Free Speech: Let's do this properly

EV

cake
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I can't speak for Chou but in my opinion the issue is intent. It's certainly within google's right to fire the man for writing the memo. The question is, should they?

It's within chick-fil-a's rights to fund anti-gay advertisements and lobbies. Should they?

It's within reddit and facebook's rights to filter right-wing news from users. Should they?

It's within students to protest against their professor and call him a racist. Should they? I see the original article as an example of misguided anger. The professor is just as left-leaning as the protesters, but they were quick to label him as the enemy. Is that healthy for free speech in America? Say one thing that a group of people disagree with and you're instantly the bad guy?
Chou wants to protect "ABSOLUTE free speech" so I was operating with that in mind.

And at any rate, how does "ABSOLUTE free speech" work with an employee/employer? Does the employee's ABSOLUTE free speech trump the employer's ABSOLUTE free speech? Should the employee not be fired if his/her ABSOLUTE free speech endangers the employer's bottom line?

What is ABSOLUTE free speech?

-
Edit: for example,

Employee Dudebro criticizes his Employer's policy on diversity. Fellow employees no longer want to work with him. Employer cans him for "promoting gender stereotypes" (at an inconvenient time considering the US Gov was already accusing Google for discriminatory hiring practices towards women) (basically they don't want the bad press). Whose ABSOLUTE free speech should win?

Another:

Platinum Blonde Firebrand hosts conservative blabbermouth show (I forget the name) where she calls everyone a snowflake for not liking being beat up for being gay or something idk. She goes onto rival snowflake all-women blabbermouth show and comes out in favor of a woman's right to choose (to have an abortion). Her employer (popular ultrameme conservative conspiracy theorist) fires her for her beliefs, which undermine the conservative ideals of his company. Whose ABSOLUTE free speech should win?
 
Last edited:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
My impression is that ABSOLUTE free speech is defined as literally being able to say any idea that pops into your head, no matter how controversial. Under this definition, absolute free speech inherently does not exist as a concept under any sort of hierarchical structure, nor SHOULD it exist. This is due to the old adage "your rights end where mine begin." You don't have the right to shout FIRE in a public space without being punished for inciting panic and violence; why then should calls for ethnic cleansing (America's Neo-nazi party) and a pure, ethno-nationalist society by spared as well? If your ideas promote hatred, intolerance, bigotry, panic, fear, etc then they should not hold the same weight in society as just a controversial idea. Race supremacism, largely white supremacism, and neo-nazi ideology is inherently regressive to society and outright counterintuitive to the basic ideas and principles the United States was founded upon. I find it truly shameful that those ALREADY EXPLORED AREAS OF THOUGHT are still given space to preach and influence younger generations. Its truly problematic. Nazism has proven to be destructive to humanity, and is considered one of humanity's darkest periods. Why there are those that argue for people's right to wear swastikas on their sleeve without fear of reprisal, or for KKK members to rally around hotspots of political activism is beyond me.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I can't speak for Chou but in my opinion the issue is intent. It's certainly within google's right to fire the man for writing the memo. The question is, should they?

It's within chick-fil-a's rights to fund anti-gay advertisements and lobbies. Should they?

It's within reddit and facebook's rights to filter right-wing news from users. Should they?

It's within students to protest against their professor and call him a racist. Should they? I see the original article as an example of misguided anger. The professor is just as left-leaning as the protesters, but they were quick to label him as the enemy. Is that healthy for free speech in America? Say one thing that a group of people disagree with and you're instantly the bad guy?
It's within the google employees rights to use company time to write a misogynistic rant about female employees then distribute it over google's mailing list. The question is should he?

It's within the professors rights to send a university wide reply to a request for white students to attend an off campus event for a day rather than go to classes if they want to (emphasis on the fact it was completely voluntary), with "this is ridiculous and the student group is oppressing you". Should he?

Why the double standard?
 
Here's why I think the left is turning on itself...what happens when you spend years fighting for the advancement of society, for the reduction of oppression, and it actually...happens? Do you stop fighting? Or do you keep fighting somebody else? Sort of unrelated but in the 2 years since gay marriage was legalized, I've seen a bunch of articles like these http://www.verygoodlight.com/2017/07/09/gay-white-men/ https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.co...e-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214

Like I said, that's probably just because that's what I want to see, though.
what point are you driving? the 2nd article in particular has drawn a both praise and criticism in a lot of circles based on its articulation. how are intersectional analyses and the gay marriage being legalised (which in and of itself was v liberal and invisibilized a lot of people and exhausted a lot of resources and created a vacuum from in lgbtq activism and was rather misplaced many would argue!!!) related?
 

