If one were to hold a controversial idea, or even a divisive belief, the last place they should ever worry about being forbidden to share that opinion, or give a voice to that belief, is at a University. Yet, it is within these very institutions that many ideas and beliefs have been silenced, either by means of being declared they are not welcomed, or in more extreme cases, violently opposed. UC Berkley is a recent example, with riotous students burning their own communities, all because a man sought to share a view that they deemed to be hateful. Now whether or not those views are worthy of such a label is another discussion, but for the sake of argument let us operate under the agreement that the views are in fact, hateful.
The question now becomes, who is truly in the wrong; the man who sought to share hateful ideas and beliefs, or the students who sought to deny him? A university is a place of higher education, and education is the act of critically examining ideas and beliefs, the moral implications of those ideas and beliefs are meaningless if obtaining a higher education is ones goal. Free inquiry is central to education, if one cannot question what they are being told, or are restricted from questioning the consensus of the majority then there can be no education, only revelation.
Revelation is truth from authority. This truth cannot be questioned, because to do so is to question the authority that this truth derives from. We are fortunate to have examples of this within the annals of history. When Galileo challenged the consensus of a geocentric universe, charges of blasphemy were laid against him, because he was challenging, and thereby questioning, the authority of the Bible itself. Whether or not Galileo was correct was not worthy of consideration. In an environment such as this, where free inquiry is labeled as blasphemy, it is not surprising that when religion ruled the world, we refer to that era as the Dark Ages.
Going back to the previous question of who is in the wrong, the man who sought to share a hateful idea or belief, or the students who sought to deny him. The only answer an honest person can give would be to look to the students, because that is where the fault lies. The students have betrayed the very principle of free inquiry, and by doing so, betrayed the very thing central to a higher education. By denying the expression of a hateful idea or belief, they have denied themselves the pursuit of free inquiry, and by doing so, denied themselves education.
Let me raise the stakes even higher. Should we as a society, allow a member of Al-Qaeda the freedom to share his beliefs and ideas at a university? The answer is and must be...Yes. If education is the act of critically examining those ideas and beliefs that we are told to be true. Then let any who claim to hold the truth share it openly and without restriction, we have nothing to lose because only the truth can survive the gauntlet of critical examination, and if it does survive, then we are better off for the knowledge gained.
If one idea can be silenced, one belief robbed of a voice to share it, at the very institution that embodies higher education; we have already lost. Not to a tyrannical government, not to an overbearing religious authority. We have lost to those who claim that for the sake of restricting the spread of hateful ideas and beliefs, free inquiry must be sacrificed, education must be sacrificed. That is not a sacrifice we should be willing to make, we have to accept that the truth is not a moral position, that one does not need to have the moral high ground to grasp it, and that even those of unquestionable moral character can see the truth where there is only a lie. A hateful idea is still an idea, and a university is a place where ideas are freely exchanged, where students are taught how to think, not what to think.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Excellent post. I'm looking forward to the responses. I have a question and a comment relating to right of "free speech" which is included in the First Amendment to of U.S. Constitution.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
QUESTION: Concerning the example at U.C. Berkeley you referenced in regards to Milo Yiannopoulos' speech that was shut down: Is speech that incites violence against non-whites, non-Christians, gays, and females protected speech?
Here are the following legal exceptions to protected free speech:
"The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains. "Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak."
Source: http://news.psu.edu/story/341896/2015/01/27/research/probing-question-ar...
COMMENT: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects (guarantees the right) to free speech. It does not, however, guarantee the right to an audience.
Thank you for your response, you asked an excellent question. On the limitations of free speech, when it can be clearly demonstrated that speech has incited violence against another then that speech should be restricted, from a legal standpoint this is true. Speaking for myself, the only speech that can possibly meet this criteria is a direct call for violence. If I pointed to you and screamed to a large crowd "KILL HIM" then that is not speech worth protecting, because my right to free expression does not trump your right to life,or to be free from physical harm.
In your question I noticed that it was limited to non-whites, non-Christians, gays, and females. Well I will extend that to apply to anyone, regardless of any such label they may want to apply to themselves. I am sure you would agree that protection from physical harm extends to straight white christian males as well? I do not want to assume your intent so if I am wrong please correct me. This is not a "gotcha" question.
