KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because Islam

[New Rogernomics]

In the latest Berkeley controversy over what speakers may talk about, the progressive radio station KPFA has canceled an Aug. 9 on-stage appearance by the scientist Richard Dawkins.

KPFA had invited the British scientist to discuss his newest book, Science in the Soul: Collected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist, which it termed “excellent.” But on Thursday the news organization canceled the event, citing concerns about the tone of some of Dawkins’ tweets about Muslims.

“We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam, so many people,” KPFA said in an email sent to ticket buyers. “KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech. While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologize for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins views much earlier.”

Dawkins challenged KPFA’s interpretation of his tweets through a press release issued by the Center for Public Inquiry. In 2017, his Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science merged with the Center for Public Inquiry and Dawkins holds a board seat.

Link: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/ ... ets-islam/

So after Ann Coulter, now Richard Dawkins is not welcome...

Really a few questions to discuss here.

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

Are they justified in cancelling the event?

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

From that news report:

“I have called IslamISM “vile” but surely you, of all people, understand that Islamism is not the same as Islam,” Dawkins wrote. “I have criticised the ridiculous pseudoscientific claims made by Islamic apologists (“the sun sets in a marsh” etc), and the opposition of Islamic “ scholars” to evolution and other scientific truths. I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women.”

Nope. I don't think this is offensive. This is the plain truth.

[Shrillland]

Certainly PC is becoming a little too excessive in that part of America, but they do have the right to decide who goes onto their station and who doesn't. As for whether or not it was a good idea, it's better to be controversial on occasion than to be sanitised all the time. Yes, Richard Dawkins is a controversial fellow along the lines of Bill Maher, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate that kind of speech from the public's ears. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would never silence him either.

[Crockerland]

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

No, obviously, that's the exact opposite of what free speech is.

Of course, a privately-owned business is in no way bound by freedom of speech, they have complete freedom of association and they are free to host whoever they please on their radio show.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Certainly PC is becoming a little too excessive in that part of America, but they do have the right to decide who goes onto their station and who doesn't. As for whether or not it was a good idea, it's better to be controversial on occasion than to be sanitised all the time. Yes, Richard Dawkins is a controversial fellow along the lines of Bill Maher, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate that kind of speech from the public's ears. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would never silence him either.

And doesn't silencing him (or anyone else, for that matter) brew potentially more hatred for Muslims? Though this "politically correct" decision was KPFA's, now an entire Muslim community will be held accountable for what happened.

I think sensible Muslims, above all, should speak against this nonsense.

[Republic of Coldwater]

This is getting ridiculous. The best way to defeat someone's opinion is to give them a platform, hence exposing their faults and opening opportunities for a sufficient rebuttal. Silencing them would only add to their appeal.

Its crazy because a few decades ago Berkeley students allowed Strom Thurmond to express his political beliefs without incident, citing free speech. Now there are SJWs everywhere who defy that spirit of free speech, and it seems like the Berkeley community is following suit.

[The Black Forrest]

*shrugs* They don't want him there isn't denying him the ability to say his stuff.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Does free speech mean freedom from offense and hurt feelings?

Yes, obviously, that's the entire point of free speech.

Of course, a privately-owned business is in no way bound by freedom of speech, they have complete freedom of association and they are free to host whoever they please on their radio show.

If so - should they also have the right to deny services to people for any reason?

[Benjabobaria]

Wow, what a shame. Richard Dawkins is a great scientist. His remarks about Islam are fantastic, too. Muslim extremism - just like other forms of religious extremism - is BARBARIC. The left embraces science, and arguably has more of a right to say "facts are more important than your feelings" until this shit comes up.

[Crockerland]

Yes, obviously, that's the entire point of free speech.

Of course, a privately-owned business is in no way bound by freedom of speech, they have complete freedom of association and they are free to host whoever they please on their radio show.

If so - should they also have the right to deny services to people for any reason?

Yes, like I just said, they have complete freedom of association.

[Ifreann]

Islam controls KPFA?

---

Certainly PC is becoming a little too excessive in that part of America, but they do have the right to decide who goes onto their station and who doesn't. As for whether or not it was a good idea, it's better to be controversial on occasion than to be sanitised all the time. Yes, Richard Dawkins is a controversial fellow along the lines of Bill Maher, but that doesn't mean we should eliminate that kind of speech from the public's ears. I don't agree with everything he says, but I would never silence him either.

And doesn't silencing him (or anyone else, for that matter) brew potentially more hatred for Muslims? Though this "politically correct" decision was KPFA's, now an entire Muslim community will be held accountable for what happened.

I think sensible Muslims, above all, should speak against this nonsense.

Dawkins hasn't been silenced, though. Obviously, since he issued a press release in response to this decision. Which you yourself quoted.

