Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
University buildings (especially in California) are NOT public venues for non-students/employees speech. Milo has as much right to that venue as I have; that is NONE AT ALL. If he wants to speak at the university, he'll have stand in the grass like everyone else, and even that has serious limitations; for example non-students/employees can be trespassed from any university property, for any reason (or no reason!).
I find the idea that Milo has special rights to this venue (that the rest of us do not have) as, well odd...
@Nyarlathotep
You are forgetting that he was invited to speak by a group of students. The young Republicans. His invitation was approved by University administrators. These same admins established a room for Milo to hold his lecture. So considering this, at what point does Milo have no right to be there? At what point did he get a special right that was not afforded to any other guest lecturer?
And you are simply incorrect when you say that a Public University, is not a Public venue. It is. U.C Berkeley is and has been ranked the #1 public university in America. A public university is a university that is predominantly funded by public means through a national or subnational government, as opposed to private universities. Because they receive public funding they have to be available for the use of the public.
When the university rescinded the invitation.
------------------------
That is just false. Public school buildings, public libraries, and other facilities are considered opened to the public for a limited purpose, are not open to the public for general use. Try walking into a classroom (during a class) or a library and giving a speech and see how that works out for you.
"When the university rescinded the invitation."
They didn't. Which is why the students rioted.
According to the New York Times: Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech....
But the opening segment said:
Protests at the University of California, Berkeley, forced the cancellation of a speech by the right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos on Wednesday.
I think we are taking two different looks at the same point. You are pointing out that his speech was cancelled, and this is true. I am pointing out that it was the rioting that caused the speech to be cancelled, and this is true.
The point I am trying to put focus on is that the students rioted first, before it got cancelled:
BERKELEY, Calif. — A speech by the divisive right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, was canceled on Wednesday night AFTER demonstrators set fires and threw objects at buildings to protest his appearance.
Can you see where I am coming from?
I agree:
So was Jerk B's right to free speech violated? No, he never had a right to speak at the university venue, just as you and I don't have a right to speak at that venue. He has a right to speak at the university in the common areas, just like you and I have.
And it matters not if a riot, a clerical error, or an alien attack got his invitation rescinded; his right to free speech was unaffected since he never had a right to the venue in the first place.
OK, I think we may have reached about as much consensus between us as possible. While we still disagree to what extent free speech truly applies, this has been a productive conversation. From what I can gather, you see free speech as only the first amendment. (If I misrepresented your position please correct me.)
I see free speech as a principle that extends beyond the first amendment, that it is something we should try to live up to in our daily lives.
We do not agree on whether or not Milo's right to free speech was infringed and I think this is because of how we view free speech in general. For me it is an all or nothing principle. Can you say that my view is utopian, and even mildly naive? To be honest, yes. That would be fair to say.
But even if we can never reach utopia, we should still strive for it nonetheless. Because we can gain a great deal, even if we are limited to only an inch closer than we were before.
I do not think you are wrong or anything, I think that I failed to convince you that how I view free speech, is how you should view free speech. Which is fine, we benifit from the exchange itself and that is enough for me.
Yeah; I think that is a fair summary.
----------------
Perhaps I don't like that version because fundamentally, I'm a vindictive person. I believe that people's past behaviors (especially if they have not explicitly repudiated them) should have an affect on how you treat them in future social situations. Furthermore I believe (and I can not back this up with anything) that the best way to change someone's behavior is through negative social consequences:
If someone likes to use racial epitaphs, I'll make sure to not associate with them again.
If someone thinks women shouldn't be in leadership roles; I'll make sure that is brought up in any interview/meeting to determine if they should be given a promotion to an important position.
If someone likes to push other people under the bus; I'll make sure not to warn them when I see a bus coming in their direction (figuratively).
---------------
Yeah, nice. At least we didn't devolve into calling each other idiots!
"At least we didn't devolve into calling each other idiots!"
LOL yeah, that is definitely something we should be proud of. Although I have been called an idiot twice, but only from a single person so, this has been a good debate all around.