If I have sufficiently answered your question then allow me to ask one of you. To what extent does personal responsibility apply? By this I mean, to use the famous example. if one were to yell fire in a crowded theater, and that caused panic and people were killed because of it, where does the responsibility truly lie? To me the responsibility is on the crowed, who, upon hearing someone yell fire, to not panic and trample one another. This is because how one reacts to what they hear is a choice they make, if they made the choice to panic and run, and not take the time to asses for themselves if a fire has truly broken out, then to what extent do they hold responsibility for the choice they made?
Edit: I just noticed your last comment on the right to free speech, and not an audience. This is true, I have every right to speak, but it does not extend to forcing you to listen, like with Milo, any who disagreed with him could have easily not attended his lecture. But what about when someone wants to listen, but they are blocked by another, either through force or the threat of violence, should you are anyone be allowed the right to prevent those who want to listen the opportunity to do so?
@ AlphaLogica
Before I proceed, I want you to know that my first response to your opening post was centered around the event at U.C. Berkeley that was shut down in which Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak.
Admittedly, I have a personalized bias against the message of Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer and other Alt-Right celebrities. You see, I have a granddaughter who is a teacher at the middle school level who has become an avid follower of Milo and Richard Spencer. To say the least, she is not the same giving, loving and caring person she was a year ago. Until this last year, I NEVER heard a racist or homophobic word out of her mouth. This has changed. She is now a shining example of bigotry in all its ugliness. I see her posts on Facebook and I cry.
So in response to your question on personal responsibility; YES, I believe an adult must be held accountable for their actions. I also believe a person needs to be held accountable for the influence they have on the lives and actions of others when he/she is in a position of influence or authority.
To take this a level deeper, what relationship is there to personal responsibility and the individual's ability to discern truth and any professionalized presentation of propaganda that harms society ... especially when it is doled out covertly in easily believable portions over time? At what point in a person's life are they capable of discernment? Do some individuals never reach the ability to discern truth from manipulation? What extent does limiting one's source's of information and motivation based on "confirmation bias" have on one's relationships with others -- or society as a whole?
Getting back to shutting down Milo's speech at U.C. Berkeley, any person interested in his message has multiple sources to learn about the message and share with others -- starting with the Internet and website forums aligning with his message.
The problem comes in when an event's venue is targeted to a an audience, who through their age and lack of mature experience, are easily manipulated and incited due to peer pressure, mob mentality, and the mental and emotional maturity of the targeted audience.
Why did Milo select the campus at U.C. Berkeley instead of a different venue that would have encouraged a more diverse audience? Milo damn well knows his targeted audience and the affect his message has on this targeted audience -- especially over time.
By the way, I apply the same "restraints" to my personal beliefs as an anarcho-socialist. Our principles (especially being against the State and capitalism) are so different than the current "norm" that, in my personal opinion, would create nothing but emotional chaos if presented in a single event at a major university campus. These principles, along with the historical and material reasoning, are widely available on the Internet or from numerous books so that the principles can be studied, dissected and challenged in order to make an informed personal choice rather than be "manipulated" through highly-polished presentations designed to inflame one's emotions.
I hope that I addressed your exceptionally valid questions and comments. Regardless of what anyone says or thinks, the issue is complex with several layers of challenges -- and opportunities -- to expand our personal beliefs of acceptability.
mbrownec: "who through their age and lack of mature experience, are easily manipulated and incited due to peer pressure, mob mentality"
That sounds like a Catholic church argument for banning books in case immature minds are corrupted by Satan. University students are not children. They're old enough to control themselves and make their own decisions.
@Algebe
My perspective is based on owning a business for 32 years in the off-campus student housing area of Millikin University, a private university. Yes, a few were ready to be responsible adults. Others ... not so much.
I saw first-hand how events can go south quickly when these young adults were under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in a group setting. It's amazing how quickly an event or argument can become a "dick measuring contest" or a "badge of honor" over something that amounted to nothing.
Far too many times I witnessed the results of radical, immature activities get out-of-hand just to be accepted by their peers. Arrests, serious injuries, and even a few deaths are permanent images in my mind.
