Improving MIT’s written commitment to freedom of expression
We have reached a point where it has been a mainstream position to view the idea of defending free speech as disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.
This statement is so weak that it is necessary to consider this climate to even understand how this can be published as a statement.<p>After explicitly saying that illegal speech is not free speech, it lists 6 exceptions for things that are not free speech either, including speech "that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the Institute". Which is even written twice, while being clearly a catch-all. And it mentions "In addition, MIT may reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression to ensure that it does not disrupt the ordinary activities of the Institute." Why not have "free speech safe spaces", which would be small individual-sized sound-proof rooms where you are allowed to say what you think? If you also pad the walls, you could find many uses for these rooms.<p>With principles so weakly held, why have principles at all?