Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 169 posts

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#41

Post by moronicQ »

uoaei wrote: post #36
viscanti wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears the argument is that was included for a good reason for criminal cases and shows a precedent for it. The argument isn't that civil cases are currently covered, but that they should be.

Are these accusations being made to civil courts, or just in the public sphere? It doesn't sound like it's the former, so the 6th Amendment doesn't apply. If we want to play the textualist game, there's nothing in the 1st Amendment about free speech only for people who identify themselves unambiguously. The 1st Amendment applies to anonymous speech, too (especially).

[dead]

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#42

Post by freejazz »

viscanti wrote: post #18
dragonwriter wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In all criminal prosecutions, ...not in non-criminal government actions, or in private contexts.

It appears the argument is that was included for a good reason for criminal cases and shows a precedent for it. The argument isn't that civil cases are currently covered, but that they should be.

Under the 6th amd? That's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the constitution is, which is a document addressing the powers the gov't is entitled over its citizens, it has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law has had its own standards for as long as either of them have existed. Civil law always has a lower standard than criminal law does. Maybe a better avenue, rather than wielding your obtuse misunderstanding of civics, is to make an affirmative argument as to why civil law should adopt a similar standard to the 6th amd (despite never having done so since around the year ~1000).

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#44

Post by freejazz »

tengbretson wrote: post #38
freejazz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Key word: criminal prosecutions

"It's a private institution - They can quarter soldiers wherever they want."

I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#45

Post by pas »

my_usernam3 wrote: post #29

> Senior Christian Sanchez, executive vice president of the Associated Students of Stanford University, the student-government group, said the system is necessary and important. Mr. Sanchez, who describes himself as Chicano, said he has bristled in the past when another student has addressed him as “G,” short for gangster. Is he implying this is a reportable offense? I've never heard "G" used in a derogatory sense, r…

how are dialect and speech mannerisms not protected parts of one's identity? :)

but of course if someone consequently ignores others' request to call them by their name instead of various nicknames that might be where said identity has to adapt to be able to integrate into the group.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#46

Post by erosenbe0 »

cld8483 wrote: post #35
blindriver wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. I think at some point anonymity needs to be lifted regardless, maybe if the case is strong enough, or if the accusation appears to be fraudulent or in bad faith.

Not permitting the accused to know what they are being accused of is always done in bad faith. If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is, so hiding the accuser does nothing. Hiding the accuser is only ""useful"" when the accused is actually innocent. The entire point of hiding the accuser is to deny the wrongfully accused of the opportunity to defend th…

Mostly true. Though certain property crimes or conduct violations such as vandalism, ripping down flags, graffiti, and the like might just have the institution itself as the complainant.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#47

Post by viscanti »

freejazz wrote: post #42
viscanti wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It appears the argument is that was included for a good reason for criminal cases and shows a precedent for it. The argument isn't that civil cases are currently covered, but that they should be.

Under the 6th amd? That's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what the constitution is, which is a document addressing the powers the gov't is entitled over its citizens, it has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law has had its own standards for as long as either of them have existed. Civil law always has a lower standard than criminal law does. Maybe a better avenue, rather than wielding your obtuse misunders…

No. The argument isn't that the 6th amendment applies. It's that the rationale made sense for criminal cases, and because it makes sense there, it should be included by others (say an HR department coming up with a policy on how to do something with anonymous reports).

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#48

Post by WalterBright »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #39
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

Yes, exactly. And I understand that you are not suggesting that Stanford is violating the 6th amendment, since this is not a criminal prosecution. What you're saying is that Stanford should adopt the same line of reasoning embodied in the 6th amendment, to the extent that being accused in this fashion is a very high cost, and that the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading…

Yes, exactly.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#49

Post by db48x »

freejazz wrote: post #44
tengbretson wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's a private institution - They can quarter soldiers wherever they want."

I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.

The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission.

This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped out in your living room. I understand that China is fond of it as well.

Post reply on HN