The right to free speech and debate forums- should we be limited based on our backgrounds and identities?

I was reading an article about groups of Oxford students who opted to censor debaters from abortion debates, based on their sex. It gave me flashbacks of the first time I browsed Tumblr, but it really intrigued me. I also found this article where a girl boasts her stoppage of a two-men dialogue about an abortion debate, due to them being men.

Excerpt:

I was invited by the Oxford Students for Life to put the pro-choice argument against the journalist Timothy Stanley, who is pro-life. But apparently it is forbidden for men to talk about abortion. A mob of furious feministic Oxford students, all robotically uttering the same stuff about feeling offended, set up a Facebook page littered with expletives and demands for the debate to be called off. They said it was outrageous that two human beings 'who do not have uteruses' should get to hold forth on abortion — identity politics at its most basely biological — and claimed the debate would threaten the 'mental safety' of Oxford students. Three hundred promised to turn up to the debate with 'instruments' — heaven knows what — that would allow them to disrupt proceedings.

Click to expand...

Excerpt:

The idea that in a free society absolutely everything should be open to debate has a detrimental effect on marginalised groups. Debating abortion as if its a topic to be mulled over and hypothesised on ignores the fact that this is not an abstract, academic issue. It may seem harmless for men like [the two men in question] to debate how and if abortion hurts them; it's clearly harder for people to see that their words and views might hurt women.

Click to expand...

Now, I consider myself a feminist, and always implore people to take part in debates as often as they can.
But I am not one for censoring free speech in debates. It's actually counter-intuitive.
In a forum where free speech is most crucial, I see censoring debates as a form of intellectual cancer- it spreads rapidly, and hinders overall intellectual function.

However, it does beg the question of free speech.

McIntyre's point appears to point to amplification and privilege. The idea that certain groups (rich, white, straight men?) have had the say in all issues for a long time, should come as no surpise. Another point she raised is that men (obviously) won't have a [first-hand] experience in the decision of whether or not to get an abortion.

Do you believe that speech should be limited within the confines of "mental safety," as it is put?
In other words, should people's feelings come in the way of free thought?
Next, do you subscribe to the mentality that certain groups of people have no "right" to take part in certain debates (ie, straight people and gay marriage, men and abortion, whites and black issues, etc.)?

My rule of thumb, especially coming from a science background, is that I never talk about something if I am not knowledgeable about the topic.
I am always willing to listen, however. I always want to learn more and open up to as wide of a variety of issues at hand. For example, I know almost nothing about economics. Therefore, I'm not gonna be the person who says if X bill is going to help or if Y bill is going to create jobs. However, I will listen to different sides and put in my own research.
If there is a topic about something psychology related, you can bet I'm going to take part.
Therefore, knowledge = power, and to limit knowledge is to hinder progress.

Another point: I find it inappropriate, for eg., for a man to head a women's right organization. However, I do not wish to deter men from taking part in said organization.

obZen said:

My rule of thumb, especially coming from a science background, is that I never talk about something if I am not knowledgeable about the topic.
I am always willing to listen, however.

Click to expand...

That needs to be the mindset more people have when topics like feminism, race, or LBGT rights come up. I find that the issue here isn't so much about free speech and censorship (because no one can stop you from discussing them), but the fact that too people are happy being ignorant, are unwilling to listen, and are seriously lacking in empathy. They feel that their opinion needs to be heard, even if it's clear that it's not founded on anything approaching a studied knowledge of what they're discussing. And when this is pointed out, that's when you often start to hear accusations of censorship or whatever. We all have the right to free speech, we're all free to discuss these things out in public. But if we're truly interested in a more inclusive society where these issues can be discussed in a productive and objective way, those of us who don't belong to the marginalized group in question and don't have even the most basic idea of what's it's like to be there and what they're fighting against should just shut up and listen.

