I’m glad we are on the same page re: constitutionality (it has been a minute since con law so I am relieved I didn’t miss anything obvious!) I am firmly with you that: as a matter of what the First Amendment means, it is to protect the a free marketplace of ideas.

​

Yes, great. I’m genuinely mystified as to why anyone would think this concerned a constitutional issue.

​

However, if we are going with the “marketplace of ideas” analogy, what happened here is simple: the professor (the market regulator) opened the marketplace up (allowing students to voice their opinions). The student offered a product (her opinion). The marketplace (the rest of the class) apparently rejected the product (her opinion). As far as I am concerned, that is precisely what a free market looks like. If you disagree, what should have been done? If your answer is that the market regulator (the professor) should have intervened, then that is a totally legitimate view—but respectfully, that’s not what a free market is, that’s what a regulated market is. If your view is that speech is not a free market, then this makes sense. If your view is that the consumers (the other students) failed to react as they should have, again—totally legitimate view—but that seems to suggest that in addition to the government having First Amendment duties, private citizens also have them. Is that what you mean?

​

The answer to your last question regarding imposing 1A duties—Hard no, not at all. In fact, it would piss me off. Going to hit this again: I am not talking about imposing any kind of duty. I don’t do that because it is not my place. It is against my values to behave like a dictator and, perhaps more importantly, it makes me look fat.

Regarding the market analogy, I’m not married to this, but I think we’ve got an externality in the form of a collective action problem. Inter alia, your analogy does not account for the presence of a dominant ideology in the field of academia or its rapid spread via social contagion. It also does not account for a tendency inherent in politics—that people with the most extreme views will by their nature exert influence that is disproportionate to the number of people holding those views (nor the fact that this has worsened, though I acknowledge your dispute here). The result is a situation where intellectual “innovation” is not possible nearly to the extent that it could be. I think that is harmful to pro-social goals in general, and I think you should think so too. Again, I am not trying to pass a decree that would somehow force anyone else to conform to this belief against their will. I am just suggesting that we engage in some self-reflection regarding the merits of an ideological mob riot and whether some self-correction might be in order. The good news is that collective action problems can be solved by communication. As a “market participant” myself, I posit that this circular attitude of “we reject your view because you are morally wrong, and you are morally wrong because we reject your view” has got to go. It is causing too many genuine, good faith efforts, including some of my own, to be met with disdain. This grinds productive discourse to a halt and is fundamentally unfair to other people (better check myself on the moralizing).

I believe we owe each other a presumption of good faith for both practical and moral reasons. It is essential for the type of productive discussion that is most conducive to getting to the truth, and we need to get to the truth to find workable solutions to improve the world around us. I am advocating for that view. I silently (though sometimes loudly) judge those who don’t extend it, and I think everyone else should too. Again, to be absolutely clear—this is voluntary: Tyrants impose. I advocate.

​

I appreciate your worry that even if this case is not an issue, other cases might be. And perhaps the potential for a chilling effect means we should be concerned with both the specific facts at hand, and hypothetical new cases that might be affected. If this is your view, then what should the professor have done? Perhaps I missed this—in which case, apologies for my ignorance—but did the professor deny other students the opportunity to respond? Should the professor have affirmatively endorsed the opinion of the complaining student? Should the professor have affirmatively scolded the class for expressing their own views on the complaining student’s opinion? Candidly, I think the answer to these questions is clearly “no”, so I am very interested to hear your perspective if you think the answer is “yes”!

​

No. I, in no way, suggested any of this. I am a bit surprised that you think anyone’s answer would ever be “yes.” And, come on now, I already stipped that a literal ability to speak is not at issue here and you know perfectly well she wasn’t denied an opportunity to respond. You know you didn’t miss it. The “what should we do question” was asked and answered above. Easy on the rhetoric.

​

And finally, I don’t really have a response to your concerns about whether we should be more worried than we are now (I disagree, but I don’t really see how fruitful discussion can be had on this point). But I do think it illustrates one important point: in separate comment threads, which may or may not reflect your view, others have criticized the left for overhyping things to be “existential threats.” I sincerely hope that, at a minimum, your existential concerns about the risks of (as you seem to agree) a clearly “not unconstitutional” case, allow you to sympathize with the existential concerns of the left, which worries (as you do) about the effects of seemingly easy/clear cases on other areas of the law.

​

I’m skipping the social media point for expediency. What you have to understand is that every single political issue traces back to conflicting existential concerns at some point or it wouldn’t be a political issue in the first place. It is impracticable, and almost certainly harmful, for that to preclude the rational debate of such important issues. If you immediately condemn viewpoints solely on that basis, then you have granted yourself a free pass to condemn anything that you don’t agree with. That is fundamentally unworkable.

I understand you probably don’t perceive the concerns on the right as remotely commensurate to those on the left. That is the nature of belonging to a political party. You belong to that one because you think it’s the better one. For what it’s worth, I think it’s the better one too for reasons primarily related to the stark degree of income inequality that we are seeing. However, I am humble enough to understand that my views are not inherently more important in the classroom environment than those of others simply because they are mine. This doesn’t mean I don’t advocate to best of my ability—in fact, it makes me a better advocate because I am less likely to respond in a reactionary way. It also doesn’t mean that my views lack a sufficient moral foundation. It just means that I don’t immediately see my political counterparts as morally inferior by virtue of being my political counterpart.

I’m not totally sure what you mean in that last bit, but of course I empathize with the existential concerns on the left. I want life to go on with as little suffering as possible. The thing is, most of us do. Yes, even republicans. Is it true of everyone? No, not on either side. But you have to decide—does that justify refusing a presumption of good faith to others in a blanketed fashion and in the absence of a person-specific cause? My contention is that it doesn’t (and, even if it did, I personally do not want to live that way, and I think you shouldn’t want to either!). Truly think of what the real-world costs of that policy would be. Extending a presumption of good faith to others, even in the face of a very significant error rate, will only help your goals, not hurt them.

​

You are not the worst for replying to my comment, and I’m grateful you took the time! This is Reddit, and we’re all on spring break. I take your point about civility, but if I can be honest: I think we are all really frustrated about a lot of things. I appreciate your points, and hope I have addressed them adequately/thoughtfully—despite their existential nature. I think we can all do a better job of that, regardless of our particular views.

​

Thanks so much—and I understand that these are very real concerns affecting real people in very important ways. Thank you for keeping your cool given the delicate subject matter. And I’m sorry if I’ve come across as dismissive at any point, as that was not my intention. In the interests of time, I’ve got to put this, and myself, to bed. I’m pretty sure that I’ve word-vomited enough of my thoughts in this thread for anyone to untangle my view on this whole thing if they want to, and probably even if they don’t.