Ironically, by pivoting the discussion to systemic power differences as justification for large groups of students to disallow smaller groups of their ability to voice their opinions by passive-aggressive force, you are supporting the conceptional framework that in large part allows the abuses of power, which can be aggressive force, you oppose. If it is wrong for the powerful to prevent the less powerful from speech, then it is wrong for the large to prevent the smaller from speech even the majority against the minority. The 'core issue' of free speech has never been the opposition of those in power with the speech of a majority, even a localized majority, but the empowerment of every individual to speech regardless of their opinions popularity or any of its other attributes, except for those who cause tremendous harm. If it is wrong for the government because it is more powerful to abuse their power, it is wrong for the group because it is larger to abuse their size to limit others. I think the cause of this whole situation is due to the conflation of speech meant to harm other persons (i.e yelling fire, inciting a riot) and speech that causes subjective discomfort or intellectual disagreement. One is a crime, and the other is the heart of every civil discussion.

I'm pivoting the discussion so that we can look at the actual consequences of (putting limits on) speech, instead of categorizing "free speech" as a silly absolute. I showed how true unlimited libertarian free speech doesn't exist and cannot possibly exist in an unequal society. This is separate from Free Speech as a legal concept. The government should never silence dissenting voices, no matter how abhorrent. In this sense I'm a free speech absolutist.

It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better off banishing them from the campus instead.

I completely disagree with your characterization of hate speech as speech that causes "subjective discomfort". Specific types of speech can do a lot of harm to e.g. individuals who suffer from mental illnesses or PTSD. So organizations have to choose. Either you ban the speech that will predictably harm individuals or minority groups, or you allow all speech (including hate speech) and the more vulnerable people will be forced to leave to protect their mental health. That's the reality of the situation. I don't think this is a difficult choice.

In practice free speech restrictions on college campuses don't restrict scientific work or scientific debate (in the broadest sense), so I don't think there is any cause for concern.

> It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority.

How about just blindly applying free speech principles? That's kind of how the "free" part of that is supposed to work.

> It makes no sense to blindly apply free speech principles based on majority/minority. By that logic we ought to amplify the voices of neo-nazis and other undesirables simply because they're a minority that would otherwise go unheard. To the contrary, I believe we're better of banishing them from the campus instead.

There would be some hope of that if university students and admin had the slightest awareness of the 'Streisand effect.' They don't and they end up raising awareness of speakers and ideas they are scared of. It's comical. Free speech wins eventually, and that's net positive.

> They don't and they end up raising awareness of speakers and ideas they are scared of

It's true that a lot of people are only hearing about this because of the protest, and that some of the public reaction is negative, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have been better served staying quiet.

Maybe hate groups are perfectly capable of getting the attention of their targets and supporters already, and getting the public's attention is the best way changing the status quo and reducing silent acceptance.

Hold on, isn't it true that for every type of protest the protesters have to explain what they're protesting against? If you're correct then every protest should backfire because of the Streisand Effect.

In reality, people protest because it works, even though they have to draw attention to the behavior they want to put an end to. The hope is to persuade the majority that they are righteous and the other side is in the wrong. That's how you get change. Sometimes the protesters mess up and end up looking bad. Then they lose credibility. That's OK, because then a different group of activists will stand up and continue pushing forward.

Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

> Safe spaces, micro-aggression theory, and other progressive concepts are quickly becoming mainstream, and they're definitely here to stay.

Until the next generation rebels against them. It's already happening.

> every protest should backfire because of the Streisand Effect

The Streisand Effect relates to things someone doesn't want others to know about. If a protest isn't about supressing ideas or information then the Streisand Effect is not relevant.

Two wrongs don't make a right. If there's anything to be learned in school, that's it.

The moment you give people a little bit of power they'll find a way to abuse it. People can be really petty and spiteful.

What happened at this university is no different from a secretary deliberating forgetting to book a hotel room for the person they like least in the group. No different from the clerk at the DMV sending you to the back of the line because you made a paperwork mistake.

Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense? Nowhere! Because we recognize it's petty nonsense, and not worthy of hand-wringing commentary or a national conversation. But when it comes to students and free speech and safe spaces every news channel and every major magazine is talking about it like it signifies the end of Freedom itself. It's totally absurd.

> Where is the moral panic about this type of petty nonsense?

I think the difference is that petty nonsense on college campuses is publicized and quasi-institutional. If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage.

While a few overzealous activists are not going to end Freedom itself, I (and apparently many others) still want to confront petty nonsense when it begins to institutionalize (by being supported by faculty/admin or influential media members).

>If, somehow, a DMV employee was publicly and proudly making people they don't like go to the back of the line, and they had powerful people aligned with them, there would be some outrage.

What about a county clerk refusing to sign legal marriage certificates for gay couples?

There was huge, massive outrage about that.

Right, I was just illustrating that your hypothetical had a recent, concrete example.

The secretary knows he's doing something wrong.

You'd be amazed at how creative people are at rationalizing their actions.

I've known. It's certainly on display these days.

Oh wow this is very good. I wrote out this long paragraph but you said it much better and more succintly.