Roy Edroso and Amanda Marcotte are discussing this remarkable example of right-wing false equivalence.
Indeed, the outpouring of support for free speech in the aftermath of the Paris attack coincides with, and partially obscures, the degradation of speech rights in the West. Commencement last year was marked by universities’ revoking of appearances by speakers Condoleezza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali for no other reason than that mobs disagreed with the speakers’ points of view. I do not recall liberals rallying behind Condi and Hirsi Ali then.
OMG! Condoleeza Rice and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were shot and killed? Then yes, we definitely should march in opposition to that criminal outrage…oh. They were just turned away from speaking engagements? Sorry, that isn’t the same thing at all.
Wingnuts really do not understand the concept of free speech at all. Revoking those appearances was not a denial of the right to free speech: free speech does not mean you are owed a high profile platform and a bullhorn to declare your position; it does not mean you are given big bucks to speak. It means the government is not allowed to use its privilege and power to silence you.
Both the Rice and Ali denials were by universities, not governments. I think they were in the right to boot them out.
In the case of Condoleeza Rice, she was a representative of the government: she not only had the power to speak, but also the power to set and enforce policy. Under no circumstances can you claim that she was an underprivileged individual denied the right to speak…she was just told she’d have to go elsewhere to lie to the public. Like the pages of the NY Times, and other such fora that are more than happy to hand a microphone to those with power.
I also think there’s virtue in balance. We should hear from conservatives, but right now, they have far too many media organs dedicated to their views — it’s not as if we can escape Fox News or anything Rupert Murdoch taints or the right-of-center slant of most news organizations, even the ones that are called “liberal”. There’s nothing Rice could say that would be any different from the usual propaganda, so I think universities have an obligation to promote a more rational, sensible, progressive vision to counterbalance the nonsense.
Rice is a war criminal. She was part of an administration that killed hundreds of thousands of people in a quixotic war, on the false pretext of “weapons of mass destruction”. She ought to be standing before an international tribunal, not gallivanting about the country preaching excuses.
And finally…money. Rice was going to be paid $150,000 for a 20 minute talk. That is simply obscene. We could hire two new biology professors for a year for that sum.
But, you know, I’m willing to compromise. If some campus group wanted to bring Rice to the university to speak, and were willing to use their standard allotment — typically a few thousand dollars — to bring Condoleeza Rice to campus to speak, I wouldn’t complain at all. Creationists routinely lease the physics lecture hall for talks, so I think it’s just fine for the College Republicans to bring in representative speakers, paying for travel and expenses and a reasonable honorarium.
As for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, similar standards apply. If it’s a campus group bringing in a speaker at reasonable expense, there should be no protest; if it’s a university-wide function, and she’s brought in by the administration, it’s a more difficult situation. She is a right-winger, working for a right-wing think tank, so she does violate the principle of balance. And this is a case where the whole of the student body is being asked to support this speaker, and they should have every right to protest. Free speech, don’t you know. Or don’t you actually know what it means?
But I would also agree 100% that neither of them should be slaughtered by anyone. Although I do think Rice deserves a prison cell.
‘Rupert Murdoch taint’… well, there goes breakfast. Thanks.
Aren’t universities funded by the government? Would you be saying the same thing if they rejected Dawkins to give a speech?
Not only do they not understand what free speech is, they can’t even honestly represent what happened. The revokation of her invitation to speak had nothing to do with her worldview, which is certainly shared by other speakers invited to similar events. It had to do with poor opinions of her character.
Of course not. Dawkins isn’t a war criminal.
State universities are partially subsidized by the state government, yes. Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to speak at Rutgers, which is the state university of New Jersey. However, the Ayaan Hirsi Ali story unfolded at Brandeis, which is a private university, with no government funding at all. But given that in both cases the protests came from students, not administration, I don’t really see the difference.
In the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ‘revoking’ was of an honorary degree. She still had an invitation to speak at Brandeis.
Of course, that didn’t stop Fox News from spewing;
Revoking appearances is both a denial of free speech and an exercise of it. Silencing people is always a denial of free speech, particularly when they are saying things you don’t want to hear. That said, having the ability to decide who is a commencement speaker and who is not and to protest individuals to the point of having them asked not to speak is also an act of free speech. No one has a right to speak at a commencement, but silencing chosen speakers is, to some extent, silencing speech.
