Free Speech: Let's do this properly

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Jeff Sessions can say whatever he wants as well as the people allowed to tell him to shut the fuck up in a public space that's no censorship his freedom of speech isn't being infringed. Waaah waaah censorship is bad, yeah no people protesting a single speech for the attorney fucking general of the united states are not wholesale censoring him. Jesus what a ridiculous response "Criticism of dumbass speech is CENSORSHIP WE CAN NEVER TELL PEOPLE THEYRE DUMB"

Also it not being a crime to be racist and do racist shit is a little bit of the problem. Like fuck, your viewpoint is so basic that you're like "well you just can't advocate for crimes otherwise you're fine" but you won't ever acknowledge the fowl shit done under the name of "legal democracy" because I mean what that's different or something? Like shit calling people to arms and to gas jews and hang black people is illegal all the way up until people are allowed to "vote" for it unopposed because they've sponsored policies that disenfranchise the black vote beforehand. Legality is not necessarily ethical and this continued insistence that it is ethical is utter bullshit and just makes conversations like these ridiculous. There is more nuance to speech rights than free speech absolutists ever seem to admit because they operate in a magic land where all voices are heard equally. That place isn't real and we have to actually grapple with that fact and not just go "LA LA LA LA LA FREE SPEECH IS KING".
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
THE PHRASE IS LITERALLY "A BAD APPLE SPOILS THE BUNCH" CHRIST ALMIGHTY AND THATS NOT EVEN AN APT THING TO SAY IN THIS SCENARIO SINCE THE SYSTEM ITSELF WAS BUILT TO ONLY WORK FOR CERTAIN GROUPS OF PEOPLE SO IT'S NOT BAD APPLES SPOILING ANYTHING THE DAMN THING ITSELF WAS BUILT TO MAKE BAD APPLES.

I literally could not be more flustered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EV

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
Alright, sorry for being absent. This past week was extremely busy for me (finishing writing my thesis).

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:
1. I don't think there is some idealistic divide in "the left" 2. How was I pretending to be surprised that "the left" isn't some massive conglomerate of the same opinions?

I think that those college students are stupid for going after that professor. I think they overreacted. I think they were too eager to call him out on his "racism".

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?
I'll be honest, I skimmed that Chelsea manning article, because I didn't find it related to the topic at hand as much as the second article. What do you want me to say? I support a platform for Chelsea manning. I support a platform for the CIA director. I support a platform for the conservative, so-called "free speech week" speakers as well. I'm not comforted that they are inviting white nationalists, I'm impressed that they learned their lesson after the disaster of last year. Like I said in the last post, I want to see open debate, not a co-opting of "I'm Milo, and ONLY I support free speech". If everything the conservative speakers say is wrong and stupid, then let them be in the open so that they can be criticized and mocked. I'm of the opinion that banning someone gives them power.

And yeah, that entire post was made only to avoid discussing Chelsea manning, because it makes me uncomfortable. You got me.


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).
If the students didn't call for the professor's resignation, then he wouldn't have been a massive celebrity with a massive platform. Outrage is politically valuable, which gets turned into guest appearances and money. In the world today, any opinion is profitable in some circle. I really don't think this whole thing was 4D chess executed by the professor to turn himself into a celebrity. Maybe I'm naïve but whatever. Does somebody profiting from celebrity status automatically make them not a victim? I can name plenty of victims of something that get celebrity status in liberal circles.

I'm aware that protesting the professor doesn't keep these students from doing something else. I think it is a waste of time because I do not think protesting him is going to further their "movement" in any good way. At the end of the day, what did they achieve? Did they rid the university of a racist, or did they create a media circus with plenty of support for the professor (from conservative media) and criticism of their own? (the 'left is attacking itself!!!' original article that chou posted in the first place.

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.
Why does anybody care so much about any political subject? Even if it doesn't affect them? Because it's interesting.

People want to read editorials that support their opinion, whatever it is. People eat up stuff that says they're the only smart ones out there and their opinions are the right ones.[/quote][/quote]
 
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
Where have I said you shouldn't be fired for saying that word on the air? It's that companies right to fire the person. It's also their right to put whoever they want on the air. Just as much as it is your right to not tune in and give them advertising money.

As for silencing and preventing alt-right speakers from talking is the stupidest thing. No one fucking knew who Milo was, until the left threw a collective hissy fit over him. They gave him the power. They gave him a louder voice. You know what would've happened if he showed up without a giant quasi-riot/protest? He'd have a minuscule amount of people attending that would have anyway, and ne'er a new face in the crowd because no one would know who the hell he is.

