Milo (et alia(?)), Berkeley, and indirect censorship

[icehorse]

Full disclosure: Milo has attacked my family specifically and unfairly. He has caused us significant harm.

That said, I support his right to speak, if he's offered a valid platform. I feel the same way about Ann Coulter and their ilk. I hate many of their views, but I defend their right to speak.

My summary of the key points of this article is that local officials in Berkeley are suggesting that they can judge Milo's speech to be not worth the expense to the community. Sorry, this amounts to censorship. I want to hear what Milo and friends have to say. I want to know how to battle them. (It's also the case that sometimes they get it right, and that also has to be dealt with.)

Free speech ain't cheap, but it's cheaper than the alternative. We cannot allow government officials decide for us what we can and cannot hear!

After 'antifa' violence, Berkeley debates whether Milo Yiannopoulos and other conservatives are welcome

 

[idav]

Personally if someone is attacking my family I no longer care what kind of drivel comes out of their mouths. Free speech away.

 

[idav]

How does a scenario like that even go? "You've attacked my family but I'm so happy your exercising your free speech, you must have some valid points!" @icehorse are you willing to protect free speech at the expense of you and your families safety? Government really isn't bothered by the free speech, its the actual crimes that sometimes follow it.

 

[Mister Silver]

I am not going to give hate speakers the time of day any more than I would give Hitler or Stalin the time of day if they were alive today and wanted a platform upon which to speak.

NEVER AGAIN is something we should all keep in mind when contemplating why these people want to preach their hate to others.

It is not censorship to be denied a platform.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don’t believe Yiannopoulos is being censored given that he has plenty of scope to publicise his opinions. It’s my opinion that he only arranges these kind of events precisely because he expect (and wants) the violent responses, which act as promotion for his brand regardless of whether the events actually happen or not (it should go without saying that the actual violence remains indefensible).

I think that anyone who triggers such widespread and strongly felt reactions is doing something wrong (often intentionally) in the manner in which they present their views. There will be plenty of people who share opinions on various topics with him yet don’t garner as much attention or cause any kind of backlash. The reactions aren’t to his (purported) political positions, they’re to him.

As a general principle I don’t think individuals or views should be censored, explicitly or indirectly, but I also don’t think organisations should be forced to provide platforms they don’t wish to. There are always going to be balances to be struck and overall, I don’t think anything has gone too far either way as of yet.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If it were a controversial cooky nonscience pusher or an extremely religious person liking to sermon I doubt anyone would bat an eye at them not providing a platform.

 

[columbus]

Full disclosure: Milo has attacked my family specifically and unfairly. He has caused us significant harm.

I am not at all sure what that means. Nor is it any of my business, so I am not asking.

But it puts me in mind of someone else on RF who is complaining. His deeply spiritual orientation bigotry is making him feel very very sad.
Likewise, had some members of your family taken aim at Milo, or someone associated with him, I wouldn't blame him for shooting back. And lots and lots of people have done so.
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

Full disclosure: Milo has attacked my family specifically and unfairly. He has caused us significant harm.

That said, I support his right to speak, if he's offered a valid platform. I feel the same way about Ann Coulter and their ilk. I hate many of their views, but I defend their right to speak.

My summary of the key points of this article is that local officials in Berkeley are suggesting that they can judge Milo's speech to be not worth the expense to the community. Sorry, this amounts to censorship. I want to hear what Milo and friends have to say. I want to know how to battle them. (It's also the case that sometimes they get it right, and that also has to be dealt with.)

Free speech ain't cheap, but it's cheaper than the alternative. We cannot allow government officials decide for us what we can and cannot hear!

After 'antifa' violence, Berkeley debates whether Milo Yiannopoulos and other conservatives are welcome

I'm sorry to hear that. I've never heard Milo attack family specifically and if there were anyway to provide details of such an attack without providing personal information I'd like to hear it.