Another thing that should be kept in mind is that in a diverse society such as ours, different groups of people come from different places when discussing topics like abortion. Once again, all of us have the right to discuss them - free speech, in other words. But not all of us are coming from a background where the issue affects us the same way, no matter how much we may try to understand it. That does give certain voices more of an authority on specific subjects, because they actually experience it. Provided that both people are seriously worth listening to, I'm more inclined to hear out a woman on modern sexism when she calls out a man for missing the point in a discussion of it, or simply asks him to shut the hell up and listen, because she actually experiences this. He likely doesn't. Asking someone not a part of an oppressed group who has no first-hand experience of what in the world those people are actually going through to stop talking so that someone who does can get their voice out there isn't a violation of free speech. And doing so is something that could only help lead us to a more progressive, equal society.

Limiting or allowing free speech in the confines of a debate forum isn't something that really rocks the boat, in my opinion. Nobody's really going to suffer either way. Personally, the point of debate forums is to get controversial ideas out there because they can't be discussed just anywhere, so I lean away from censorship.

To be honest, the whole thing about people's "rights" and "appropriateness" to participate in a debate really isn't about rights per se, it's about respect. People just want to feel respected and will ignore others who don't conform to their conception on who's right or appropriate to participate.

Like, that rich white men have always "had the say" in public affairs doesn't mean that they are jawdroppingly privileged in a conversation. Everybody should be able to speak and make the best case they can. Ignoring somebody's points or handwaving it away is bad taste, no matter who it comes from.

Hmmm I don't particularly like feminists because A LOT of them tend to ignore facts, lie, And use cheap dirty tactics to spread their information and then point other people out when they do the same thing. I don't hate feminists, but I think there's some hypocrocy (sorry if I spelled that wrong) with feminist now a days that shoves me the wrong way. So I'll follow this topic but I'll try to keep posting to minimum because I feel I'm biased here. I just want this to be a good discussion. Plus I don't feel like posting a lot right now.

I think barring someone from a debate is a slippery slope. And in the long run, the only one it can hurt (a debate alone) is only the debaters. Listeners and lookers should not feel an impact over another's opinion and hurt themselves or others because someone said something they didn't like. So no, barring someone from speaking their mind is not okay.

Censorship, under almost all circumstances, is an extremist measure that can be addressed far more reasonably and effectively with other methods.

obZen said:

McIntyre's point appears to point to amplification and privilege. The idea that certain groups (rich, white, straight men?) have had the say in all issues for a long time, should come as no surpise. Another point she raised is that men (obviously) won't have a [first-hand] experience in the decision of whether or not to get an abortion.

Click to expand...

Just my two cents here, but in this certain issue it's extremely ignorant of them to claim that they won't have a first hand experience in the decision. The child is not just the woman's baby. The child is both parent's baby. They should have to agree to that consensus. The only exception should be if it's required for a medical reason. Otherwise, yes, both parents most certainly have a first hand experience in that decision.

I'd also like to point out that since privilege is completely subjective, by turning off the opinions of others based on who they are, it opens up a huge hole for bigotry.

Do you believe that speech should be limited within the confines of "mental safety," as it is put?
In other words, should people's feelings come in the way of free thought?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not. To shut down someone else's opinion, when said person is being completely reasonable, is completely unacceptable.

We can mock other people's opinions, especially hypocritical ones, by simply criticizing their own. Debate works on a back-and-forth structure, simply not allowing that opinion to exist means that no debate can occur. This has the dangerous effect of, over time, silencing the opposition, producing echo chambers and creating radicalism.

Censorship is truly not required outside of possible warnings on explicit content because typical human interactions already weeds out those who are grossly socially unacceptable anyways.

Next, do you subscribe to the mentality that certain groups of people have no "right" to take part in certain debates (ie, straight people and gay marriage, men and abortion, whites and black issues, etc.)? My rule of thumb, especially coming from a science background, is that I never talk about something if I am not knowledgeable about the topic.

Click to expand...

Absolutely not, again. This one is more critical.

The biggest issue with this sort of attitude is that it automatically requires to make assumptions about the other individual, which, especially over the internet, is a complete gamble. That person could have gone through a myriad of experiences that resemble those that you're talking about that resembles your own. It's true that nobody has lived your experience, is empathy suddenly useless because we haven't? Of course not. In addition, your own personal experiences are a very poor approach unless backed up by other facts.

