KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because Islam

[Major-Tom]

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

Of course. I'm not going to get on a soapbox and demand he speak. But the issue is that they think Dawkins is offensive. He's a smug ass, but he's still "progressive" or whatever. Just seems silly and over the top to pull him because "ISLAM GOOD." No, Islam is not good. Xenophobia against Muslims is not good either, but that's not the point.

[Ifreann]

*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.

Yes, if Richard Dawkins can't speak on this one radio station then he has no means to broadcast his message to a wider audience and his beliefs will vanish forever.

[Vallermoore]

Personally I think the world would be a better place without organized religion at all, as religion has caused so much trouble in the world.

[Frieden-und Freudenland]

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.

Yes, if Richard Dawkins can't speak on this one radio station then he has no means to broadcast his message to a wider audience and his beliefs will vanish forever.

I explained above that this has more to do with "not leaving a platform of expression for a certain set of opinions" than with "depriving Dawkins of a platform to speak".

[Calladan]

Richard Dawkins is a twat who takes great delight in insulting every single person who doesn't agree with him and then whining like a child when people dare to suggest he should trying being nice to people instead of shouting his mouth off about shit he knows fuck all about.

Quite frankly they should cancel his speech because of Richard Dawkins, not because of Islam.

And how misleading is the title of this thread? fuck a duck.

[Old Tyrannia]

I have significant disagreements with Dawkins on a range of topics, but he has consistently been a great advocate of free speech even for those holding opposing viewpoints to his own. The fact that he is being censored because of his criticism of Islam is illustrative of the degree to which the mainstream political left now seeks to pander to minorities; the fact that the station cite his comments on Islam as the reason for cancelling his appearance on their programme, even though Dawkins has always criticised the Islamic religion and its teachings rather than attack Muslims themselves and is just as vocal, if not more so, in his attacks on Christianity make it clear that the decision was made to appease adherents of a particular religion by protecting that religion from criticism. Sure, KPFA have every right to decide who they allow to speak on their own radio channel, but their decision on this occasion makes their ideological biases and lack of commitment to open debate and discussion of ideas manifestly clear to all.

[Sanctissima]

So they invited a militant Atheist to discuss his book about militant Atheism, but they decided to cancel it because they didn't realize he'd say things that are militantly Atheist.

Something doesn't add up here.

[New Rogernomics]

Richard Dawkins is a twat who takes great delight in insulting every single person who doesn't agree with him and then whining like a child when people dare to suggest he should trying being nice to people instead of shouting his mouth off about shit he knows fuck all about.

Quite frankly they should cancel his speech because of Richard Dawkins, not because of Islam.

And how misleading is the title of this thread? fuck a duck.

It isn't misleading at all. The title of the article the thread quotes is: 'KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because of his tweets about Islam'.
'

[Infected Mushroom]

No they are not justified.

Dawkins is a hero for daring to speak the truth about Islam.

[Ifreann]

Yes, if Richard Dawkins can't speak on this one radio station then he has no means to broadcast his message to a wider audience and his beliefs will vanish forever.

I explained above that this has more to do with "not leaving a platform of expression for a certain set of opinions" than with "depriving Dawkins of a platform to speak".

My point stands. This is some random radio station. Popular in its catchment area, perhaps, but hardly the be all and end all of mass media. So they won't broadcast literally any and all comers. Big fucking deal. There are a million other radio stations, a million TV stations, a million publishing houses, a million newspapers, a million soap boxes, and a million times a million websites with effectively infinite space available for more.

[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.

Of course. I'm not going to get on a soapbox and demand he speak. But the issue is that they think Dawkins is offensive. He's a smug ass, but he's still "progressive" or whatever. Just seems silly and over the top to pull him because "ISLAM GOOD." No, Islam is not good. Xenophobia against Muslims is not good either, but that's not the point.

Islam is whatever it's believer sees it to be. There are massive reformist movements in the region, I support those over an edgy speaker, though both should have platforms.