I remember the Free Speech Movement back in the '70's. Every Wednesday at noon in the college guad. All us leftists and radicals got to speak our minds while the Young Republicans waited in line to stress law and order. Some leftists were still calling for revolution. Sad that the birthplace of the free speech movement are such flimsy twits that can not bear challenging ideas now that the shoe is on the other foot.
Things of this sort will continue to be a constant problem in our country because we fail to reason honestly about what truly is going on in these particular situations. Give people an inch and they will take a mile. Free speech should have never been a right. It should have been considered a privilege and with privileges most people do understand that consequences would follow if they did something harmful with that privilege.
I think hateful messages that do not do anything to promote positiveness or a healthy society should not be allowed in public forums. They are absolutely pointless and reasonable people do not need to hear hate speeches to understand the degree of hate that is present in this world. Whether or not someone acts out on the harmful message does not have anything to do with the point that's being made here.
Let's take the example that Algebe used in an earlier post. IF he/she tells someone to "kill that man" and someone does it, Algebe feels no responsibility to that action or feels he/she should not be held accountable for the outcome since they did not actually do the killing (this shows a lack of responsibility as a human living in society). Now on the surface this seems correct and they would probably never be punished by law for the harmful statement that was made, but I think there is something to be said for those who set things in motion (triggering or in other cases plotting the harmful action that was committed).
If a divorced husband decides he wants to plot and hire a hitman to take out his ex-wife, because she is now happy without him, doesn't he share some responsibility of her death even though he actually never pulls the trigger? Does he not deserve jail time? Do not people who drive the getaway car get faced with the same robbery or murder charges as the one who actually commits the act? Of course they do, because they do and should bare some of the responsibility in the criminalistic act that was performed.
Lastly, I would just say that we allowed free speech assuming that everyone would act responsibly with it. We continue to face and debate these kinds of problems in society, because we rarely focus and think things through appropriately and completely. It's a right to be treated as a human being, but it's not a right to be hateful or harmful towards people. In my opinion, a criminal should not have any rights. They give up their rights the moment they decide to rape or kill someone. You want your "rights" as a human being, but you won't act like one, so you don't get any as far as I'm concerned.
Anyone who spreads hateful messages or wants to bring harm to people, isn't human in my book.
@Incredible Focus
A lot of what you said I have already addressed so I'll stick to what I think is the most important point to be made in response to your position.
"I think hateful messages that do not do anything to promote positiveness or a healthy society should not be allowed in public forums."
OK, I ask you to consider this:
Who’s going to decide?
To whom do you award the right to decide which speech is harmful or who is the harmful speaker? Or determine in advance what are the harmful consequences going to be, that we know enough about in advance to prevent? To whom would you give this job? To whom are you going to award the job of being the censor? Isn’t it a famous old story that the man who has to read all the pornography, in order to decide what’s fit to be passed and what’s fit not to be, is the man most likely to be debauched?
"It's a right to be treated as a human being, but it's not a right to be hateful or harmful towards people. In my opinion, a criminal should not have any rights."
What if your views were deemed criminal, what if they were deemed to be hateful, since hate is a subjective concept, can you really say that your views are NOT hateful, what I if say they are, am I right? What if I was able to bring criminal charges against you for what you said, would I be justified, would you still be so willing to give up your rights, now that you are a criminal?
@Incredible Focus: "Algebe feels no responsibility to that action or feels he/she should not be held accountable for the outcome since they did not actually do the killing (this shows a lack of responsibility as a human living in society)."
Well for a start it's drawing a rather long bow to equate non-specific calls for violence by an unspecified group of people to the actions of one person in hiring a specific hit man to kill a specific person. The latter would obviously be conspiracy to murder.
As soon as you start blaming the bearer of hateful messages, you are excusing the actions of those who respond with violence. Who do you blame for Crystal Night? I blame every indvidual German citizen who engaged in violence against Jews. Every single one of them was a human being with a rational mind and a conscience. Of course Hitler and his cronies were to blame for creating the environment, but as human beings we are always responsible for our own actions, regardless of the provocation or incitement.
