4 ms·

Generally speaking, there are two avenues people have to change quote-unquote undesirable behavior: legally and socially. Legally, we should vociferously oppos

Generally speaking, there are two avenues people have to change quote-unquote undesirable behavior: legally and socially. Legally, we should vociferously oppose any restrictions on speech, including hateful speech. This is a pretty banal point; most people not to the far left or right can agree on it. Socially, I think it's pretty clear that we need not tolerate a lot of speech that should be legal. Milo Yiannopolous is free to spew his garbage, but we have no obligation to hear him out, or let him speak at our schools or events. Freedom of speech does not mean we have an obligation to let people who mean harm speak unencumbered. We should protest and block them however we can.

jrs95 10y ago
That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fashionable than it is reason, which ought to be the primary domain of a university. And the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable is being determined by people who as a group have significant biases. That is detrimental to an open debate and exchange of ideas. I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Right now, speakers who have already been invited are being shut down with violent protests which are met with little to no disciplinary action from the school.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  > I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > clearly bad ideas That's the problem - there isn't an objective definition of what counts as a "bad idea". The patriot, rebel, atheist, religious fundamentalist, Marxist, market fundamentalist, civil rights activist, and white nationalist each have very different ideas about which ideas are "bad". > I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. I'm sure the religious fundamentalist has a similar opinion about any rhetoric that advocates for legal abortions, teaching evolution, or separation of church and state. Should they be allowed to suppress speakers that advocate "clearly bad ideas"? > One of them is indefensible Without a clear and narrow definition - "I know it when I see it" doesn't count - of the types of speech that are "indefensible", that's just an opinion.
  - krapp 10y ago
    >Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? The problem is not entertaining the bad ideas, but failing to continue to defend the good ones, once the bad ideas have been forced out of the realm of public debate. You entertain bad ideas for the same reason the body entertains disease and inoculation - to build up and maintain immunity. >If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. And guess what? While you feel safe and secure that white nationalists and transphobes can't speak openly, they'll not only continue to speak covertly, and continue to convince people of their beliefs, but will do so where you cannot see them and despite your refusal to publicly rebuke them. And the fact that the "system" denies them the freedom to express their beliefs only convinces them that those beliefs are true, and gives them a common bond and identity, and turns them into a culture. We fought an entire war against Nazis and white supremacists - literally threw millions of bullets at them and burned their cities to the ground. It stopped the Nazi armies and the Nazi state, but the Nazi ideas came back after a few generations, if one can even say they ever left. Society can't assume that subsequent generations will hold the axioms of the past to be true - they must be reproved, over and over.
hyperdunc 10y ago
Are you the arbitrar of what speech should be tolerated? Sometimes a person will wrap uncomfortable truths in provocative language simply to draw attention to those truths. We shouldn't mistake this tactic for malice.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  > Are you the arbitrar of what speech should be tolerated? I am! And so are you! We're literally talking about social pressure here; everyone is the arbiter of what behavior is acceptable, and in aggregate that has a lot of coercive power. > Sometimes a person will wrap uncomfortable truths in provocative language simply to draw attention to those truths. We shouldn't mistake this tactic for malice. Sometimes. Re: Milo Yiannopolous (and Richard Spencer, and Steve Bannon, and Alex Jones, etc) specifically, what he's wrapping are not truths, and the motivation is malicious.
ThrowawayR2 10y ago
> We should protest and block them however we can. No, absolutely not. That is a sword better left in its sheath. Any bad behavior you legitimize becomes equally legitimate to use against you and your causes as well when the tide of public opinion swings against you. And public opinion is on a swing toward the right currently, as you may have noticed. What will you do when your opponents do the same because in their view, people holding your viewpoint are "people who mean harm" (your own words)? Will you be fair-minded enough to acknowledge their behavior is legitimate based on your very own reasoning?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
mc32 10y ago
There is a tendency in academia to tolerate what would be considered hateful speech, if tables were turned, if it's coming form the left or underprivileged. That's to say, at least in academia, there is more allowance and forgiveness if you agree with Che vs agreeing with Pinochet (and other things). If you allow one, you allow all.
dogma1138 10y ago
You are right you have no obligation to listen to him speak, but you also have no right to deny him the right to do so. You might not have invited him to speak, some one did, he did not show up in your bedroom and started preaching. He was invited to a public forum at a university, meaning that at least someone wanted to listen to him spew his garbage. So yes you have every obligation to let him speak you don't just don't need to listen.
d9h549f34w6 10y ago
Protest, sure. Block? That's a very dangerous road to go down and I disagree with it. If some controversial talk is happening, and an opponent attempts to get the event shut down, then that represents an attack on the rights of the speaker to speak and the rights of the speaker's audience to listen to the event. I'm particularly interested in the events surrounding Richard Spencer's speech last night at Auburn University. This was a case where, after having set up an event, Spencer had been disinvited by the university due to concerns about "safety." A federal judge found that this was not a legitimate reason to shut down the event and demanded that Auburn dedicate police resources to protecting the speaker and attendees: - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/richard-spencers-right-to-speak-at-auburn.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/richard-spencers-... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/1... Regardless of the content of Spencer's speech, this was absolutely the right course of action. It was found that the threats to physical safety were not coming from the white-nationalist side, but from black-bloc anti-fa types protesting and disrupting the event. This is the concept of the "heckler's veto": Group A has a speech/rally at Location X, but Group B disrupts using threats/violence. When Group A attempts to have a speech at Location Y, Group B uses threats of violence to shut down the event because Location Y doesn't want to deal with the possibility of violence. In effect, one group is able to be shut down due to the threats of an opposing group. In such a case, it's important for the health of free speech in general that such precedents are not allowed to continue. Here, a public university was (rightfully, IMHO) compelled to host an event despite threats coming from the event's opponents because to give in would be to legitimize those threatening shut-down tactics to the detriment of everyone's free speech. Now I'm sure the specifics of this case also rested on the fact that Auburn is a public university and thus has more responsibilities to serve as a platform for speech than a private institution would. But it's good to see the delegitimization of street-brawl tactics that the court decision represents. I'm worried about a future in which leftists and rightists physically fighting or threatening to do so becomes the new normal.
- jakelazaroff 10y ago
  Block is a vague word, and I'm sorry for having used it given the number of replies that seem to think I condone censorship. To be clear: any sort of physical violence, threats, or anything like that are not acceptable responses to speech. (I agree with everything you said after the first paragraph). Nonviolent means of blocking, though — boycotting, (peaceful) protesting, writing letters, making calls — are totally legitimate means to block people from speaking at a certain venue. Freedom of speech means that the government can't try to prevent you from saying anything. It doesn't grant you a time, place or means to say anything. Richard Spencer will find a place to speak. But it's in our best collective interest to all push him as far away from our own venues as we can.