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Chou wants to protect "ABSOLUTE free speech" so I was operating with that in mind.

And at any rate, how does "ABSOLUTE free speech" work with an employee/employer? Does the employee's ABSOLUTE free speech trump the employer's ABSOLUTE free speech? Should the employee not be fired if his/her ABSOLUTE free speech endangers the employer's bottom line?

What is ABSOLUTE free speech?

-
Edit: for example,

Employee Dudebro criticizes his Employer's policy on diversity. Fellow employees no longer want to work with him. Employer cans him for "promoting gender stereotypes" (at an inconvenient time considering the US Gov was already accusing Google for discriminatory hiring practices towards women) (basically they don't want the bad press). Whose ABSOLUTE free speech should win?

Another:

Platinum Blonde Firebrand hosts conservative blabbermouth show (I forget the name) where she calls everyone a snowflake for not liking being beat up for being gay or something idk. She goes onto rival snowflake all-women blabbermouth show and comes out in favor of a woman's right to choose (to have an abortion). Her employer (popular ultrameme conservative conspiracy theorist) fires her for her beliefs, which undermine the conservative ideals of his company. Whose ABSOLUTE free speech should win?
Good question, I guess. Like I said a month ago last page, I guess the only way to simplify it is to have the company opinion trump the rest.

Soul Fly Good point. My last post is pretty "reaching", I guess. I don't know if the students protesting him are his class, or general activists on the campus. If it was general activists, I personally wouldn't call that a power structure that a professor has over them. Maybe that's just me.

I don't think the professor's 1st amendment rights were violated, nor were the students'. I just don't understand why the first response is to claim the professor should be fired. From what I can tell, he sent this email to the faculty, not the whole university. (https://i.imgur.com/xvPM7sM.jpg). Is this racism? Is this "worth" a protest?



what point are you driving? the 2nd article in particular has drawn a both praise and criticism in a lot of circles based on its articulation. how are intersectional analyses and the gay marriage being legalised (which in and of itself was v liberal and invisibilized a lot of people and exhausted a lot of resources and created a vacuum from in lgbtq activism and was rather misplaced many would argue!!!) related?
My perspective: Chou posted an article on the left attacking itself. I agree. I think that when gay marriage was legalized, the benefactors of this ruling (homosexual people) became a "target" for groups more oppressed, aka the left attacking itself. No relation between gay marriage and intersectional analysis, I just think that these articles have become a lot more common since 2015. Just my opinion as a casual reader of articles such as these.



Who cares if they want him to resign? I want trump to resign? Am I victimizing him? It does matter, messing with the language of victims and perpetrators obfuscates power relations.

well if you have a conspiracy about a regressive left victimizing people and I am showing how that narrative is totally false and obfuscates what is actually taking place on America's college campuses. College students have no power to actually victimize people, but the story that they are generates a paranoia that fits in conveniently with reactionary political aims that ascendent in our current American government.

just read the news dude, read what these people who are making these claims think and you'll see it is illogical in the face of the actual circumstances:

here is what universities are actually doing:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/18/i-did-the-best-i-could-chelsea-manning-hits-back-at-traitor-accusations

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/09/14/full-speaker-list-released-free-speech-week-uc-berkeley/
I don't think there's a conspiracy of college students making people victims. I think that liberals are wasting their time going after this professor rather than engaging in debate with right-wing people. And good to see berkely supporting conservative speakers, but it's bad that milo basically monopolized "free speech" and made it equivalent to "fairly extreme right-wing views". They should be getting leftists 50/50 in there as well if he really wanted to be real. Clearly just a publicity move for his ilk.

read this too, since Im realizing that if I don't post all the news that occurs each week, someone else will brainwash you with nonsense that you aren't critical enough to see through and im p sure this will be one of the silly myths you buy into: that the left isn't good at trade and thus can't get trump supporters.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/upshot/the-minuscule-importance-of-manufacturing-in-far-right-politics.html?_r=0
This is not relevant and the tone is certainly not needed. If you want to talk about trade politics, then do it in its own thread. I don't need you to supply me with news. Don't tell me I'm not critical enough to avoid becoming brainwashed, either.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Chou Toshio can you point to where the professor's 1st amendment rights were violated? Or are you saying that you don't think students should be allowed to protest his statements using their first amendment rights?
You think that being pressured by the school to resign is not a problem?

You think students trying to label him as a hate speaker and damage his reputation for hiring beyond this position isn't a problem?

