| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in the aftermath of the protests (both peaceful and otherwise) at UC Berkeley over Milo Yiannopoulos' planned speech as part of his US college speaking tour, I wanted to get the opinion of the OTD forum users in regards to this story, as well as the overall topic of protests pertaining to speaking on public college campuses. For me, it's a tricky issue that pulls me in multiple directions. For starters, I'm a staunch supporter of allowing for competing (often ridiculous) ideas to have their chances at being presented so that not only can people make decisions for themselves, but also so that they can learn from being exposed to both good and bad ideas. On another hand, while free speech generally protects you from the government punishing you for trying to publicly promote your ideas, I'm not sure that it necessarily extends to guaranteeing your use of public facilities to do so (I say I'm not sure because I don't know if that's ever legally been decided before, and being sick makes lots of online research a somewhat undesirable prospect at the moment). So I can both see and not see why the protesters feel the need to oppose speakers like Yiannopoulos and Shapiro (who was probably the biggest individual disappointment of 2016 for me) to the point of wanting them to (most commonly) banned from holding campus-hosted speeches. When in doubt, I tend to lean towards the "let them do it" side, so that's where I'm currently at on this issue. Thoughts?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
People like that just take, and take, and take, and take, and take. They've completely exploited others' acting in good faith, and have dragged us all to where we are now because of it.
I've reached the conclusion that if someone's bedrock ideology advocates violently silencing and marginalizing others, then it's entirely fair to do the same to them (what's more, looking at Canada with its hate speech laws and Germany with its zero-tolerance policy of neo-Nazis, it looks to me like that works, and what we do here in America doesn't).
Maybe it's hypocritical...but guess what? There are far worse things. Somewhere along the way, we all bought into this insidious dogma that NOTHING, NOTHING!!! is worse than being a hypocrite, and we've seen what's come of slavish adherence to that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (to say nothing of the fact that this actually is consistent, just along the lines of "achieving specific desired results to remedy a finite problem" rather than the lines of "following rules for following rules' sake").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People like that just take, and take, and take, and take, and take. They've completely exploited others' acting in good faith, and have dragged us all to where we are now because of it.
I've reached the conclusion that if someone's bedrock ideology advocates violently silencing and marginalizing others, then it's entirely fair to do the same to them (what's more, looking at Canada with its hate speech laws and Germany with its zero-tolerance policy of neo-Nazis, it looks to me like that works, and what we do here in America doesn't).
Maybe it's hypocritical...but guess what? There are far worse things. Somewhere along the way, we all bought into this insidious dogma that NOTHING, NOTHING!!! is worse than being a hypocrite, and we've seen what's come of slavish adherence to that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (to say nothing of the fact that this actually is consistent, just along the lines of "achieving specific desired results to remedy a finite problem" rather than the lines of "following rules for following rules' sake").
1) There's a very big difference between advocating violence (which I don't think I've even since Milo do) and actually being violent (which I know I haven't seen Milo do). So it's not really fair to respond to one with the other.
2) In what way can you say that the hate speech laws worked? What metric are you using to determine that had a positive effect (and since this is all based on subjective morals, what do you define as positive in this situation)?
Also I think you're confusing being intellectually consistent with "following rules for following rules' sake". There's a very good reason to be intellectually consistent and that's to set a precedent as a safeguard for when your group isn't in the majority or in power. If you go around saying "well we're going to do this because it's better" but then not apply the same standards of fairness to other groups, it inclines those same groups to act that way towards you when suddenly they get voted in to power... kind of like how it is now.
|
|
1) There's a very big difference between advocating violence (which I don't think I've even since Milo do) and actually being violent (which I know I haven't seen Milo do). So it's not really fair to respond to one with the other.
"Coercion," then, if that word is less misleading to you - as in compromising his freedom of speech because we know he's only going to use it to push for a mentality and ensuing system that will lead to innocent people's rights to speech, and a whole lot more, being brutally stomped on.
