3 ms·

Turley fails to make crucial distinctions of degree here. It's one thing for people to criticize your speech and problems with it, which is the most common cas

Turley fails to make crucial distinctions of degree here. It's one thing for people to criticize your speech and problems with it, which is the most common case. And that's just known as more speech. It's another for people to withdraw private associations or memberships, but unless you're gonna say that people can't stop talking to their racist uncle if they don't like it or that a church can't excommunicate vocal atheists, well, you believe that's fine too. Things start to get important when we're talking about questions of economic livelihood. But then again, if you believe in boycotts or any form of voting with your dollars, then drawing a straightforward line against retaliation here is hard. The civil line that's most important is whether speech is criminalized. Whether someone can end up paying legal penalties merely for something they've said. Even THAT line is sometimes walked up to with slander/libel (though those are civil not criminal as far as I know) or incitement. But as far as I can tell, we're not particularly closer to it in the last month. There's just more pointing out that people like Gabbard and Cawthorne and a whole lot of others are on the wrong side. Turley's job is supposed to be making crucial distinctions of degree. Are most lawyers just really this bad at it, or is he avoiding making distinctions that people examining the issue in good faith would make for more subtle rhetorical purposes?

gruez 5y ago
>It's another for people to withdraw private associations or memberships, but unless you're gonna say that people can't stop talking to their racist uncle if they don't like it or that a church can't excommunicate vocal atheists, well, you believe that's fine too. The article mentions people getting excluded from events due to their perceived associations with communism/soviet union. What's your position on that? Do you find McCarthyism-minus-government-intervention acceptable? The wikipedia article for McCarthyism mentions "extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions"[1]. >Turley's job is supposed to be making crucial distinctions of degree. Are most lawyers just really this bad at it, or is he avoiding making distinctions that people examining the issue in good faith would make for more subtle rhetorical purposes? For someone accusing Turley of failing to make "crucial distinctions of degree", it's ironic that you also fail to recognize that the concept of "free speech" extends far beyond what's explicitly guaranteed by the first amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists
- mint2 5y ago
  Going’s step further, Are you saying it’s not okay to blacklist neo-nazis? I get there’s the issue of who decides, but I’d say its fair for companies to say black list a neo nazi from working if that’s their desire. If someone walks in with a swastika tattooed on their forehead I wouldn’t hire them or serve them. Same with perceived “communists” it’s not a protected class, while I disagree with that particular instance of freedom of speech/association it seems totally within the rights. If the government is directing the blacklisting it’s a different matter. Private corporations and citizens are free to.
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Going’s step further, Are you saying it’s not okay to blacklist neo-nazis? I get there’s the issue of who decides, but I’d say its fair for companies to say black list a neo nazi from working if that’s their desire. If someone walks in with a swastika tattooed on their forehead I wouldn’t hire them or serve them. I'm not arguing an absolutist position (ie. "corporations should never disassociate with someone") here. If someone has demonstrably done a Bad Thing, I'm for proportional actions being levied in response. That said, the examples[1] given are anything but proportional. [1] ie. "This movement began by targeting Russian artists and athletes who were told that they will be cancelled or blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin."
    - rosndo 5y ago
      It’s worth noting that Turley is defending Gabbard who goes on holidays with actual Nazis of the SSNP.
  - yucky 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    "Free speech" activists on the right are really concerned about restricting freedom of association. They don't want to restrict your freedom not to associate with people based on things those people can't change about themselves that are harmless to others, like skin color or sexual preference, but they do want to restrict your freedom not to associate with people based on what those people can change about themselves that are harmful to others, like racism or homophobia.

gruez 5y ago

>It's another for people to withdraw private associations or memberships, but unless you're gonna say that people can't stop talking to their racist uncle if they don't like it or that a church can't excommunicate vocal atheists, well, you believe that's fine too. The article mentions people getting excluded from events due to their perceived associations with communism/soviet union. What's your position on that? Do you find McCarthyism-minus-government-intervention acceptable? The wikipedia article for McCarthyism mentions "extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions"[1]. >Turley's job is supposed to be making crucial distinctions of degree. Are most lawyers just really this bad at it, or is he avoiding making distinctions that people examining the issue in good faith would make for more subtle rhetorical purposes? For someone accusing Turley of failing to make "crucial distinctions of degree", it's ironic that you also fail to recognize that the concept of "free speech" extends far beyond what's explicitly guaranteed by the first amendment. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism#Blacklists

mint2 5y ago
Going’s step further, Are you saying it’s not okay to blacklist neo-nazis? I get there’s the issue of who decides, but I’d say its fair for companies to say black list a neo nazi from working if that’s their desire. If someone walks in with a swastika tattooed on their forehead I wouldn’t hire them or serve them. Same with perceived “communists” it’s not a protected class, while I disagree with that particular instance of freedom of speech/association it seems totally within the rights. If the government is directing the blacklisting it’s a different matter. Private corporations and citizens are free to.
- gruez 5y ago
  > Going’s step further, Are you saying it’s not okay to blacklist neo-nazis? I get there’s the issue of who decides, but I’d say its fair for companies to say black list a neo nazi from working if that’s their desire. If someone walks in with a swastika tattooed on their forehead I wouldn’t hire them or serve them. I'm not arguing an absolutist position (ie. "corporations should never disassociate with someone") here. If someone has demonstrably done a Bad Thing, I'm for proportional actions being levied in response. That said, the examples[1] given are anything but proportional. [1] ie. "This movement began by targeting Russian artists and athletes who were told that they will be cancelled or blacklisted if they do not expressly denounce the Russian invasion of Ukraine and President Vladimir Putin."
  - rosndo 5y ago
    It’s worth noting that Turley is defending Gabbard who goes on holidays with actual Nazis of the SSNP.
- yucky 5y ago
  [flagged]
- lern_too_spel 5y ago
  "Free speech" activists on the right are really concerned about restricting freedom of association. They don't want to restrict your freedom not to associate with people based on things those people can't change about themselves that are harmless to others, like skin color or sexual preference, but they do want to restrict your freedom not to associate with people based on what those people can change about themselves that are harmful to others, like racism or homophobia.