The repeated portrayal of Planned Parenthood as a killer and
purveyor of fetal parts may have pushed a sick man to murder people in
Colorado Springs. The LaQuan McDonald protests were peaceful, symbolic and an
excellent example of voicing collective anger. Now comes word that a University
of Illinois-Chicago student posted an online threat to shoot and kill 16 white
students at the University of Chicago. He said: “"This is my only warning.
At 10AM Monday morning, I'm going to the campus quad of the University of
Chicago. I will be armed with an M-4 carbine and two desert eagles, all fully
loaded. I will execute approximately 16 white male students and or staff, which
is the same number of time McDonald was killed." His online post was specific and indicative of intent to kill-- though he might say, later, it was meant as symbolic expression. The heated rhetoric on campuses today (and politics, more generally) show some tendency for inciting forms of speech to have dangerous consequences. My Notre Dame Law Review
article (see here) concluded: “My research shows that when a university makes a reasonable
prediction that students or faculty would feel intimidated by personally
abusive or demeaning speech, courts support actions that promote a campus
climate of tolerance."
1 comment:
I feel a little bit like we are using double-speak when restricting free speech "promote[s] a campus climate of tolerance." I think the argument could be made that restricting forms of speech creates a safer environment, enhances the sense of community, and other such objectives; but it used to be that promoting tolerance meant promoting diversity and what greater diversity can there be than the diversity of ideas, no mater how much we may disagree (or be offended by them)? It seems we are less tolerant (rightly or wrongly) of ideas, not more.
Post a Comment