2) In what way can you say that the hate speech laws worked? What metric are you using to determine that had a positive effect (and since this is all based on subjective morals, what do you define as positive in this situation)?
I think this is kind of an absurd question, all things considered. I will outsource it:
Canadians? Germans? How do you feel about your laws? Would you say your country's social atmosphere is as toxic as America's?
Also I think you're confusing being intellectually consistent with "following rules for following rules' sake". There's a very good reason to be intellectually consistent and that's to set a precedent as a safeguard for when your group isn't in the majority or in power. If you go around saying "well we're going to do this because it's better" but then not apply the same standards of fairness to other groups, it inclines those same...
The point I already tried to make is that what I say is just as consistent as what you say. YOU are confusing following rules for rules' sake with "being intellectually consistent," because you evidently only see how one line of reasoning is consistent. I can see both ways, but what matters is not "consistency," which has become nothing but a disingenuous argument technique in American political culture, but HOW it's consistent, and to what ends it leads.
You're making the mistake of forming your judgments in a vacuum from the specific situation at hand. There is right and wrong in an abstract sense, but how we use our knowledge of right and wrong to solve problems in the real world must be situational. To use the example at hand, we've tried your methods for decades now, and although it might have worked if people like Milo, Trump, Bannon, and the Republican Party in general were acting in good faith, it's very clear that they're not, therefore, unhappily, it won't work and they'll just exploit it to everyone else's lasting and increasing detriment for as long as they don't experience severe consequences for it.
Forgive me if that answer leads something to be desired. It sounds like your response to my statement was ask to the very question that my statement was intended to already be an answer to, so I don't really know what more I can say if you still don't understand.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
People like that just take, and take, and take, and take, and take. They've completely exploited others' acting in good faith, and have dragged us all to where we are now because of it.
I've reached the conclusion that if someone's bedrock ideology advocates violently silencing and marginalizing others, then it's entirely fair to do the same to them (what's more, looking at Canada with its hate speech laws and Germany with its zero-tolerance policy of neo-Nazis, it looks to me like that works, and what we do here in America doesn't).
Maybe it's hypocritical...but guess what? There are far worse things. Somewhere along the way, we all bought into this insidious dogma that NOTHING, NOTHING!!! is worse than being a hypocrite, and we've seen what's come of slavish adherence to that. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (to say nothing of the fact that this actually is consistent, just along the lines of "achieving specific desired results to remedy a finite problem" rather than the lines of "following rules for following rules' sake").
1) There's a very big difference between advocating violence (which I don't think I've even since Milo do) and actually being violent (which I know I haven't seen Milo do). So it's not really fair to respond to one with the other.
2) In what way can you say that the hate speech laws worked? What metric are you using to determine that had a positive effect (and since this is all based on subjective morals, what do you define as positive in this situation)?
1) In Milo's college presentations, he literally outs and presents the private information of transgender students who attend that school. It's essentially doxxing on a stage, where he mocks and belittles them to a paying crowd. Whether or not he literally and directly says the words that these students should be attacked and harassed, the intent and the results are clear: these students are targeted for being trans and Milo intentionally turns their campuses into hostile, abusive, and violent places against them. At UC Berkeley, he was planning on reading off a list of undocumented students. This isn't a matter of "should he be allowed to voice his opinions?", but rather "Milo is a dangerous fascist who makes money by pointing out vulnerable targets to intimidate and attack." Milo's goal is to destroy lives, and he's not violent in the same way that someone who hires an assassin isn't violent.
2) Well, there aren't any literal neo-Nazis in their highest branches of government, so they've got one over us.
As someone who works with social statistics on the regular, it upsets me to see Milo misuse them and present them out of context to justify his radical views. That being said, I don't think the tactics employed in this particular instance were very effective at doing anything other than reminding Milo that some people hate him -- a fact I'm sure he is quite aware of and even thrives on. But hey, maybe that was the point.
