3 ms·

Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise of free speech.

by mhb 3y ago

catlover76 3y ago
> Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise of free speech. You mean as a legal matter, or are you arguing this from a normative perspective?
- mhb 3y ago
  The matter of its legality is only relevant to the government or public universities, etc. So, normative.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    I mean, it'd be relevant to anyone doing the heckling too who is subsequently punished by such a government institution and who wants to counter that their being punished constitutes an illegal restraint of their speech, etc. But anyways, I think, if it's a normative argument, you're going to have to try persuade those of who disagree that we should change our minds. I personally would never really even bother to protest or heckle anyone, but I also don't find the speakers who tend to get heckled or their "ideas" as meriting sympathy.
    - mhb 3y ago
      If you don't understand why preventing someone from speaking is different than, for example, making your own argument, I have no idea how I would convince you. Maybe: The ideas that many of these hecklers now hold so dear was, until relatively recently, anathema to large groups of people. If your view was dominant, would we have ever heard from MLK, Harvey Milk, voices in favor of abolishing sodomy laws, pro-choice speakers in anti-abortion regions, etc., etc.
      - catlover76 3y ago
        > If you don't understand why preventing someone from speaking is different than, for example, making your own argument, I have no idea how I would convince you. I get why they are different, but even if we are talking about values and norms aside from what is strictly legal, I feel heavily influenced by the legal fact that at least some forms of trying to prevent someone from speaking are themselves speech. I don't totally disagree with you, btw, I'm mostly just pointing out that simply saying that "preventing someone from speaking doesn't constitute speech" is just a conclusory statement, not an argument, regarding an issue that strikes me as neither susceptible to absolutes nor settled. > If your view was dominant, would we have ever heard from MLK Didn't civil rights protesters in the 60's have attack dogs set against them, as well as get fire hosed, etc? Didn't they contend with the KKK? They weren't getting speeches cancelled on a college campus because of protests or something.
        mhb 3y ago
        > some forms of trying to prevent someone from speaking are themselves speech What are you referring to? The situation I thought we were discussing was an invited speaker attempting to speak and people in the audience preventing him from doing that by shouting so that he can't be heard and is forced to leave. Maybe my example wasn't clear. In the world in which it is perfectly fine to prevent others from speaking by disrupting them by heckling, and yelling, everyone is susceptible to being prevented from speaking. So you get an echo chamber in which speakers can only preach to people who are already in their choir. In that world, there is no need to have fire hoses or attack dogs to silence people with whom we disagree because it is perfectly acceptable to use our "free speech" to silence them.
        catlover76 3y ago
        > What are you referring to? The situation I thought we were discussing was an invited speaker attempting to speak and people in the audience preventing him from doing that by shouting so that he can't be heard and is forced to leave. I was thinking of things like people heavily protesting the event without actually being in the room. > Maybe my example wasn't clear. In the world in which it is perfectly fine to prevent others from speaking by disrupting them by heckling, and yelling, everyone is susceptible to being prevented from speaking. So you get an echo chamber in which speakers can only preach to people who are already in their choir. In that world, there is no need to have fire hoses or attack dogs to silence people with whom we disagree because it is perfectly acceptable to use our "free speech" to silence them. The comparison with people like MLK doesn't strike me as very apt. Anyways, I am not sure there is much practical evil to the echo chamber thing. For one thing, people already self-segregate and don't want to hear from people who aren't in their respective "tribe" or "echo chamber" or w/e. For another, I don't think that a lot of disagreement on polarizing issues comes down to "I never heard what the other side's argument or justification for their position is".
anigbrowl 3y ago
What a powerful argument! You really demolished me.
- mhb 3y ago
  Sorry. I'm just somewhat incredulous that you can be making a good faith argument that shouting down an invited speaker and forcing him to leave is somehow justified based on it being the audience's exercise of its free speech. Where exactly do you draw the line about when someone with whom you and your tribe disagree should be permitted to speak? There has been so much written about this much more eloquently and throughout history that it seems ridiculous to try to persuade you, ab initio, in this forum.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I already explained my reasoning in detail, which you have avoided addressing. If so many of the audience want to express disagreement with the speaker that there is no consensus on shushing or ejecting the hecklers, then maybe the speaker's ideas are terminally unpopular. If you won't engage with the arguments I took time to lay out in depth, then you're just stamping your foot and insisting that your point of view should carry the day because you have repeated it so many times without elaboration.
    - mhb 3y ago
      Your profusion of words scattered liberally about your theory that silencing people with whom you disagree is free speech hardly rises to the level of "reasoning" which needs engagement. Introducing Trump to a discussion that's not about Trump could be a sign that something has gone horribly wrong with your argument.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        > silencing people with whom you disagree is free speech If the local Amtrak goes by while you're preaching your Totally Free Speech Announcement™, you don't reserve the right to sue them for "silencing" your free speech. You chose a poor venue that you cannot control, the constitution does not obligate the people around you to give you the verbal right-of-way. You are spreading pure federal fiction.

Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise of free speech.

by mhb 3y ago

Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise of free speech.

> Preventing someone from speaking is not an exercise of free speech. You mean as a legal matter, or are you arguing this from a normative perspective?

mhb 3y ago
The matter of its legality is only relevant to the government or public universities, etc. So, normative.
- catlover76 3y ago
  I mean, it'd be relevant to anyone doing the heckling too who is subsequently punished by such a government institution and who wants to counter that their being punished constitutes an illegal restraint of their speech, etc. But anyways, I think, if it's a normative argument, you're going to have to try persuade those of who disagree that we should change our minds. I personally would never really even bother to protest or heckle anyone, but I also don't find the speakers who tend to get heckled or their "ideas" as meriting sympathy.
  - mhb 3y ago
    If you don't understand why preventing someone from speaking is different than, for example, making your own argument, I have no idea how I would convince you. Maybe: The ideas that many of these hecklers now hold so dear was, until relatively recently, anathema to large groups of people. If your view was dominant, would we have ever heard from MLK, Harvey Milk, voices in favor of abolishing sodomy laws, pro-choice speakers in anti-abortion regions, etc., etc.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      > If you don't understand why preventing someone from speaking is different than, for example, making your own argument, I have no idea how I would convince you. I get why they are different, but even if we are talking about values and norms aside from what is strictly legal, I feel heavily influenced by the legal fact that at least some forms of trying to prevent someone from speaking are themselves speech. I don't totally disagree with you, btw, I'm mostly just pointing out that simply saying that "preventing someone from speaking doesn't constitute speech" is just a conclusory statement, not an argument, regarding an issue that strikes me as neither susceptible to absolutes nor settled. > If your view was dominant, would we have ever heard from MLK Didn't civil rights protesters in the 60's have attack dogs set against them, as well as get fire hosed, etc? Didn't they contend with the KKK? They weren't getting speeches cancelled on a college campus because of protests or something.
      - mhb 3y ago
        > some forms of trying to prevent someone from speaking are themselves speech What are you referring to? The situation I thought we were discussing was an invited speaker attempting to speak and people in the audience preventing him from doing that by shouting so that he can't be heard and is forced to leave. Maybe my example wasn't clear. In the world in which it is perfectly fine to prevent others from speaking by disrupting them by heckling, and yelling, everyone is susceptible to being prevented from speaking. So you get an echo chamber in which speakers can only preach to people who are already in their choir. In that world, there is no need to have fire hoses or attack dogs to silence people with whom we disagree because it is perfectly acceptable to use our "free speech" to silence them.
        catlover76 3y ago
        > What are you referring to? The situation I thought we were discussing was an invited speaker attempting to speak and people in the audience preventing him from doing that by shouting so that he can't be heard and is forced to leave. I was thinking of things like people heavily protesting the event without actually being in the room. > Maybe my example wasn't clear. In the world in which it is perfectly fine to prevent others from speaking by disrupting them by heckling, and yelling, everyone is susceptible to being prevented from speaking. So you get an echo chamber in which speakers can only preach to people who are already in their choir. In that world, there is no need to have fire hoses or attack dogs to silence people with whom we disagree because it is perfectly acceptable to use our "free speech" to silence them. The comparison with people like MLK doesn't strike me as very apt. Anyways, I am not sure there is much practical evil to the echo chamber thing. For one thing, people already self-segregate and don't want to hear from people who aren't in their respective "tribe" or "echo chamber" or w/e. For another, I don't think that a lot of disagreement on polarizing issues comes down to "I never heard what the other side's argument or justification for their position is".

anigbrowl 3y ago

What a powerful argument! You really demolished me.

mhb 3y ago
Sorry. I'm just somewhat incredulous that you can be making a good faith argument that shouting down an invited speaker and forcing him to leave is somehow justified based on it being the audience's exercise of its free speech. Where exactly do you draw the line about when someone with whom you and your tribe disagree should be permitted to speak? There has been so much written about this much more eloquently and throughout history that it seems ridiculous to try to persuade you, ab initio, in this forum.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I already explained my reasoning in detail, which you have avoided addressing. If so many of the audience want to express disagreement with the speaker that there is no consensus on shushing or ejecting the hecklers, then maybe the speaker's ideas are terminally unpopular. If you won't engage with the arguments I took time to lay out in depth, then you're just stamping your foot and insisting that your point of view should carry the day because you have repeated it so many times without elaboration.
  - mhb 3y ago
    Your profusion of words scattered liberally about your theory that silencing people with whom you disagree is free speech hardly rises to the level of "reasoning" which needs engagement. Introducing Trump to a discussion that's not about Trump could be a sign that something has gone horribly wrong with your argument.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      > silencing people with whom you disagree is free speech If the local Amtrak goes by while you're preaching your Totally Free Speech Announcement™, you don't reserve the right to sue them for "silencing" your free speech. You chose a poor venue that you cannot control, the constitution does not obligate the people around you to give you the verbal right-of-way. You are spreading pure federal fiction.