Freedom of Speech, Freedom from Consequences of Speech... not the same thing.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I was looking over my old "Free speech on Campus thread" from last June.  There have been quite a few changes since that thread petered out.  I thought we might have another discussion about the scope and necessity for free speech.  I'm well aware of the significant tensions that exist in western society about what appears to be a rightward move by many governments (see the Brexit, election of Trump (his support from the neo-nazi right), surprising success (not necessarily a win) by Le Pen in France).  There have been repeated incidents of violence in some places where protesters have gotten physical with each other over what was being said is that violence merely "the consequence of speech"?  

I strongly believe in free expression.  I believe it is a core element of any successful democratic state.  People need to be free to offer their opinions and the rationale for their opinions.  The need to believe that they can offer such opinions in an environment of open expression and rational dialog allows people to engage differing opinions and, hopefully, find peaceful means of resolving such differences.  

What does that mean with regard to the second half of this equation?  What happens when someone... Richard Spencer for example... claims that "White Privilege is what built the US" and revels in such his cliam of superiority.  He gets decked twice.  I've said a couple of times that rationally I do not support punching anyone for speech.  It undermines the ability of people to openly and freely express their opinions and ideas.  That said, emotionally, I find it very satisfying to see a smug asshole like Richard Spencer get smacked in the mouth for the crap that he says.  That Spenser is getting air time on networks like CNN to share his neo-nazi White Supremeist bullshit is disturbing to me.  But it is speech.  

The ACLU has defended the rights of the American-Nazi party and the KKK to participate in public events.  What the Antifa is doing, while I find it emotionally satisfying, seems dangerous to me.  I don't want Spencer to say what he says but if we are going to suppress speech where does the suppression of speech stop?  Here are a few articles about the violence that is occuring across the US:

At Auburn University:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/campus-free-speech-trnd/

At UC Berkeley:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/20/california-berkeley-coulter-protests-237424

At University of Washington:

http://thehill.com/homenews/315446-man-shot-at-milo-yiannopoulos-protest

Then there is this article from Salon wherein the White Supremeist Right is taking delight in the violence offered to them:

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/17/this-is-just-the-beginning-alt-right-rejoices-as-violent-protests-rock-berkeley/

Discuss, is violence where we are not at war the way to oppose the hate and vitriol that is being offered by those from the extreme right wing?  

[DunderMifflin]

I find the whole "punching nazis" meme to be not only morally ambiguous but very poor strategy. 

Firstly it's just dangerous and irresponsible to condone going around punching people that you think are nazis. If you think a nazi won't punch you back then you are in a fantasy world. Even though there is legal right, open and blatant white supremacy isn't exactly socially acceptable. You are dealing with a segment of the population that already more or less doesn't give a fuck, so if you think one wont ever return your punch with tenfold violence that's just being clueless.

Secondly, the idea that punching a nazi will in any way stop the spreading of white supremacy is also pretty silly.

I mean an actual nazi wants to kill anyone on the planet who isn't full white. Do people think one would be above kIlling someone that punched them? 

And that's not even questioning the process of how one decides who the nazis that deserve a punch are. How about Trump? Plenty of people call him a nazi, he's gotta get a punch? 

How about a guy like Ben Shapiro a super right wing Jewish man who denies white privelege. Hes a nazi that deserves a punch too?

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I'd be very surprised if anyone here supported violence as a response to something someone said. Even the more rabid members. 

Im all for free speech, and believe nobody should face violence or jail time for anything they said. Controversially I even believe this applies to jihadi Islamic extremist preachers and neo nazis.

You can say anything and I have the right to ignore you, debate you and refute you. I don't have the right to hit you or stop you speaking. 

[Seli]

A basic problem is that the US interpretation of free speech ignores the non aggression principle, and allows violent speech. Furthermore it ignores that speech from the far-right, from the reactionary right, is inherently backed by the power of status quo and the authorities.

Which makes it very difficult to tell where self-defence ends and aggressive violence begins when people actually act against 'speech'.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

2 minutes ago, Seli said:

A basic problem is that the US interpretation of free speech ignores the non aggression principle, and allows violent speech. Furthermore it ignores that speech from the far-right, from the reactionary right, is inherently backed by the power of status quo and the authorities.

Which makes it very difficult to tell where self-defence ends and aggressive violence begins when people actually act against 'speech'.

what is violent speech and why should it be different to other types of speech?

[Seli]

3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

what is violent speech and why should it be different to other types of speech?

The first is one of the big questions that societies need to answer.

And we already regulate speech that kills, in advertisements, in medical situations, in food, in water quality, in air quality. It is a matter of determining and discussing limits.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

"Violent speech" sounds like a pretty fuzzy concept.

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

"Violent speech" sounds like a pretty fuzzy concept.

Okay... How about inciting violence?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Okay... How about inciting violence?

That's more concrete.  If someone says "Christians should be killed"  that's clearly inciting violence.  

But the question then becomes "how far are you going to take that principle?"  If I say "  "Christians are bad people unworthy of the protection of the State.   I can't believe police officers have to risk their lives to save Christians." Am I then inciting violence by inference by saying Christians are a waste of oxygen?  If someone, truthfully, points out the fairly violent passages in the Koran... or the Bible... are they inciting violence against Muslims or Christians by pointing out where these Holy books appear to condone violence?  We hit grey areas any time we seek to restrict speech.  

[Seli]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

"Violent speech" sounds like a pretty fuzzy concept.

