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

[BSM1]

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.

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.

But...but...you put this out in an OP and then become nebulous, almost teasing. Gives us the dirt. I would be very interested in how Milo personally attacked your family.

 

[chickenranch]

I thought it was to say "I don't even like this guy and have a good reason for it, but still think he should have the right to speak..."

And then figured the details were none of my business.

Was kind of hoping to talk about free speech because this item (actually, Milo specifically! but others in general) has come up among my friends. Some of them think that they [controversial speakers] should not be allowed to speak simply because they [the friends] don't like what they [the controversial speakers] have to say. I disagree completely and would be horrified if that were the case. [Edits in brackets for clarity... too many theys]

I do think a private venue has the power to say they don't want someone to speak at their venue, though. E.g., BillyBob's Conference and Hunting Emporium does not have to let PETA hold a seminar.

A publicly funded one... I'm not so sure. I live near a place Milo wanted to speak recently. Many people objected to the very fact that he was allowed to speak, but it was a public non-profit place he spoke. Gray area to me - not sure of the legal issues involved if that publicly funded/government $$ receiving place were to not allow a speaker based on what they have to say.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

Yiannopoulos is a complete moron. However, Berkeley has been restricting free speech far too much lately. They even cancelled a Richard Dawkins event.

 

[columbus]

But...but...you put this out in an OP and then become nebulous, almost teasing. Gives us the dirt. I would be very interested in how Milo personally attacked your family.

What little I know about Milo...
He probably said that her skirt made her butt look Yuuuuge.
He is more of a fashionista than a political pundit.

I don't see why anybody cares about Milo. He is a famous nebbish.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I had to look up the word.
Ugh.....that is very wrong.

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.

Aye dat.

 

[icehorse]

But...but...you put this out in an OP and then become nebulous, almost teasing. Gives us the dirt. I would be very interested in how Milo personally attacked your family.

he publicly supported the doxxing of my wife (he said patiently for the 2nd time)

 

[icehorse]

What little I know about Milo...
He probably said that her skirt made her butt look Yuuuuge.
He is more of a fashionista than a political pundit.

I don't see why anybody cares about Milo. He is a famous nebbish.
Tom

dude - he supported having her doxxed (he said a little less patiently, for the 3rd time in this thread)

 

[BSM1]

dude - he supported having her doxxed (he said a little less patiently, for the 3rd time in this thread)

I, too, had to look up the word. How do you support doxxing?

 

[icehorse]

I, too, had to look up the word. How do you support doxxing?

Fair question. The troll that doxxed my wife came under some heat for it, and Milo backed him up.

I kind of wish I hadn't brought the whole doxxing thing up - it's really a tangent to the OP. The only reason I mentioned it was to demonstrate how important I think free speech is.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Fair question. The troll that doxxed my wife came under some heat for it, and Milo backed him up.

I kind of wish I hadn't brought the whole doxxing thing up - it's really a tangent to the OP. The only reason I mentioned it was to demonstrate how important I think free speech is.

Won't comment further on it because I know it's not part of your OP, but I'm really sorry that happened to your wife. Hope neither of you had too many ******** use the information. And I admire her bravery for sticking with the tech field despite the challenges women face there sometimes.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

Yes, it seems he’ll attack anything and anyone to get attention. I’ve yet to hear him be consistently positive about anything or anyone though.

I never suggested he directly incited violence – I think he’s too smart for that – but he clearly triggers a level of reaction in people that few others with similar opinions do. There has to be something he is doing differently and I stand by my belief that it is pretty much entirely intentional. He doesn’t necessarily want violence for the sake of it but he wants the angry reactions and negative attention that inevitably leads to it.

As I said, the people committing the violence are completely responsible for their actions and they are indefensible but that doesn’t eliminate his responsibility for his words and actions too, especially if he is wilfully creating conflict and controversy for promotion purposes rather than actually trying to make the world a better place.

 

[icehorse]

As I said, the people committing the violence are completely responsible for their actions and they are indefensible but that doesn’t eliminate his responsibility for his words and actions too, especially if he is wilfully creating conflict and controversy for promotion purposes rather than actually trying to make the world a better place.

And if no one thinks he's worth listening to, he won't get platforms in the future. As for his true intentions, neither of us know for sure, and I don't want some government official deciding what I cannot listen to.