You like XKCD comics so much so surely you've heard of "Don't feed the troll."? Attention, positive or negative, is what his ilk craves and the left, the media, etc give it to him by the pound.

Jeff Sessions can say whatever he wants as well as the people allowed to tell him to shut the fuck up in a public space that's no censorship his freedom of speech isn't being infringed. Waaah waaah censorship is bad, yeah no people protesting a single speech for the attorney fucking general of the united states are not wholesale censoring him. Jesus what a ridiculous response "Criticism of dumbass speech is CENSORSHIP WE CAN NEVER TELL PEOPLE THEYRE DUMB"

Also it not being a crime to be racist and do racist shit is a little bit of the problem. Like fuck, your viewpoint is so basic that you're like "well you just can't advocate for crimes otherwise you're fine" but you won't ever acknowledge the fowl shit done under the name of "legal democracy" because I mean what that's different or something? Like shit calling people to arms and to gas jews and hang black people is illegal all the way up until people are allowed to "vote" for it unopposed because they've sponsored policies that disenfranchise the black vote beforehand. Legality is not necessarily ethical and this continued insistence that it is ethical is utter bullshit and just makes conversations like these ridiculous. There is more nuance to speech rights than free speech absolutists ever seem to admit because they operate in a magic land where all voices are heard equally. That place isn't real and we have to actually grapple with that fact and not just go "LA LA LA LA LA FREE SPEECH IS KING".
As far as I'm aware, the people are being provided a public space to tell him to shut the fuck up. It's just not the same space. Read my words. I never once said you can never tell someone they're dumb. I said you shouldn't PREVENT them from saying the shit you think is dumb.

I don't think you ought to be the one to talk about how absolutism is supposedly bad either since you're apparently the sort to want to jail (or worse) everyone who doesn't adhere to your line of thought (which is a mighty bit authoritarian of you) but feel free.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Where have I said you shouldn't be fired for saying that word on the air? It's that companies right to fire the person. It's also their right to put whoever they want on the air. Just as much as it is your right to not tune in and give them advertising money.
You didn't nor did I say you did. It was simply an example that helped me express my view and how important it is to actively silence hate speech as hate speech spoken to large audiences gives credence to the very idea. I am well aware of the difference between how government, corporations, and individual people should act with regards to censorship. Corporations certainly have the right to protect their image and discharge any individual who threatens to tarnish that image, just as corporations don't have a duty to hire any one person. No one is entitled to keep their job.

As for silencing and preventing alt-right speakers from talking is the stupidest thing. No one fucking knew who Milo was, until the left threw a collective hissy fit over him. They gave him the power. They gave him a louder voice. You know what would've happened if he showed up without a giant quasi-riot/protest? He'd have a minuscule amount of people attending that would have anyway, and ne'er a new face in the crowd because no one would know who the hell he is.
Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know nor claim to know the whole backstory of Milo, but didn't he gain infamy after being banned from Twitter for what Twitter said was "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others"? I.e. comparing Leslie Jones, the black actress of the newest Ghostbusters to a gorilla and sending his followers after her. That was in early 2016, and I would say after that was when his followers flocked to the farthest dregs of the internet, such as /pol/, and that was when his popularity took off. Certainly his infamy has to do with leftist reactionists throwing a hissy fit, but I would say it started with the alt-right movement needing a symbol of solidarity, and what better than a white man seemingly being silenced by social media, despite overwhelming evidence of harassment and bullying with racial undertones. Besides, many people knew who Milo was well before any sort of scandal involving him. A simple search of statistics involving Breitbart, the news site that he previously wrote for, says around 40 million viewers would visit the site ~April / May of 2016, while around 80 million viewers visit the site as of August 15th, 2017. However this data could be wildly inaccurate especially as it focuses on his previous employer / news outlet, and not the individual himself. Regardless, his views and rhetoric were reaching millions of people well before he was a boogeyman of the alt-right.

I don't mind alt-right speakers giving lectures. I mind alt-right speakers that have proven in the past to be attached to hate groups. If you want to talk conservative viewpoints then go ahead, I'm all ears. But the minute your argument starts getting into perceived racist topics then your right to speak should end. For what its worth, I despise Jeff Sessions so much, yet when I read the transcript of his speech at Berkeley it was fairly tame. I would not have minded listening to it. What is the issue however, is that the Attorney General of the United States banned protesters. Someone who clearly holds power in the government, and for all intents and purposes can be considered one of the biggest faces of the government right now aside from Trump himself, is silencing protesters in an atrocious breach of the First Amendment. That is the difference.