Also I've never heard Milo engage in hate speech. Although he is often accused of it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We cannot allow government officials decide for us what we can and cannot hear!

I agree with that in principle, but there are many ideas that I'm glad are illegal to express. I don't care for people giving instructions on making bombs over the internet, or listing the names and addresses of abortion doctors, or advertising cigarettes (especially to children). I suspect that you would agree.

I also have misgivings about the freedom to assemble when it is for the purpose Honest Joe suggested: To provoke an angry reaction and incite violence. When we give a mob like the Charlottesville white supremacists a permit to protest, it's probably going to result in violence more often than not, which may fit the definition of a clear and present danger and justify forbidding it.

But how about so-called hate speech on the Internet or in other settings where violence isn't expected? We have to allow that. If we give government the right to criminalize hate speech, we give it the right to define what that is. Do we really want a government led by Donald Trump to decide whose ideas will be protected and whose ideas will be censored using the force of government?

The following is 21 minutes, and you might consider it worth your while to watch some or all of it. Hitchens is a gifted speaker:

As a general principle I don’t think individuals or views should be censored, explicitly or indirectly, but I also don’t think organisations should be forced to provide platforms they don’t wish to.

I agree here as well.

What I call censorship is only possible by a government, and refers to the attempt to prevent the expression of an opinion with the threat of arrest if it is expressed in any way - not limiting the circumstances and venues in which it can be expressed. No individual or lesser institution has the ability to do that, even the church.

I don't consider a university refusing to give permission for somebody to speak, or the crowd a speaker attracts shouting him down to be censorship in this larger sense. That's just telling somebody you don't care for them and to go somewhere else to deliver that message.

 

[icehorse]

@It Aint Necessarily So @HonestJoe @idav

I've watched several of Milo's talks. I've heard him attack the extreme left, radical feminists, BLM and so on.

While these might not be popular opinions, IMO none of them get anywhere near inciting violence. To me, if these views cannot be expressed without violent responses, then the problem isn't with the speaker, it's with the groups who are using threats of violence to silence speech.

 

[sun rise]

I am not going to give hate speakers the time of day any more than I would give Hitler or Stalin the time of day if they were alive today and wanted a platform upon which to speak.

NEVER AGAIN is something we should all keep in mind when contemplating why these people want to preach their hate to others.

It is not censorship to be denied a platform.

I draw the line between those who advocate for policies that I really dislike and those that are engaging in hate speech. I may utterly loath a conservative's position but they have a right to be heard.

Nazis, neo-Nazis, KKK and similar hate organizations have no right to "cry fire in a crowded theater" because that's what hate speech is.

 

[sun rise]

@It Aint Necessarily So @HonestJoe @idav

I've watched several of Milo's talks. I've heard him attack the extreme left, radical feminists, BLM and so on.

While these might not be popular opinions, IMO none of them get anywhere near inciting violence. To me, if these views cannot be expressed without violent responses, then the problem isn't with the speaker, it's with the groups who are using threats of violence to silence speech.

I'm no fan of violence by anyone nor of threats of violence such as we saw when the right wing showed up with loaded weapons, one person shot into a crowd and another rammed their car into that crowd. And I'm against anarchists beating up on people.

 

[columbus]

While these might not be popular opinions, IMO none of them get anywhere near inciting violence.

Wait just a minute.
#BLM has instigated massive looting and vandalism. Shut down peaceful political rallies. Incited sniper fire against the people trying to protect #BLM demonstrators.

That makes them really unpopular with me and a lot of other people. That's just an example of people I don't like who probably consider themselves liberal.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Full disclosure: Milo has attacked my family specifically and unfairly. He has caused us significant harm.

That said, I support his right to speak, if he's offered a valid platform. I feel the same way about Ann Coulter and their ilk. I hate many of their views, but I defend their right to speak.

My summary of the key points of this article is that local officials in Berkeley are suggesting that they can judge Milo's speech to be not worth the expense to the community. Sorry, this amounts to censorship. I want to hear what Milo and friends have to say. I want to know how to battle them. (It's also the case that sometimes they get it right, and that also has to be dealt with.)

