18 ms·

Free Speech for Me--But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other (1992) [1] is a good read on how we got to a point where ou

• ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • rhaksw 4y ago
    That's not what I wrote. I said he was already a popular figure whose views should be publicly refuted. The fact that he later became a presidential contender isn't Yale's fault, but rather the unfortunate result of a lack of willingness to let the bad ideas see themselves out the door. > "Haters in the end bury themselves if you let them talk" - Jonathan Rauch https://youtu.be/E0T9XSG73kY?t=3083 https://youtu.be/E0T9XSG73kY?t=3083
    • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      He was challenged by most, but not all, newspapers. It clearly didn't work as we're still dealing with the same BS 60 years later. But sure, the real problem is Psychologists trying to adress systematic racism in their field. That's worth resigning about. Because they're trying to hide the truth, but also we should let them speak, in our academic Psychological publications, because it's obvious nonsense.
      • trention 4y ago
      • elefanten 4y ago
        Just want to point out that you became unilaterally unhinged over the course of this exchange while. the other commenter wrote calmly. Also, how do you propose to convince people of this clearly-objective “truth” that you know, if you silence them from questioning and debating it? Do you think that’s ever worked?
        • pasquinelli 4y ago
          they don't seem unhinged to me.
    • pasquinelli 4y ago
      I don't see a difference in what you just said and how the person you're replying to characterized what you said.
• kokken 4y ago
  • Amezarak 4y ago
    I think this is exactly what they’re talking about. In no way did the grandparent endorse or glorify Wallace; his implication was that Wallace would have been less popular had he and therefore his opponents been heard. But in this environment, merely suggesting a person should be heard is taken as a strident endorsement. Another more extreme example would be the Nazis. They went through early political suppression and existed in an environment where organized political street violence was already common. Who knows what the counterfactual was, but censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. The Coming of the Third Reich by Richard Evans is a good book on this. It certainly seems that extremism is fostered by such environments.
    • rhaksw 4y ago
      > censoring and punching Nazis did not stop their rise. Precisely. Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU board from 1991-2008, argues that censorship helped the Nazis [1] > "In the Weimar Republic there were laws very similar to the anti hate speech laws that still exist in Germany today. And they were very strictly enforced, there was an umbrella of Jewish organizations in the Weimar Republic, the head of which did a study. They said that these laws are by and large being strictly enforced, the prosecutions are being capably handled, there were many convictions, including of Nazis, and the Nazis loved the propaganda. They got far more attention than they otherwise would have, became free speech martyrs, actually had posters saying, 'In all of Germany why is this one man silenced?' They gained sympathy and attention that they otherwise never would have." [1] https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=2838 https://youtu.be/J1iZffRFs8s?t=2838
      • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        A written version of their (by which I mean Strossen and other's like Haidt involved in FIRE movement) "anti-hate laws helped the Nazis" argument is found here: https://www.thefire.org/would-censorship-have-stopped-the-rise-of-the-nazis-part-16-of-answers-to-arguments-against-free-speech-from-nadine-strossen-and-greg-lukianoff/ https://www.thefire.org/would-censorship-have-stopped-the-ri... > Considering the Nazi movement’s core ideology, as espoused by Hitler in “Mein Kampf,” rested on an alleged conspiracy between Jews and their sympathizers in government to politically disempower Aryan Germans, it is not surprising that the Nazis were able to spin government censorship into propaganda victories and seeming confirmation of their claims that they were speaking truth to power, and that power was aligned against them. I don't find it particularly convincing, but it does explain the strategy of complaining about free speech and censorship by "the jews" has a long history of success, with Nazis. Everyone else thinks, "oh these people are Nazis". But Nazis think, "It's a Jewish Conspiracy to silence the truth", because they are Nazis.
