stand there and take abuse. It's up to Cambridge to provide a proper environment.

No one? Was everyone in the audience heckling the guy? And if it no one wanted to hear it, it's not the students' job to prevent the guy from talking. It's incredibly disrespectful to not allow an invited speaker to speak, and reflects incredibly poorly on the entire college. Why do you expect a private entity to take this damage without punishing the transgressor? Pray tell what would happen to an employee of a private firm if he was to act obnoxiously in front of a key client.

the private entity initially sought a punishment of one term.

re. the target, see the so-called spartacus letter signed by a number of the other participants as well as some teachers.

I like it how Loki constantly avoids the issue of the completely over-the-top punishment. See the 1-billion-dollar-iPod.

And I'm not sure, Loki, that a PhD-to-be can be labelled a "guest". That's where your "it's my home, I can do what I want to" falls flat on its face. Don't those guys pay for being there? Either by having to work or directly through fees?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

the private entity initially sought a punishment of one term.

re. the target, see the so-called spartacus letter signed by a number of the other participants as well as some teachers.

---

The private entity makes all students sign a contract that spells out the mechanism for disciplinary measures. All students know who decides on punishments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I like it how Loki constantly avoids the issue of the completely over-the-top punishment. See the 1-billion-dollar-iPod.

And I'm not sure, Loki, that a PhD-to-be can be labelled a "guest". That's where your "it's my home, I can do what I want to" falls flat on its face. Don't those guys pay for being there? Either by having to work or directly through fees?

---

How's that in any way relevant? The university is obliged to provide the speaker a satisfactory environment. If it fails, it loses its right to the speaking fee (though I doubt a current politician would get anything other than traveling expenses).