You think other professors being cowed into staying silent is not a problem?

I don't agree with a hard line stance that only government authorities can take away free speech (though in this case, the university being public is why they were eager to settle and were afraid of the courts). Physically removing avenues of speech and using threat of consequences is a use of force that the state is supposed to have a monopoly on.

The people in tears (literally) over a football player kneeling during the national anthem are hardly the owners of freedom of speech. And that's playing by your (completely incorrect) definition of freedom of speech.
I agree with you-- but I wasn't referring to the facts of how the right behaves, but rather by the perception. Even if they are no better, they are positioning to own it.

You type "free speech" into YouTube-- how much of the content is on right-leaning channels? The forces on a side that try to close dialogue are one facet, but the strength of free speech proponents on that side are another.
 
Last edited:

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
It is not a violation of his first amendment rights in any sense.
The salient point of my post was that the regressive left is dumbing down the public discourse and shooting the progressive movement in the foot-- hurting its long term chances of growing the left/enacting liberal policies.

That doesn't change regardless of the semantics.
 
oh shit, who knew it wasn't the many, many years of progressive movements and groups being demonized and vilified time and time again by the government and media, but actually the bad, regressive leftist's who are ruining everything.

also, tcr the reason people who aren't just flat out nazi sympathizers and support white supremacy are supporting that is because they have this misguided as fuck belief that the "market of ideas" (or whatever other trash they call it) will ensure that debating them will magically manage to stop them and break all support they have. Of course, this ignores entirely that said people don't really care that their ideas don't stand up in a debate at all. Hell, fascist's even enjoy it because it means it waste's people's time and energy that could instead be going towards actually showing what should happen to them (being ostracized entirely from society and beaten back physically).

I mean, i could've also just said it's clueless and disingenuous Liberals (considering they almost never give the same kind of luxury to leftist's), but meh, this should work better
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The salient point of my post was that the regressive left is dumbing down the public discourse and shooting the progressive movement in the foot-- hurting its long term chances of growing the left/enacting liberal policies.

That doesn't change regardless of the semantics.
I was under the impression the salient point of your post was that ABSOLUTE free speech must be protected, and my point was it currently is protected, if your salient point was along the lines of "Political Correctness is ruining America!" I assumed you would have posted in the thread about political correctness (in fact I believe you were the OP of that thread?). In which case I would have responded to that portion of your post. I'm sorry I assumed you were trying to stay on topic, I guess I won't do so in the future.
 

Chou Toshio

Over9000
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I was under the impression the salient point of your post was that ABSOLUTE free speech must be protected, and my point was it currently is protected, if your salient point was along the lines of "Political Correctness is ruining America!" I assumed you would have posted in the thread about political correctness (in fact I believe you were the OP of that thread?). In which case I would have responded to that portion of your post. I'm sorry I assumed you were trying to stay on topic, I guess I won't do so in the future.
Ideologically I would consider myself an absolutist-- but brand and perception are powerful thing, and I think that being concerned about how those sentiments are playing out is an important piece.

I'm not sure if splitting hairs on what thread in a Pokemon forum where all threads are seen by the same people anyway is particularly important when the topics are closely related, and when this thread is essentially Soul Fly framing the issues better than in my OP and without a strict focus on race. I'm actually more surprised that the thread I posted didn't die after this one was.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
I don't think there's a conspiracy of college students making people victims. I think that liberals are wasting their time going after this professor rather than engaging in debate with right-wing people. And good to see berkely supporting conservative speakers, but it's bad that milo basically monopolized "free speech" and made it equivalent to "fairly extreme right-wing views". They should be getting leftists 50/50 in there as well if he really wanted to be real. Clearly just a publicity move for his ilk.

This is not relevant and the tone is certainly not needed. If you want to talk about trade politics, then do it in its own thread. I don't need you to supply me with news. Don't tell me I'm not critical enough to avoid becoming brainwashed, either.
Well, as much fun as it might be to mock 'the left' for its supposed division, and to then take pleasure in pretending to be surprised or disappointed when evidence emerges that there is no such unified thing:


The waste of time is going after 'the left' on the hypothesis that college students asking this con-artist/professor to resign were being distracted from more pressing issues, that is my point. In this instance where you think you're actually demonstrating the flaws of 'the left', you are actually enacting such a a flaw: distractibility and tendency towards avoidance:

Somehow, you have managed to find comfort in a college administration inviting white nationalists against the safety and education interests of the students on that campus: "And good to see berkely supporting conservative speakers".

And are you really comforted by this? Or was typing that out all about avoiding engaging with what happened to Chelsea Manning? Her invitation rescinded due to a former-CIA directors complaint?