• rhaksw 4y ago
• bluejekyll 4y ago
  • rhaksw 4y ago
    > When one group wants to eliminate open society and civility, how is possible to have an open and civil debate with them? Roger Baldwin, founder of the now gone-astray ACLU, said this [1], > Host: "What possible reason is there for giving civil liberties to people who will use those civil liberties in order to destroy the civil liberties of all the rest?" > Roger: "That's a classic argument you know, that's what they said about the nazis and the communists, that if they got into power they'd suppress all the rest of us. Therefore, we'd suppress them first. We're going to use their methods before they can use it." > "Well that is contrary to our experience. In a democratic society, if you let them all talk, even those who would deny civil liberties and would overthrow the government, that's the best way to prevent them from doing it." [1] https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225 https://youtu.be/ND_uY_KXGgY?t=1225
    • bluejekyll 4y ago
      There is no nuance in this debate. Roger made those statements in 1982. The only access to broad public announcement was via TV, controlled by private companies for the most part. Today platforms have the same choices about what to air or not. Free Speech is also about not forcing people to say things they do not want, it is also about not forcing platforms to broadcast lies. These are not the same thing.
      • whythre 4y ago
        That is a lot of fancy words in favor of suppression.
        • ngetchell 4y ago
          Those people are still allowed to protest and march through the town. What part of free speech says that private companies need to carry hate speech?
• wcerfgba 4y ago
  > Censorship is all these characters need to gain new followers. No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. Not all ideological disputes are about rational argumentation, many are based in a fundamental misalignment of values. Those value-based disputes cannot be resolved by open and civil discourse alone, and we know that racists have a tendency to abuse such spaces through techniques such as emotional rhetoric and Gish galloping.
  • pessimizer 4y ago
    > No, they also need a platform to make people aware of their existence, their views, and to recast their censorship to be in their favour. The whole point of no-platforming individuals is to make a statement that their views are seen as reprehensible and to stop them from being able to air those views to an audience. The only way that this works is to exert total control of the content of all communications. Otherwise, as in the real world until now, people find each other and network. You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values who could speak to people who want to listen to them.
    • wcerfgba 4y ago
      Doesn't freedom of association also entail freedom of non-association? If an organisation doesn't want to provide an individual with a platform, then they are executing their freedom of association. I'm not advocating for some global censorship entity.
      • zdragnar 4y ago
        Freedom of (non) association does not extend to protected groups in public spaces. Businesses can no longer exclusively serve white people, for example, since their stores are considered public accomodations. Ideology is not a protected class, however. In the case of Haidt, they are free to not present any research at conferences unless it advances their definition of equity, and he has no choice but to go along with it or walk away. It's worth pointing out that they are not explicitly turning down non-equity-focused research, but that the existence of the question is his interpretation of an ideological pressure to conform.
• jrm4 4y ago
  Blah blah blah. Have y'all considered that this is what the "talking" looks like? I see a whole bunch of noise about "CENSORSHIP IS RAMPANT!" and I'm kind of like, no silly -- this noise IS the signal.
• specialist 4y ago
  > As a result, observers were deprived of a chance to hear opposing speakers' arguments. In 1963, was there anyone in America left unaware of George Wallace's project to preserve white supremacy? Why is a private institution obligated to signal boost a national leader who openly defies the law?
  • gadflyinyoureye 4y ago
    This specific institution claimed to have high academic credentials. One of the historical bonifides was the ability to hear an opposing view. It was thought that one could then argue back. Yale bouncing his presentation showed that they weren’t living up to their claimed standards.
    • ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Yale in the 1960s still had a secret Jewish Quota to limit the number of Jewish students they would enrol, as they had done for decades. I'm not sure them inviting popular racists to speak against human rights is really a good look for them in that situation, nor an instant solution to centuries of systemic racism in America at that time, even if they made some really good points in the debate.
• pharrington 4y ago
• jvanderbot 4y ago
  I'm surprised Haidt's own Righteous Mind is not the first recommendation for reading about the widening political divide. It's fantastic.
• killdozer 4y ago
  ` Yale disinvited George Wallace, who was popular in the deep south` Wow that's crazy, why was this Wallace figure so popular in the deep south? I vaguely remember there being some minor political movement around the 50s and 60s but I can't quite place my finger on it.
