Re:The threat from within
by richardwhiuk on Tuesday February 21, 2017 @09:59PM
(#13702602)
Why are open calls to violence the standard? How marked does the call need to be? What does the violence need to look like? Is displacing people a violent act? Is yelling abuse at people a violent act - or are we so naive that only direct physical contact constitutes a violent act?
This is not an easy problem, and 'open calls to violence' are not a trivial solution.
I also fear universities which seek to over-represent minority points for the sake of balance, in the same way that news programs often do.
I think the line has to be physical violence, else we'd allow very few people to speak as any other interpretation kind of dismisses just about anything and everything:
Abortion rights
Abortion opponents
Trade agreements
etc.
> Is yelling abuse at people a violent act
No, it's an abusive act though.
The simple answer to your question is: The definition of violence by the courts is physical.
And it's probably a good decision. Otherwise the rabbit hole will take us bad places.
Open calls to genocide are legitimate speech protected by the first amendment. Only speech likely to produce imminent lawless action is banned---so there has to be a target and a plausibly exhorted actor right there.
Of course, the speakers with the most universally unpalatable views aren't going to get invited (by student groups) because they won't get enough attendees to fill an auditorium or be worth the hassle. But that's unrelated to whether the university should allow it.