So ... while they may be old enough to make their own decisions, unfortunately, some are not mentally or emotionally mature enough to be responsible for some of the bad decisions they make without being crushed in the process of becoming responsible adults.
But, hey, maybe what I witnessed over 32 years was simply an illusion. If that's the case, I sure wish I could get some of the memories out of my mind because I saw a few young lives permanently destroyed before they even got a good start at living.
@mbrownec
There is a lot to address with your response. I can sympathize with your feelings of bias, even if I do not see the justification for it. When you said that your granddaughter is a middle school teacher, this implies that she posses some level of formal education, And if she is a fan of Milo or the alt-right, can you understand why she is? If you cannot, does that not raise a red flag? If you cannot understand what she sees in the alt-right, or Milo, how can you say she is wrong? Doesn't the fact that she possesses some level of formal education suggest that she has genuinely considered what they have to say, and chose for herself to accept what they say as true?
I am glad that we agree on personal responsibility, but there is some level of disconnect between the lengths that responsibility applies. No matter the amount of influence one possesses,or the moral standing of their rhetoric, where a child is concerned and how that child reacts to their rhetoric that responsibility falls on the parents. Not the speaker.
"what relationship is there to personal responsibility and the individual's ability to discern truth and any professionalized presentation of propaganda that harms society ... especially when it is doled out covertly in easily believable portions over time?"
The only answer to this is education. If we truly taught students how to critically examine what they are told to be true, the manner of that propaganda's dissemination is meaningless. But teach them only what to think, then they are susceptible to even the most obvious propaganda. Why do you think religion indoctrinates children at such a young age? Even if one is never able to learn how to critically examine what they are told, the mere fact that they are in the minority is added protection, because if they cannot see the propaganda for what it is, someone close to them will.
"The problem comes in when an event's venue is targeted to a an audience, who through their age and lack of mature experience, are easily manipulated and incited due to peer pressure, mob mentality, and the mental and emotional maturity of the targeted audience."
OK, lets see if that is the case, in the example of UC Berkeley, the violent mobs where those who did NOT want Milo to speak, so that must mean that those who spoke out against him were truly the ones inciting violence, targeted to an audience, who through their age and lack of mature experience, are easily manipulated and incited due to peer pressure. Considering this, who would you say is the real problem?
"Why did Milo select the campus at U.C. Berkeley instead of a different venue that would have encouraged a more diverse audience?"
Milo was invited by a conservative group to speak at Berkeley.
" Our principles (especially being against the State and capitalism) are so different than the current "norm" that, in my personal opinion, would create nothing but emotional chaos if presented in a single event at a major university campus."
Can your principles really be so terrible, or do you lack confidence in the capacity of students to critically examine your principles and conclude for themselves what merit they hold in our society?
You have answered my questions genuinely and honestly and I appreciate that. I look forward to your response.
@AlphaLogica
Once again, I appreciate your thoughtful response. Today, I will limit my direct response to a single paragraph of your post with an additional comment as I believe my prior posts provide adequate reasoning for my positions. I realize that my perspective(s) are not shared by everyone. I do not take our differences as a personal rejection. Rather, I appreciate being faced with opposing opinions and beliefs that were developed through study, experience and a genuine hunger for truth. That you have done.
[Quote from AlphaLogica]
OK, lets see if that is the case, in the example of UC Berkeley, the violent mobs where those who did NOT want Milo to speak, so that must mean that those who spoke out against him were truly the ones inciting violence, targeted to an audience, who through their age and lack of mature experience, are easily manipulated and incited due to peer pressure. Considering this, who would you say is the real problem?
[End Quote]
If you restrict your analysis to the U.C. Berkeley event without taking into account an altercation in Seattle, WA that predated the events at U.C. Berkeley by a few days; a limited analysis may be appropriate. As unfortunate as it is, that is not the case. Please refer to the following snippet from from an online article published by the Southern Poverty Law Center (a non-anarchist publication) on January 23, 2017:
[Headline] Antifascist protester shot by Trump supporter amid mass counterprotest on UW campus, but Yiannopoulos spins a tale of martyrdom to his audience at end of speaking tour.