As is "harm" as is "toxicity" as is "safe", and yet we have so many people whose job it is to make sense of those terms in countless situations.

[aceluby]

I think its up to others besides the State to step up and say they won't provide a platform to speech they believe could incite violence.  I think colleges absolutely should cancel, or better yet not ever offer, speaking arrangements to people looking to create controversy.  I think the media should stop providing a platform to these people as well, though it's harder for them since they are click generators which directly provides to their bottom line.

I don't think we're at the point where we should be looking at the state to solve it, but should be looking at those providing these platforms and pressuring them as much as possible to stop.

[DunderMifflin]

Honestly the right wing speakers vs antifa protesters at universities is pretty much a symbiotic relationship at this point. The right wingers know full well there will be protesters and they tease that shit like a film trailer leading up to the event. The controversy generated helps them sell their book or whatever it is they are pitching. The protesters fill the need to slap their version of social justice upon people. 

There's no need for anyone to speak at universities. You can just put your speech on Youtube and it will reach a lot more people.

We've seen most stand up comedians just be like "fuck that I'm not ever doing a gig on college campus again, fuck those places." Instead of insisting on still going to campuses to perform and making a big deal about free speech or whatever.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

My problem with all of this is that it treats audiences as morons, unable to discern what they are allowed to hear or not. We act like a nanny who knows better than everyone else.

if someone says that christians should be killed then I'm not going to go out and kill Christians , but I should be allowed to say why that person is wrong. 

Incitement to violence is a very fuzzy term as well, how far do you push it. Do you remove blame from murderers and place it at the feet of those who convinced them to murder?

I think the worst thing you can do I allow these kind of beliefs to fester unchallenged and unridiculed. Give people a platform and destroy their arguments with counter arguments.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Jebus, I hate to do it, but i have to agree with DunderMifflin's first post here. The ironic thing about these extreme reactions to extremist speech is that it invariably serves to give the speaker much more publicity than they would normally receive. The Milo Berkeley riot was a prime example of this. He piggybacked that event into a Bill Maher appearance and multiple high profile podcasts and the like. That event basically made Milo into the darling of the political correct pushback movement, many of whom strongly disagree with most of his viewpoints. 

Not sure how you can find much to admire about Antifa, Scot, as their playbook is really pretty cowardly and despicable. Tossing low grade explosives into crowds of protesters you don't like whilst wearing masks and uniforms isn't the sort of behavior I want to endorse. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Wouldn't a fair starting point be "is this person trying to have a free and honest exchange of ideas or are they here to poison the well?"

I'm all for someone like Ted Cruz going to Berkeley to challenge liberals or Bill Maher going to a Christian university to challenge the concept of faith and religion, but someone like Milo was not going to Berkeley for those reasons. He went there to incite people. Now that still might be a legitimate reason to allow him to speak, but his intentions were clearly not above board.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wouldn't a fair starting point be "is this person trying to have a free and honest exchange of ideas or are they here to poison the well?"

I'm all for someone like Ted Cruz going to Berkeley to challenge liberals or Bill Maher going to a Christian university to challenge the concept of faith and religion, but someone like Milo was not going to Berkeley for those reasons. He went there to incite people. Now that still might be a legitimate reason to allow him to speak, but his intentions were clearly not above board.

Here's my question.  When the Antifa protesters show up for Ted Cruz, when Conservative Christian protesters show up for Bill Maher, what does that say?  This fuzzy "we don't have to allow you a platform to speak" thing from the Left and the Right is for the birds.  Free Expression means people say controversial things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Jebus, I hate to do it, but i have to agree with DunderMifflin's first post here. The ironic thing about these extreme reactions to extremist speech is that it invariably serves to give the speaker much more publicity than they would normally receive. The Milo Berkeley riot was a prime example of this. He piggybacked that event into a Bill Maher appearance and multiple high profile podcasts and the like. That event basically made Milo into the darling of the political correct pushback movement, many of whom strongly disagree with most of his viewpoints. 

Not sure how you can find much to admire about Antifa, Scot, as their playbook is really pretty cowardly and despicable. Tossing low grade explosives into crowds of protesters you don't like whilst wearing masks and uniforms isn't the sort of behavior I want to endorse. 

ME,

I'm not endorsing them.  I'm saying emotionally when they go after white supremicist neo nazi's like Richard Spencer I am sympathetic.  Rationally, legally, they shouldn't be allowed to get away with what they do.

[Kalbear]

Let's remind Scot that at  the Milo speech the primary person who was most harmed was a protester who got shot by a pro-Milo fan while the wife of the shooter pepper sprayed the crowd. 

[DunderMifflin]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Wouldn't a fair starting point be "is this person trying to have a free and honest exchange of ideas or are they here to poison the well?"

I'm all for someone like Ted Cruz going to Berkeley to challenge liberals or Bill Maher going to a Christian university to challenge the concept of faith and religion, but someone like Milo was not going to Berkeley for those reasons. He went there to incite people. Now that still might be a legitimate reason to allow him to speak, but his intentions were clearly not above board.

Still gonna get the same conclusions.

All the people that like Milo are gonna reply "yeh, he's totally about free and honest exchange of ideas"

And all the people that hate him will reply "nope, hes a troll doing hate speech"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Let's remind Scot that at  the Milo speech the primary person who was most harmed was a protester who got shot by a pro-Milo fan while the wife of the shooter pepper sprayed the crowd. 

No question.  It is part of the reason I have that incident among the articles I list in the OP.