It's interesting that you use the word "knowledge" though. Knowledge is truly the only thing that should be measured when actually discussing anything, regardless of the subject material.

And why is this issue critical?

Very simple - successful human rights requires integration between the majority and the minority. Successful cases of this happening include, for example, Catholics in the United States. For a long time, Catholics were actually a group of disadvantaged individuals in the US, with effects resonating as late as the 1960s. But now most people would not even recognize such a rift. Women as well have successfully integrated themselves to a high functioning capacity in society.

Nobody want's to be with people who treat them as different. So why should the majority even accept you if you are unwilling to accept them? If you claim that an educated individual cannot speak about issues that they're educated on just because of who they are, you're just as bad as the so-called oppressors. Unless they have done something (bar existing) to actually deserve their ban, then you're accomplishing nothing but relying on silence to push your message, and that is both biased and oppressive.

On a side note, I've noticed that many activism organizations seem to continue to "feed their narrative". I've personally noticed this both in women's rights and autistic rights activism. By perpetuating problems through both acting as if the opposition is wrong, dangerous, evil, or incorrect, they are promoting the very segregation that they face. They also both persist ideas that make both groups feel like perpetual victims who will constantly be attacked or whatever, regardless of whether or not that is true, which throws away their sense of hope, and possibly even prevents them from following their dreams. These organizations are not interested in opposing opinions and will often do what it takes to erase those who disagree with them. I have personally endured this problem multiple times, which is why I've withdrawn hope from either. On the note of women's rights activism, I think the concept is silly since both sexes face an equal amount of problems in western culture. Uniting the gender activism would be helpful to the minor issues that women still face in the west, the issues that men face that are often shoved under the rug, and even possibly transgender rights as well.

Many of these issues are about ethics, which is something everyone is a part of. Trying to exclude people from an argument because of their race, sex, or philosophical beliefs is so obviously wrong that I really shouldn't even need to comment on it; it's a sad reflection on some modern political groups that I do.

Some people might not have firsthand experience with whatever issue is in question. All that means is that those people probably won't think of all of the considerations involved in that issue. It doesn't mean they can't understand those considerations and it certainly doesn't mean they can't talk about other aspects of the issue, such as the general ethical nature of it or, say, logistical problems related to it.

My two cents, anyone who tries to exclude anyone from any sort of debate is an intolerant, pro-censorship bigot. I don't care who it is they're trying to exclude. If your argument is so weak that it can't stand up to criticism from others then the problem is with your argument, not with others.

I think completely banning someone from a debate is kind of stupid (especially in an environment like a classroom or a debate specific forum), but I do think that people should recognise that there are certain discussions where their opinions just are not relevant. It's less about censorship and strict rules and more about having the respect to bow out of certain discussions about groups that you're not a part of.

Grey Wind said:

I think completely banning someone from a debate is kind of stupid (especially in an environment like a classroom or a debate specific forum), but I do think that people should recognise that there are certain discussions where their opinions just are not relevant. It's less about censorship and strict rules and more about having the respect to bow out of certain discussions about groups that you're not a part of.

Click to expand...

That's begging the question of why somebody shouldn't participate in certain discussions to begin with. You're against banning a person on the part of everybody else, but you're advocating that this person should 1) consider that their opinions are not relevant and 2) self-censor to the point of bowing out. It looks to me that you're saying a person should self-ban in certain situations just because they haven't a lived-experience of the discussion, and that doesn't seem very palatable to me at all.

If you ban someone from a debate (because they will disagree with you or not give the answer you want to hear) what you have is a group of people agreeing with each other in order to make their argument and themselves feel more secure.
A debate needs input from all sides a good debate should not only be an opportunity for these involved to defend and promote their own view, but to examine other views and perspectives in order to get a greater picture of the issue in question.
For a debate to be a debate all parties must respect each other even if they disagree otherwise that debate becomes an argument.

Kanzler said:

That's begging the question of why somebody shouldn't participate in certain discussions to begin with. You're against banning a person on the part of everybody else, but you're advocating that this person should 1) consider that their opinions are not relevant and 2) self-censor to the point of bowing out. It looks to me that you're saying a person should self-ban in certain situations just because they haven't a lived-experience of the discussion, and that doesn't seem very palatable to me at all.