It need not be government that does the silencing for it to be a freedom of speech issue.
How is she currently a representative of government? I thought she was in the private sector now. Last I checked, she worked at a university.
That seems to be a bit of a stretch.
That seems reasonable. Perhaps we should just do away with commencement speakers altogether. They don’t often add much anyway. Individual groups can have speakers and that way not everyone will be forced to listen to things they find discomforting.
If Rice goes to prison, then many other politicians, like both Clintons, should be locked up as well.
pflynn #6:
Who was silenced?
Free speech was not denied. A platform was denied. This was explicitly mentioned in the quote you replied to.
Only to free speech absolutist who thinks anybody can speak anywhere at any time. Not real world thinking.
What an inanity. There was a speech. It just wasn’t the initially invited speaker. Nobody is required to give anybody a platform to speak from. That is what you can’t understand.
#2: I’d feel the same way if they rejected me. I don’t have a right to be paid to fly out to a university and give a talk. No one does.
First, it’s important to note that Rutgers never disinvited Rice. Rice declined to speak on her own initiative.
Second, it’s disingenuous to claim that only governmental action can affect free speech (as opposed to a person’s First Amendment rights in the US). Especially so soon after a non-state actor’s attempt to silence free speech through mass murder. In addition to violence, threats of other violence from non-state actors (e.g. Anita Sarkeesian in Utah) and direct action to prevent a speaker from speaking (e.g. Ray Kelly at Brown also negatively impact free speech.
#9 That’s good. But I take slight issue with “denials were by universities, not governments” since they get funding through the government. I agree that canceling their paid speaking engagements is not a denial of their free speech rights.
#6 AFAIK they can still go to the university and give their speech on the public sidewalk just like any other citizen. Not being paid to do it is not a free speech violation.
The line between what is and what is not a violation of free speech rights can be very fine and we should be clear what it is and what it isn’t to keep the phrase from being abused.
Daz,
Well, in this case, two people were silenced and prevented from sharing their views. Even denying a platform, even in one instance, is an act of denying speech. I’m not saying that either speaker had a right to those platforms (I said that earlier too), I’m just saying that any time you prevent someone from expressing their opinion, you are curbing free speech. I’m not even saying that doing so is wrong because sometimes curbing another person’s speech is part of the freedom of speech as well. For me, I’d prefer to just hear from everyone. You won’t learn much if you always prevent others from speaking.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls,
Anyone can speak anywhere at any time. Anyone can also try to silence those people. Both acts are freedoms of speech, which was my whole point. There is nothing absolutist about these things. Now, you may be arrested for saying certain things in certain places at certain times and society has to judge when curbing the ability to say anything anywhere is a net positive over negative. That was my only point.
I agree that no one is required to give anyone a platform for speech, and I said as much in the very comment that you quoted. That had nothing to do with my point, however, which is that any time you take a platform away from someone you are preventing them from expressing themselves, even if it is in just that venue, and curbing their freedom of speech.
pflynn,
Freedom of speech does not in any way require that I give you a platform on which to speak. Ms. Rice is free to say whatever she wants, and her person and property should be secure as she exercises that right. She cannot require me or anyone else to give her a public venue for that speech. She cannot expect to be insulated from the consequences of what she says. She cannot expect to be free of ridicule if she says something ridiculous.
pflynn #12:
How were they silenced? Are they now mutes?
I agree. It is denying speech from this particular platform. That’s not the same as denial of free speech, though. And note that you yourself had to omit the word ‘free’ in order to make that statement true.
Nope just local, on-this-platform, speech. Way too many people make this mistake.
[yawn] It would be nice if, just once, defenders of the Bush administration, or any administration, would make their case based on the merits and not try to muddy the waters with The Hypocrite Game (TM). Personally I’d love to see a major news network ban that bit of rhetoric. Several Fox commentors (I’m looking at you Monica Crowley) would no doubt be hard pressed to find anything to say.
Nope, they have no right to speak at private gatherings without an invitation. If they show up an speak, they can be tossed out. Your absolutism, which isn’t reality, as free speech has limits, is showing.
Nope you are WRONG. They were just denied a platform. They have no right to speak anywhere at anytime, as there are limits. You know that, but as an absolutist, you don’t like any limits.
Free speech also means anything a person has said can be criticized. Like you are being. But you aren’t engaging in free speech where you mind might be changed, but you are preaching your dogma of absolutism.