As I said before, the sympathies extended to this professor-conartist are a distraction intended for the individual's profit, and it is profitable because it fuels a paranoid conspiracy theory that is politically valuable. I have pointed out how these sorts of conspiracy theory is actually weaponized, or a proximal belief-cause to violence in posts that I know you've read about school shooters. So no, I do not think the students that asked for his resignation are distracted, that they ought to be pouring their energies into something else (and it is condescending af to suggest that sending an email asking for a resignation, or putting out a statement about his conduct, prevents these orgs/students from pursuing other things).

The question is for you or chou or, in truth, the shit users on this site, and wsj editorial oversight and other news outlets, etc who allowed this stuff to publish months back and continue to spread it around: why do you focus so much on what these college students are doing? They're so far away, and it literally doesn't affect you, but notice how viral this story has become? People eat this stuff up to avoid looking at what makes them uncomfortable.

Why are you (still) so fascinated by what happened at Evergreen? Really ask yourself ppl, and don't reply to me about it because usually youre silent on 50-100% of the evidence and argument I put forth, actually reflect, and I don't need to know about it so you don't have to tell me about your reflections.
 
Last edited:

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
The regressive left's critical analysis of mainstream thought is actually DUMBING DOWN public discourse, is such a fuego take.

And by fuego I mean tired, old, and not at all well thought out.
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Has anyone else been following the stupid argument going on between Trump and the football players who have been kneeling during the national anthem? We seem to get this over and over again whenever athletes protest peacefully and legitimately.

This is emblematic of free speech working as it should. Athletes have the right to make public statements, organizations have the right to fire them over doing so with the caveat that either party doing so would carry some controversy into their public image. Even Trump has the right to say they're disrespecting America by protesting police brutality or the war on drugs or "Law and Order" or whatever it is at the time, (the issues of his twitter account remaining uncomfortably ambiguous with respect to how much is rambling and how much is an official policy stance aside) but the administration can't make laws restricting their rights.

I guess it also puts a spotlight on what happens when critics of protests don't really have a foothold to vilify the protesters. Not able to call out "BLM Thugs" or paint demonstrators in an ambiguous conflict as violent antagonists, they resort to saying that their actions are out of line, and it's not their place as athletes to comment. The conversation that was opened up should be about the issues in question, not free speech itself.
 

Myzozoa

to find better ways to say what nobody says
is a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
It gets pretty confusing with so many pieces being written about the statements made by NFL players and teams. I read somewhere that in the old days of televised sport, players weren't even present on the field during the anthem, however athletics and sport used to be even more politicized (than today) and athletes have made various bold and tepid political statements throughout the last 150 years.

The actualities of the NFL (an elaborate, but perhaps democraticly balanced, cartel) employment system simply don't work as simply in real life as they do in the head of someone as high on their own privilege as the current President of the United States: an owner won't simply fire a player for kneeling during the national anthem, regardless of the political context, the other owners, the nfl organization, and the players, would be unlikely to not retaliate in various critical ways. A more realistic thing would be what we've seen with Kaepernick, where such a player can't get a new contract, but a player under contract is unlikely to be fired for these activities. The steepest consequence i can imagine, based on my experience following sports, would be some sort of fine levied by the team over each incident of 'misconduct'.

And it is not at all clear why any org would level a fine against any such African-American players because... to me, it is pretty obvious that it is kind of like this person's response?




I really don't know the legal details, but remember that case where people wanted to kick richard spencer (really explicit white spuremacist and neo-nazi) out of a gym in Virginia:

"Let’s get a few facts straight. The majority of employees of Old Town Sport&Health are women and/or people of color, whom “Dick” Spencer has repeatedly asserted (on his Twitter feed for example, https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer) to be inferior to his kind who are entitled to rule over us because we are not christian, white or have a vagina. (Also..fuck him again. With a giant strap-on and no lube.)

In my book, this is a clear case of a hostile environment being perpetrated by the general manager, who is an indifferent, asinine white feller who demanded that I remove my “Puck Trump” hat a few weeks back while asserting the “right” of this Nazi to join our gym some two months ago. Priorities anyone? He says that “corporate is working on this.” What a load of rubbish. He is the GM. He has the right to kick out folks…like me for telling a neo Nazi to go to hell…but not the neo Nazi, despite the hostile environment this creates for his employees who know who is..and most do.

Would any of you who are lawyers be willing to represent the trainers and employees of this gym–many of whom I love like family–on a percentage of win basis? These trainers are not well paid and they need this job. But this is high order bullshit. No one should have to put up with this just because they lack the resources to hire a lawyer.