It was a scene ripe for violence last Friday night in Red Square on the University of Washington campus in Seattle: Several hundred fans of the racist "Alt-Right" figure Milo Yiannopoulos outside the hall where he was to speak, waiting to be let in, confronted by a much larger crowd of counter-protesters, chanting anti-Trump and anti-fascist slogans, including an organized pack of masked, black-clad anarchists.
Eventually, violence did strike. An antifascist protester was shot during one of the many small melees that broke out during the evening. Police said a 34-year-old man was seriously wounded by the gunfire and was in critical condition at a local hospital after undergoing surgery.
A man earlier identified as a “person of interest” in the case – described by the Seattle Times as an Asian man in a black leather coat with a maroon shirt underneath – turned himself in to police later and was arrested along with a man who accompanied him to the station. Both were later released without charges.
Afterwards, Yiannopoulos and Breitbart News, where he is a celebrity editor, attempted to cast his supporters as the martyrlike victims in the shooting. However, Hatewatch’s eyewitness version of events is precisely the reverse: The shooter was a Trump-supporting man who had been acting as a provocateur in the crowd all night, while the victim was an anti-fascist liberal who had been acting as a peacekeeper in the moments before he was shot.
Source: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/01/23/alt-right-event-seattle-d...
Apparently, it is acceptable for an alt-right supporter to shoot an Antifa (anti-fascism) protester (of which the overwhelming majority are Black Bloc "revolutionary" anarchists) BUT the breaking of windows, burning trash bins and throwing Molotov cocktails into an open space to prevent police advancement at an event where no one was injured (U.C. Berkeley) is totally unacceptable.
* * * * * * * *
Finally, I present yet another snippet from an online article by ThinkProgress regarding recent events surrounding Milo:
Before yesterday, Yiannopoulos had used his formidable celebrity to rage about — and instigate harassment campaigns against — women, Muslims, immigrants, people of color, and LGBT individuals. Before yesterday, Yiannopoulos, writer and senior editor at Breitbart, still enjoyed the support of Simon & Schuster, which defended its decision to publish the autobiography Dangerous and to pay its author a $250,000 advance.
But yesterday saw the publication of a video that showed Yiannopoulos, ardent spokesman for the so-called alt-right, endorse pedophilia. The conservative group Reagan Battalion leaked the tape, in which Yiannopoulos tells the radio host, “You’re misunderstanding what pedophilia means. Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13-years-old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty.”
In a Facebook post, Yiannopoulos insisted he did not condone pedophilia. “I find those crimes to be absolutely disgusting. I find those people to be disgusting.” He chalked up the misunderstanding to “sloppy editing” and his “usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humour.”
The tape — which also got Yiannopoulos booted from the Conservative Political Action Conference, where he was slated to speak this week — appeared to be the one thing Simon & Schuster couldn’t abide: On Monday, S&S announced it would be canceling the publication of Dangerous.
Source: https://thinkprogress.org/valiant-heroes-at-simon-schuster-decide-pedoph...
* * * * * * * *
I stand by my belief that shutting down Milo's speech at U.C. Berkeley was NOT a violation to "free speech" included in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I acknowledge there are others eager to take his place as a spokesperson of notoriety for the Alt-Right. Many of us are ready to fight those who spew the societal poison of sexism, racism, homophobia and xenophobia under fascist tyranny. I will fight the the fascist Alt-Right ideology till the day I die -- whether that be tomorrow or years down the road.
I do not fight fascism because victory is assured, I fight fascism because I will NEVER, EVER surrender to tyranny. It's about freedom from the 24/7/365 tyranny of fascism ... not of "free speech". In fact, I believe that "free speech" covered by the First Amendment is about as valid as the Constitution itself -- a document written by propertied (wealthy) white males in which the purpose was to protect those elite white males and their private property which included their slaves. In actuality, the Constitution was written and signed by white supremacists (racists) and sexists and the same elite ruling class are still in control today.
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
-- Lysander Spooner
AlphaLogica, I have enjoyed our discourse. However, this will be my last post on the topic since we share no common ground on the subject due our vastly different ideas, personal interpretation, and valid limitations of free speech. On my part, any further discourse is futile. THANK YOU for your input and thoughts!