Also, who decides what's hateful speech? Where do you draw the line? Who draws the line? I don't think it's possible to define something like that clearly enough to create cogent laws. Hatefulness is in the ear of the listener. That's why I think individuals should be held fully responsible for their actions, even when they're in a mob. In fact, allowing yourself to become part of a mob is about as hateful as hateful gets.
@AlphaLogica
What do you mean who is going to decide? Who decides that raping a child is wrong? Do you think it's alright to do that? Do you think we must consider the situation revolving around or the feeling of the one who commits the awful act? If you can't see that harm to a child is wrong than your an idiot. If you can't understand that spewing hatred sets forth situations that hateful acts can be carried out, then you're an idiot.
This should not be a game where we decide who has more rights than others because responsible and respectable people understand what it is to be civilized. It's not about getting into these pointless bottomless discussions about whats "really correct". If you cannot see that hatred of any kind destroys society than you're ignorant and you just want to talk.
This is exactly why religion and nonsense keeps on going. It's because people think there is this underlying "truth" that needs to be discovered about things when the truth is already in your face.
Let someone rape and kill your child, then let someone argue with you whether or not that act was wrong. Let someone tell you that it was good that your child suffered in that way, what would you say? You would lose your mind. Hate is hate, disgusting is disgusting, and they all should not belong in society no matter the degree, whether it's a speech or a physical act. If you say," who is to say what is really right when it comes to hate?" and you really can't figure it out, you're too stupid and too ignorant to have a logical discussion. You are making pointless statements that you think has this underlying meaning that hasn't been discovered, yet when you don't realize that there is not anything left after the truth is apparent. You are trying to argue a position that doesn't need any argument.
If you said, what if I'm wrong with my position, well...think about this:
You are willing to say that a person that spews hatred may not be wrong and is worthy of having their rights on their views, but a person like me who isn't spewing hatred could be considered in the same light and could be viewed as being wrong? if anyone hates me because I don't spew hatred, then they need their head examined. Anyone who believes that hatred deserves respect and deserves to be protected isn't human and they aren't making any logical sense.
OK. so that response was an exercise in sophistry. You are conflating the exchange of ideas, and whether or not said ideas are hateful, with rape. As if these are in some way offenses on equal footing. And failing to address my argument, and opting to instead call me an idiot, says far more about you.
Can you honestly say that your comments are NOT hateful?
"Anyone who believes that hatred deserves respect and deserves to be protected isn't human and they aren't making any logical sense."
Really? So Thomas Pain and John Stuart Mill are not human, and make no logical sense? Take a second and consider your position and while your at it read Thomas Pain's Age of Reason, and Mill's essays On Liberty. And then try to say such a ridiculous statement like that, without an ounce of shame.
Socrates was tried and convicted for corrupting the youth, considering that your response was as toxic as a hemlock sip, would you oppose this, had you been there? I think not.
@incredible Focus: "Hate is hate, disgusting is disgusting, and they all should not belong in society no matter the degree, whether it's a speech or a physical act."
Well why don't you write some clear, cogent rules about what people can and can't say? You'll also need to provide precise definitions of words like "hateful." Is it ok to say words like "stupid"?
"This should not be a game where we decide who has more rights than others because responsible and respectable people understand what it is to be civilized..."
The problem here is that "civilized" is different depending on what culture you were raised in. Example: recently I heard of a story where a family came from a different country to America and tried to marry their minor child to an adult man. When they were arrested they truly had no idea they were doing something wrong. In there culture this was the norm. So civilized to them is tremendously different to what civilized means to us.
What does civilized mean and can it be globalized? How do you create one singular definition worldwide as to eliminate this type of confusion when it comes to what is socially acceptable to do or say in a public area?
@Julesann: "I heard of a story where a family came from a different country to America and tried to marry their minor child to an adult man."