jrs95 10y ago

That may work in theory, but it depends on people being rational actors when they aren't. This being politics, it's driven a lot more by emotions and what's fashionable than it is reason, which ought to be the primary domain of a university. And the boundaries of what is or isn't acceptable is being determined by people who as a group have significant biases. That is detrimental to an open debate and exchange of ideas. I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Right now, speakers who have already been invited are being shut down with violent protests which are met with little to no disciplinary action from the school.

jakelazaroff 10y ago
> I would much rather have a system where even the most offensive people are encouraged to speak, and there can be a debate over their bad ideas. Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. "But who says what ideas are clearly bad?" We all do! Neil Gaiman has a great essay called "Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech?"[1] in which he says: > The Law is a blunt instrument. It's not a scalpel. It's a club. If there is something you consider indefensible, and there is something you consider defensible, and the same laws can take them both out, you are going to find yourself defending the indefensible. The difference here is that my opinion is a scalpel. Everyone's is! There's no obligation for me to treat Milo Yiannopolous and Geraldo Rivera the same, even though they both have political opinions that fall far to the right of mine. One of them is indefensible, and it's not at all hypocritical or unrealistic for me (and millions of other people) to try to take only that one out. [1] http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html?m=1 http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > clearly bad ideas That's the problem - there isn't an objective definition of what counts as a "bad idea". The patriot, rebel, atheist, religious fundamentalist, Marxist, market fundamentalist, civil rights activist, and white nationalist each have very different ideas about which ideas are "bad". > I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. I'm sure the religious fundamentalist has a similar opinion about any rhetoric that advocates for legal abortions, teaching evolution, or separation of church and state. Should they be allowed to suppress speakers that advocate "clearly bad ideas"? > One of them is indefensible Without a clear and narrow definition - "I know it when I see it" doesn't count - of the types of speech that are "indefensible", that's just an opinion.
- krapp 10y ago
  >Why on earth should we bother to entertain clearly bad ideas? The problem is not entertaining the bad ideas, but failing to continue to defend the good ones, once the bad ideas have been forced out of the realm of public debate. You entertain bad ideas for the same reason the body entertains disease and inoculation - to build up and maintain immunity. >If you're espousing white nationalism or transphobia or something, I don't want you speaking anywhere near anyone you might convince. End of story. And guess what? While you feel safe and secure that white nationalists and transphobes can't speak openly, they'll not only continue to speak covertly, and continue to convince people of their beliefs, but will do so where you cannot see them and despite your refusal to publicly rebuke them. And the fact that the "system" denies them the freedom to express their beliefs only convinces them that those beliefs are true, and gives them a common bond and identity, and turns them into a culture. We fought an entire war against Nazis and white supremacists - literally threw millions of bullets at them and burned their cities to the ground. It stopped the Nazi armies and the Nazi state, but the Nazi ideas came back after a few generations, if one can even say they ever left. Society can't assume that subsequent generations will hold the axioms of the past to be true - they must be reproved, over and over.