• specialist 4y ago
  Whoops. I owe you an apology. I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I regret not being more skeptical. I am fail. Please accept my most humble apology. TLDR: Yale Political Union invites Wallace. President Kingman Brewster Jr blocks. Much drama. Including local black leaders and civil rights activists, who defended Wallace's appearance per principles of free speech and academic stuff. Brewster removes block. Two student groups reinvite Wallace. Wallace declines, though he did speak at other Ivy League schools. Described more fully p104-106 in Hentoff's book "Free speech for me--but not for thee", which you cited. Here's 4 more articles, to round out the reality-based version of that incident: https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-dean/reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-de... "Free Speech, Personified" NYT [2017] https://archive.ph/LvAHn https://archive.ph/LvAHn About the 1963 incident, how Pauli Murray appealed to Brewster to let the white supremacist speak, and how Yale recommitted towards and continues to uphold free speech. Blurb from 1963 about the incident. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/9/27/yale-provost-brewster-permits-wallace-invitation/ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1963/9/27/yale-provost-br... Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale [1974?] https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-dean/reports/report-committee-freedom-expression-yale https://yalecollege.yale.edu/get-know-yale-college/office-de... -- FWIW, I now don't understand your other cites. [2] Is just common sense. [3] Unrelated. [4] Might be broken. Though I do agree with Jack Newfield that mocking racists and neoreactionaries should be avoided. We now know that right wing partisans are personally insulted when their leader is criticized or mocked. (Probably something about having their identity wrapped up in the demagogue. Who knows.) So mockery just drives those partisans further away.
  • rhaksw 4y ago
    > I owe you an apology. For what? I don't think we conversed yet in this thread. > I blindly accepted your claim that Wallace was not permitted to speak at Yale. That's not true. I can see that the context changed the meaning for you. Good thing I cited the source. For me, my original comment still rings true as a summary. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not speak at Yale. There are a few errors in your TLDR. Kingman was provost at the time, not president, and it was reported that two groups of law students reinvited him, not two student groups. > Donald Kagan reported that “two groups of law students issued another invitation to Wallace, reaffirming ‘the right of students to hear speakers of their own choosing without restraint or interference from those who would like to limit the right of free expression to those whose views coincide with theirs.’ It's not clear that Provost Brewster would've allowed Wallace to speak had he accepted the new invitation from these students. Also, the book describes how Brewster, later as president, accused an established student group of "playing games" with free speech. So it's not like he had a change of heart on the subject: > "The occasion does not warrant departure from Yale’s principles of free speech. However, the use of free speech as a game, the lack of sensitivity to others, the lack of consideration for the community, and the lack of responsible concern for the university as an institution seem to me reprehensible..." Regardless, it does not substantially change what happened. Wallace was disinvited and ultimately did not attend. Human relations aren't so easily Ctrl-Z'ed. It doesn't surprise me that some tried to reinvite him after the backlash. As you said, many in the community stood against Brewster's decision. These days, it is common for students to shout down undesired speakers, so it's interesting to look back at when this practice may have began. For awhile, the University of Chicago was a place where such debates were encouraged. A group of Harvard students jokingly ranked it as the least fun school, less fun than West Point, for that reason [1]. > FIRE is just another dark money funded group working on the reactionary project to roll back civil rights, assert corporate rule. and end democracy. Wow. Just going to slip that in at the end there huh? That's quite a take down. What do you think is dark about it? They're a non-profit which makes them subject to much more scrutiny than private organizations. As for "asserting corporate rule" and "ending democracy", I think that's a ridiculous claim. They exist to defend the free speech rights that the ACLU now declines to do, as I mentioned elsewhere [2]. If anything, they're responsible upholding democracy by encouraging people to choose words over violence. > [4] Might be broken. Works for me. It's the last page of their podcast listing as of now. [1] https://youtu.be/XFShZMJhdOA?t=180 https://youtu.be/XFShZMJhdOA?t=180 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055579 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33055579