You like XKCD comics so much so surely you've heard of "Don't feed the troll."? Attention, positive or negative, is what his ilk craves and the left, the media, etc give it to him by the pound.
When have I ever gave the impression of being a huge fan of XKCD comics? I've seen a handful of pieces of them and all of those have largely been on this site, with one being in this thread and the others being in the Firebot good comics thread.
 
You didn't nor did I say you did. It was simply an example that helped me express my view and how important it is to actively silence hate speech as hate speech spoken to large audiences gives credence to the very idea. I am well aware of the difference between how government, corporations, and individual people should act with regards to censorship. Corporations certainly have the right to protect their image and discharge any individual who threatens to tarnish that image, just as corporations don't have a duty to hire any one person. No one is entitled to keep their job.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I don't know nor claim to know the whole backstory of Milo, but didn't he gain infamy after being banned from Twitter for what Twitter said was "inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others"? I.e. comparing Leslie Jones, the black actress of the newest Ghostbusters to a gorilla and sending his followers after her. That was in early 2016, and I would say after that was when his followers flocked to the farthest dregs of the internet, such as /pol/, and that was when his popularity took off. Certainly his infamy has to do with leftist reactionists throwing a hissy fit, but I would say it started with the alt-right movement needing a symbol of solidarity, and what better than a white man seemingly being silenced by social media, despite overwhelming evidence of harassment and bullying with racial undertones. Besides, many people knew who Milo was well before any sort of scandal involving him. A simple search of statistics involving Breitbart, the news site that he previously wrote for, says around 40 million viewers would visit the site ~April / May of 2016, while around 80 million viewers visit the site as of August 15th, 2017. However this data could be wildly inaccurate especially as it focuses on his previous employer / news outlet, and not the individual himself. Regardless, his views and rhetoric were reaching millions of people well before he was a boogeyman of the alt-right.

I don't mind alt-right speakers giving lectures. I mind alt-right speakers that have proven in the past to be attached to hate groups. If you want to talk conservative viewpoints then go ahead, I'm all ears. But the minute your argument starts getting into perceived racist topics then your right to speak should end. For what its worth, I despise Jeff Sessions so much, yet when I read the transcript of his speech at Berkeley it was fairly tame. I would not have minded listening to it. What is the issue however, is that the Attorney General of the United States banned protesters. Someone who clearly holds power in the government, and for all intents and purposes can be considered one of the biggest faces of the government right now aside from Trump himself, is silencing protesters in an atrocious breach of the First Amendment. That is the difference.


When have I ever gave the impression of being a huge fan of XKCD comics? I've seen a handful of pieces of them and all of those have largely been on this site, with one being in this thread and the others being in the Firebot good comics thread.
I can't admit to knowing the entirety of Milo lore either, but the whole banning from twitter thing was only a big deal on internet fringes to me. I don't recall seeing it getting talked about nearly as much (if at all) on national news channels like the speech was. Either way, the twitter thing would've been a blip in the stars had the speech stuff not happened.

I want to highlight this sentence in particular of yours.
But the minute your argument starts getting into perceived racist topics then your right to speak should end.
This here is the thing. That perception differs from person to person. You got Valkyie or someone like Myzozoa who is going to flip out over the smallest perceived thing and claim that person is a racist, a horrible terrible bigot. Then you got people who don't. Who like to know a bit more before making that accusation. Who gets to decide? It needs to either be all allowed, or just get rid of free speech entirely cause there's no point. I don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone to make those distinctions for everyone. That's for the individual to decide. It's for the individual to listen or ignore. I can't speak for you, but I do hope the majority lies with me thinking that putting up with a minority of people who say dumb shit is worth the freedom of letting everyone have the opportunity to speak.

What is the issue however, is that the Attorney General of the United States banned protesters. Someone who clearly holds power in the government, and for all intents and purposes can be considered one of the biggest faces of the government right now aside from Trump himself, is silencing protesters in an atrocious breach of the First Amendment. That is the difference.
They aren't banned from protesting. They aren't being silenced. They're banned from protesting where he's giving the speech. They're free to protest elsewhere, just not there. It's just as much their right to not let protesters in, as it is yours (if you had the authority) to ban alt right speakers from speaking at your institution. As always, what isn't kosher to me, is showing up to prevent someone you disagree with from speaking where they have been allowed to do so.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
lol dude, this "free to protest somewhere else" non-sequitur is such rubbish

protests are like real estate

its all about location location location.