If you go and live in a foreign country, you need to learn a little about their laws and customs. Ignorance is no excuse. That said, I think Brits and Americans are probably worst of all when it comes to assuming that everyone speaks their language and has the same customs and thought patterns. I hope one day that we'll all agree on certain basic principles of civlized behavior. One of the first rules should be that children are people in their own right, not the property of their parents.
I most certainly agree with you. I was not opposing their arrest. Only using it as a comparison to present the fact that civilized cannot be globalized (as well as the word "hate")...at least not at this point in humanity. Of course, perhaps the law may still apply to those who break it regardless of their previous culture...but people should always try to look at why someone is saying what they say or doing what they do...what is behind that action? Then you can judge them and decide how you feel towards the situation. Americans especially are so quick to shun someone from society when they have different ideas than what we are used to. I would think atheists would be more understanding of that.
Fortunately, it looks like some of us are.
I mean if you think about it..Many theists see us free thinkers as uncivilized...This situation gets very sticky as too many people have varying definitions of what hate speech is welcomed into "civilized" societies. This is why this debate is difficult for me to decide where I stand. Do I agree with what the man said? No. Do I think he should've been allowed to say it? Maybe...But to what extent do we allow the words categorized by some as hate speech to continue? And who decides when it should stop?
@Julesann "Many theists see us free thinkers as uncivilized"
Civilization is a process whereby we discover common values that we can share as human beings. Theists seem to be believe that religion is the sole uniting force for human beings. Unfortunately that's the opposite of civilization, because it drives us apart and engenders visceral hatred against believers in other gods. When I was a child in the 50s and 60s, Christians and atheists/communists came close to nuking the whole world to demostrate the truth of their beliefs. Now Muslims are the face of fear. That's not civilized.
I like to think that there are deeper and better values that link us all. One such value is that we cherish our children and want them to have better lives than we had. True civilization will also be based on respect for every individual's right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," but too many places in the world are a long way from achieving that ideal because of the hate and fear that flourish under the oppressive hand of religion.
The clash of sub cultures is how culture itself evolves. To advocate for the end of the clash is to advocate for cultural stagnation.
What happened at Berkeley was wrong. This nutbag has free speech rights and so do the protesters. The problem was that the protesters did not peacefully protest
Absolutely, those students have every right to protest, in the same way that Milo has every right to speak. But when the students became violent, that is when they crossed the line. People who wanted nothing more than to hear what Milo had to say were physically assaulted. There appears to be a double standard here that says that it's not only excusable what they did, but even morally commendable. Yet had it been the other way around, and Milo supports did the exact same thing, then it only goes to show that he is deplorable.
The protesters don't have a right to violence, and Milo does not have a right to the venue.
Disagree. He has a right to the venue. He was invited
Milo isn't the only one who was rejected from speaking at a uni after being invited. Interestingly, Ayana Hirsri Ali was not allowed to speak at a campus because some students considered what she has to say as hate speech.
@CyberLN
Thank you for raising that point, because it only underlines the problem at large. The standards for what is and is not acceptable speech is getting more and more rigorous. With someone like Ayana Ali getting dis-platformed for reasons of hate speech, their saying that Humanism is hate speech.....humanism!
She is someone I admire a great deal. There seems to be so much concern for feelings and being politically correct that folks can't voice an opinion without someone fussing, loudly, about it. Saying what one thinks should be encouraged. What should be suspect are rules for society at large based on those thoughts.
Yes, yes, a thousand time YES! I also have a great deal of respect for her. And when she was denied from speaking I was stymied. I am a liberal, I believe in free speech, I believe in the freedom of religious assembly, I believe in individual rights. Even if I hate the speech, even if I find the religion to be vile and dangerous, even if I find the individual to be of the lowest character. If you attempt to silence the speech, prevent the religious from gathering, deny the individual their inalienable rights. I will resist you, with every fiber of my being I will resist you.
Because if the principles I listed do not extend to those I despise, then they mean nothing at all.
Pages