So if I don’t invite you to speak at my commencement, I’m denying your free speech? Bullshit. You can say whatever you want, but I don’t have to invite you onto my stage to do so.
But we’re talking about public figures here–their views aren’t exactly a secret and they have many platforms from which to speak. Nor are we talking about “always” disallowing them from speaking. We’re talking about a specific event: commencement, which should be a happy, celebratory event for the students. So if students don’t want to hear particular views espoused during their commencement ceremony, where exactly is the harm?
qwints:
Uh… that second one is just plain silly, and sadly it undermines the important point you made about non-governmental entities violating frieze peach. Ray Kelly’s rights were not fucking violated, neither by a government nor a non-government. If he were effectively prevented from speaking anywhere whatsoever about his bullshit policing theories, that would be an example. Or somebody could attempt to do something along those lines, even if they fail in the attempt, because the person doesn’t stop expressing themselves due to intimidation or what have you. But being interrupted or heckled by peaceful protesters is not anything like that. It certainly does not belong in the same fucking category as murders and death threats.
You’ve got that precisely backwards.
Is it denying free speech to tell you that you can’t come in to my house and speak at me whenever you want?
That’s true.
Daz @ #15
Not cool. Mute people can communicate just fine.
_____
pflynn @ #6
It’s not.
Thomathy, Such A ‘Mo #23:
You are absolutely right. My apologies.
They are perfectly capable of sharing their views. They just have to pay their way to the universities and share all they want on the public sidewalk. Or if they’re too cheap for that, go to YouTube and let anyone who’s interested watch them. But no one is obligated to listen to them. I want to speak at the University of Hawaii. Does that mean that unless UH pays me that I’m being silenced?
They were “silenced” by not being paid to speak.
There is a real free speech issue now going on in France. Glenn Greenwald writes about it here. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/14/days-hosting-massive-free-speech-march-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/ A comedian arrested for chares of “defending terrorism” …. of course, GG juxtaposes this with the ginormous free speech rally that just occurred there.
pflynn,
What if a person had never been invited at all? Would their freedom of speech been curbed by the lack of invitation?
How is it then curbed when they’re uninvited?
France has arrested 54 people for “defending or glorifying” terrorism in the past week.
What was that about free speech again?
Have we also talked about the criminal prosecutions of various French rappers?
Mmm hmm.
Whoops, that may be accidentally apropos, but it was intended for the “Satire is Not the Problem” thread. Apologies.
No apologies, it’s actually quite relevant, especially considering funknjunk’s post to juxtapose a real free speech issue with merely denying a platform to those privileged with many.
U Frood
Yes, it is. In this case, however, we’ve decided that your freedom of expression on your own property trumps the freedom of another to use your property for their freedom of expression. Democracy and freedom are seldom simple affairs.
Saad
Technically it is still silencing/curbing their freedom of speech. Again, I’ve never said that there aren’t reasons to curb free speech or that curbing someone’s speech can’t also be a way of expressing free speech. I just happen to recognize a much broader definition that most do of free speech or freedom of expression. For instance, I think graffiti is a freedom of speech issue. That said, I think people should be punished (preferably by cleaning up their expressions) when they graffiti property that is either public or belongs to someone else.
Appropriate indeed. Continetti’s absolutely right that Western governments have degraded free speech, but utterly wrong about the way they’ve done so. In the US we have Obama’s war on whistleblowers, police attacking peaceful protesters in Ferguson among other places, and the ubiquitous surveillance and infiltration of activist groups..
pflynn,
Not inviting someone to give a speech is curbing freedom of speech. So everyone is having their freedom of speech being curbed all the time and don’t even know it.
What a brilliant point.
scienceavenger,
I never mentioned the Bush administration, I was simply pointing out that if the standard is such that Rice goes to prison, then so should many others, including Bush, the Clintons, and pretty much everyone in Congress. I don’t think any of them should go to prison over “war crimes,” but if Rice goes, they all go. Otherwise, the law is arbitrary.
pflynn@36,
Ah, so you’re just generally a fan of war criminals. Useful to know.
I feel so silenced. So many universities haven’t invited me to speak today!
And I will continue to be silenced thus tomorrow and the following day and the day after.
Nick Gotts,
Yup, big fan of war criminals. That is exactly what I said.