Imagine Arab Spring without Tahrir Square, occupy wall street without fucking wall street, or the civil rights movt. without the Lincoln Memorial.

There's a reason the alt right fuckwits gathered at Charlottseville to .... uhm preserve heritage, as did the counterprotestors... instead of people screaming from whatever hovel they were already in.

why do you think people protest lol. it's not some abstract register to note your individual complaints in. its a machine of disruption and mobilisation for social change.

The point of the protest is to let (1) sessions feel the gravity of his unpopularity among the section of the population and (2) condemn the institution giving a regressive twit like him an uncritical platform and (3) let an unaware/blindfiully privileged third person know that there are problems associated with this person. None of this happens if they are denied their intuitive gathering point. It takes a certain capacity of despotism to think you're preserving free speech as long as free speech happens outside the gaze of the public and away from the very figure they are protesting. that is silencing.

its the same bullshit logic ppl use to condemn NFL players taking the knee.

Martin edit: don't open a post by telling the other side to stfu

e2: ^if you have a problem with the stfu feel free to remove/modify it. However please do not take it upon yourself to reframe the tone and content of my post. When I call out a post as non-sequitur I mean it. Please don't casually chop off the entire sentence. I'm more than happy if you outright delete it if you're really keen on letting people know you're the boss. I'm putting that sentence minus what you raised objection to, back in.

M edit 2: that's fine by me, although i thought the rest of the post got said point across fine anyway or else i would have
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I want to highlight this sentence in particular of yours. This here is the thing. That perception differs from person to person. You got Valkyie or someone like Myzozoa who is going to flip out over the smallest perceived thing and claim that person is a racist, a horrible terrible bigot. Then you got people who don't. Who like to know a bit more before making that accusation. Who gets to decide? It needs to either be all allowed, or just get rid of free speech entirely cause there's no point. I don't know about you, but I don't trust anyone to make those distinctions for everyone. That's for the individual to decide. It's for the individual to listen or ignore. I can't speak for you, but I do hope the majority lies with me thinking that putting up with a minority of people who say dumb shit is worth the freedom of letting everyone have the opportunity to speak.
Certainly, if your speech simply involves conservative rhetoric that isn't necessarily hate speech, then go for it. An example of this would be certain laws that people decry as institutionalized racism, whether they are or aren't. Allow people to preach their ideas in a way that doesn't incite violence or fear into the masses, and thus is the importance of free speech. The line can easily be drawn when your points are either vacuous rhetoric that holds no true value ("kill all (BAN ME PLEASE)") or are so thinly veiled as to hold no doubt to true intent (see Jason Kessler, "free speech" activist that organized the Charlottesville rally). Know that I back your right to say stupid stuff in a debate platform as long as an actual discussion can happen from it.

They aren't banned from protesting. They aren't being silenced. They're banned from protesting where he's giving the speech. They're free to protest elsewhere, just not there. It's just as much their right to not let protesters in, as it is yours (if you had the authority) to ban alt right speakers from speaking at your institution. As always, what isn't kosher to me, is showing up to prevent someone you disagree with from speaking where they have been allowed to do so.
I would argue that moving protests elsewhere effectively nullifies the protest. The point of protests is to spark a reaction, and as Soul Fly said location is everything. Its like Trump saying the NFL could do protests "on their own time." Doing it on public television on a channel that millions watch helps spread the message in an effective, peaceful manner, and I wouldn't say that the same reaction (though the point of the protest has been changed slash the viewpoint / purpose mistaken in media) would happen if the players just did typical "prayers for Ferguson" responses. If protests for Sessions' speech were held off campus then they truly wouldn't matter too much. No one would care because it isnt in their face. Well, some would care but there would hardly be as strong a reaction.

As to the hypocrisy comment, it was mostly the irony involved with advocates of Free Speech hosting a Free Speech lecture yet seemingly silencing the opposition, which is by definition hypocritical. I don't think it applies to far left activists as much because those activists aren't the ones advocating heavily for free speech or hosting "Free Speech rallies." In fact most people on the side of the NFL and by extension against alt right lecturers are dismayed at the focal point being changed from institutionalized racism to attacks on free speech, although certainly there are many differing viewpoints many of which I don't condone (one being silence of conservative voices for the sake of those voices being conservative).

for other posters can you guys please be more nuanced with your posts? telling other posters to shut the fuck up and such hardly leads to a quality discussion. Use your arguments and dont make them so condescending...
 
lol stfu dude, this "free to protest somewhere else" non-sequitur is such rubbish.

protests are like real estate

its all about location location location.

