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

[A Horse Named Stranger]

14 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't care for Jones either, but he already has his own show (that it took him years to build) and I think the "crazy" bit is probably a selling point to his crowd. Milo is more articulate (hell, my 2 year old grandson fits this description) but he really isn't saying anything. His one solid point is made for him by the regressive left movement when they try to block his speech. That's all he has. If they would simply stop doing that, he'd have nothing of substance to say. 

Hum, no. I think you miss one of his key selling points. His own sexuality, which he so frequently advertizes. He is a bit of the show monkey for the alt right. Look, we are not a bunch of homophobe rednecks, afterall we got Milo. How homophobe can we be? We love Milo. That's part of his all shtick. He himself uses a somewhat similar tune. I am not a neo nazi, or a racist. I am gay guy, who is into big black men. How can I be a racist? C'mon.

 

[Swordfish]

6 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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

last time this came up, the punchers received a disappointingly high level of support on this board.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Notone said:

Hum, no. I think you miss one of his key selling points. His own sexuality, which he so frequently advertizes. He is a bit of the show monkey for the alt right. Look, we are not a bunch of homophobe rednecks, afterall we got Milo. How homophobe can we be? We love Milo. That's part of his all shtick. He himself uses a somewhat similar tune. I am not a neo nazi, or a racist. I am gay guy, who is into big black men. How can I be a racist? C'mon.

 

Okay, he has two tricks. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

Hum, no. I think you miss one of his key selling points. His own sexuality, which he so frequently advertizes. He is a bit of the show monkey for the alt right. Look, we are not a bunch of homophobe rednecks, afterall we got Milo. How homophobe can we be? We love Milo. That's part of his all shtick. He himself uses a somewhat similar tune. I am not a neo nazi, or a racist. I am gay guy, who is into big black men. How can I be a racist? C'mon.

 

I'm not sure anyone falls for that stuff. 

[Swordfish]

52 minutes ago, Notone said:

That's so American. Now that I wrote that, I should probably add one or two sentences to that. This first Amendment absolutism appears to be really an American thing (so is the second Amendment Absolutism, but that's another topic). Other (democratic) countries have managed to put certain limits to free speech. E.g. if I started a rallye and held a speech with stuff like denying the holocaust or claim that negroes are ineferior I'd be in trouble legally, not just morally. So I don't find that slippery slope argument particularly convincing. This is again probably more a cultural thing. Coming with a slightly different perspective, I feel the the need to remind you of the end of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi party. They used the weapons of democracy (like free speech) and turned them against democracy itself. So I am somewhat more willing to give the state the option to bring the hammer down on groups like the KKK. Having that said, silly me now wants a word, too.

Something within me (silly me)  feels tempted to ask you, whether punching a Nazi isn't just a form of speech, too.

 

The short answer is, it doesn't matter.

Your initial implication that freedom of speech in the US is 'absolute' is deeply flawed, and punching someone in the face(even if it is speech, which it likely isn't) is not protected any more than walking into someone's house with a bullhorn is.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Gay marriage didn't win out because of free speech however. It won because of states laws being changed. I suppose you can argue things like the prevalence of gay relationships on national media is something like 'free speech', but ultimately it isn't actually protected; some stations ban individual programs, others don't, and none of it is protected, period. 

So these laws just got changed randomly. And had nothing to do with public debate over them? 

Just now, Kalbear said:

That's what judicial systems are for. There is never going to be a system that is perfect, so you design a system that is flawed but can be gamed for better results.

Yeah, I don't think it's really desirable to have courts decides matters of public policy every time some group decides that criticism of public policy is oppressing them.

Just now, Kalbear said:

And I don't contend that you can wipe out all bad cultural traits, but I do contend that you can make them significantly less common or useful, and this is a way of changing minds over time. 

Well two things here. 1) Is there any limits here? Is there some point that you say, we won't go there, even if it allegedly eliminates a bad cultural trait. 2) This theory is obviously compared the counterfactual of robust free speech. Is there any evidence this actually does happen and  to what degree? Is it to the degree that makes the restrictions "worth it".