Yeah, its so broad its absurd, which most of us figured out a long time ago. Get back with us when you’ve trimmed the absurdities and caught up.
Bullshit. This is the problem with the Hypocrite Game (TM). It just glosses over the facts and pretends all situations are the same, when the reality is the facts in each case differ, therefore, the conclusions might differ. It’s just a way to muddy the debate so that the person you are defending (ie Rice, of the Bush administration) isn’t condemned as they should be. It’s intellectually dishonest, and a fucking bore.
I heard somewhere recently (honestly, it might have been Bill Maher, but a broken clock is right twice a day) that freedom of speech is sometimes a meaningless way to put it, because what we are really interested in is freedom to hear. I don’t like Rice in the least, while I have a very gray opinion of Hirsi Ali, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t want to hear them, especially Hirsi Ali, who is a WOC and a former muslim, and whose perspective I continue to find complex, conflicted and nonetheless interesting (It is an additional thing to also consider how much they are getting paid, so I’m setting that aside for now. One might want to book an awesome speaker but decline because of price). I don’t like these cancellations. How much of the school body was really involved? Do they really represent the majority of students? These students that have campaigned for these cancellations have affected other students right to hear. It’s not about Rice or Hirsi Ali’s right to speak.
scienceavenger,
How is it absurd? You can declare it as such if you want, but it would be nice to know why you think that.
Which part is bullshit? The part where I say I never mentioned the Bush administration or the part where I use consistency in the application of the law to make a point? Also, it would be nice if you defined what you mean by “intellectual dishonesty” because from where I stand, it is you who are being dishonest.
grouperfish,
That is a very nice way of putting things. I also appreciate your points about how much of the school body was involved and whether they are representative of what most people want. All worth considering in the debate.
pflynn #42:
It’s absurd because free speech is the right to say what you want, and has never, outside your arbitrarily widened-because-you-want-it-to-be definition, been the right to use anyone else’s platform to say it from.
i’m against paying anyone to speak or compensating them in any way. it’s never free speech if you have to pay for it.
[rimshot]
aarrgghh,
Hahaha. Nice one.
Daz,
I was actually asking scienceavenger what they meant. At any rate, perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’m not saying that free speech is “the right to use anyone else’s platform..,” but I am saying that taking away a platform is a means of silencing speech. Any time someone protests another’s right to speech, they are indicating that they fear or dislike what the other person has to say. When they push their protests far enough that the person can’t or won’t speak as they had once planned, then they are silencing speech and removing free speech.
It would be similar to the idea of a social entitlement. It isn’t an entitlement before it is extended, but once it is extended, it becomes an entitlement. So, no private individual has an obligation to give a person a platform from which to speak, but revoking that platform once extended is a means of silencing. Another example might be this. Let’s say I have a private residence that came with a handicap ramp. I remove the ramp. That sends a message that I don’t want handicapped people in my house, or don’t care about them. It is a stronger action than if I had lived in a house with no ramp and simply never installed one. At least that is how I look at it. That isn’t absurd, it is just a matter of nuance.
pflynn
If I stop you entering my house to pontificate at me, even if I had previously invited you, I am am not silencing you. I am merely removing your ability to speak to me from the comfort of my own living room. Go shout it on the streets, take out a newspaper ad, start a blog. Hell, you can even send me a link to that blog, and it will be my choice whether to read it or not. But you have not been silenced.
In the case of Rice at Rutgers, aside from resentment at the fee she was charging, the main resistance from students and alumni came from their objection to the university’s honoring her with a degree.
pflynn @ #47, no one has the right to speech on someone else’s platform. Protesting the use of a platform by someone with whom you disagree substantively is not denying that person their speech, it’s attempting to deny them a platform for it. You have conflated speech with platform.
No. Refer to above.
This is such a poor analogy. I began to list the reasons for that and stopped because it’s immaterial to the current discussion. This discussion doesn’t actually need analogies. Free speech isn’t that hard to understand, but you are complicating it.
Everyone can read and respond to any of these comments. You are not having a private conversation.
Hey, stop trying to silence people!
Wait, I’ve never been invited to speak at a graduation, either.
Come see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I’m bein’ repressed!
grouperfish points out the distinction the what “free speech everywhere” argument makes the primary mistake.
correct me if I am wrong freedom of speech is the right to say what ever I want to advocate positions and takes stands given some mutually agreed limits no shouting fire in a theater nor the inciting to violence.