And the General Manger of Old Town Sport&Health is ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe, nonthreatening work environment for his employees. By allowing this savage into our gym, he has undermined his own position. He even asked one of the African American trainers to meet with him (I assume 'him' refers to richard spencer-myzozoa)! Un-fucking-believable."

So yeah, I don't have a law degree, but I find it really hard to see how an owner can expect to fire an African American player for making a statement about racism in America without risking creating some type of legal conundrum due to how that act effects the work environment for other employees. And there is a whole issue of the players' contract with the NFL and how the players' speech is protected in that contract: for example the players may have rights to express themselves in their contract, I have not checked, and the example here is a case of sponsorship: suppose a player is sponsored by pepsi and pepsi decides to change their logo to a 'black lives matter' message, even if the NFL didn't like it, I'm p sure the players have some sort of rights about how they present themselves simply due to considerations of sponsorship.


Some thoughts, maybe someone more familiar with the NFL can point out flaws in the assumptions I'm making because I'm sure it is more complicated than this and that I am wrong about many important details.


"
I've been seeing some erroneous revisions of history in regards to the #taketheknee stuff. So I'm gonna be a bit thorough instead of just making sweeping claims about an involved history.

When Kaepernick took a knee in 2016, his gesture directly pointed to the police violence that black people face, state sanctioned. It was in response to Ferguson, Baltimore, and greater, all of the injustices and violence that black folks face in this country. Let's be clear- though there were much fewer players who joined him in taking that initial knee, there WAS SOLIDARITY! And it extended beyond the NFL. To suggest anything other is to deny the solidarity shown by the women of the WNBA, like the Indiana Fever who, as a team, all took a knee during this time, the Minnesota Lynx who did as well. Megan Rapinoe of the USWNT kneeled before a game. In the NFL, Kapernick kneeled with two of his teammates- players on the Eagles and other teams kneeled and raised fists. This level of solidarity never happened in the NFL and it still hasn't there's too many dynamics and bodies, too much racism. But still, let's not act like Kaepernick was the sole hero- we don't have to make him the hero.

Now, other teams at this time, like the Seahawks, chose not to kneel but to 'lock arms' in a show of unity. It was this kind of choice which was a joke - why not just kneel as well right? Then it moved to white players putting hands on their black players shoulders' as they raised a fist, and all of that was very empty.

At the start of this NFL season, Michael Bennett of the Seahawks continued explicitly, Kaepernick's protest, by sitting on the bench during the anthem. A player on the Chiefs did the same, I'm forgetting who. Then Trump made his comments about the protests, and it prompted the #taketheknee hashtag, where many many players sat, kneeled, or locked arms during the anthem. Sure- it was Trump's comments that prompted them to take this action- perhaps they would have never done it otherwise. But we cannot just assign this action as a rejection of Trump. Forget the players standing and locking arms- that's a joke. The black players kneeling and sitting are continuing the message of Kaepernick, whether they explicitly state it as eloquently as he did in press game conferences or not.

A necessary intersection seems possible to think about and interrogate. Sure, boycott the NFL. But it's only one of many institutions that functions this way. What about the NCAA where all of the players in the NFL played 1-5 years generating billions of dollars of revenue for white owned academic institutions that they never saw a cent of? What if it wasn't just sports where this objectification of the black body and its labor occur? What about all the black people in this country who have to work two jobs when it's not enough. The black folks who have to work twice as hard because their white boss thinks them uncivil and incapable?

Kaepernick's protest called attention indirectly to this objectification. It is seen most starkly perhaps at the level of sports, where the entertainment generated by the black body is always other, alien, monster. His act interrupted that silent acceptance. We have seen what happens when black folks refuse to do this work on the large scale (The Missouri football team). Look at how that protest shook the white owned academy and brought a halt to everything- that fool Wolfe resigned. Idk, there's much more to say, let's stop with the ignorant hot takes tho."
 
Last edited:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
So currently there is a free speech lecture at Georgetown University hosted by Jeff Sessions....where protesters are barred from entering. The hypocrisy of enlightening future attorneys about our first amendment rights then banning any sort of dissent is the definition of hivemind and propaganda that has been the driving force behind the conservative agenda for the past 30 years. I absolutely struggle to rationalize this thinking, the same thought process that allows the alt right to protect the speech of bigotry while condemning peaceful protests under some thinly veiled guise of patriotism and disrespect.