[Greater Cesnica]

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?

Complete and utter bullshit. Of course not.

[New Rogernomics]

So they invited a militant Atheist to discuss his book about militant Atheism, but they decided to cancel it because they didn't realize he'd say things that are militantly Atheist.

Something doesn't add up here.

Well, it is a bit silly to invite someone without even looking into what they say in public, and Dawkins isn't silent about religion on social media or in his books.

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

Are we sure it's not time to cancel Islam.

[Greater Cesnica]

Are we sure it's not tme to cancel Islam.

Why Why, I was just waiting for someone like you to pop up. So why do you want to cancel this Century's Edition of the Blame Game?

[Conserative Morality]

"Group does not want to be associated with man they found out was asshole, shocker."

[Sanctissima]

So they invited a militant Atheist to discuss his book about militant Atheism, but they decided to cancel it because they didn't realize he'd say things that are militantly Atheist.

Something doesn't add up here.

Well, it is a bit silly to invite someone without even looking into what they say in public, and Dawkins isn't silent about religion on social media or in his books.

Even then, one can gather from the title of the book what it's ultimately about. I mean, considering how they invited the guy specifically to discuss his new book, you'd think they'd have known what the subject matter of the interview was going to be. It's not like they went into this thinking that Dawkins is an Islamic Mufti who was going to talk about the virtues of Islam.

My guess is that they knew exactly what they were getting into, and backed out the moment they realized there might be some public backlash.

[Greater Cesnica]

"Group does not want to be associated with man they found out was asshole, shocker."

Reaction Politics. Pure gold.

[Sovaal]

If it's a private station they can broadcast or refuse to broadcast what ever they want.

[Conserative Morality]

"I don't hate Islam, I just-"

"I have often said that Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today",

"Never mind, carry on."

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Private group denies person from doing anything at a property they own/rent.

Whatever.

[Calladan]

Richard Dawkins is a twat who takes great delight in insulting every single person who doesn't agree with him and then whining like a child when people dare to suggest he should trying being nice to people instead of shouting his mouth off about shit he knows fuck all about.

Quite frankly they should cancel his speech because of Richard Dawkins, not because of Islam.

And how misleading is the title of this thread? fuck a duck.

It isn't misleading at all. The title of the article the thread quotes is: 'KPFA cancels Richard Dawkins’ speech because of his tweets about Islam'.
'

Did I say the title of the article was misleading? No. I didn't.

Did I say the title of the thread was misleading? Yes I did.

"Because Islam" - because Islam what? Because Islam made threats? Because Islam asked them to?

The active verb suggests Islam had something to do with this, but it didn't. It was because Richard Dawkins is a hateful fuck who thinks he knows better than everyone else about every subject under the sun. The actual religion, and people in the religion, had very little to do with it being cancelled.

So "Because Islam" is incredibly misleading, almost (one could say) defamatory.

[Greater Cesnica]

Private group denies person from doing anything at a property they own/rent.

Whatever.

It's a big deal because "Freedom of Speech" and whatever.

[Conserative Morality]

Even then, one can gather from the title of the book what it's ultimately about. I mean, considering how they invited the guy specifically to discuss his new book, you'd think they'd have known what the subject matter of the interview was going to be. It's not like they went into this thinking that Dawkins is an Islamic Mufti who was going to talk about the virtues of Islam.

My guess is that they knew exactly what they were getting into, and backed out the moment they realized there might be some public backlash.

There's a world of difference between reading a book on atheism and thinking it's hot stuff and supporting the author in the things that he's said outside of the book. "Islam is evil; why aren't Muslims condemning these attacks? SAD" isn't exactly what most atheists want their poster boy to be, which is why he's not the figure he was just a few short years ago before he started this whole... display.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Of course, Dawkins is currently in the process of denying he is remotely Islamophobic or racist.
Indeed these aren't whatever "offensive tweets" to which the station dropped the interview over, this is Dawkins' rebuttal.