NationStates

Valrifell wrote:

The Portland Territory wrote:Yes

Maybe not as "slavishly", but I'd hope the vast majority of Americans would still support their right to speak

Another question would be would the Left protest them on this scale?

The Right wing probably would.

Hello, Right Wing here, at your service

Jamzmania wrote:

Minoa wrote:Hate Speech ≠ Free Speech

Inciting racial hatred, sexism or homophobia, is in my opinion, not what the concept of free speech was intended to cover.

I thought that the whole concept of free speech was protecting artistic creativity and the right to press for positive social change and so on, without fear of repression.

But racial hatred, sexism and homophobia? Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

Even advocating of harassment?

Liriena wrote:

San Marlindo wrote:
Hitting somebody you disagree with is illegal in the United States, I think.

Yes... although I would point out that the disagreement in question is whether non-white Americans deserve to live. Not exactly something that should be normalized as just another valid political opinion.

Well... the speech I just read didn't say anything about killing all non-whites. Insane supremacist he may be... but don't try to turn shit into something it isn't.

And Jamzmania, in that case let me go grab myself a Kalashnikov so I can solve my political quarrels. You're right, civilized protest is for pussies. Anarchy is fun!

Jamzmania wrote:

Liriena wrote:I am not opposed to a violent response in some specific circumstances. While the liberal idea that the foremost solution to political disagreements is to have a debate and see whose ideas truly are the most rational has its value, and does ring true in most cases, it holds no water when the person on the other side is not interested in an honest exchange of rational ideas. Such is the case with Yiannopoulos and others, whose primary objective is to provoke, to purposefully cause as negative a reaction as possible for personal gain. When that's what you are dealing with, and when the other side's methods include harassment and abuse, I feel it's best not to normalize them with a misguided attempt at defeating them with dialogue, but to use direct action instead.

And yes, fighting words will not prevent an arrest and lawsuit, but the fact remains that they are not protected by the First Amendment, and do not constitute expressions that belong in a peaceful dialogue.

You don't debate in order to convince your opponent, you debate in order to convince the audience. You need only show the world how idiotic their ideas are in order to neutralize them as a threat.

Indeed. However, if your opponent's objective is not to engage in an honest exchange of ideas, but to provoke you, then I am skeptical about the necessity and validity of the debate. If your opponent is not approaching you in good faith, why afford them a platform and the pretense of normality?

Jamzmania wrote:However, if you feel that a person is so dangerous that violence is the only possible response, then go big or go home. A sucker punch won't stop this clearly deranged, dangerous individual. Guns, knives, blunt objects - use whatever tools are at your disposal to make sure they can't ever spread their ideas again. Are you prepared to do what is necessary?

Since I remain a pacifist who sees violence as a regrettable last resort, and lethal violence in particular as something that should be avoided like the plague if possible... no, insofar as I disagree that "go big or go home", as you describe it, would actually be necessary in most cases.

Uiiop wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Yes, seriously.

Even advocating of harassment?

Probably, assuming no violence is involved.

Yes, this is completely unacceptable and my hope is that Berkeley handles the matter. Otherwise, Trump has hinted at slashing federal funding for the university. My assumption is that it won't come to that.

Impireacht wrote:

Liriena wrote:Yes... although I would point out that the disagreement in question is whether non-white Americans deserve to live. Not exactly something that should be normalized as just another valid political opinion.

Well... the speech I just read didn't say anything about killing all non-whites. Insane supremacist he may be... but don't try to turn shit into something it isn't.

I was referring to Richard Spencer. He supports ethnic cleansing. Ergo, no tears were shed when he got punched.

Liriena wrote:

Impireacht wrote:Well... the speech I just read didn't say anything about killing all non-whites. Insane supremacist he may be... but don't try to turn shit into something it isn't.

I was referring to Richard Spencer. He supports ethnic cleansing. Ergo, no tears were shed when he got punched.

Ah, alright. It's still assault, but I'm not gonna defend the guy.

Liriena wrote:

Impireacht wrote:Well... the speech I just read didn't say anything about killing all non-whites. Insane supremacist he may be... but don't try to turn shit into something it isn't.

I was referring to Richard Spencer. He supports ethnic cleansing. Ergo, no tears were shed when he got punched.

Your tear ducts may very well have been dry, but surely you can agree that inflicting violence upon another simply for their speech is wrong?

Jamzmania wrote:

Liriena wrote:I was referring to Richard Spencer. He supports ethnic cleansing. Ergo, no tears were shed when he got punched.

Your tear ducts may very well have been dry, but surely you can agree that inflicting violence upon another simply for their speech is wrong?

Legally wrong. Morally... I work on a case by case basis.

Hate Speech IS Free Speech. You cannot claim to support free speech if you think "hate speech" shouldn't be allowed. Unless he is openly threatening someone or inciting violence he has every right to say what he wants.

Kaiserholt wrote:Whatever one's opinion of Milo is, does that opinion really validate the decision to shut down free speech?

"Free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't shut you up just because (it needs a serious reason).
It doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE can't exercise their own free speech and their freedom of assembly to shut you up.
So no, free speech wasn't shut down.

Merattic wrote:Hate Speech IS Free Speech. You cannot claim to support free speech if you think "hate speech" shouldn't be allowed. Unless he is openly threatening someone or inciting violence he has every right to say what he wants.