My favorite Milo story comes from his earlier appearance in Seattle where a Trump supporter shot a protester, a member of the anarcho-syndicalist Industrial Workers of the World. I'll let The Guardian take it from here:
"The release of the shooter has prompted consternation among some anti-Trump activists, who see a double standard in how leftwing protesters are treated by police. But the victim does not want to see charges filed.
"'My client isn’t interested in using the apparatus of the state to punish the individual,' Lippek said. 'He’d like to engage in dialogue and a restorative justice process.'"
I'm not sure how much faith I'd put in a restorative justice program, but I have to admire him for sticking to his anarchist principles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully aware that Milo is a dirtbag who makes his living off of being a bully, but I'm failing to see how that's the same as actually going out and physically assaulting people and vandalizing public and private property.
Also while I'm in no way a fan of Trump or those he chooses to include in his administration, I have serious doubts that hate speech laws are what prevent similar politicians from rising to power in other countries. For example, the UK has hate speech laws and after Brexit and the successes of those behind it (Farage and the gang), it's more likely that other countries' populations simply have different priorities rather than their laws dictating whether or not nicer people are in office.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully aware that Milo is a dirtbag who makes his living off of being a bully, but I'm failing to see how that's the same as actually going out and physically assaulting people and vandalizing public and private property.
I think you fail to understand how severe the violence he incites is.
Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully aware that Milo is a dirtbag who makes his living off of being a bully, but I'm failing to see how that's the same as actually going out and physically assaulting people and vandalizing public and private property.I think you fail to understand how severe the violence he incites is.
I understand the violence committed by some of the people who listen to him, but I'm an adult, and as an adult I expect other adults to be held accountable for their own actions. So while I still don't like Milo or what he says (99% of the time), I hold the people who commit the violence responsible for said violence, not someone who suggested it (implicitly or explicitly).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the violence committed by some of the people who listen to him, but I'm an adult, and as an adult I expect other adults to be held accountable for their own actions. So while I still don't like Milo or what he says (99% of the time), I hold the people who commit the violence responsible for said violence, not someone who suggested it (implicitly or explicitly).Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully aware that Milo is a dirtbag who makes his living off of being a bully, but I'm failing to see how that's the same as actually going out and physically assaulting people and vandalizing public and private property.I think you fail to understand how severe the violence he incites is.
So, "Who would rid me of this turbulent priest?" is fine with you. You can incite violence however much you like and bear absolutely no responsibility. You can say "That guy's an enemy, get him." and no one should say boo to you. You can out people as trans, knowing it puts their safety at risk and "oh,we ll, not my problem." Utter, utter balderdash.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully aware that Milo is a dirtbag who makes his living off of being a bully, but I'm failing to see how that's the same as actually going out and physically assaulting people and vandalizing public and private property.
I draw the line at doxxing, as should most.
I doubt you-or anyone here- would post the address of someone who took the wrong side in the martial/caster debate and dare people to come get them for being wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those who last responded to me, I think you misunderstand my position (I assume theJeff's and Paul Watson's posts immediately after my last are in response to me). I fully support the protests against Milo 100% for as long as they remain peaceful. What I question is: 1) the use of violence against him and his listeners (and the police trying to maintain order in this case), and 2) whether or not it is legal/reasonable to disallow Milo (and similarly protested speakers such as Ben Shapiro) from speaking on public college campuses. Questioning those things is not in any way the same as saying "oh,we ll, not my problem", nor does it imply that I think Milo is not guilty of any wrongdoing. It means that I don't hold doxxing to be equivalent to throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at people who posed no immediate threat.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Allow me to explain. You said
So while I still don't like Milo or what he says (99% of the time), I hold the people who commit the violence responsible for said violence, not someone who suggested it (implicitly or explicitly).