I sincerely hope that the attacks on the NFL and other high profile individuals are the ruin of this regime. Kids have not looked up to politicians for a good long while. Their idols are musicians, athletes, youtube streamers, etc. I can only hope that this blowback from outright attacking celebrities is what can progress the US into a brighter future, as lord knows the propaganda machine will always, inevitably, be running.
 
So currently there is a free speech lecture at Georgetown University hosted by Jeff Sessions....where protesters are barred from entering. The hypocrisy of enlightening future attorneys about our first amendment rights then banning any sort of dissent is the definition of hivemind and propaganda that has been the driving force behind the conservative agenda for the past 30 years. I absolutely struggle to rationalize this thinking, the same thought process that allows the alt right to protect the speech of bigotry while condemning peaceful protests under some thinly veiled guise of patriotism and disrespect.

I sincerely hope that the attacks on the NFL and other high profile individuals are the ruin of this regime. Kids have not looked up to politicians for a good long while. Their idols are musicians, athletes, youtube streamers, etc. I can only hope that this blowback from outright attacking celebrities is what can progress the US into a brighter future, as lord knows the propaganda machine will always, inevitably, be running.
You mean like those other "Free Speech" events where protesters routinely show up to stop the event? Thereby silencing free speech? Or is this one of those things where it's only hypocrisy when the other side does it?
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Free speech doesn't and shouldn't entitle anyone to a platform. Georgetown University can schedule a talk and keep protesters out of the area to allow the lecture to run smoothly. Conversely students who show up to demonstrate that a significant portion of the student body disagrees with Sessions' opinions on free speech or policy in general aren't in the wrong and aren't restricting free speech by exercising their own right to have an opinion.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
You mean like those other "Free Speech" events where protesters routinely show up to stop the event? Thereby silencing free speech? Or is this one of those things where it's only hypocrisy when the other side does it?
Are you referring to the Boston "free speech" rally which had prominent guest speakers such as known Holocaust denier and white supremacist / alt-right Charlottesville organizer Augustus Invictus? The same free speech rally that drew the same members of the Charlottesville rally, where the chants of the alt-right included "fuck off (BAN ME PLEASE)" and "jews will not replace us?"

Or are you referring to the Berkeley "free speech" rally that was disbanded because the organizers don't know how to meet deadlines to rent the venue? The same one that Milo Yiannopoulos attended anyway, and instead of speaking he took selfies with people and signed t-shirts?

Or was it the San Francisco rally that the organizers of the whole free speech rally admitted it drew extremists such as white supremacists and neo nazis and canceled it?

There is a fundamental difference between an attack on free speech, and an attack on hate speech. Hate rhetoric benefits no person and serves to dismantle unity in our country; to allow those that openly advocate for a white nationalist society to congregate at these flimsy "free speech" rallies is ridiculous to expect, especially on college campuses that are notorious for inclusion and diversity. No, not all speakers or organizers of the alt-right movement are inherently racist or even want to express hate speech and condone violence. However that prominent groups classified as hate groups, such as the Loyal White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Neo-Nazi party, several anti-Muslim groups, and more all gather at these events is a telling sign the movement presented is largely bigoted in concept. As the saying goes, "if the shoe fits." The crowd that follows your ideas and rhetoric should be the type of people you want to appeal to, and quite frankly if 100% of white supremacists are in line with your movement then you might want to take a second look on what you're actually saying.

That's not even mentioning that implying that "the other side does it too!" is in any way a strong and viable argument.
 
Free speech doesn't and shouldn't entitle anyone to a platform. Georgetown University can schedule a talk and keep protesters out of the area to allow the lecture to run smoothly. Conversely students who show up to demonstrate that a significant portion of the student body disagrees with Sessions' opinions on free speech or policy in general aren't in the wrong and aren't restricting free speech by exercising their own right to have an opinion.
But that's what free speech is, it's an entitlement to speak. As along as what you're saying isn't inciting violence or hysteria, you're good to go. What tcr is lamenting is the fact that Georgetown is doing just that, keeping protesters out of an area preventing them from effectively silencing that free speech. You can protest Sessions all you want, but do it elsewhere away from the venue where you aren't basically preventing him from speaking, preventing people from attending, etc.