Thank you for sharing those articles. I have enjoyed this exchange between us, and that it is ending so soon, while disappointing, is understandable. I believe that we can find more consensus between us in time, we only need to try. I sense sincerity on your part and hope we can continue in the future, I do not see any futility in further discourse between us, because we benifit from the exchange itself. I'll end by saying that I hope that you have many more years ahead of you.
Thank you for your time and genuine criticism.
I disagree on the grounds that academia is not in and of itself the intrinsic virtue of man as a stand alone measure of his worth. It must be embraced as a part of a valued whole, that whole being whatever represents it whether a community, region, nation, culture, religion, etc., and a sobriety it must bring to yield a harmonious place for all men to share in.
When academia is heralded as the only value that should be revered, I will proffer ignorance because a man cannot apply academia alone as a means to his own successful ends. It's simply another tool in the shed.
Philosophy is the game of younger fools. Sobriety will eventually soothe their wounds but only after humility is finished with its slings and arrows. In the meantime, their enemies are from within their own ranks and, oddly enough, so are their heroes. In other words, they both adore and despise themselves until they find the balance humility illuminates.
I do not fully understand your response. If you could elaborate I would appreciate it. Because you disagree I really want to hear what you have to say, and have an accurate understanding of your point.
I think that the university is a great place to exchange ideas, no matter what they be. All forms of art only express ideas, they don't exchange them. University is supposed to open the mind so exchanging ideas is appropriate.
Indeed. The free exchange of ideas means that no limitation can be imposed on those ideas, otherwise it is the limited exchange of ideas. This is why echo chambers are not conducive to an education. Ideas need to be challenged, beliefs need to be criticized, but if there is no exposure to those ideas or beliefs then there can be be no challenge, there can be no critique.
＠Alphalogica "Should One be Allowed to Share a Hateful Idea/Belief at a University?"
Absolutely. If I stand up in front of you and yell "kill that man," and if you then commit that murder, that's your crime, not mine. We're all responsible for our own actions. I don't believe in defenses based on provocation or incitation.
Of course, none of us want to hear people spouting ugly, hateful ideas. But I'd rather have such people out in the open where we can keep an eye on them. Censorship by authorities or mobs just pushes them underground to fester and foment more trouble. If you don't like what they say, turn your back and walk away. Starve them of an audience.
I agree, I always thought that the example of yelling fire in a crowded theater missed the point, like I said in my response to mbrownec, the responsibility is not on the one who yelled fire, but on the crowed who upon hearing fire yelled out, to not panic and trample each other. How one reacts to what they hear is a choice they make, if I say something that offends you are anyone, they made the choice to take offense. This is why it is called taking offense, and not giving offense.
"yelling fire in a crowded theater"
LOL. Now that's one that shouldn't be classed a free speech. I'd consider it fraud.
As you say, no one has the right not to be offended. They have the right to argue back or to turn around and walk away.
Looks like free speech has caught up with Milo Yiannopoulos. Currently Brietbart News and many conservatives are debating cutting ties with Milo over his pedophilia opinions. Simon & Shuster has canceled publishing Milo's book. Milo may turn into the poster boy for the catholic church's reputation of allowing sexual abuse of children by priests.
Yeah he got booted from CPAC (lol, when you're too radical for CPAC!). What he needs is a pie in his face, like Friedman, or my personal favorite.
Great video! Thanks.
I can't stand Milo. His self importance alone is nauseating. He does serve a purpose however. For anyone who's interested, this clip touches on this very effectively, don't worry it's not Milo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtWrljX9HRA
@JB God's Country, @Nyarlathotep, @ImFree.
OK well personal opinions of Milo aside, and I need to add that I can see why anyone would find him distasteful. I disagree with most of what he says with the exception of free speech. But the question that we need to ask is, to what extent are we going to defend his right to speak and say absolutely outrageous things? I do not ask because I think any of you want to silence him. But if Milo cannot speak at a university, to have the freedom to give a voice to his ideas and beliefs, regardless of their moral position, then what does this say about the state of universities today? I argue that it says that universities have lost any such right to claim they are institutions of higher education. Because they have completely destroyed the very foundation they are built upon.