Given this was in the context of people pointing out the dangers of Milo doxxing people and generally calling for violence covertly and overtly, how else are we supposed to take it but "Incitement is free speech. I blame the people who are incited, not the inciter"?
You're right, that doesn't imply Milo is not guilty of any wrongdoing, it explicitly states it.|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, on the doxxing front, would you hold revealing where Jews are hiding to a Nazi, or a non-Muslim to ISIS, or a black slave to the old KKK, to be a problem? That's the equivalent of what Milo is doing. He's holding up people as an example of a group his audience violently despises. He knwos what will happen because it's happened before and is blatantly obvious. It's just weasel words so he can dance around the laws on incitement by doing "Well, gosh, I never thought it would end in violence."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am about 99% sure that Milo knew full well that his speech would be canceled and protests would turn ugly. He was almost certainly banking on it, giving him free publicity and the Trump administration free talking points they can use for policies that will clamp down on protesting/protesters. So not only do I completely disagree with the anarchists who turned things ugly, but I also think they are just plain dumb for doing exactly what was expected of them.
As for free speech...well it has its limits. Our country allows you to say whatever you want (almost), but that doesn't mean people have to listen to you or host you. If Milo wants to speak on college campuses maybe he should be less of a a troll.
To those who last responded to me, I think you misunderstand my position (I assume theJeff's and Paul Watson's posts immediately after my last are in response to me). I fully support the protests against Milo 100% for as long as they remain peaceful. What I question is: 1) the use of violence against him and his listeners (and the police trying to maintain order in this case), and 2) whether or not it is legal/reasonable to disallow Milo (and similarly protested speakers such as Ben Shapiro) from speaking on public college campuses. Questioning those things is not in any way the same as saying "oh,we ll, not my problem", nor does it imply that I think Milo is not guilty of any wrongdoing. It means that I don't hold doxxing to be equivalent to throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at people who posed no immediate threat.1) It's perfectly reasonable to call out violence at protests as a bad thing. Protesters often do so themselves.
It's more problematic to use that as an excuse to dismiss the concerns of the protesters. Not saying you were doing that, but it is a common tactic.2) In this case, the speech was cancelled as a safety concern. Hard to say that's not legal. Otherwise, it's not clear to me what the law requires (or should require) for what are essentially semi-public organizations. Should colleges have no say over events on their campus, regardless of content, size or likely disruption? Should they have complete control - banning or allowing anyone they choose for whatever ideological reason? Should they likewise be able to shut down protests against such events?
3) Doxxing may be less immediately violent than those protests, but, particularly when targeting transfolk, it may well be more likely to cause physical harm. Near as I can tell there were only a couple of minor injuries during the protest, less than I'd expect from " throwing molotov cocktails and rocks at people". Property damage, certainly and it seems that's where the molotovs and rocks...
Oh I know this particular event was cancelled due to security issues which is of course within the realm of the universities decision making ability. I was referring more to shutting down the speeches being the goal of many of the protests, as in the protesters calling for the university to cancel the speech before it ever happens due to the speaker's (here I'm referring to more speakers than just Milo, such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, and I use them as specific examples because they are similarly protested and the ones with whom I'm most familiar) views or speaking tendencies. Now whether or not public universities should be able to make those decisions is the topic of debate (private universities obviously should, they can do what they want with their money). On one hand, I think public property which is available for rent (like the auditoriums where the speeches are held) should be available to whomever rents it out so long as what they do with it is not illegal (which should obviously be handled by the police if it is). On the other hand, as universities are institutions which inherently influence thought (regardless of slant, poli sci and history classes at a minimum influence the way people look at the world), it's not unreasonable for them to have some say in who speaks on their campuses.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
As so often happens in these threads, I feel like y'all are getting way too deep in the the abstract and philosophical examination of individual pieces of this ("Is violence ever justified? How does inciting violence relate to the violence incited?") instead of looking at the whole situation in context.