hyperdunc 10y ago

Are you the arbitrar of what speech should be tolerated? Sometimes a person will wrap uncomfortable truths in provocative language simply to draw attention to those truths. We shouldn't mistake this tactic for malice.

jakelazaroff 10y ago
> Are you the arbitrar of what speech should be tolerated? I am! And so are you! We're literally talking about social pressure here; everyone is the arbiter of what behavior is acceptable, and in aggregate that has a lot of coercive power. > Sometimes a person will wrap uncomfortable truths in provocative language simply to draw attention to those truths. We shouldn't mistake this tactic for malice. Sometimes. Re: Milo Yiannopolous (and Richard Spencer, and Steve Bannon, and Alex Jones, etc) specifically, what he's wrapping are not truths, and the motivation is malicious.

ThrowawayR2 10y ago

> We should protest and block them however we can. No, absolutely not. That is a sword better left in its sheath. Any bad behavior you legitimize becomes equally legitimate to use against you and your causes as well when the tide of public opinion swings against you. And public opinion is on a swing toward the right currently, as you may have noticed. What will you do when your opponents do the same because in their view, people holding your viewpoint are "people who mean harm" (your own words)? Will you be fair-minded enough to acknowledge their behavior is legitimate based on your very own reasoning?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

mc32 10y ago

There is a tendency in academia to tolerate what would be considered hateful speech, if tables were turned, if it's coming form the left or underprivileged. That's to say, at least in academia, there is more allowance and forgiveness if you agree with Che vs agreeing with Pinochet (and other things). If you allow one, you allow all.

dogma1138 10y ago

You are right you have no obligation to listen to him speak, but you also have no right to deny him the right to do so. You might not have invited him to speak, some one did, he did not show up in your bedroom and started preaching. He was invited to a public forum at a university, meaning that at least someone wanted to listen to him spew his garbage. So yes you have every obligation to let him speak you don't just don't need to listen.

d9h549f34w6 10y ago

Protest, sure. Block? That's a very dangerous road to go down and I disagree with it. If some controversial talk is happening, and an opponent attempts to get the event shut down, then that represents an attack on the rights of the speaker to speak and the rights of the speaker's audience to listen to the event. I'm particularly interested in the events surrounding Richard Spencer's speech last night at Auburn University. This was a case where, after having set up an event, Spencer had been disinvited by the university due to concerns about "safety." A federal judge found that this was not a legitimate reason to shut down the event and demanded that Auburn dedicate police resources to protecting the speaker and attendees: - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/richard-spencers-right-to-speak-at-auburn.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/opinion/richard-spencers-... - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/1... Regardless of the content of Spencer's speech, this was absolutely the right course of action. It was found that the threats to physical safety were not coming from the white-nationalist side, but from black-bloc anti-fa types protesting and disrupting the event. This is the concept of the "heckler's veto": Group A has a speech/rally at Location X, but Group B disrupts using threats/violence. When Group A attempts to have a speech at Location Y, Group B uses threats of violence to shut down the event because Location Y doesn't want to deal with the possibility of violence. In effect, one group is able to be shut down due to the threats of an opposing group. In such a case, it's important for the health of free speech in general that such precedents are not allowed to continue. Here, a public university was (rightfully, IMHO) compelled to host an event despite threats coming from the event's opponents because to give in would be to legitimize those threatening shut-down tactics to the detriment of everyone's free speech. Now I'm sure the specifics of this case also rested on the fact that Auburn is a public university and thus has more responsibilities to serve as a platform for speech than a private institution would. But it's good to see the delegitimization of street-brawl tactics that the court decision represents. I'm worried about a future in which leftists and rightists physically fighting or threatening to do so becomes the new normal.

jakelazaroff 10y ago
Block is a vague word, and I'm sorry for having used it given the number of replies that seem to think I condone censorship. To be clear: any sort of physical violence, threats, or anything like that are not acceptable responses to speech. (I agree with everything you said after the first paragraph). Nonviolent means of blocking, though — boycotting, (peaceful) protesting, writing letters, making calls — are totally legitimate means to block people from speaking at a certain venue. Freedom of speech means that the government can't try to prevent you from saying anything. It doesn't grant you a time, place or means to say anything. Richard Spencer will find a place to speak. But it's in our best collective interest to all push him as far away from our own venues as we can.