Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

NYU Prof Favors Censoring ‘Harmful’ Speech, Inappropriate Behavior on Social Media

NYU Prof Favors Censoring ‘Harmful’ Speech, Inappropriate Behavior on Social Media

“says hate speech and inappropriate behavior should be censored on social media”

How can someone who works in education think in this way?

Campus Reform reports:

New York University professor calls for censoring ‘harmful’ speech

New York University (NYU) professor Gabrielle Gambrell recently told Dr. Phil, a program that focuses “on mental health issues,” that “there should be censorship” of speech that is “harmful.”

The host, Dr. Phil McGraw, introduced Gambrell as someone who “says hate speech and inappropriate behavior should be censored on social media.”

Gambrell added that she is “extremely in favor of the First Amendment,” which allows even the most objectionable speech, such as hate speech, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Zachary Greenberg, a Senior Program Officer with FIRE, told Campus Reform, “Hateful, offensive, and distasteful speech remains fully protected by the First Amendment. There is no legally-recognized category of ‘hate speech’ in the United States, and international and academic definitions contain extremely vague terms that vary widely.”

“Offensiveness—like beauty—is in the eye of the beholder, which is why the First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing hateful expression,” he continued.

When students and university administrators invoke words such as “harm” or “hate,” as Campus Reform has reported, they often do so in an attempt to censor political opinions.

At Central Connecticut State University, students demanded that the Turning Point USA (TPUSA) chapter be “monitored for disinformation” for planning a screening of Matt Walsh’s What is a Woman? documentary.

Over 100 students signed an email that read, “This film is designed to cause harm to transgender people by promoting blatantly false information to reinforce a ‘grooming’ narrative, invalidate and denigrate the identities of transgender people, and to inspire hatred towards transgender people from viewers who may not be aware that the information they are receiving is both false and purposefully harmful.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I say that calling for censorship of “inappropriate behavior” is harmful because it makes people anxious about whether or not they are allowed to say what they want to say. This means that free speech only belongs to the least responsible members of society, the ones who don’t care about the consequences.

By his own logic, the professor’s arguments must be censored.

If you apply to NYU , and you are offered admission, these are some helpful suggestions:

1. Do not enroll.

2. Take a year or more “gap” in order to mature a bit

3. Consider getting a job. I know, crazy right? Well for hundreds even thousands of years that’s what post-pubescents have usually done

4. Don’t get sh*traced every weekend

5. If you’re female don’t get sh*traced and have sex with strangers. I know, again, crazy right

6. Learn a language. Spend time immersed where that language is spoken natively. While you’re there , find out what the average folks will hunk about America and Americans

Go from there.

You’re welcome.

I suppose it hasn’t occurred to Gambrell that, well within living memory, people like her would have been censored by southern segregationist governments for “harmful speech.”

Has she written any books?
Demand they be removed from Amazon for making you feel threatened.

She’s really super in favor of the first amendment, like almost all of it!

The problem is Gambrell doesn’t define who or what gets to define what constitutes hate speech or inappropriate conduct.

If I say something she finds offensive is it offensive? What if she says something I find offensive? Whose rights or interpretation supplants the other or if it’s some third party source, what the basis?

Loosely speaking the ‘7 dirty words’ are unfit for use in any civilised society, but there are many many more that are context specific. Do you want to buy crackers? Not an issue. He’s a stupid Cracker. Racist and unacceptable defamation with the slavery connection.