3 ms·

There's a difference in airing grievances, political opinion, public discourse, etc, and the lynching of people outside your view with a specific intent of sile

There's a difference in airing grievances, political opinion, public discourse, etc, and the lynching of people outside your view with a specific intent of silencing and destroying their very lives. This vindictiveness is explicit and widespread. The very notion of "I disagree with you (and will bring it to light) but will defend your right to say it" seems to be dead in modern outrage culture.

geofft 10y ago
"Lynching" seems to be exaggeration here, since nobody appears to be actually dying. I mention this not because I'm upset about that word, but because I disagree with the basic claim that anyone's lives or livelihoods are being destroyed. PewDiePie's account is unsuspended and he's actively posting to YouTube. He doesn't have a Disney sponsorship any more, but I don't believe he particularly has a right to a Disney sponsorship. He's welcome to make a living however he wants, just like anyone else. And just like anyone else, his past work will impact his future prospects; if I play a bad joke on my coworkers, my future employment prospects as a sysadmin will likely be limited, too. That is part and parcel of making sure that good work improves your future prospects, which seems like a desirable goal for a society. I support PewDiePie's right to say whatever he wants. I posted a link to his own video in another comment. I am thrilled to bring it to light. I don't believe that defending his right to say it involves defending his right to receive corporate funding or popular appreciation for what he says; "I disagree but will defend your right" seems to imply quite the opposite to me. I agree that if you find yourself destitute (or actually lynched) as a result of public outcry, your right to speech is impacted, but I don't believe there's ever been such a case. Can you point me to one?
uncletaco 10y ago
I agree with geofft, "lynching" is a really strong word for this. I'm also of the opinion that freedom of speech also means freedom of association, and the bigger story here is Disney deciding they did not want to associate with PewDiePie after the WSJ asked them about his comments. Celebrities, unfortunately, are going to get hit when they say or do things that could piss off a bunch of people. I mean look at Muhammad Ali. He refused the Vietnam War draft as a religious conscientious objector. They stripped his title, his endorsements, and banned him from boxing. Not only that, but the appeals court did not even consider the merits of his case when they upheld the conviction. Or how Charlie Chaplan's passport was revoked after a FBI smear campaign and accusations of communism. I understand people tend to look at current events in a vacuum, but saying something provocative and only losing endorsements is historically pretty good. Not even 50 years ago he would have had his passport revoked, been falsely accused of a crime, or some shady bureaucracy would have opened a file on him.
x0x0 10y ago
No, your problem specifically is you support PDP's right to air anti-semitic jokes following repeated use of nazi iconography, and further, don't believe I or others have a right to react in any way beyond your preferred way. PDP: HA HA HA dead jews His advertisers and many audience members: Not cool white-flame: But my free speech! PDP remains free to make any jokes he desires; he's just not free to continue to get his preferred advertising revenue or outlets.

geofft 10y ago

"Lynching" seems to be exaggeration here, since nobody appears to be actually dying. I mention this not because I'm upset about that word, but because I disagree with the basic claim that anyone's lives or livelihoods are being destroyed. PewDiePie's account is unsuspended and he's actively posting to YouTube. He doesn't have a Disney sponsorship any more, but I don't believe he particularly has a right to a Disney sponsorship. He's welcome to make a living however he wants, just like anyone else. And just like anyone else, his past work will impact his future prospects; if I play a bad joke on my coworkers, my future employment prospects as a sysadmin will likely be limited, too. That is part and parcel of making sure that good work improves your future prospects, which seems like a desirable goal for a society. I support PewDiePie's right to say whatever he wants. I posted a link to his own video in another comment. I am thrilled to bring it to light. I don't believe that defending his right to say it involves defending his right to receive corporate funding or popular appreciation for what he says; "I disagree but will defend your right" seems to imply quite the opposite to me. I agree that if you find yourself destitute (or actually lynched) as a result of public outcry, your right to speech is impacted, but I don't believe there's ever been such a case. Can you point me to one?

uncletaco 10y ago

I agree with geofft, "lynching" is a really strong word for this. I'm also of the opinion that freedom of speech also means freedom of association, and the bigger story here is Disney deciding they did not want to associate with PewDiePie after the WSJ asked them about his comments. Celebrities, unfortunately, are going to get hit when they say or do things that could piss off a bunch of people. I mean look at Muhammad Ali. He refused the Vietnam War draft as a religious conscientious objector. They stripped his title, his endorsements, and banned him from boxing. Not only that, but the appeals court did not even consider the merits of his case when they upheld the conviction. Or how Charlie Chaplan's passport was revoked after a FBI smear campaign and accusations of communism. I understand people tend to look at current events in a vacuum, but saying something provocative and only losing endorsements is historically pretty good. Not even 50 years ago he would have had his passport revoked, been falsely accused of a crime, or some shady bureaucracy would have opened a file on him.

x0x0 10y ago

No, your problem specifically is you support PDP's right to air anti-semitic jokes following repeated use of nazi iconography, and further, don't believe I or others have a right to react in any way beyond your preferred way. PDP: HA HA HA dead jews His advertisers and many audience members: Not cool white-flame: But my free speech! PDP remains free to make any jokes he desires; he's just not free to continue to get his preferred advertising revenue or outlets.