Imagine Arab Spring without Tahrir Square, occupy wall street without fucking wall street, or the civil rights movt. without the Lincoln Memorial.

There's a reason the alt right fuckwits gathered at Charlottseville to .... uhm preserve heritage, as did the counterprotestors... instead of people screaming from whatever hovel they were already in.

why do you think people protest lol. it's not some abstract register to note your individual complaints in. its a machine of disruption and mobilisation for social change.

The point of the protest is to let (1) sessions feel the gravity of his unpopularity among the section of the population and (2) condemn the institution giving a regressive twit like him an uncritical platform and (3) let an unaware/blindfiully privileged third person know that there are problems associated with this person. None of this happens if they are denied their intuitive gathering point. It takes a certain capacity of despotism to think you're preserving free speech as long as free speech happens outside the gaze of the public and away from the very figure they are protesting. that is silencing.

its the same bullshit logic ppl use to condemn NFL players taking the knee.
Can't speak for Tahrir Square; but I'm pretty sure that if New York wanted to, it could have prevented people from camping out on Wall Street. And that it would've been in the state's rights to do so if it did.

You aren't really reading what I'm typing here though. I didn't say they couldn't protest. As far as I'm aware, they're free to protest outside the building aren't they? Or is this one of those things where it's a government official and they're worried about violence against him which is why it's a much broader range than the typical outside the building stuff? (Which I could argue is logical, considering government officials have already been shot this year for being of the opposing side.) Even still, I very much doubt the range of the no-protest area is so far reaching as to prevent them from being in the metaphorical face of Sessions, I very much doubt protesters aren't going to slip in and cause a scene and I have utmost certainty the media will cover it cause they love to gobble that kind of stuff up.

Certainly, if your speech simply involves conservative rhetoric that isn't necessarily hate speech, then go for it. An example of this would be certain laws that people decry as institutionalized racism, whether they are or aren't. Allow people to preach their ideas in a way that doesn't incite violence or fear into the masses, and thus is the importance of free speech. The line can easily be drawn when your points are either vacuous rhetoric that holds no true value ("kill all (BAN ME PLEASE)") or are so thinly veiled as to hold no doubt to true intent (see Jason Kessler, "free speech" activist that organized the Charlottesville rally). Know that I back your right to say stupid stuff in a debate platform as long as an actual discussion can happen from it.
As I said, you can draw your own personal lines. I don't think the idea of free speech should. I don't trust people to be aah whats the word.. to be, for lack of a better word, able to nail that distinction. People are just too biased. And that goes both ways. I wouldn't want to be the mediator making the distinction either.

I would argue that moving protests elsewhere effectively nullifies the protest. The point of protests is to spark a reaction, and as Soul Fly said location is everything. Its like Trump saying the NFL could do protests "on their own time." Doing it on public television on a channel that millions watch helps spread the message in an effective, peaceful manner, and I wouldn't say that the same reaction (though the point of the protest has been changed slash the viewpoint / purpose mistaken in media) would happen if the players just did typical "prayers for Ferguson" responses. If protests for Sessions' speech were held off campus then they truly wouldn't matter too much. No one would care because it isnt in their face. Well, some would care but there would hardly be as strong a reaction.

As to the hypocrisy comment, it was mostly the irony involved with advocates of Free Speech hosting a Free Speech lecture yet seemingly silencing the opposition, which is by definition hypocritical. I don't think it applies to far left activists as much because those activists aren't the ones advocating heavily for free speech or hosting "Free Speech rallies." In fact most people on the side of the NFL and by extension against alt right lecturers are dismayed at the focal point being changed from institutionalized racism to attacks on free speech, although certainly there are many differing viewpoints many of which I don't condone (one being silence of conservative voices for the sake of those voices being conservative).

To make things clear; I'm perfectly fine with NFL players kneeling. I don't like it. I don't respect it. But I'm fine with it. They can do it just as much as the fans can (and did) boo them. And they can continue to do it even if it kills their viewership. That's their prerogative. Some players might've knelt for institutionalized racism sure, but I sure as hell don't believe for a moment the stuff that happened this past weekend had anything to do with that. The teams took it and changed it into a protest against what Trump said. Talk about some cultural appropriation, ya? Anyway, as I've been saying, people are free to ignore your free speech. You can't get in someones face and MAKE them listen to you unless they allow it.