Free speech ain't cheap, but it's cheaper than the alternative. We cannot allow government officials decide for us what we can and cannot hear!

After 'antifa' violence, Berkeley debates whether Milo Yiannopoulos and other conservatives are welcome

Did he say mean things to you?
Or did he come at you with a big stick?

 

[icehorse]

Did he say mean things to you?
Or did he come at you with a big stick?

He supported a not-so-fine fellow's dox-ing my wife. Have someone dox you, I promise you, you won't like it.

But let's not lose sight of my point here. Even though Milo is an asshat, I think we have to defend his right to speak.

 

[chickenranch]

I agree with OP exactly because of this sentiment, but for internet, writing, and in-person speech:

But how about so-called hate speech on the Internet or in other settings where violence isn't expected? We have to allow that. If we give government the right to criminalize hate speech, we give it the right to define what that is.

To provoke an angry reaction and incite violence. When we give a mob like the Charlottesville white supremacists a permit to protest, it's probably going to result in violence more often than not, which may fit the definition of a clear and present danger and justify forbidding it.

As adults we also own our responses. We can plan them. With protected speech we can be as loud and hateful, legally. We can turn our backs and let hateful words bounce around an echo chamber. We can yell back dressed as clowns and poke fun at people. This takes some of the public spectacle away from the "haters." There are fully legal or at least non-violent ways to do this.

A big fear I've heard and read is the objection, "But no one fought back against Hitler fast and hard enough! You have to aggressively stamp out nonsense like that!"

I agree - but I don't think that protecting free speech needs to be equated with being passive and hoping that hate will just disappear. If Antifa wants to show up in a defense capacity and not throw the first punch but instead deflect them, I'm OK with that! They need to learn to play the 24/7/instant news cycle better to be more effective, though. They almost blew it.

Offensive moves don't have to be violent. They could be through financial sabotage, Nazi doxing, event disruption, ego busting ... and so on. I can think of a lot of ways to be disruptive that aren't violent, and instead are sneaky, maybe legal, definitely not a photo op, and could be longer lasting.

What I don't want is hate groups disappearing underground - you need to know where the crazy is.

 

[Maponos]

Free speech away.

Feelings over civilization. Never change, leftists.

 

[suncowiam]

Full disclosure: Milo has attacked my family specifically and unfairly. He has caused us significant harm.

That said, I support his right to speak, if he's offered a valid platform. I feel the same way about Ann Coulter and their ilk. I hate many of their views, but I defend their right to speak.

My summary of the key points of this article is that local officials in Berkeley are suggesting that they can judge Milo's speech to be not worth the expense to the community. Sorry, this amounts to censorship. I want to hear what Milo and friends have to say. I want to know how to battle them. (It's also the case that sometimes they get it right, and that also has to be dealt with.)

Free speech ain't cheap, but it's cheaper than the alternative. We cannot allow government officials decide for us what we can and cannot hear!

After 'antifa' violence, Berkeley debates whether Milo Yiannopoulos and other conservatives are welcome

Just curious but how has MIlo hurt you and your family? Was this physical?

[Edited] Read your response concering the Dox-ing.

 

[columbus]

He supported a not-so-fine fellow's dox-ing my wife. Have someone dox you, I promise you, you won't like it.

Why?
Did he pick her out of the phone book?

Something tells me that she attacked him and then got upset when he fought back. But I don't know, or want to know.
Tom

 

[icehorse]

Why?
Did he pick her out of the phone book?

Something tells me that she attacked him and then got upset when he fought back. But I don't know, or want to know.
Tom

She was attacked for being a successful woman in tech. The tech world is EXTREMELY misogynistic and tech trolls are the worst of this lot. I'm not going to reveal any names here, but you can look into how trolls attack successful women in tech.

And still... not the point of the OP.