Freedom of expression, Wyoming style

[kallend 2,182]

trib.com/business/energy/emails-university-of-wyoming-officials-sped-up-touted-removal-of/article_4f9332ee-d83c-5d58-a38b-19e913ba739d.html

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/10/carbon_sink_sculpture_at_university_of_wyoming_mining_and_energy_donors.html?google_editors_picks=true

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CarpeDiem3 0]

So if someone erects religious symbols like a cross in a place where others object to it, then no one should be allowed to make them remove it? Doesn't freedom of expression require tolerance from BOTH sides of things they don't agree with? Do you defend the display of religious symbols on public property?

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Not any better up here.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/31/free-speech-at-canadian-universities-abysmal-report-says/

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Quote

Do you defend the display of religious symbols on public property?

There is this little thing called the Constitution that might have something to say about that.

Quote

Doesn't freedom of expression require tolerance from BOTH sides of things they don't agree with?

REQUIRE tolerance? No. No-one has a constitutional right to not be offended. Generally speaking, if you want to get a point across you might want to avoid deliberately alienating your intended audience, but then again some people find any point of view contrary to their own to be offensive. Tolerance is required if you hope to have a dialogue, but dialogue might lead to "compromise" or "flip-flopping" and so is out of fashion in America these days. Screaming, ideally accompanied by lots of flying spittle, is the preferred mode of "communication".

BTW I think someone would have to be very thin skinned to have found that sculpture offensive.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you defend the display of religious symbols on public property?

There is this little thing called the Constitution that might have something to say about that.

Well, if a piece of political art is allowed on a college campus, then why shouldn't a piece of religious art also be allowed? If the constitution is going to ban one, then it should ban both, or neither. But to selectively ban one type of religious/political speech but not others is contrary to free speech - it's discriminatory. That's in the constitution too.

Quote

REQUIRE tolerance? No. No-one has a constitutional right to not be offended.

Right. In fact, free speech pretty much ensures that everyone will be offended at some time by something. So if you want your anti-coal anti-carbon pro-environment sculpture to be in a public place, then you should also respect the rights of others to also post their own political sculptures, like crosses, in public places.

[headoverheels 334]

What makes you think that this was some kind of political art? Looks like plants/trees becoming coal then coming back around to be used as fuel (as it was).

[CarpeDiem3 0]

Quote

What makes you think that this was some kind of political art? Looks like plants/trees becoming coal then coming back around to be used as fuel (as it was).

However innocent it may have started out, it became political. And since coal and oil companies are huge contributors to the university, and were threatening to stop their donations, it also became about money. So the university is pulling the temporary art piece out earlier then planned, in order to end the controversy, and preserve their funding. The dollars needed for education are more important than standing their ground on a controversial piece of art. I think that's a lot more justtified than standing up for the art piece and having to explain to the public why a bunch of scholarships are being cancelled and kids will no longer get a college education.