Speech is mot violence

Remember the old saying?
Sticks and stones etc? Words can hurt, but not in a physical sense.Violence is an action after all.Incitement to violent action would be linked to the actual action.
We had a thread about the snowflake generation last year on GN, it was.......interesting!

This is something I've been worried about for a while. Having read reports of universties becoming places of intolerance, instead of open to any and all opinions as they used to be.
Not only universties, but parliament, social media, etc.
As Day 6 says, the Thought Police are out. Back to George Orwell's 1984.
There's a theory that political and social trends tend to swing between liberal and autoritarian - maybe that's what's happening now. After the liberalism of the '60s onwards we're going back to a more rigid regime. But so narrow, and stupid. imo.

I think a silent protest would have been more appropriate and maybe more effective, unfortunately the less some people have to say that’s worth listening to, the louder they shout.

Speech is not violent but incitement to hate or violence in a speech is. Hecklers are tiresome, but certainly allowed; political censorship is not. Being offended by what someone says is no reason to insist that they should not be allowed to say it (unless it involves incitement as above).

That is an interesting article Baggs.

Well, the idea that words and arguments constitute violence is gaining currency.

I wonder if the advent of online discussion is to blame? I am appalled that some discussions (in my experience, and in the Guardian particularly) are completely shut down by savage posters who object to another point of view. Some resort to the most vile insults if others express an opinion which differs from theirs. That this is now happening in Universities across the UK - certain people with views students don't share - will not be invited to speak is worrying. It is a form of extremely dangerous and biased censorship.

In a statement about my Lewis & Clark talk, protesters said that while free speech is an important tenet, freedom stops, they said, when it has violent impact on another individual. There will be no debate here. Well, there was no debate. It wasn't allowed

So only one view (theirs) is acceptable? Frightening. The Thought Police have power.

mot not