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

91–100 of 169 posts

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

#91

Post by stale2002 »

chowchowchow wrote: post #90
stale2002 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Edit:

:( Bad faith arguments make me sad

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

#92

Post by imgabe »

> 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. He has let it roll off his back, he said, but less thick-skinned students should have a path for redress.

Maybe less thick-skinned students should just develop thicker skins.

Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous accusations are a bad idea.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

chowchowchow wrote: post #90
stale2002 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by prepend »

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…

It’s illegal for Stanford to slander you by saying you are a Nazi for reading Mein Kampf due to anonymous accusations. Yet they do that. And it’s bad that Stanford does that, regardless of whether they are tried for slander.

Similarly, it’s true that if McDonalds forced you to quarter their private security forces it would be tresspassing (at least). And it’s bad whether or not they are charged with trespassing.

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

#95

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #91
chowchowchow wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Edit: :( Bad faith arguments make me sad

So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.

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

#96

Post by stale2002 »

chowchowchow wrote: post #95
stale2002 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edit: :( Bad faith arguments make me sad

So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.

Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith.

I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.

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

#97

Post by prepend »

anigbrowl wrote: post #64
WalterBright wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All three said they wouldn’t discuss their views publicly on campus for fear of being reported to the school’s bias-response team for harassing students who disagree with them." Anonymous complaints are ok and are important to allow. Providing an official method for "name and shame" based on anonymous complaints are not. Having a "bias-response team" come after you based on anonymous complaints is not acceptable.

But police operate anonymous tiplines and investigate separately. Some people reporting crimes have a fear of retaliation, and sometimes that retaliation might even be rooted in corruption within the police force. The Supreme Court has ruled (as recently as 2014) that anonymity of report is not a barrier to an investigative stop by police, if the report includes sufficient detail to seem credible (Navarette v. Califo…

Anonymous tips cannot be used as evidence at trial.

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

stale2002 wrote: post #96
chowchowchow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.

Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith. I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by prepend »

imgabe wrote: post #92

> 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. He has let it roll off his back, he said, but less thick-skinned students should have a path for redress. Maybe less thick-skinned students should just develop thicker skins. Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous…

> Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous accusations are a bad idea.

I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. Since it’s anonymous I would expect 4chan to flood all these stupid policies.

Maybe they selectively review and pursue.

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

#100

Post by msla »

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…

The best way to get those protections is from a union, which I acknowledge different people hate for different reasons, but any competent union will give its membership effective due process rights by turning at-will employment into employment governed by a bargaining agreement. The power of these "mere accusation" campaigns rests on the ability of the employer to fire based on a mere accusation, which goes away if there's a bargaining agreement in place which mandates actual hearings.
Post reply on HN