By way of explaining what I mean, I'd like to share a post I saw on Facebook that I hope sheds some light on the messy nuance of the situation and examines the relationship between ideological purity and effective tactics of self-defense:
I'm seeing sosososo much debate (And even some dialogue!) about the tactics that effectively and rapidly shut Milo down last night at UC Berkeley.
I hear a lot of "Nonviolent protest would have been better," when what I think is more appropriate is "I'm glad they got stuff shut down, and I feel concern about how well that plays into the power play/trap set by Milo and Breitbart." Or "I'm glad they shut Milo down and I am frustrated that the riot went on far past the time that the event was called off and Milo left the premises."
I'm also hearing "You're only playing into his plan." That is real. He made a power play/predicament for people in which stopping him completely was tricky to guarantee and not stopping him was absolutely condoning racist, transphobic, misogynist violence and the proliferation of a fascist state. Could *further* nonviolent means have fully stopped him? Maybe? It's hard saying that a line of protestors locking down would actually have stopped the event from happening, let alone stopped the one tonight from happening as a side effect.
Perhaps in the future some of the people who are outraged that this protest employed property destruction and even some violence will be ready to lock down deep and hard enough to stop a similar event. I'm not sure what will work because I also know police and fascists to step right over the bodies of protestors to keep their program going. So that's a complex conversation that rapidly loses efficacy when it's about yes violence or no violence.
I feel very strongly that we are in a dire time which requires us to dismantle the perfectionism that is a huge tenet of white supremacist culture. We are talking about self-defense and harm reduction. When I teach self-defense and someone asks the best move to know, I say again and again that the best one is the one that worked and it's usually two or three and it's probably messy unless you're a very experienced and gifted fighter.
The same goes for us all in this moment. Do you view nonviolent civil disobedience as purer or simply a better tactical choice for last night in specific? Cool. There are a number of layers to last night and things could have played out multiple ways. And in this time which very much counts as "again" in the "never again" refrain with which we respond to memories of Nazi Germany, the thing that happened and worked...it worked.
I am also hearing a lot of "What about Milo's freedom of speech?" Here's how I keep feeling about that: He set the whole thing up to be able to talk about his freedom of speech if his violent soapboxing got shut down. He did this because it's a classic misdirection wherein he gets to play the victim by hiding behind an emotionally-charged, culture-wide, fuzzily-defined icon of Goodness. (I'm not saying you shouldn't defend freedom of speech, even for complete hateful a*@$@%@s. I am saying that trumpeting this phrase that is also his party line without qualification is signal boosting him as well. That's the trick he played.)
But freedom of speech ends at shouting "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. It does so because it leaves the realm of expression and enters the realm of actual harm. Same with Milo. He's got plenty of room to express himself. Last night was about weaponizing people's ideals against them in an effort to further an international program of racist, misogynist, transphobic, fascist hate which has and will continue to harm people in much, much more massive ways than those who were harmed last night. Stepping in at that moment to limit his harm is not only reasonable, it is required. It is not required that you do it, whoever you are reading this, but it is required in defense of liberty.
Oh I know this particular event was cancelled due to security issues which is of course within the realm of the universities decision making ability. I was referring more to shutting down the speeches being the goal of many of the protests, as in the protesters calling for the university to cancel the speech before it ever happens due to the speaker's (here I'm referring to more speakers than just Milo, such as Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder, and I use them as specific examples because they are similarly protested and the ones with whom I'm most familiar) views or speaking tendencies. Now whether or not public universities should be able to make those decisions is the topic of debate (private universities obviously should, they can do what they want with their money). On one hand, I think public property which is available for rent (like the auditoriums where the speeches are held) should be available to whomever rents it out so long as what they do with it is not illegal (which should obviously be handled by the police if it is). On the other hand, as universities are institutions which inherently influence thought (regardless of slant, poli sci and history classes at a minimum influence the way people look at the world), it's not unreasonable for them to have some say in who speaks on their campuses.1) Generally these aren't simply "he rented the auditorium", but "he was invited by some campus group". Nor do I think the university has a blanket policy of "will rent auditorium to whoever pays".
