If she happens to offend her peers, who are we to stop the university from expelling her, correct?
One more reason why we need a real *culture* of free speech—and why many cases should worry us even if they don't violate the First Amendment .
(Since this student goes to a state university, her case technically does fall under the First Amendment.
But if an influential private institution like Harvard University threw her out over these social media posts, I would find that similarly objectionable.)
Also, yet another reminder: Anyone who thinks that these irrational reprisals will always hit "the right people" is deeply naive.
If you spend a lot of time among highly political people, it's tempting to think that, say, ~60% of the country is liberal or progressive, and ~40% moderate or conservative.
Now, there are some things small groups can push through even though much of the population opposes it.
But I think that a lot of people currently overestimate how much the very small group of true progressives can accomplish against the will of the majority over the long run.
And, no, moderates are not a cohesive political group that are united in their love of Joe Biden or Mitt Romney.
But, no, the vast majority of them aren't secret progressives who love AOC either.
As many people believe QAnon is "at least somewhat" accurate today as believed that the moon landing was fake in 1999.
The lesson of QAnon is not that Americans have grown more willing to believe crazy stuff. It's that 6 percent have *always* been willing to believe crazy stuff.
As Gallup wrote in 1999:
"Taken literally, 6% translates into millions of individuals. [But] it is not unusual to find that many people in the typical poll agree with almost any question... The best interpretation is that this particular conspiracy theory is not widespread."
"33% believe there’s a government conspiracy to cover up the truth about the North Dakota crash. There was no unusual crash in North Dakota. Researchers included it as a placebo to see if people would endorse a conspiracy theory that didn’t exist. 33% did"slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/bus…
A Pakistani-American doctor was fired *and is being prosecuted* because he gave an opened vaccine to anyone he could find rather than letting it go to waste.
Apparently, it would have been more "equitable" to throw the vaccine out.
Amazing how many people have gone from "allowing internet providers to transmit video content at higher speed than other kind of content would be the end of the internet" to "just let the tech companies de-platform whatever they happen to dislike lol" in less than five years.
(And as with most large-scale political shifts that involve people switching their positions but not which side they are on, I bet that most people of whom this is true are genuinely unaware that they used to believe something diametrically opposed to their current position.)
Yes, there are differences between ISPs and social networks. But:
1) The main argument for net neutrality was that any commercial entity prioritize some form of content would impede speech.
2) Social networks, when acting in concert, are functionally very similar to a monopoly.
No, GameStop isn't an effective action against big finance carried out by the ideological descendants of Occupy Wall Street. Duh.
But, yes, GameStop was fueled by rage at big finance and the days when some hedge funds bled did feel very satisfying for that reason. Duh.
Hey, this kid in school just stuck his middle finger out at a teacher the whole class hates. Was this an effective rebellion against the pedagogical system?
No, duh. And if he's a little smart, he knew he'd pay for it in the end. But I bet it felt pretty damn good anyway...
It was deeply irresponsible for some people to pretend that Reddit was about to strike a deadly blow against capitalism (and encourage their followers to buy overvalued stock).
But it's obtuse not to see why so many people found deep satisfaction in this saga.