I'd argue a football game is not the place or time for it however. People (mostly the left and even Trump) have this bizarre need to make anything and everything political nowadays. To make it inescapable. Which I think just exacerbates people's desire to listen but that another issue entirely.

EDIT: I also wanted to add that, even people supposedly on the side of the protesters are getting silenced and drowned out. Just look up that video of Nancy Pelosi. I hate her guts, but it isn't right or helpful what those people did.
 
Last edited:

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
See you are pulling this bullshit again.

Colin Kapernick has been fucking kneeling since obama was president lmao. A certain "someone" decides this is important enough to direct his ire at the practice and call for firing people. He keeps doing it regardless. People show solidarity and join him in by doing precisely what that fuckwit and his fuckwit defenders decided was something unamerican from today and to be punished. Anyone who kneels now is "SJW" with a hidden agenda against the angel of freedums.

but sure its the regressive left playing identity politics. i sometimes wish congnitive dissonance was physically painful.
 
This isn't even true. That's explicitly what the media did to spin it away from what the protest is was and always has been.
See you are pulling this bullshit again.

Colin Kapernick has been fucking kneeling since obama was president lmao. A certain "someone" decides this is important enough to direct his ire at the practice and call for firing people. He keeps doing it regardless. People show solidarity and join him in by doing precisely what that fuckwit and his fuckwit defenders decided was something unamerican from today and to be punished. Anyone who kneels now is "SJW" with a hidden agenda against the angel of freedums.

but sure its the regressive left playing identity politics. i sometimes wish congnitive dissonance was physically painful.
Funny, I didn't see so many of them kneeling or locking arms until the President said what he said. And thanks for both ignoring what I said, and putting things I didn't say into my mouth. Awesome job.
 

Soul Fly

IMMA TEACH YOU WHAT SPLASHIN' MEANS
is a Contributor Alumnus
yes because the president decided that NFL players should be fired for doing that. do you understand what "solidarity" means? are you being dense on purpose?

ugh fuck it.
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
No one was really with Kaepernick prior to Trump's remarks because a large part of America simply refuses to see their country as anything but the pinnacle of freedom. Our society has been poisoned and practiced to be upstanding "patriots" by placing warriors on pedestals and in large part by a federal effort to instill patriotism into citizens at early ages. For example the "Pledge of Allegiance" that everyone recites before morning bell or before congressional hearings was designed to instill nationalism and unity in the United States. The words "under God" were later added to it in 1954 to combat the growing "unethical communism" that chose to not have any endorsed religion (largely because the USSR was largely atheistic at the time and was a part of a growing effort to counter literally anything associated with communism). Combine this with right wing propaganda that anything liberal is in direct contrast to whatever is considered "American values" at the time means that a large portion of this country simply writes off racism, sexism, homophobia, and more as "liberal whining." On top of this, Kaepernick ended up becoming a free agent in 2016 and thus was froze out of most teams for his political views (one could argue that his skills were bad and thats why he wasn't signed but the man took a previously trash team since Steve Young played to the Super Bowl.). This would probably scare a ton of players, who often don't have the skills to transition to something else or lack the "star" status that Kaepernick had to remain endorsed without a team.

If Trump had said nothing about the protesting of the national anthem, theres a very large possibility that Kaepernick would have faded from existence and that the NFL would have continued to just go on, uninterrupted. As it stands however, the situation is one where the President of the United States tried to influence 1) a corporation and organization that is for all intents and purposes immune to governmental pressure, and more tragic 2) tried to suppress First Amendment rights. It's very important to note that our society has put immense power into the hands of the presidential office. In no scenario does the President have any right to tell any specific individual what to do, nor do they have the right to influence private businesses and institutions (18 U.S. Code § 227). This is illegal, any influencing of private institutions is a major breach of office and abuse of power. Unfortunately, the President achieves a massive amount of glorification from people that forget that at best the office is considered an employee of the people, not a king. As it stands, literally anything that Trump says now is held against him due to the nature of his office and this resulted in solidarity from people who can't stand Trump, actually believe that institutionalized racism is a real threat and needs to be addressed, or are simply supporting the rights of NFL players to their free speech.

