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

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

In other news, Milo is going into a $12m business aimed at trolling tours. Way to weaponize free speech!

Not sure how this is going to make any money. He had trouble filling sub 1,000 seat College venues for his campus tour and the tickets were free. Sounds like a bad investment.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how this is going to make any money. He had trouble filling sub 1,000 seat College venues for his campus tour and the tickets were free. Sounds like a bad investment.

It's a good investment if it's newsworthy. $12m for a few nights worth of massive across-the-channels coverage is pocket change.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I consider robust free speech protections essential to maintaining a non authoritarian society. And it seems to me, that times, there seems to be, at times, on the left I hate to say, one ass pull after another to limit it. I'm not a fan of this, particularly if were going to try to limit free speech based on content or viewpoint.

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.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is true that I don't care for people who shout others down, never have never will, but their actions are speech.

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

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's a good investment if it's newsworthy. $12m for a few nights worth of massive across-the-channels coverage is pocket change.

Eh, I don't know. Seems to me his act wore thin long before Berkeley. Had it not been for Berkeley, I think would've likely faded into the background before his little scandal hit. The emperor has no clothes. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, I don't know. Seems to me his act wore thin long before Berkeley. Had it not been for Berkeley, I think would've likely faded into the background before his little scandal hit. The emperor has no clothes. 

That doesn't appear to be the case at all. He had just appeared with massive fame at Maher, he had been booking these tours, his name had become widespread enough that it was showing up on national news - in fact, that's how he got enough attention to get in serious trouble. 

And now he's promising to go to Berkeley to stir shit up at a time when we're actually having a conversation about how bad it is to protest people like Milo? Come on, man.  Do the math here. 

At the very least, multiple people believe $12m that you're wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 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.

 

Notone,

No.  It's not.  It is extremely emotionally satisfying but it is not speech.  Nor do I condone it.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, 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.

Okay, I don't know what the free speech laws where in the Weimar Republic. I have no clue. But, is the claim here that if the Weimar Republic had a few more free speech restrictions, the Nazi Party would have never gained power? Now why would I be skeptical of this, if this is the claim you are making?

Also, the idea of free speech is a relatively new concept in history and in most socities. So, I'm not quite convinced slippery slope stufff couldn't happen once you started coming up with all types of justifications to limit content or viewpoint.

Finally, I'm not all convinced that these restrictions you speak of have been that effective. With right wing authoritarianism growing around the world, it would seem they haven't been. If it's not clear that the intended effects of some proposed speech restriction is not that effective, I'm usually going to come down on the side of free speech.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Eh, I don't know. Seems to me his act wore thin long before Berkeley. Had it not been for Berkeley, I think would've likely faded into the background before his little scandal hit. The emperor has no clothes. 

How so? He has his base of followers. He is a less crazy, more articulate, better looking (and probably better smelling) version of Alex Jones. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Notone,

No.  It's not.  It is extremely emotionally satisfying but it is not speech.  Nor do I condone it.

It's expression, however. 

And yeah, there's a whole lot of cultures all over that indicate that completely free speech is not remotely needed for a Democratic society to function, and there are a few examples where free speech has caused nations to go kind of totally off the fucking rails. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

And yeah, there's a whole lot of cultures all over that indicate that completely free speech is not remotely needed for a Democratic society to function, and there are a few examples where free speech has caused nations to go kind of totally off the fucking rails. 

1. Well, yeah, certainly if the Kaiser and the Prussian Aristocracy would have been left in power, after WW1, I'm quite certain the Nazi's would have never taken power. That said though, for some reason, I still prefer regimes that democratic and where free speech protections are robust. Also, in the case of the Weimer Republic, if I recall, it's constitution contained a massive flaw which was Article 48, which allowed the legislature, to grant all authority to the leader. That's how the enabling act was passed, I believed. That is obviously a huge structural flaw and it could lead to authoritarianism no matter what the free speech laws were.

2. If Democratic society doesn't have robust free speech protections, is it really a democratic society? Can it be a free one? Or is it really a kind of a sham?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That doesn't appear to be the case at all. He had just appeared with massive fame at Maher, he had been booking these tours, his name had become widespread enough that it was showing up on national news - in fact, that's how he got enough attention to get in serious trouble. 

And now he's promising to go to Berkeley to stir shit up at a time when we're actually having a conversation about how bad it is to protest people like Milo? Come on, man.  Do the math here. 

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.   

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

2. If Democratic society doesn't have robust free speech protections, is it really a democratic society? Or is it really a kind of a sham?

Depends on what you care about, I suppose. If you care mostly about free and reasonable elections that preserve democracy I'd argue that it is a democratic society regardless of the robustness of the free speech rules, provided one simple thing: freedom of speech allows unlimited criticism of the government. 