There is a fundamental difference between an attack on free speech, and an attack on hate speech. Hate rhetoric benefits no person and serves to dismantle unity in our country; to allow those that openly advocate for a white nationalist society to congregate at these flimsy "free speech" rallies is ridiculous to expect, especially on college campuses that are notorious for inclusion and diversity. No, not all speakers or organizers of the alt-right movement are inherently racist or even want to express hate speech and condone violence. However that prominent groups classified as hate groups, such as the Loyal White Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, the American Neo-Nazi party, several anti-Muslim groups, and more all gather at these events is a telling sign the movement presented is largely bigoted in concept. As the saying goes, "if the shoe fits." The crowd that follows your ideas and rhetoric should be the type of people you want to appeal to, and quite frankly if 100% of white supremacists are in line with your movement then you might want to take a second look on what you're actually saying.

That's not even mentioning that implying that "the other side does it too!" is in any way a strong and viable argument.
I apologize, but there really isn't. There's a huge difference between saying "I hate black people." and "We should kill all black people." They're both hate speech. They're both morally indefensible. But one is also free speech, and the other is not.
 
But that's what free speech is, it's an entitlement to speak. As along as what you're saying isn't inciting violence or hysteria, you're good to go. What tcr is lamenting is the fact that Georgetown is doing just that, keeping protesters out of an area preventing them from effectively silencing that free speech. You can protest Sessions all you want, but do it elsewhere away from the venue where you aren't basically preventing him from speaking, preventing people from attending, etc.
It's not. Free speech is about the relationship between the state and the individual, not between two individuals. Free speech shields you from government censorship, but it doesn't shield you from any other consequences. It doesn't entitle you to a platform, and it doesn't mean people have to listen to you. Obligatory XKCD:

 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The point of free speech laws in the first place is to otherwise protect controversial opinions that directly contradict the "status quo" so to speak. Look to Galileo v Catholic Church for an example of what I mean (a controversial idea that at the time held no weight yet in modern times the heliocentric theory is fundamental to our understanding of the solar system). It's to protect the people from those in power, and moreover protects ideas that have the potential to benefit our understanding of some subject. I realize that sentence is extremely vague, but its vague for the reason that the idea of free speech in general is vague. The rhetoric has to have some sort of merit to it for it to be fine. Are you seriously going to argue that "I hate Black People" should be protected speech and can offer merit and further advance society in a positive direction, when so much of the United States history has been dependent on fighting those bigoted views? What value does hate speech, not even threats of violence or genocide or whatever, simple hate speech, have in today's society? Do you still not realize that broad bigoted statements such as "I hate black people" while in itself don't advocate for violence instead pave the way for generations of superiority complexes and victim blaming? Those views hold no place in civilized society because they are simply the foundation for discord amid the population, an incredible example being the hatred for Jews in 1930-40s Germany that eventually lead to one of the most sadistic times in the Earth's history.

I challenge you, or any one for that matter Outlaw to somehow find value and benefits for hate speech promoting intolerance due to race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other part of someone's intrinsic identity, without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Yeah hate speech shouldn't be specifically protected by free speech. The argument that "I just said I hate black people I didn't say I was going to do anything about it" doesn't hold water. If a person comes to the realization that you think they aren't human then anything becomes possible. How can they possibly feel safe?

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's the same issue here.
 
It's not. Free speech is about the relationship between the state and the individual, not between two individuals. Free speech shields you from government censorship, but it doesn't shield you from any other consequences. It doesn't entitle you to a platform, and it doesn't mean people have to listen to you.
I never said it did. You're free to NOT listen to Sessions or anyone else you don't like. What I got issue with is you, or anyone else, going there to specifically prevent Sessions or anyone else from speaking. That's not exercising your right to free speech anymore, that's censoring others. Speak out against him, oppose whomever you wish, but don't go about with intention of preventing them from doing so either.

The point of free speech laws in the first place is to otherwise protect controversial opinions that directly contradict the "status quo" so to speak. Look to Galileo v Catholic Church for an example of what I mean (a controversial idea that at the time held no weight yet in modern times the heliocentric theory is fundamental to our understanding of the solar system). It's to protect the people from those in power, and moreover protects ideas that have the potential to benefit our understanding of some subject. I realize that sentence is extremely vague, but its vague for the reason that the idea of free speech in general is vague. The rhetoric has to have some sort of merit to it for it to be fine. Are you seriously going to argue that "I hate Black People" should be protected speech and can offer merit and further advance society in a positive direction, when so much of the United States history has been dependent on fighting those bigoted views? What value does hate speech, not even threats of violence or genocide or whatever, simple hate speech, have in today's society? Do you still not realize that broad bigoted statements such as "I hate black people" while in itself don't advocate for violence instead pave the way for generations of superiority complexes and victim blaming? Those views hold no place in civilized society because they are simply the foundation for discord amid the population, an incredible example being the hatred for Jews in 1930-40s Germany that eventually lead to one of the most sadistic times in the Earth's history.