[Kvatchdom]

Private institutions can deny acceptance for any reason they deem worthy, as long as it does not breach the law. I see no issue.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

*shrugs* They don't want him their isn't denying him the ability to say his stuff.

After a certain point, it is. That is how censorship starts. They deprive you of a platform to voice your opinion.

In that case your views either fall into oblivion with you, or you become marginalized and have to try out other means to get yourself heard. This is the motivation behind quite a number of terrorist organizations, actually. Believe me, you don't wanna go down that road.

[Republic of Coldwater]

If so - should they also have the right to deny services to people for any reason?

Yes, like I just said, they have complete freedom of association.

Thats great - many would hold an unfortunate double standard: private businesses could silence people with the wrong views, but couldn't deny services to groups they deem worthy.

[United Ameritania]

They're within their rights to do this, I guess?


I still think they should've let him give his speech, I don't really see to much of a reason to cancel the speech, but I don't run the show, sooooo..

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

Islam controls KPFA?

---

And doesn't silencing him (or anyone else, for that matter) brew potentially more hatred for Muslims? Though this "politically correct" decision was KPFA's, now an entire Muslim community will be held accountable for what happened.

I think sensible Muslims, above all, should speak against this nonsense.

Dawkins hasn't been silenced, though. Obviously, since he issued a press release in response to this decision. Which you yourself quoted.

Yes, of course. Dawkins can do that, because he is famous already, and he can avail himself of a number of means to voice his opinion.

I am more concerned about the general message this rejection gives, rather than the particular case of Dawkins being banned from speaking at this event. It creates a shield of silence around a certain topic (Islam). This is against the spirit of free speech, and normalizes this kind of censorship. That is my concern.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Regardless of KPFA's right to do this, I think the bigger question is whether it is morally justified for the consistent, though legal, censorship of thinkers and speakers who are deemed certain things. Nobody is denying that institutions have a legal right to cancel speakers and events, but many would deny the justness of denying individuals platforms for their political beliefs.

[The Black Forrest]

Yes, like I just said, they have complete freedom of association.

Thats great - many would hold an unfortunate double standard: private businesses could silence people with the wrong views, but couldn't deny services to groups they deem worthy.

Who championed at will employment?

[Benjabobaria]

How are Dawkins' statements Islamophobic, I'm lost here. Not any more Islamophobic than boycotting Israel is anti-Semitic. When a country that follows a certain religion does bad shit, criticizing what goes on in the country is NOT insulting all members of that religion.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

In the latest Berkeley controversy over what speakers may talk about, the progressive radio station KPFA has cancelled an Aug. 9 on-stage appearance by the scientist Richard Dawkins.

>progressive radio station
>progressive

There's your problem. Ironically, the "progressives" are the most intolerant and ignorant people around. Of course, they won't allow someone to speak with a differing opinion! Oh wait, the politically correct police called me. It's no longer called "differing opinion", it's now called being "opinion-phobic".

[Proctopeo]

They can do this, but their reasoning isn't quite... reasonable. Somehow KPFA got to "Dawkins hates Muslims" out of "Islamism is vile and we shouldn't refrain from criticizing it". He has made other tweets about Muslims and Islam, but since his open letter refers to that specific Tweet, it's likely what pushed them over the edge.

[MERIZoC]

Everyone knows doddering old british men are entitled to be on any podcast they want

[United Ameritania]

In the latest Berkeley controversy over what speakers may talk about, the progressive radio station KPFA has cancelled an Aug. 9 on-stage appearance by the scientist Richard Dawkins.

>progressive radio station
>progressive

There's your problem. Ironically, the "progressives" are the most intolerant and ignorant people around. Of course, they won't allow someone to speak with a differing opinion! Oh wait, the politically correct police called me. It's no longer called "differing opinion", it's now called being "opinion-phobic".

you've had too much to think, my dude.

*the sounds of sirens in the distance*

[New Rogernomics]

Thats great - many would hold an unfortunate double standard: private businesses could silence people with the wrong views, but couldn't deny services to groups they deem worthy.

Who championed at will employment?

Well, on an entirely separate issue, KPFA isn't that great on labor rights either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KPFA

In November 2010, the management of Pacifica laid off most of the staff of the popular KPFA Morning Show. The union representing the paid staff of KPFA claims that the lay offs were done in violation of the union contract.[15] Pacifica management says the lay offs were financially necessary and done according to staff seniority.[16] Pacifica management replaced the paid staff of the Morning Show with an all volunteer crew.[17]

[Major-Tom]

It's an affiliate of Berkeley. Progressivism is fine and all, but this toxic version of leftism that many universities and cities with universities tend to propagate really just stifles speech anyone may find offensive.

It's unfortunate. I'm not a fan of Dawkins, I think he's smart, but he feels like he deserves adoration for his intelligence. But if the man wants to speak, let him speak, don't deny him because "muh Islamophobia." Nobody cares.