If you care about freedom of speech period, and are willing to accept oppression of minority and disempowered groups as a result, then I guess you're right - but it's not a particularly democratic society for those people who are oppressed. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

Okay, I don't know what the free speech laws where in the Weimar Republic. I have no clue. But, is the claim here that if the Weimar Republic had a few more free speech restrictions, the Nazi Party would have never gained power? Now why would I be skeptical of this, if this is the claim you are making?

 

4 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Finally, I'm not all convinced that these restrictions you speak of have been that effective. With right wing authoritarianism growing around the world, it would seem they haven't been. If it's not clear that the intended effects of some proposed speech restriction is not that effective, I'm usually going to come down on the side of free speech.

Historically, the Weimar State was more strongly modeled after the US, with the directly elected President etc. Anyway, I will respond to both. No, the rise of the Nazi party had a lot to do with the economic situation and lack of a democratic tratidion. Anyway, the German state that emerged from the ashes of the third reich has a few more fail saves included. Which is not exclusive to free speech. So there's a chance to outlaw parties that seek to acitvely work against the constiution/state (quite high barriers still, possible), to remove judges (which do not get elected, but are appointments, but that's another story) and civil servants, who are not onboard with the constitution etc.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

How so? He has his base of followers. He is a less crazy, more articulate, better looking (and probably better smelling) version of Alex Jones. 

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. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes 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.   

He's got a massive online following though. I know you don't see it, but I suspect you don't see the appeal behind people like Coulter, either. Just because I don't like the guy personally doesn't mean I can ignore that he's popular.

And while the campus is done playing the game, the kids aren't, I bet. Ann Coulter also got basically nothing but a win for her experience, given how much press she got from it. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

He's got a massive online following though. I know you don't see it, but I suspect you don't see the appeal behind people like Coulter, either. Just because I don't like the guy personally doesn't mean I can ignore that he's popular.

And while the campus is done playing the game, the kids aren't, I bet. Ann Coulter also got basically nothing but a win for her experience, given how much press she got from it. 

A lot of folks have massive online followings, it's managing to monetize that following that I think is the difficult trick. It looked like Milo was about to jump that hurdle when he got his book deal, but then his scandal burned that pile of cash. That said, point taken regarding my personal bias against him. I suppose that plays into my opinion somewhat. There's a difference here between folks like Alex Jones and Coulter when you compare them to Milo. They have been able to successfully monetize their followings. I'm not sure that Milo has or can.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

A lot of folks have massive online followings, it's managing to monetize that following that I think is the difficult trick. It looked like Milo was about to jump that hurdle when he got his book deal, but then his scandal burned that pile of cash. That said, point taken regarding my personal bias against him. I suppose that plays into my opinion somewhat. There's a difference here between folks like Alex Jones and Coulter when you compare them to Milo. they have been able to successfully monetize their followings. I'm not sure that Milo has or even can.

Milo is already quite rich, as it turns out. The book deal is gone, but he's made a ton of money at Breitbart and going on other personal talks, and he's been financed quite a bit by various dark money fundings. He's not in the realm of Ann Coulter, but he's getting there.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Milo is already quite rich, as it turns out. The book deal is gone, but he's made a ton of money at Breitbart and going on other personal talks, and he's been financed quite a bit by various dark money fundings. He's not in the realm of Ann Coulter, but he's getting there.

Quick Google search says his net worth is about 750k. You consider that to be rich?

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Depends on what you care about, I suppose. If you care mostly about free and reasonable elections that preserve democracy I'd argue that it is a democratic society regardless of the robustness of the free speech rules, provided one simple thing: freedom of speech allows unlimited criticism of the government. 

If you care about freedom of speech period, and are willing to accept oppression of minority and disempowered groups as a result, then I guess you're right - but it's not a particularly democratic society for those people who are oppressed. 

I think this operates on two assumptions, that I think are rather shaky. 1) You can completely partition criticisms of the government and criticism of historically oppressed groups. I'm not too sure about this one. It would seem that in some cases attacking a government policy could be perceived s attacking a dis-empowered group.

2)You can remove all bad cultural traits that work to the disadvantage of minority groups by simply repressing certain speech. I'm a bit skeptical of this claim too.

In some cases, certainly, with the US's robust free speech laws, minority groups have been able to persuade the majority of the public to support their positions. Take gay marriage for example.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Quick Google search says his net worth is about 750k. You consider that to be rich?

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

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I think this operates on two assumptions, that I think are rather shaky. 1) You can completely partition criticisms of the government and criticism of historically oppressed groups. I'm not too sure about this one. It would seem that in some cases attacking a government policy could be perceived s attacking a dis-empowered group.

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.

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

2)You can remove all bad cultural traits that work to the disadvantage of minority groups by simply repressing certain speech. I'm a bit skeptical of this claim too.

In some cases, certainly, with the US's robust free speech laws, minority groups have been able to persuade the majority of the public to support their positions. Take gay marriage for example.

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.