I challenge you, or any one for that matter Outlaw to somehow find value and benefits for hate speech promoting intolerance due to race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other part of someone's intrinsic identity, without resorting to the slippery slope fallacy
I mean, it helps me find openly racists individuals with ease. It gives power to you and other individuals to spot them, ignore them, and otherwise not give them the attention they so desperately want. Whatever you so desire, ya know? They can huff, pout and holler till their faces turn blue and you're free to avoid them, to ostracize them. Then, when and if they cross that fine line, you can lock'em up. Simple as that.

Yeah hate speech shouldn't be specifically protected by free speech. The argument that "I just said I hate black people I didn't say I was going to do anything about it" doesn't hold water. If a person comes to the realization that you think they aren't human then anything becomes possible. How can they possibly feel safe?

Free speech doesn't protect you from the consequences of shouting fire in a crowded theater. It's the same issue here.
It is, and if you don't like it, take a look at England where if you say anything sniffing of racism, you're gonna get charged. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is not the same as being openly racist. Being a racist is NOT a crime in and of itself. Shouting fire in a crowded theater IS the same as calling to arms people to gas jews and hang black people.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The problem is when you grant bigoted opinions access to what Demoness eloquently called "the marketplace of ideas" you give them the same standing as literally everything else. You allow it to fester, and spread to other people. Sure, the majority of people will reject those ideas and will avoid and ostracize as you said, however there will always be a small ignorant minority who will latch on to those hateful ideas (see /pol/ for an actual example of this). This is a huge problem because free speech will always influence people in their voting choices, will influence certain subsections of the country, until eventually you end up with someone who thinks and lives by the rule of "And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” While this in itself isn't a HUGE problem (it really is imo but w/e) that type of thinking only empowers those not in power. They see the President of the United States openly claiming his disdain for certain races, Mexicans, Blacks, Arabic / Muslims, hes even made comments on Jews, and think that its suddenly OK to come up through the woodworks. I live not an hour from Charlottesville. I have friends that attend UVA. Not a week before the alt right rally I was in Charlottesville attending a concert before the rally happened. I have personally seen the degradation and damage those views have brought to my state, my city; Those who I knew once held racial views (coworkers of my father HATED Hillary, claimed she was working for "the blacks" and that she was "lesbian") have only been MORE vocal. That vocality has only led to more political pushback, more police brutality, more fear in my community.

I don't think hate speech should be "illegal." I think it should not be protected. You cannot stop something just because it is illegal, however refusing to give it the same credibility afforded to other ideas is "good enough" as it instills fear of reprisal. Thats why people being fired for saying "(BAN ME PLEASE)" on air is so important, because it sends the message that those ideas simply wont be tolerated nor should they. Media certainly holds power, and when people start seeing on TV political activists, rally leaders, even just celebrities, advocating for someone's right to say "i hate black people" then it only empowers them to start spreading their views without consequence. THAT is why people advocate for silence regarding alt right speakers. When they give speeches they have the power to influence the population in a very, VERY negative manner. To make it "illegal" is foolhardy at best; however cutting off the cancer before it has the chance to spread its seed is a very real mission that should be undertook in order to prevent the spreading of said blight.

On top of this most of the "free speech" rallies are simply diversion attempts at white America to forget and pigeonhole the ongoing discrimination problems for minorities throughout the United States. To not talk about "black on black crime" but to talk about "white on black crime" isn't some sort of conspiracy theory to promote racial discord, its because black on black crime isn't racially motivated a percentage of the time the same way law enforcement's execution of black civilians is. People don't say "white on white" crime because all it is....is crime. There's no racial discharge involved. To say "black people just don't work as hard as white people" is incredibly broad and waves away racially motivated laws and attempts to segregate discreetly, acts that go as far back as Reagan / Nixon rule and even further beyond. Those complaining about these athletes taking a knee wouldn't even dare say the same if veterans from across the states were protesting inadequate health care, warhawk policy, and homelessness of military vets. They would hardly dare to say that veterans are "disrespecting the flag and the country." To shift everything away from race in some vain attempt to say, "look man we stopped lynching you in the 20s, stopped segregation in the 50s, gave you guys voting, what more could you want?" is why protesters don't want people like Jeff Sessions, Milo Y, etc to speak. Because while their rhetoric toes the line but doesn't outright cross it, it empowers those that do cross it, and that situation simply cannot be allowed to fester. Those people who advocate Free Speech rallies are those that say that race relations in the U.S. are "good enough" through their actions and rhetoric, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top