Kelly Barber stands out as a leader at the University of Florida (UF) and has been actively involved with FIRE, most recently attending FIRE’s Leaders in Student Rights Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana. Kelly, now a member of Students For Liberty’s North American Executive Board, says she experienced the undeniable benefits of free and open debate when she began attending College Libertarian meetings, where she was “blown away by the environment of integrity, critical thinking, and tolerance they created” that allowed students “to exchange ideas on a level much higher than anything I ever experienced in classes.”...For the record, the real problem with the University of Florida is not its policy on "body positivity" or sexually graphic sounds, but the fact that it is a government school supported by taxpayer funds. That's what needs to be ended. A libertarian position would be to sell the campus and buildings to the highest bidder and divide the proceeds amongst the citizens of Florida.
UF currently has a “yellow light” rating in FIRE’s Spotlight database, so Kelly and the UF College Libertarians are hard at work, determined to make UF the first “green light” school in the state of Florida.
The FIRE Student Network’s Student Spotlight celebrates Kelly and the UF College Libertarians for all they do on campus to promote free speech and student rights. As always, FIRE stands by ready to help student groups from across the ideological spectrum advocate on behalf of civil liberties and free speech on their campuses...
Libertarianism, qua libertariansim, has no position on "body positivity," "sex positivity," sexually graphic sounds or sex education. Each private school (as well as any other private organization) should be free to set their own policies with regard to these subjects. If Barber wants to go to a private school that has a sexually graphic sounds policy more to her liking, she should do so, but this has nothing to do with libertarianism. The non-aggression principl, calls for allowing people to do whatever they choose to do on their own property and ban any activities they choose to ban on their own property, as long as their is no aggression, there is nothing else to it.
But, hey, there is no reason a person can't advocate from their own property that institutions should change their policies on various topics. That works in a libertarian society. Indeed, to make my point clear on this, while I don't personally spend a lot of time thinking about sexually graphic sound policies, I thinks it is nuts, I have no objections to others that do, though, as I say, it has nothing to do with libertarianism. For example, I get the sense that Barber would not be pleased with the body positivity and sexually graphic sounds policies of Koch Industries to the extent they exist at all, and I would have no problem in her calling, from her own property, that Koch Industries implement a more detailed sexually graphic sounds policy.