He can say what he wants. Might be difficult to hear over the sound of the protest chants, but hey.

Liriena wrote:

Jamzmania wrote:Your tear ducts may very well have been dry, but surely you can agree that inflicting violence upon another simply for their speech is wrong?

Legally wrong. Morally... I work on a case by case basis.

It certainly doesn't say anything good about the maturity of the person doing the punching if they have to resort to that.

Risottia wrote:

Kaiserholt wrote:Whatever one's opinion of Milo is, does that opinion really validate the decision to shut down free speech?

"Free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't shut you up just because (it needs a serious reason).
It doesn't mean that OTHER PEOPLE can't exercise their own free speech and their freedom of assembly to shut you up.
So no, free speech wasn't shut down.

I would also like to point out that "free speech" does not cover all speech, and Milo most certainly has used non-protected speech in the past (By singling out an individual for ridicule, which is not a protected form of free speech).

Merattic wrote:Hate Speech IS Free Speech. You cannot claim to support free speech if you think "hate speech" shouldn't be allowed. Unless he is openly threatening someone or inciting violence he has every right to say what he wants.

Plot twist: He's actually singled out individual people for harassment during his speeches, and encouraged his followers to harass trans people.

Now, why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

CoraSpia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Legally wrong. Morally... I work on a case by case basis.

It certainly doesn't say anything good about the maturity of the person doing the punching if they have to resort to that.

While I generally agree that violence is not exactly a high-minded form of expression, and think a better society would be one that rejects violence altogether... I have a hard time bringing myself to condemn someone for attacking a person who supports genocide, for instance.

Liriena wrote:

Merattic wrote:Hate Speech IS Free Speech. You cannot claim to support free speech if you think "hate speech" shouldn't be allowed. Unless he is openly threatening someone or inciting violence he has every right to say what he wants.

Plot twist: He's actually singled out individual people for harassment during his speeches, and encouraged his followers to harass trans people.

Now, why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

There actually are, at least theoretically. Singling individuals out for harassment is not a protected form of free speech in the slightest, and has not been so for decades.

Uiiop wrote:

Hexgard wrote:
Milo does not preach hate, so what's your point?

Wrong *Sniff*
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html
"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "

Fat shaming is a whole different animal than mocking transgender people. Obesity if left in status quo will result in a premature death. Transitioning is often a last ditch effort to prevent suicide, and mocking is the worst possible non-violent thing one could do to them.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Uiiop wrote:Wrong *Sniff*
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html
"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "

Fat shaming is a whole different animal than mocking transgender people. Obesity if left in status quo will result in a premature death. Transitioning is often a last ditch effort to prevent suicide, and mocking is the worst possible non-violent thing one could do to them.

Also, I think mocking Her Awesomeness Laverne Cox for being trans could be considered a mortal sin.

Liriena wrote:

Merattic wrote:Hate Speech IS Free Speech. You cannot claim to support free speech if you think "hate speech" shouldn't be allowed. Unless he is openly threatening someone or inciting violence he has every right to say what he wants.

Plot twist: He's actually singled out individual people for harassment during his speeches, and encouraged his followers to harass trans people.

Now, why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

Because vocal harassment =/= punching people and burning things.

Impireacht wrote:

Liriena wrote:Plot twist: He's actually singled out individual people for harassment during his speeches, and encouraged his followers to harass trans people.

Now, why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

Because vocal harassment =/= punching people and burning things.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences.

Impireacht wrote:

Liriena wrote:Plot twist: He's actually singled out individual people for harassment during his speeches, and encouraged his followers to harass trans people.

Now, why shouldn't there be consequences for that?

Because vocal harassment =/= punching people and burning things.

Punching people and burning things =/= genocide

But that doesn't mean the former should be legal, does it?

Vocal harassment should have consequences.

Alvecia wrote:

Impireacht wrote:Because vocal harassment =/= punching people and burning things.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences.

It's a lot easier to get over hearing that a few people don't agree with your lifestyle than it is to get over thousands of dollars in property damage... it's also a lot easier to vocally stand up for yourself than to physically stand up for yourself when you're being assaulted. People's emotions aren't protected by the law.

Liriena wrote:

Hirota wrote: Do we have a statistic for how many people were assaulted at Berkeley? I'm sure those statistics paint a flattering picture of of these protesters

Perhaps.

Now, what was the point of you attempting an equivalency here?

The key point I'm making here is that we can use whatever justifications we want to make sweeping assertions about demographics of peoples, but the problem isn't the statistics themselves, but how they are abused to make those sweeping assertions and justify snarling.

It's certainly not one party doing this either. Alvecia posted to an example of Milo being critical of homosexual relationships (incidentally I'm not sure this particular example would qualify as "self-hating," but I have seen other interviews with a similar tone). In that article Milo posts to a number of studies that make claims about the harm children experience living in a same-gender parent family ( maybe that might not be a shock when one of the studies is carried out by someone from the "The Catholic University of America" - although some of the others are less dubious).

I disagree with the assertions made by Milo as a result of that evidence, just like I disagree with the assertions by some on the left that all Trump voters are racist etc etc. I think that instead of saying x therefore y, we should try and understand why x happens in the first place to provide us with a more nuanced and informed understanding of y.

But, as I'm sure you'll agree, it's much easier to demonise ones foes, paint everything as black and white and employ snarl words to belittle. I know I've done it from time to time, much to my chagrin.