There is no requirement that anyone should listen at all.
With the example of Rice there was a sizable enough portion of the students that made enough of a protest that they DID NOT want to hear her speak TO THEM that she saved everyone and herself a lot of trouble by canceling.
It in no way what so ever denies anyone’s right to speak freely when I refuse to fucking listen. If anyone continues to try to speak to me when I have clearly communicated my wish to be left alone by them it then becomes an issue of harassment.
freedom of speech is not the requirement of anyone to listen.
it is only meant to prevent others preventing or curbing free speech by preventing others from hear it.
uncle frogy
pflynn says:
I will confess to a terrible crime.
This week I participated in an anti-Pegida protest. Yep, we simply showed up with so many people that the fascists didn’t leave their meeting place but stayed there, without an audience while we fucking dominated the city.
Yeah, sure, we sent a powerful sign to the minorieties that we stand with them, and that the fascists are a tiny minority, that they need not fear a fourth Reich, but I’m afraid we also made sure the fascists couldn’t litter all of town with their hate-filled bullshit.
Guilty as charged.
Yes.
But you aren’t using consistency. You are merely assuming you’ve used consistency, without bothering to actually do it, and you’re assuming the cases are comparable without demonstrating it. That’s the intellectual dishonesty.
If You don’t think Rice qualifies as a war criminal, then make your case, and stop trying to muddy the waters bringing up other issues.
Seriously? The “I’m rubber you’re glue” defense? You’re new around here, aren’t you?
Free speech does not entitle anyone to any specific platform because that would be a violation of the platform’s rights of free association. My free speech ends where the platform’s freedom of association begins for the same reason my right to swing my fist ends at their nose. Free speech does not give a person coercive power over other people. Publishers, television networks, universities, radio stations, web servers, and so on are not slaves to anyone with something to say. Free speech does not entitle a person to a captive audience, either.
I can’t use my freedom of speech to coerce a prestigious publisher to print my book if they don’t want to be associated with me. Forcing them to associate their name with my book, even in the presence of a disclaimer, is essentially forcing them to express that they like my views, trampling on their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech and association gives them the right to reject my book. Even if I can’t find a willing publisher (and there are some who’ll publish anything for money), I’m still free to use my own printer, bind my own books, and sell them to willing strangers. I’m free to invite people to private readings. I’m free to find a willing web host and post the book online. Just because I’m rejected by one publisher doesn’t mean I’m silenced.
Even if we’re talking about a government organization, free speech does not require the government to provide me a prestigious platform or a captive audience. It means it can’t silence me if I have a willing platform and willing audience, unless I’m doing demonstrable harm such as fraud, slander, or libel, which violate other people’s rights.
Giliell,
I understand the sarcasm, but I hardly see the point. You exercised your right to protest while others exercised their right to speech. Sounds like democracy to me.
scienceavenger,
So I didn’t mention the Bush administration, you did.
That’s not intellectual dishonesty and it also isn’t what I did. Argument through analogy is perfectly valid. Rice didn’t commit any war crimes, which include but are not limited to use of poison gas, mass murder of civilians, genocide, etc.) and neither did the Clintons. That is my whole point. If you are going to bring Rice up on war crimes, then you’d better do the same for everyone else in the government.
Your definition of intellectual dishonesty is wrong. Intellectual dishonesty is the use of irrelevant facts, the use of biased facts, or the use of invalid logic in an argument. You are the only one who has done those things by A. bring up the irrelevant “Bush administration” argument and mischaracterizing a discussion about Rice as a discussion about the entire administration, B. calling my argument inconsistent without understanding the argument and without providing proof of that inconsistency.
Like your idiosyncratic definition of free speech? Not honest.
Indeed. Though I hear some universities have some kind of rule for themselves where they are supposed to be total platforms for free speach…and I heard one such university went and cancelled an anti aboriton talk anyways when some students complained. It seemed hypocritical, but people got to realize that freeze peaches work just fine on the internet, they could have uploaded their talk to youtube and thier peaches would have been just fine.
Indeed. And if a “silenced” person isn’t even relegated to youtube, but is one who gets paid big bucks to speak all over the place or even has a nearly-automatic media platform by virtue of being a public official, on top of simply having the freedom to speak like any other person — they’re just not in some particular places where some people aren’t craving their bullshit — then you apparently don’t know what “silence” sounds like. Or as is much more likely, you’re just acting like a fucking idiot, pflynn, because fucking everybody knows what silence actually fucking is.
pflynn
Nope, because we quite effectively stopped them from, yes, having a platform.