Unfortunately, as the protests have grown in number the point of the protest has largely been ignored. I would argue this is the fault conservative media and the President, in an attempt at shushing the actual protest by painting the protesters as something un-American. The only reason that tactic works, is because America is full of blind patriotism and nationalism, two concepts that are inherently counter intuitive to what America was founded on. Yes, love your country, it is important to a culture for the citizens to love your country, but not to the extent that one refuses to see your country as anything less than perfect. Unfortunately many people believe that we can do no wrong, and turn a blind eye to our failures and mistakes. Many people would think this has to do with concepts such as "white guilt" and whatnot. I was once one of those people. However one can admit that our country has faults while at the same time praising it as a paragon for freedom. For example, a large part of why Trump got elected was because he put "America first." In speeches, even today, he would refuse to condone anything the United States had done, instead speaking about how great the country was. This was in large part why Reagan was considered such a good president, despite a large portion of his policies failing to cement themselves as foundations of the country (supply side economics that eventually lead into today's oligarchy, where the right is largely funded by Super-PACS or the Koch brothers and this gives lobbyist undue influence on politics, the Iran-Contra affair that directly funded half of the wars in the Middles East to this day, his dissolution of labor unions that have advanced the pay gap between middle and upper class, etc etc). Yet as statistically the most corrupt presidency to this date, Reagan is considered the hero of the conservative party because he refused to condone the United States. No one wants to hear about any problems in your country. Even if your daughter has a massive cocaine problem people will refuse to believe it, living in some bubble that they have created for themselves where everything is perfect. Trump does the same tactics, condoning Obama for speaking ill of the US at global speeches at the UN, constantly giving praise on how America is the greatest thing to ever exist. This has led to a large portion of the populace believing that race relations are fine and that "black people are equal now and should just shut up."

That is why people are only now protesting. Trump had finally implied what a portion of Americans had been thinking for decades, that black people always complain about racism that doesn't exist, that they just want free shit, etc etc. For many people, it was a wake up call. For me certainly it was a wake up call. Prior to seeing my home state overrun by Neo-nazis I wouldn't have given a shit about any protests that were happening. Sometimes its just all about the context and situation to spark different lines of thinking and solidarity. Seeing a President (who had already been known to be racist and judgemental) speak ill of a peaceful protest in some misrepresented ideal that they hate America and hate patriotism brought many people to see the light that this sort of institutionalized discrimination and racism permeates our entire country. Before I would have said racism is a fable, only propogated by old white men and shunned by a large portion of the populace. Now I see it as an issue that sooo many people experience daily. Even worse, if you don't remain outspoken against such heinous lines of thinking, then you are not really any better than those who actively participate in racism. I'd argue you're even worse, as there are always going to be "bad people" but if you see those bad people do bad things and do nothing to stop them or anything in the contrary then you are complicit in those actions by virtue. It should be every citizens dream, especially in the United States, to stop that sort of behavior and progress into the wonderful society that everyone preaches about. To truly be the melting pot of the world, where every culture is welcome and the spread of ideas happens. Not a secluded society that only the elite can get in and fuck the rest. Too many people in this country have the mentality of "got mine fuck the rest" and I just find it incredibly sad and heartbreaking.
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
Ive seen some walls of text about this but I'd like to get a more focused answer.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are opposed to free speech in this thread. By free speech I mean the traditional American way, aka "you can say whatever you want with certain very small limitations (slander/libel, "fighting words", speech that puts others in immediate physical danger, cheesy pizza, etc). My question is, what reasons do you have for opposing it?
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Ive seen some walls of text about this but I'd like to get a more focused answer.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are opposed to free speech in this thread. By free speech I mean the traditional American way, aka "you can say whatever you want with certain very small limitations (slander/libel, "fighting words", speech that puts others in immediate physical danger, cheesy pizza, etc). My question is, what reasons do you have for opposing it?
Here are my reasons

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.

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
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
 
Ive seen some walls of text about this but I'd like to get a more focused answer.

Clearly there are a lot of people who are opposed to free speech in this thread. By free speech I mean the traditional American way, aka "you can say whatever you want with certain very small limitations (slander/libel, "fighting words", speech that puts others in immediate physical danger, cheesy pizza, etc). My question is, what reasons do you have for opposing it?
do u mind elaborating on this i've been following this thread and haven't seen any posts like that ?
 

Blazade

is a Forum Moderator
Moderator
Kilometerman if you want a proper response you're going to have to state your position more clearly. What specifically would you like clarification on?
 

kilometerman

Banned deucer.
Here are my reasons
Alright, thanks. If you wouldn't mind, I'd luke to ask you some questions.