I also don't know who's on the hook for the police protection and anything else necessary for disruptive events. Will such things disrupt the school's primary teaching mission?Are there any limits? Can the KKK come and hold an event on campus? Should they expect it not to be disrupted?
Universities, even publicly funded ones, aren't public spaces in the same way roads and public parks and the like are public spaces. Different rules apply. Universities control access to...
Well what I'm saying is that I'm conflicted in regards to whether or not they SHOULD rent to whomever pays, allow those people to speak (assuming no criminal activity) regardless of ideology, and treated as public spaces in the same way as roads and parks. I already stated why I'm conflicted so I won't bother repeating it, but suffice it to say that it's more a discussion on the general purpose of government resources than anything, and that's a whole other mountain-sized can of worms.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Captain Battletoad: Each person/community gets to decide what views they want to express/endorse. Milo gets to decide how his resources are spent and what his message will say. Other people are not required to allow him to speak at their buildings/website/forum/books/etc.
If I own a publishing company, just because you have an opinion, does not mean I am required to publish your book. My freedom of speech includes whether or not I lend my resources/platform to someone else.
If Milo were a student at UC Berkeley, I think it would be reasonable for the university to afford him the same opportunities as all other students. IE, if every student were guaranteed one article in the school paper during their time at the university, then he should get one too, though he'd still be required to follow any explicit rules for that article. But he's not a student there. Nor is every person in the US entitled to book auditoriums at UC Berkeley to give their speeches.
Freedom of speech means that you are entitled to use whatever platform you have access to or control over as you see fit. If it isn't yours, then you don't get to make decisions on how it is used, because that would be the free speech rights of the owner.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Context matters.
A university allowing a controversial political speaker invited by a college group to speak. Fine
A university allowing a speaker who encourages harassment campaigns against people they disagree with. Not fine.
There are varying degrees of responsibility for any action. Just because reasonability varies, doesn't mean you only focus on the most responsible person.
There are supreme court cases that set a precedent for shutting down free speech. Public threat of violence is one such case. The violence doesn't even have to be perpetrated by the speaker to be shut down. Sometimes that is a good thing, and sometimes its a bad thing. However, the publics safety is the most important issue to consider in public places. The only recourse in these instances, is to plan a counter protest after your free speech has been chilled.
@Captain Battletoad: Each person/community gets to decide what views they want to express/endorse. Milo gets to decide how his resources are spent and what his message will say. Other people are not required to allow him to speak at their buildings/website/forum/books/etc.
If I own a publishing company, just because you have an opinion, does not mean I am required to publish your book. My freedom of speech includes whether or not I lend my resources/platform to someone else.
If Milo were a student at UC Berkeley, I think it would be reasonable for the university to afford him the same opportunities as all other students. IE, if every student were guaranteed one article in the school paper during their time at the university, then he should get one too, though he'd still be required to follow any explicit rules for that article. But he's not a student there. Nor is every person in the US entitled to book auditoriums at UC Berkeley to give their speeches.
Freedom of speech means that you are entitled to use whatever platform you have access to or control over as you see fit. If it isn't yours, then you don't get to make decisions on how it is used, because that would be the free speech rights of the owner.
If a community vote had been taken which resulted in a decision of "No, don't rent the auditorium to whomever is bringing Milo here", then yes, that would have been in keeping with your position. That's not what happened though. The administrators of the universities at which these speakers are speaking do not own the universities where they work, so they don't (and shouldn't) have the same right to dictate who says what on said campus. Your hypothetical publishing company would be well within its right to tell Milo to go piss up a rope because it's privately owned (just like the privately owned universities that I mentioned earlier), but that's not the case with PUBLICLY owned universities, and it shouldn't be.