4 ms·

> 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

> 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".
  - mhb 3y ago
    https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-s...
  - mhb 3y ago
    > I was thinking of things like people heavily protesting the event without actually being in the room. The issue is whether the protesters are preventing people from hearing what the person in the room has been invited to say.

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".
- mhb 3y ago
  https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-school-dean-jenny-martinez-campus-community-march-22-2023 https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/letter-stanford-law-s...
- mhb 3y ago
  > I was thinking of things like people heavily protesting the event without actually being in the room. The issue is whether the protesters are preventing people from hearing what the person in the room has been invited to say.