Alverant
I would if he wanted $150,000 for it.
grouperfish #41
That’s just as stupid as pflynn’s nonsense about free speech, and for the same reasons, which have been endlessly covered already in the 40 comments preceding yours. No one who wants to hear Rice or Ali is being denied a chance to do so; there are many, many outlets through which they can (and do) make themselves heard.
pflynn
You don’t appear to have answered the question, asked repeatedly by multiple people, so I’ll try again: No one’s offering me $150,000 to speak at any university commencements. Is this, on your view, a violation of my free speech?
I’ve bolded something which all members of the Bush Administration (specifically including Condoleeza Rice) are party to and responsible for as architects of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which invasions were criminal acts in themselves). Other war crimes the committed which you left off your list include, but are not limited to, summary executions of prisoners or civilians, wantonly destroying cities, towns, villages, or other objects not warranted by military necessity, unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer, and murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees.
FFS We were talking about Rice, who was part of the Bush administration. Do you adhere to the claim that seperation of church and state isn’t inthe Constitution too?
The fuck it isn’t. Here you did it again:
No, it isn’t. Illustration through analogy is valid. Arguing by analogy is like batting with spaghetti.
See, had you stopped right there and challenged those who accuse her of war crimes to make their case, you’d have been on solid ground. But then you had to go step in it.
BZZZT! There you go assuming her history is everyone else’s. It isn’t. And what possible reason could you have for bringing up the Clinton’s except to muddy the waters? Why not bring up George Washington? Or my mailman? Or my dog? I can assert they didn’t commit war crimes either?
Self-awareness isn’t your strong suit is it?
Like bringing up the Clintons when they have nothing whatever to do with Rice’s guilt or innocence.
Like you pretending her actions that motivated people’s charges don’t exist…
Like pretending an analogy is a proof.
I merely included you among those who defend various aspects of the Bush administration (of which Rice is a part) with the same tactics. Really dude, this isn’t complicated.
I said you haven’t demonstrated it is consistent, and you still haven’t.
LMFAO Dude, I understand your argument better than you do. You seem to be under the impression that posters here just walked in out of the blue. I’ve seen these sorts of intellectually dishonest dodges a million times (hello, I gave it a name, that ought to be a hint). Most did it better than you, choosing to get into the Clinton shit rather than attempting to drown the discussion in pedanticism.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @ 62
They chose not to use a platform that was available to them because they did not want to deal with more speech in the form of counter-protest criticism. That’s different than preventing them from speaking in a public forum by force or threat of force. The former is the epitome of free speech, the latter would be silencing free speech.
Similarly in Oz, anti-vaxxers are upset because a vocal advocacy group have upset the plans of Sherri Tenpenny to spout her lies in her ‘Better Health’ tour of Australia.
Details at http://reasonablehank.com So far, all but one venues have cancelled. Hehe.
Wait, so, “We’ve decided we don’t want to pay you to speak” is equivalent to using force or the threat of force to stop someone from speaking?
Must be a libertarian. *spits*
scienceavenger,
Wow, you spent a lot time on that response and a lot more time figuring out how best to misrepresent what I was saying. Cool.
Well, you spent a long time playing meaningless semantic games to cover your idiosyncratic and wrong definitions. Don’t think we didn’t notice your games. And we laughed at them….
Nope. Protests like the one against Condoleezza Rice are equivalent to the anti-Pegida rally where a speaker voluntarily chose not to use an available platform because they feared criticism. They’re not an instance of forcibly denying a platform to someone.
Wait, were you protesting their right to speak their particular message, or their speech itself?
I mean, I can come up with an argument for saying that dominating a forum is a form of censorship.* If enough people decide to shout you down, your right to speak doesn’t mean much. Is that what you mean?
*I call it pseudo-censorship. It’s not the government that’s denying you the ability to speak, but a larger and more powerful entity is acting to keep you from speaking.
awesome, is that you?
@Dalillama, Schmott Guy
Which is why this is more sensible than any actual commencement speaker.