The free exchange of ideas is not something we can simply pay lip-service to. Either we hold unconditional support for this exchange or there can be no FREE exchange. And by denying someone from speaking, even Milo, we are in fact denying ourselves. Consider this:
If all society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, all except one person, it would be most important in fact it would become even more important that that one heretic be heard because we would still benefit from his perhaps outrageous or appalling view. That person doesn't just have a right to speak, that persons right to speak must be given extra protection, because maybe, just maybe, he might contain even a grain of truth. Its not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone to listen and hear, and every time you silence somebody, you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something.- Christopher Hitchens
OK, now that I have established my fanboy status I'll end it here and eagerly await your response.
I agree absolutely. These self-appointed censors are appallingly arrogant for two reasons. First they're setting themselves up as arbiters of what should or shouldn't be heard. Second, they're saying that if others (presumably feeble-minded) hear this so-called "hate language," they will be uncontrollably forced to commit heinous acts.
Everybody should have a chance to be heard, however horrible their ideas. Horrible ideas are best dissipated by exposing them to the light. In the darkness of censorship, they grow like mushrooms.
I fully support free speech. Truth can be very unpopular, but if you are not exposed to it how can you develop an honest opinion? When you hear groups make statements such as "Your either with us or against us" that kind of attitude is dangerous. All options should be considered and weighed by society.
I'd just point out that no one has impinged on his right to free speech. The right to free speech (at least in the USA) is a protection from legal consequences (criminal charges, lawsuits) from your speech. It is NOT a right to have access to other peoples platforms for getting your speech out. It is not a right to not suffer social consequences for the shit you say.
For example, your right to free speech doesn't protect you here on AR. You start saying the shit that guy says here, and you'll be run out of here on rails so fast your head will spin. But again, getting banned from AR is are not a legal consequence, it is a social one; that is why your right to free speech is meaningless here.
If that joker was to face criminal charges for the stupid shit he says, then we could have a meaningful discussion about this right to free speech; and I'd be in favor of protecting him from the charges.
Wasn't Milo Whathisname invited to speak at the university?
Algebe: Yes
OK, you make a good point but I think some distinction is required. What you are talking about is the first amendment, which of course free speech takes a central role. But that is not what free speech is, the first amendment is just a single expression of the principle of free speech. And just as a reminder the topic was concerning Milo being silenced at a university and not at the behest of the government. The difference being that a university is an institution built on a set of principles, and the question is to what extent do they live up to those principles? But you made a good point nonetheless and it should be addressed.
When we assume that free speech limits only the government in silencing us, we grant permission for every aspect of society, other than government, to impose restrictions on speech itself. This means that free speech does not exist and all we really have is limited speech, the restrictions are created by, and enforced by, the moral majority. If we as as a society have given up on trying to live up to the principle of free speech, that no restriction will be tolerated when one desires to speak what they know, or question to be true. Then there is no point in perusing higher education because without free speech, there can be no education. Free speech is the only way to acquire knowledge about the world, through the process that Karl Popper called conjecture and refutation. We come up with ideas about the nature of reality, and test them against that reality, allowing the world to falsify the mistaken ones. The “conjecture” part of this formula, of course, presupposes the exercise of free speech. We offer conjectures without any prior assurance they are correct. It is only by bruiting ideas and seeing which ones withstand attempts to refute them that we acquire knowledge.
Through violence and imitation, Milo had his right to free speech impinged, carried out by the very students of that university, for the very purpose of denying him the chance to engage in the act of free speech.
Through violence and imitation, those who wanted to hear what Milo had to say, had their right to free speech impinged when they were denied the opportunity to hear the exercise of free speech.
This is the problem we are facing, if we excuse this simply by telling ourselves that as long as it is not the government, then there is no problem at all, while giving up more and more of what speech we have left, then we need not worry about the government, we have already done all the work, and the government never even had to lift a pen.
I agree what what you have said, and interesting I also agree that is the way it should be. I have no problem with elements of society (non-governmental) applying pressure to restrict speech (or penalize future speech based on past speech).
If someone came to my house and spewed racist vitriol and they were ejected; has their free speech been violated because I didn't let them continue?