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Came across this on the Twitters there and thought it fit...

Milo's Future...

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

So these laws just got changed randomly. And had nothing to do with public debate over them? 

Kinda? The gay marriage thing was a pretty random set of changes. It certainly didn't happen inorganically, and when they tried they failed. 

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Yeah, I don't think it's really desirable to have courts decides matters of public policy every time some group decides that criticism of public policy is oppressing them.

That's literally what we have right now - so you think that the current system is not effective? Good, we're on the same page then. 

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well two things here. 1) Is there any limits here? Is there some point that you say, we won't go there, even if it allegedly eliminates a bad cultural trait. 2) This theory is obviously compared the counterfactual of robust free speech. Is there any evidence this actually does happen and  to what degree? Is it to the degree that makes the restrictions "worth it".

I'm really having a hard time parsing this, which is my fault as I'm in some pain right now. 

Ultimately I'm simply suggesting that complete free speech can by itself be both harmful to members of a democracy and be harmful to democracy itself, and arguably we're seeing that in spades in the US right now. We have no way of prosecuting fake news, we have ample people being harassed beyond belief with social media to the point of ostracism and killing themselves, and we have the racism that's been prevalent for a while now. We can argue that this is worth the cost, but arguing that it is always good is clearly not fair.

As to evidence that free speech causes problems? I think the US and UK recent elections and referendums are good examples.

As to evidence that lack of free speech can be beneficial to functioning Democracy? Germany appears to be okay with heavy restrictions on speech and violence in videogames, as an example. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's likely a lot more since Trump made it. That was, iirc, based on 2015. 

That's what judicial systems are for. There is never going to be a system that is perfect, so you design a system that is flawed but can be gamed for better results.

Gay marriage didn't win out because of free speech however. It won because of states laws being changed. I suppose you can argue things like the prevalence of gay relationships on national media is something like 'free speech', but ultimately it isn't actually protected; some stations ban individual programs, others don't, and none of it is protected, period. 

And I don't contend that you can wipe out all bad cultural traits, but I do contend that you can make them significantly less common or useful, and this is a way of changing minds over time. 

State laws changed because people changed their opinions about gay marriage.  That happened, in part, because people can and did speak out and change people's minds.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Kinda? The gay marriage thing was a pretty random set of changes. It certainly didn't happen inorganically, and when they tried they failed. 

That's literally what we have right now - so you think that the current system is not effective? Good, we're on the same page then. 

I'm really having a hard time parsing this, which is my fault as I'm in some pain right now. 

Ultimately I'm simply suggesting that complete free speech can by itself be both harmful to members of a democracy and be harmful to democracy itself, and arguably we're seeing that in spades in the US right now. We have no way of prosecuting fake news, we have ample people being harassed beyond belief with social media to the point of ostracism and killing themselves, and we have the racism that's been prevalent for a while now. We can argue that this is worth the cost, but arguing that it is always good is clearly not fair.

As to evidence that free speech causes problems? I think the US and UK recent elections and referendums are good examples.

As to evidence that lack of free speech can be beneficial to functioning Democracy? Germany appears to be okay with heavy restrictions on speech and violence in videogames, as an example. 

1. And it would seem with respect to Germany these free speech restrictions haven’t stopped right wing groups, nor prevented their rise.

2. With regard to “fake news”, I’m not real comfortable with government making determinations about what is “fake” and what isn’t. Nor am I real comfortable that legislation could accurately make such a neat determination.

3. I’d never represent free speech as not having no cost. Certainly, particular forms of free speech can cause people emotional pain. But, overall, to live in a fairly free society, I think the cost of free speech is worth paying.

4. With regard to the US’s and UK’s respective election and referendum, I am not sure what free speech restrictions you have in mind that would work. At least ones, that wouldn’t severely limit important public policy discussions. Take the UK. Should criticism of free trade not be allowed? I think that is a pretty important policy discussion to have. Or take for example the role immigration has on native wages. That’s another important policy discussion to have. And on the second discussion some people could claim that discussion shouldn't be allowed because it demonizes a oppressed group ie immigrants. Shut that discussion down if you want to, though I'd suspect many common British laborer's would suspect that was the case. Not that I think immigration is as harmful as it's critics claim, but you know, it's important to get that issue out there in public policy, so at least some people can be educated about it. Potentially shutting that kind of public discussion down, really isn't helpful, I don't think.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

State laws changed because people changed their opinions about gay marriage.  That happened, in part, because people can and did speak out and change people's minds.