Click to expand...

Why is it not palatable? I'm not describing some sort of be all end all rule or anything, I'm just saying that there are times when someone's opinion isn't relevant and it might be better not to share their view. Like, in a discussion between gay men about the use of the word faggot is it really a straight person's place to comment? Same with white people speaking over black people, well off people speaking over poorer people etc etc. All it is is having some basic respect towards a community that you're not a part of.

Again, I'm not saying that this is some strict rule or anything and there are definitely lots of exceptions, but I think that people should acknowledge that their opinions may not be informed enough and that it's not always their place to comment on something.

Grey Wind said:

Like, in a discussion between gay men about the use of the word faggot is it really a straight person's place to comment?

Click to expand...

Yes, because it's a matter of relevance to more than just homosexuals. The... hypothesis that "straight men don't understand what it's like to have that word used against them," if true (and I would contest that), doesn't mean we aren't affected by discussion about whether it's tolerable to use it or not, nor does it mean our opinions on the matter are unimportant. It's a word that homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike use and the discussion about whether that's something that should be tolerable or not is of relevance to everyone.

Everyone has a right to participate in debate, and in fact everyone should participate in debate if they think they have some insight or argument worth making, especially if they have any stake in the discussion whatsoever. The purpose of expert opinion is to offer specific insight about specific parts of the discussion; it doesn't mean that those without experience or expertise have nothing worthwhile to say. The only time this isn't the case is when there are time constraints to consider, such as a legislative body debating whether to pass a new law or not. In that case, you prioritize stakeholder testimony and expert testimony because those two groups will have the most of interest to say about the topic.

I disagree with the idea of excluding groups from debate. Even if a certain group's opinion may be less relevant by participating they can at least gather a greater understanding of the topic from the other side. So long as everyone is respectful, there should not be a problem.

Where the debate is on legalising abortion, while men do need to be considered, women are the ones that suffer if they cannot access this service. If legal, it doesn't mean women are just going to start using it as a form of contraception, people who argue that are just ridiculous. By making it legal, women will have access to counselling and support, which may change their mind to keep the baby or at least ensure that the abortion occurs in a safe manner.

twocows said:

Yes, because it's a matter of relevance to more than just homosexuals. The... hypothesis that "straight men don't understand what it's like to have that word used against them," if true (and I would contest that), doesn't mean we aren't affected by discussion about whether it's tolerable to use it or not, nor does it mean our opinions on the matter are unimportant. It's a word that homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike use and the discussion about whether that's something that should be tolerable or not is of relevance to everyone.

Everyone has a right to participate in debate, and in fact everyone should participate in debate if they think they have some insight or argument worth making, especially if they have any stake in the discussion whatsoever. The purpose of expert opinion is to offer specific insight about specific parts of the discussion; it doesn't mean that those without experience or expertise have nothing worthwhile to say. The only time this isn't the case is when there are time constraints to consider, such as a legislative body debating whether to pass a new law or not. In that case, you prioritize stakeholder testimony and expert testimony because those two groups will have the most of interest to say about the topic.

Click to expand...

But the short of it is that (to the instance in question) many gay people don't give a rats about straight people opinions on the matter so why would someone not realize that it's worthless and consequently not realize that hmmmm maybe it isn't their place to debate about it if the main people affected about it literally do not care about their share in the matter.

Moogles said:

But the short of it is that (to the instance in question) many gay people don't give a rats about straight people opinions on the matter so why would someone not realize that it's worthless and consequently not realize that hmmmm maybe it isn't their place to debate about it if the main people affected about it literally do not care about their share in the matter.

Click to expand...

That's a very edgy and individualistic way of looking at it.

hm I don't think it's particularly edgy. If I realized I'm not wanted in a spot I'd leave because I'm either respecting the people's wishes or I wouldn't want to waste my time with it. Seems like common sense to me.

Moogles said:

But the short of it is that (to the instance in question) many gay people don't give a rats about straight people opinions on the matter so why would someone not realize that it's worthless and consequently not realize that hmmmm maybe it isn't their place to debate about it if the main people affected about it literally do not care about their share in the matter.

