Is the left wing really for free speech?

Question

If they are then why do liberal universities act so vile and disrespectful when invited guest share their perspective? Why do they not allow a difference of opinion to be presented and then debated like mature intelligent adults? Is it perhaps they do not know how to successfully get across their point through civil debate? Or, perhaps they do not HAVE a valid argument to present?

Answer 1

What about free speech zones and the USA PATRIOT Act? How about when freedom of the press seems dangerous nowadays? Opinions vary and to rant about it doesn't help. Put that in your own blog and get some people who are have the same opinion as you on your cases.

Answer 2

Care to cite an actual example of this happening, with either an audio recording, or transcript? I presume when you say "share their perspective" you actually mean "don't share"...

If you can't provide any examples of this, then the most likely conclusion was that it was made up by somebody ranting about "liberal universities"... It's so annoying how smart people are left-wing isn't it? Or, perhaps what they meant was, that people at some point have been disrespectful to discredited liars (e.g. the Intelligent Design movement who lied and said they had no religious agenda, global warming sceptics funded by big oil, etc.), and this was presented as a fake freedom of speech issue in that "equal time" must be given to absolute nonsense and the actual science. You do know that one of the strategies of the ID movement was simply to cause a debate on evolution, in order to make the public doubt science? That they didn't really care about WINNING the debate, the debate itself was the purpose. Many academics will rightly refuse to give people who aren't prepared to play by science's rules a platform. Freedom of speech does not mean "I am entitled to speak on your platform".

Edit:

Right, taking the example of the Minutemen interruption, since two people have given this (one by e-mail). If the accounts of the protests are accurate, I would say this seems an over-the-top way to do things. Dissent, and showing disrespect is perfectly legitimate. Causing disturbance that doesn't materially affect the delivery of the speech is also fine, e.g. banners, turning of backs, the occasional well-placed heckle, protesting outside and before the event, etc. The purpose of a protest is, of course, to draw attention to an issue. If the guy speaks, and is protested, both sides have their fair say. Of course, just shouting somebody down doesn't win many converts to your side of the debate either, so I'd condemn them simply on the grounds of extreme suckage in getting their point over.

Also, it's interesting... This is the first time on Answers where people have actually responded to my asking for a specific example. I'll have to remember in future, if my challenge isn't rude enough, nobody bites!

Incidentally, the e-mail asked if there were any counter-examples, i.e. disruption at universities where "liberals" were speaking. In no time at all, I turned up this one:
http://wc.arizona.edu/papers/98/43/01_1.html

I think that generally, students can get over-excited, and devote great energies into extremely ineffective manners of protest.

Answer 3

Liberals are those who favor to reduce free speech. Hate speech regulations are a ideal social gathering of liberals telling human beings what they could say or no longer say. Conservatives believe in the structure particularly the first change and maximum do no longer position self assurance in political correctness.

Answer 4

The example would be the Columbia speech to be given my the minutemen founder. (to whoever asked above).

I think that college kids today apparently have not been taught how to respect other people or who to have an intelligent debate. Therefore, they must give one liners and storm the stage. They're young and stupid. Let's hope they grow out of it.

Answer 5

Free Speech is an illusion. Politicians, liberal and Conservative both bend the truth to fit their agenda, especially in liberal Universities, you don't get the truth, you get the Professors personal political agenda.

Answer 6

well look at the left records. clinton hired a lawyer to make sure they couldnt blaim the democrates, and as you said liberal universities often boo conservative speakers, yet critisize anyone that speaks out against a liberal speaker

Answer 7

Why are we talking about Left and Right? Who cares? One party or the other is just as bad. The real division is Freedom vs enslavement, which side are you on?

You are adding support to the enslavement side by agreeing there is a Left and Right.

Answer 8

Kirun: Here are some examples.
http://www.nysun.com/article/41020?access=649942
http://www.alainsnewsletter.com/s/spip.php?breve86
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,218202,00.html

Liberals are, for the most part, people who act and react emotionally. For many, it's simply easier to act out rather than form rational opinions.

[edit]
I love the answer from 'duh' above mine. Only in liberal doublespeak could "freedom of speech" mean liberals violently suppressing ideas they don't like.

Answer 9

The far left wing (not to be confused with regular democrats) are only in favor of free speech if you agree with them.

Answer 10

You are correct on both points, they support free speech, as long as it supports their point of distorted view. They cannot have a
civil debate because their position is usually founded on lies or
half truths, which would not stand up, under scrutiny.