Citation needed. Also, citation needed where speaking out about positive viewpoints of gay people was in any way in jeopardy anywhere, or how free speech laws that prohibit hate speech would have actually prohibited this in any way.

[DunderMifflin]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Those are solid points, and this guy is a fairly successful provocateur, but it seems to me that the rules are changing. If you read your article closely, Milo says they are planning an event "near" Berkeley. I think the campus is done playing this game. Not sure how that will effect turnout or coverage, but I think Ann Coulter found out this week that the school is no longer going to be providing free press for this brand of idiocy.

 On top of that, I just don't see any real talent behind this guy. He likes to describe himself as some sort of stand-up comic, but he can't seem to back it up. Yeah, he got the Maher appearance, but what did he do with it? Got a couple of Liberal/Comic commentators to tell him to fuck off? He has one trick in his bag, and everybody has already seen it.   

I think Berkeley is starting to worry about their credibility as an academic institution with this circus shit.

The milo riot was somewhat natural I think. But now they are pretty much staged spectator events. Right wing sites were promoting the Ann Coulter riots weeks before she went there. Even had war like names already made up for it like "the battle for Berkeley" and such

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Kinda? The gay marriage thing was a pretty random set of changes. It certainly didn't happen inorganically, and when they tried they failed. 

I don't think it was random at all. You had a super contentious, ultra expensive set of referendum (or proposition) elections here in California that kind of underlined the issue.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Citation needed. Also, citation needed where speaking out about positive viewpoints of gay people was in any way in jeopardy anywhere, or how free speech laws that prohibit hate speech would have actually prohibited this in any way.

Without the 1st amendment and its protections what was there to stop the States who passed anti-gay marriage amendments in the 90's from making advocacy for gay marriage illegal?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

I think Berkeley is starting to worry about their credibility as an acedemic institution with this circus shit.

The milo riot was somewhat natural I think. But now they are pretty much staged spectator events. Right wing sites were promoting the Ann Coulter riots weeks before she went there. Even had war like names already made up for it like "the battle for Berkeley" and such

I think the bottom line is the expense. It generates a whole bunch of free publicity for these media personalities, and Berkeley is left with a clean-up bill for the mess. There's nothing in it for them other than not having to deal with bad press for "suppressing" speech if they refuse to allow these sorts of events. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

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.

It does, but it also means people can protest it. Personally I think the protests are counter productive and  draw more attention to the person in question, and in the cases of Coulter and Milo that's exactly what they wanted. 

[Robin Of House Hill]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

State laws changed because people changed their opinions about gay marriage.  That happened, in part, because people can and did speak out and change people's minds.

That's only partially true.California's Proposition 8 is a good example of where it didn't.  Only Obergfell v. Hodges changed the law, and that was based on law, not public opinion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

That's only partially true.California's Proposition 8 is a good example of where it didn't.  Only Obergfell v. Hodges changed the law, and that was based on law, not public opinion.

I would be shocked if that case came out the way it did without the change in public opinion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

This is bad news:

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/04/25/new-alt-right-“fight-club”-ready-street-violence

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Without the 1st amendment and its protections what was there to stop the States who passed anti-gay marriage amendments in the 90's from making advocacy for gay marriage illegal?

It isn't an all or nothing; you don't have to accept hate speech because you also accept gay marriage advocacy. I said that already. So yes, still, citation needed. Another way to say it is this: would Germany's restrictive speech laws allowed gay marriage advocacy?

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I don't think it was random at all. You had a super contentious, ultra expensive set of referendum (or proposition) elections here in California that kind of underlined the issue.  

And that happened far after other contentious occurrences had happened elsewhere. It was pretty organic in how it happened, and that was kind of by design.