1. What qualifies as "hate speech"? Be VERY specific.
2. Why do you think free speech exists? Why do many people value it so much?
3. What reasons would certain entities have for wanting to limit or abolish free speech?
4. Who decides what is "hate speech" and what isn't?
5. What types of "hate speech" do you think should be made illegal? Be VERY specific.

Edit: if anyone else wants to answer these questions feel free, I'd like to get lots of different inputs
 

tcr

sage of six tabs
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Alright, thanks. If you wouldn't mind, I'd luke to ask you some questions.

1. What qualifies as "hate speech"? Be VERY specific.
2. Why do you think free speech exists? Why do many people value it so much?
3. What reasons would certain entities have for wanting to limit or abolish free speech?
4. Who decides what is "hate speech" and what isn't?
5. What types of "hate speech" do you think should be made illegal? Be VERY specific.

Edit: if anyone else wants to answer these questions feel free, I'd like to get lots of different inputs
1) "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." A snippet from the first of my posts I quoted for your ease of viewing pleasure. Hate speech is any speech that (lol) invokes any form of hatred or spreads violence in some way. If your speech inherently devalues a person's worth and implies they're less than human, either through outright directly saying it (n-word, slurs specifically for the use of dehumanization like (BAN ME PLEASE) or kike etc) or through the implication that their thoughts and actions are worthless ("black people have no right to protest in NFL, the NFL gave them all their money!!!" preaches a very heavy dismissal rhetoric and tone). I dont know how much simpler I can make that considering I've probably written enough content throughout my posts responding to that topic to constitute half a page or more of smogon posts.

2) "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." Free Speech exists to protect controversial ideas. You're allowed to say stupid shit no matter how idiotic it is. B.o.B. is allowed to promote flat earth theories despite that specific "theory" being disproved centuries ago. Free speech is there mostly to protect you from government censorship allowing you to criticize their actions or rhetoric to your hearts content. It is fundamentally necessary in every democracy around the world to promote a power balance between people and government.

3) Censorship. China doesn't want their citizens to have free speech so they largely limit what their citizens can do, such as searching stuff up on the internet that counteracts the current narrative put out to its citizens. North Korea is also a good example. Where censorship completely falls apart however is that ideas that public entities would want censored are usually counteractive to whatever the narrative is set at. The church wanted to control people through religion in the early 1400-1500s so they censored a lot of scientific progress to dupe the masses.

4) What an absolutely dumb question. Who decides what "slander/libel, "fighting words", speech that puts others in immediate physical danger, " etc are, aka the current limits on Free Speech? The answer therein lies in your intial posts question.

5) You just repeated your 1st question, as well as I've very clearly outlined my stance on what it, isn't, and what could possibly constitute hate speech multiple times throughout my posts. From your questions, its fairly obvious you either didn't read any of my posts outlining my position, and / or more likely you're attempting to lead me on to your next series of questions which will be something along the lines of "But the government can both censor and decide what is and isn't free speech so when you bridge the gap of censoring hate speech, it leads to a fracture in first amendment rights allowing the government to say criticizing the government is hate speech thus making it illegal!!!"

Possibly my favorite post from this thread was the one that dabbled with the concept of "marketplace of ideas." When you put your speech up there for everyone to hear or see or whatever you are submitting your ideas to the mass collectiveness that is society. Those ideas must hold some specific value for them to be of any worth to anyone. At worst they have some neutral value where if you take the idea in you gain nothing from having it (believing the earth is flat, i.e. You can believe it is all you want, your life isn't exactly going to change if you think so though.) When you put hate speech into the marketplace and accept it, literally no one gains a single thing from it. You don't gain jack shit from thinking black people are subhuman except a negative outlook on life and a belief that certain individuals are somehow not human. Best case scenario you go around subliminally judging said marginalized group and possibly discriminating against it.

Its very obvious your post is leading up to the slippery slope argument of defining what is and isn't hate speech means the government can just define anything as hate speech and then lead to a corrupt regime. If you have anything else to comment I'd be all ears, but I refuse to acknowledge that fallacy again considering I've already acknowledged it once in this thread. I've very clearly made my stance on what is and isn't hate speech, to propose those questions in some leading format I find insulting as its obvious you either didn't read any post there or you are completely dismissing all the information in them, in which case whats the point in discussing anything with you
 

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
How am I being rude? Surely if there are "a lot of people opposed to free speech" it would be pretty easy to find posts by them? I don't think I'm asking for a lot
I'm p sure the "don't be rude" is addressed at Danilo and the "see above post" means "look at the post above mine"
 

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

Top