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

81–90 of 169 posts

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

#81

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #73
freejazz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that beca…

> trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because i…

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions.

This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government, and thus, the only relevant subject of the limitations outlined in those amendments is also the US government.

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

#82

Post by kneebonian »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #72
cld8483 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If the accused were guilty, then they'd already know who the victim is and already know who the accuser is That’s only true if the accused knows the potential accusers and there is a small enough number of potential accusers that it could be reasonably narrowed down.

Then maybe I go a step farther if the violation I commit is so innocuous as to be incapable of identifying a pool of possible victims of this violation; unless the victim themselves self selects to report that they were harmed by the violation. Doesn't that indicate that maybe I didn't actually do anything that bad?

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

#83

Post by lettergram »

yodon wrote: post #16
blindriver wrote: post #6

This should all be looked upon through the lens of power structures. If you're talking about an a student launching a complaint against another student, it should be non-anonymous because they are at the same power level. If you're talking about a complaint against a faculty member or the school itself, or the government, anonymity should be allowed. In this case, anonymity should be removed when it's a student compl…

When an anonymous accusation has the potential to be career ending for the accused, the simplistic assessment of relative power between parties ceases to be correct. This is why the constitution (which doesn't apply here but was very thoughtfully designed) requires that defendants be given the right to face their accusers. Valid accusations and false accusations happen in all forms of law. There are commonly power or…

> which doesn't apply here but was very thoughtfully designed

There are many people (and quite a bit of case law) who believe the constitution governs everyone in every situation. If it’s for the people and by the people, then it’s to protect “the people” from government (which is “the people”). This includes private entities. Particularly, private entities receiving public funds (which Stanford is).

Anyway, in this particular case, free speech laws pretty much dictate you can’t seek reprisal for what people read.

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

#84

Post by stale2002 »

chowchowchow wrote: post #81
stale2002 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because i…

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other…

> The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers

You have misunderstood my post.

I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it"

This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it.

Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not.

> even if there were no 3rd amendment.

But my point, is that regardless if the 3rd amendment exists, it is bad for either the government, or a private company to do this.

> Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions.

I didn't say that the 3rd amendment has to mention other organizations. Instead, I am saying that no matter what the 3rd amendment applies to, or does not apply to, it is still bad if a private company, which is not the government, to put soldiers in your home, without your permission.

Now, to get to the argument here, the reason why this is being pointed out, that it is bad if a private company does this, is that the same logic could be applied to other things in the constitution.

That it is still bad if a private company does it, and also people saying "Well its OK because a private company is doing it" are making a dumb argument.

> This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government

Wrong. Due process is still important, even for private companies.

Because due process is a valuable principle that could apply to non criminal punishment.

Yes, people care about non-criminal punishment being fair as well.

Just like how private companies putting soldiers in your home, without your permission, would be bad, even if it were legal, and its not the government doing it.

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

#85

Post by freejazz »

stale2002 wrote: post #73
freejazz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that beca…

> trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because i…

>So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it?

It's literally trespassing - there is a law against, it need not be a constitutional amendment. Your point actually runs completely against your argument.

>Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument?

I'm going to be perfectly honest with you and tell you that you think you are discussing something that is interesting, but you aren't. You don't realize this because you are really confused.

>It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it.

Yeah but they misunderstand what the constitution is and does. We have laws against all sorts of conduct and do not require constitutional amendments as exemplars of the laws- so what's the point? That private individuals should have trials over everything that can be in dispute? have you even thought that through at all?

>That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.

No it doesn't, it only reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how US law works and what the constitution is and does.

The constitution isn't a list of bad things, its a document that describes the gov't's powers and the limitations thereof. I think you are really confused. Trespass law has LONG preceded the constitution, so to whatever point you are making that "trespass is bad", that's like a pretty big NO DUH. The constitution doesn't take us any further in that understanding, I guess unless you are really and needed the third amendment as an example of a trespass? still really struggling to understand the fundamental brilliance of this argument...

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

#86

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #84
chowchowchow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other…

> The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > ev…

what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything if we're just agreeing it's bad for private companies to do it? Like, the 3rd amendment specifically exists to specify it's _also_ "bad" (and illegal) for the government to do something you wouldn't let anyone else do.

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

#87

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #84
chowchowchow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other…

> The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > ev…

Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

afraid_to_speak wrote: post #4
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…

Isn't this is the actual issue? HR doesn't have to be upheld to the sixth amendment. If someone makes a complaint about me at work, I don't exactly have the right to know my accuser. The issue is that the people that now make up these corporations and various education administrations don't care about these protections people are granted when dealing with the federal government. Maybe they should be? That would be an…

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by stale2002 »

chowchowchow wrote: post #87
stale2002 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > ev…

Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.

> to say that since the constitution

I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable.

Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution.

And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution.

And that therefore, people saying "well, its a private company doing it, therefore its OK" are wrong.

They are wrong, because these ideas "are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. "

The causation is reversed. We put them in the constitution, because they matter. Therefore, because these things matter, they matter outside of just the government.

> Due process is a valuable principle yes

Ok, you agree with me completely then, got it.

> what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything

Because it is an example of something that matters, that thing being "don't put soldiers in my home, without my permission"

And this thing matters, both in the case of a private company, and the government doing it, even though the amendment only applies to the government.

It shows an example of this reverse causation. Where yes, the amendment only applies to the government. But the underlying principle also matters.

Therefore "Lol, its a private company" is a dumb argument.

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

#90

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #89
chowchowchow wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due process is a valuable principle yes -- but it is a gap in your argument to say that since the constitution specifies citizens' rights to it under the most exigent circumstance, namely, when facing criminal penalty by the government, that it follows it needs to be applied and provided with the same universality and standards (beyond a reasonable doubt) in non-criminal contexts.

> to say that since the constitution I am not saying that because it is in the constitution, it is valuable. Instead, I am saying that the principle is valuable, and that this is why we put it in the constitution. And that this idea of "don't put soldiers in my home without my permission", and "due process", and "free speech" are things that matter, regardless of the constitution. And that therefore, people saying "w…

Your argument demonstrates absolutely no awareness of context and how a principle can be more important, or one might even say urgent to the point of needing to be spelled out in the constitution, in some contexts than others.
Post reply on HN