Click to expand...

1. Being too short-sighted to see how something affects others does not mean that it does not affect others.
2. Being too stuck-up to listen to others' arguments on a topic doesn't mean their arguments are invalid or irrelevant.
3. If your argument is so weak that it can't stand up to criticism from people you believe are unaffected by the issue, methinks you have some work to do on your argument.



4. You're overgeneralizing.


All debate is founded on the principles of rationality, reason, logic. If there is a problem with your logic on something, you don't have to be a direct stakeholder to figure that out. Additionally, many issues have multiple stakeholders, and while you may think only one particular stakeholder matters, others who believe they have a stake in the matter will probably pretty strongly disagree with you.

If you think their arguments are wrong, then point out why they're wrong. Saying they don't have the right to argue in the first place is absolutely absurd. Everyone has the right to speak for what they believe. That's one of the core principles of democracy: the ability for everyone to participate in the discussion of issues of importance. Free expression is inexorably tied into this. Trying to exclude people from debate is a form of de facto censorship (of the worst kind: political or philosophical censorship) and it's not just illogical, it's also immoral if you ask me.

I've only skimmed this but I'm going to chime in anyway because I feel like it, so sorry for any repetition or anything I missed.

Personally I feel the whole point of a debate is for groups, no matter who they are, to share their point of view and then support it with facts and logic. Considering that, I don't see any reason for a specific group to be left out of any debate, especially because in the end we are all linked in ways that we cannot imagine.

Let's look at the debate about abortion mentioned; a group of feminists feel that men shouldn't have a say in abortions (ignoring the fact that this is discriminatory towards men and is another prime example of feminist hypocrisy) despite the fact the abortion can affect the father emotionally and without considering that the baby is just as much his as it is the mother's. Censoring men from such debates is ultimately excluding people who are inadvertently affected by whether or not prospective mothers go through with the procedure. I'm tempted to go into a spiel about abortion or feminism here, but that's for another debate.

Or the example about the use of the word "faggot". Why should only gay men be allowed to debate on whether or not the use of the word is okay? Plenty of straight men use the word, they should be allowed to argue their side (regardless of the moral views involved) since ultimately the debate does affect them.

Censoring debates is really just a method used by self-centred people to monopolise control over an issue.

twocows said:

Yes, because it's a matter of relevance to more than just homosexuals. The... hypothesis that "straight men don't understand what it's like to have that word used against them," if true (and I would contest that), doesn't mean we aren't affected by discussion about whether it's tolerable to use it or not, nor does it mean our opinions on the matter are unimportant. It's a word that homosexuals and non-homosexuals alike use and the discussion about whether that's something that should be tolerable or not is of relevance to everyone.

Everyone has a right to participate in debate, and in fact everyone should participate in debate if they think they have some insight or argument worth making, especially if they have any stake in the discussion whatsoever. The purpose of expert opinion is to offer specific insight about specific parts of the discussion; it doesn't mean that those without experience or expertise have nothing worthwhile to say. The only time this isn't the case is when there are time constraints to consider, such as a legislative body debating whether to pass a new law or not. In that case, you prioritize stakeholder testimony and expert testimony because those two groups will have the most of interest to say about the topic.

Click to expand...

The faggot thing was just an example but the point is that straight people don't get to decide what's offensive to gay people. It just doesn't work that way. Of course you can have valid points that are worth discussing and blah blah, but it's just poor taste for a straight person to try and talk about whether or not something is offensive to a community that they're not a part of. I

I'm not saying that people don't have the right to debate or trying to impose some strict rules or anything. All I'm saying is that it's not always someone's place to comment on certain issues and that people should take a step back and ask themselves if their opinion is informed and relevant. Everyone has the right to debate and share their opinion, but that doesn't mean that they should.

gimmepie said:

Or the example about the use of the word "faggot". Why should only gay men be allowed to debate on whether or not the use of the word is okay? Plenty of straight men use the word, they should be allowed to argue their side (regardless of the moral views involved) since ultimately the debate does affect them.

Click to expand...

Lol the point is that straight men shouldn't be using the word.