It’s a shame the sensible media along with the right wing nutjobs, Newcorpse for short, can’t understand the distinction between satire that lambasts all equally and the narrow based vilification the right love.
In Oz the right wing nutter Govt, owned lock stoc and barrel by Newscorpse for short, want to repeal racial vilification laws to appease a pseudo Newscorpses, Andrew Bolt & Alan Jones (right wing proagandists of Cheney’s Ilk, who got done for abusing someone on the basis of race and by effectively slandering the recipient. Of course if their victims had said the same of them they would have sued them for libel.
Luckily thatpush to legislate the right to vilify got knocked on the head as the loonies that control our Senate aren’t quite of the ilk of the Tea Party yet.
Now the talking vacuums in the Govt and the afformentioned propagandists are trying to get racial vilification overturned because the vilification section woudn’t let the Charlie Hebdo cartonns be published in Australia, despite them being published next to the article saying you couldn’ t publish them in Australia :) . I supppose the vacuum heads and propagandists will win as even left wing journos, usually able to distinguish false equivalences, are supporting the push.
Oh for a non corrupt govt that isn’t owned outright wit a first mortgage on their genitalia by #Newcorpse.
Jacob Schmidt
Yep, that’s basically what we did. We took up all the space and I’m not sorry about it. Mind you, we weren’t that successful in all cities, in Dresden Pegida is still going strong, much stronger than any counter protest.
Oh, they also found a black asylum seeker murdered in the street after the last march, but I guess that’s just coincidence…
Which leads me to another aspect that hardly gets mentioned: The effects of free speech on others.
For the last week we’ve talked a lot about the dangers of free speech for those who make speech, but we hardly ever talk about the dangers to those who get trageted. And I don’t believe that it’s a coincidence that most people who are free speech absolutists are among those groups that historically NEVER had the hounds sent after them.
And then, when the members of those groups who know exactly what that looks like* complain, they get insult to injury because then they get told that they don’t understand western values and freedom, evoking the good old colonialist racism of the enlightened white man and the barbaric brown savage.
People believe in free speech because speech is powerful. So fucking accept that it has consequences and a price that’s more often than not paid by those who didn’t get a chance to decide if they wanted to be part of the debate.
*Because it’s fucking happening. It’s fucking happening in the USA where black bodies are seen as inherently dangerous. Not because of things black people do, but because of things said and believed about them.
It’s fucking happening in Germany, where again refugee homes are burning, where people complained about attacks after the Pegida marches for weeks and were dismissed by the police, where now there is a dead young black man where the police decided at first that there was no indication of violent death even though he was lying in his own blood.
How appropriate that your final post includes so many unwarranted (and wrong) assumptions. Taking someone like you down doesn’t take much time or effort. I could do it in my sleep, I’ve done it so many times.
@pflynn 12
They were silenced just as much as I was. No university has paid me to speak at their commencement and I suspect most of them wouldn’t let me if I tried.
@Sally 29
If some of those were incitement I could understand it, but so far as I have seen none of them would qualify and certainly not all or even most. As a free speech concern, that is far more troubling than anything else mentioned in this thread including the CH murders. State suppression of free speech is something everyone should be standing against. Anyone saying je suis Charlie and not condemning this silencing of dissent is not about supporting free speech, their motives are altogether different and repugnant.
Whereas I find your attitude condescending and arrogant toward those with less privilege than you, who are silenced and intimidated by YOUR freeze peach.
Who gives a shit what you think, after you bad performance here for days?
…the main resistance from students and alumni came from their objection to the university’s honoring her with a degree.
That makes sense. She sure didn’t act at all educated when she was working for Bush Jr., or when she was trying to justify her actions afterword.
This week I participated in an anti-Pegida protest. Yep, we simply showed up with so many people that the fascists didn’t leave their meeting place but stayed there, without an audience while we fucking dominated the city.
That’s not a “terrible crime,” that’s civil disobedience.
pflynn @47:
Anyone with Internet access can start their own blog, comment at other blogs, create a YouTube account, post on Facebook and other social media, and comment on any number of news sites. Given that no one has a right to a platform to express their views, if someone is offered a platform and then the offer is rescinded, that person’s free speech rights haven’t been abrogated.
@Nerd 80
If you think someone is wrong in one argument do you feel it necessary to carry that into every argument? Do you disagree with my sentiment here or are you just so invested in your “no true ally thinking” that you have to snark even when you agree with me?