If we did it the the other way, how would that even work? I'd like to have my speech inserted into articles written by Yiannopoulos for Breitbart. Clearly they will not allow this. Was my free speech violated? What if a million of us wanted to insert our views into the article? How would the world even operate if everyone had the right to impose their speech on everyone else's venues?
I can tell this is going to be an interesting conversation. How much confidence can you have in the court of public opinion? To allow society to be the censure will never end well, because that is what we are going through on college campuses right now. How much are you willing to sacrifice, how much are you willing to give up of your own right to free speech to allow society to impose any restriction they judge necessary on what you can and cannot say, can and cannot hear?
"If someone came to my house and spewed racist vitriol and they were ejected; has their free speech been violated because I didn't let them continue? "
That is a fair question, but the answer is a simple one, yes. Would you be justified in ejecting them from your house, sure, it's your house. Now if you were in public and the same example occurred, then you would not be justified in ejecting them. In both cases the racist individual in question had their free speech been violated, for lack of a better term. They had the right to say whatever they please, you had the right to eject them from your home. Should you have tried to engage with them and persuade them to stop? Obviously.
"I'd like to have my speech inserted into articles written by Yiannopoulos for Breitbart. Clearly they will not allow this. Was my free speech violated? What if a million of us wanted to insert our views into the article? How would the world even operate if everyone had the right to impose their speech on everyone else's venues?"
This example is a little outlandish, no one has said that Milo or anyone has the right to impose their speech on someone else. No one said that you are forbidden to try to have your speech inserted into Milo's articles. You are free to try and try again, and you never know, one day you may see that Milo plagiarized some of your writing, mission accomplished! If not, and you have no such luck, what makes you think that it was them seeking to silence you? Maybe your writing was just bad, simply did not meet their criteria for publication, too many typos. The examples I have given are not only real, but more direct.
Now I have to ask you, lets say that we are having a face to face discussion, instead of over a forum, and I just so happened to be a 6ft, 250 pound muay thai master, my badassery is without question. And you told me that you think that some speech should be restricted. And that, offends me to my very core. insults everything that makes up my very identity, and in my ignorant fit of moral outrage I tell you that I will hurt you if you say that speech should be restricted again. The irony of my threat is completely lost on me. Am I justified in threatening you with violence for simply expressing your opinion? Remember that I found your opinion to be VERY offensive. Does my feeling of offense grant me the right to act offensively towards you?
To allow society to be the censure
I don't understand this phrase, but I am in favor of society censuring people, that is how you change people.
------------
This example is a little outlandish
I was 100% serious about my question. I want my words added to Milo's articles, but they refuse. Why is my free speech being abridged?
You complained that Milo was silenced at the University; why am I being silenced on Breitbart? In fact, I now demand that you add my speech: "I'm a little teapot" to every post of yours on AR! Assuming you refuse; why are you abridging my free speech?!?
Because this isn't what free speech is. The right of free speech does not include the right to use other people's venues. That would be madness.
------------
Violence and threats of violence are crimes. If you feel strongly enough about a subject, go for, but be prepared to pay the piper.
You actually rephrased my point, to be clear I meant this:
in favor of society censuring people, so you got my point.
There is some misunderstanding between us so let me attempt to clean this up.
The points you raise are in no way an example of your free speech being denied. I do not see how you can come to this conclusion that other people's venues are being infringed upon, or are being forced to listen to someone else. This is why I made the distinction of a public venue, such as a university. If you or me or anyone does not want to hear what Milo or any nutbag has to say, you do not have to go. This was never in question. When you demand I add your speech to my post, and I choose not to, your right to free speech has not been violated or infringed upon. This is because you are free to ask and demand all that you want, and I cannot stop you from doing so. If for some reason I do not like it, I can simply cease talking to you, and yet you are still free to ask, to demand It is the same with Breitbart, they cannot send someone to your house and force you to stop demanding to be printed in their paper, you have every right to ask, to make a case why they should publish you, to go out in public and try to gain support from others who will ask and demand on your behalf.
So I ask you, at what point in my reply did your right to free speech get infringed upon, and what point were you denied the chance to speak, at what point where you denied a chance to have others hear why you should be published?
If you can answer these then you will be on to something.
Pages