‹ First  < 4 5 6
 
   
 

Political Correctness

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  8170
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
31 July 2020 11:19
 
Jefe - 31 July 2020 11:14 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 11:03 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 10:59 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:42 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 10:25 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:22 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 09:56 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 09:22 AM

Again, no one here has said that people are guaranteed platforms.

But as I said in post #60:

As I understand it, if an organization in good standing invites a speaker, then the speaker should be allowed to speak.

Does then, an invitation, become a contractual obligation?  Or can the organization change their minds?  Are there acceptable reasons to rescind an invitation?

Wouldn’t contractual obligations be on a case by case basis?

The situation I’ve sen that seems wrong is when a group invites a speaker, and adversarial groups protest so loudly that they get the “heckler’s veto”. And in effect the speech cannot be heard by those who want to hear.

As we’ve said before, freedom of speech also affirms freedom to listen.

So really, you just don’t like speakers being interrupted by the crowd, and are less concerned about the procedural handling of invitations and speaking engagements?

Not sure why you would make this guess at this point? I made a general claim. I was asked for an example, I gave one. It was just an example of a broader perspective.

Here’s another example: On many campuses the anti-Israel, BSD crowd often disrupts a pro-Israel speaker (in various ways), such that listeners don’t get to hear what the speaker had to say.

So there are many strategies and tactics that these censors employ. I’m trying to zoom out and just notice when the various attempts at censoring cross the line and impinge on the 1st.

Censoring by the general public does not impinge on the 1st. Full stop.
Drowning out a single specific speaking engagement does not eliminate access to the message, especially in today’s digital age.
Even serial protests do not eliminate or extinguish the message.  It simply means the listener must be more active in finding the info.

It may be annoying to a speaker who prefers to have a quietly respectful audience, but speech liberty sorta runs both ways.

hmmm. I’m inferring that you’re saying that the 1st does NOT protect my right to listen?

The 1st does not force organizations to open private spaces for all speech.
And your right to listen is in no jeopardy unless you narrow it down to a single venue - many of which are privately owned and operated.  If you’re very concerned about transmission of message, you can find multiple avenues to listen to almost any transmission out there.

AFAIK, there has never been a heckler’s veto that removed all access to a speaker’s message.

So a speaker I want to hear is invited to speak. And I want to ask them a question during Q&A. Too bad for me? I don’t think so.

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7329
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
31 July 2020 11:25
 
icehorse - 31 July 2020 11:19 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 11:14 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 11:03 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 10:59 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:42 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 10:25 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:22 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 09:56 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 09:22 AM

Again, no one here has said that people are guaranteed platforms.

But as I said in post #60:

As I understand it, if an organization in good standing invites a speaker, then the speaker should be allowed to speak.

Does then, an invitation, become a contractual obligation?  Or can the organization change their minds?  Are there acceptable reasons to rescind an invitation?

Wouldn’t contractual obligations be on a case by case basis?

The situation I’ve sen that seems wrong is when a group invites a speaker, and adversarial groups protest so loudly that they get the “heckler’s veto”. And in effect the speech cannot be heard by those who want to hear.

As we’ve said before, freedom of speech also affirms freedom to listen.

So really, you just don’t like speakers being interrupted by the crowd, and are less concerned about the procedural handling of invitations and speaking engagements?

Not sure why you would make this guess at this point? I made a general claim. I was asked for an example, I gave one. It was just an example of a broader perspective.

Here’s another example: On many campuses the anti-Israel, BSD crowd often disrupts a pro-Israel speaker (in various ways), such that listeners don’t get to hear what the speaker had to say.

So there are many strategies and tactics that these censors employ. I’m trying to zoom out and just notice when the various attempts at censoring cross the line and impinge on the 1st.

Censoring by the general public does not impinge on the 1st. Full stop.
Drowning out a single specific speaking engagement does not eliminate access to the message, especially in today’s digital age.
Even serial protests do not eliminate or extinguish the message.  It simply means the listener must be more active in finding the info.

It may be annoying to a speaker who prefers to have a quietly respectful audience, but speech liberty sorta runs both ways.

hmmm. I’m inferring that you’re saying that the 1st does NOT protect my right to listen?

The 1st does not force organizations to open private spaces for all speech.
And your right to listen is in no jeopardy unless you narrow it down to a single venue - many of which are privately owned and operated.  If you’re very concerned about transmission of message, you can find multiple avenues to listen to almost any transmission out there.

AFAIK, there has never been a heckler’s veto that removed all access to a speaker’s message.

So a speaker I want to hear is invited to speak. And I want to ask them a question during Q&A. Too bad for me? I don’t think so.

Ask.  Ask again.  Send an email if you don’t get to ask.  Send an email if you don’t get a response.  Start up a pen-pal hand-written correspondence with the author and get all the answers they care to provide you. 

The at-event-Q&A is not your only avenue for communication. 

What if you want to ask a question in Q&A and you’re the 11th person in line, and only 10 answers are scheduled?

What if you want to ask a question in Q&A but only 30 mins are allocated and the answers to previous questions used up all the time?

What if you want to ask a question in Q&A, but the speaker has a tight itinerary and has to duck out right after the speech?

What if you want to ask a question in Q&A, but the speaker doesn’t like your question, and chooses not to answer it?

Further - your ‘right to listen’ doesn’t really cover dialogue.  Unless you want to further stretch the concept of speech-liberty.

 
 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  306
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
31 July 2020 11:34
 
Nhoj Morley - 31 July 2020 09:19 AM

Not to sully Mr. Buffalo’s fine point… however,

Posters may get banned for how they treat other patrons but not for what they say or their point of view.

I am actually including that in the “debate” of having your viewpoint heard.  If I spend my time attacking and abusing others, I am failing to make the case that my viewpoint has enough merit to warrant access to the platform.  How I treat other patrons is a point of view and expression of an opinion.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  306
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
31 July 2020 11:39
 
icehorse - 31 July 2020 09:22 AM
weird buffalo - 31 July 2020 08:21 AM
icehorse - 30 July 2020 05:31 PM
weird buffalo - 30 July 2020 04:45 PM
icehorse - 30 July 2020 02:45 PM
weird buffalo - 30 July 2020 02:29 PM
icehorse - 30 July 2020 10:26 AM
diding - 30 July 2020 10:17 AM

https://quillette.com/2020/07/29/our-oppressive-moment/

Good article, thanks for the link.

Back to the discussion with weird;

Can we agree that cancel culture exists on a continuum with one end being a total cancelation of a person’s career? Because I was thinking more about cases in which a person gets de-platformed for a specific episode or for a subset of the person’s episodes.

Can you give an example of deplatforming that isn’t an example of the free market at work?  Unless you think the free market shouldn’t apply to media access and distribution.  At which point I would be curious what method you think we should switch to.

Should not support censoring, we should support debate.

Deplatforming isn’t censorship, unless it’s being done by the government.

If you own a newspaper, are you required to print any op-ed that I write?

Of course not. I’m going to proceed assuming we’re having this discussion in good faith.

What we’re experiencing is groups of citizens who “are offended”, calling for the offenders to be:

- canceled from giving speeches
- having honors removed

And so on. Instead, these “offended” groups should engage in open debates.

Are people entitled to those things?

If I say something that gets me banned from these forums, did I not in fact lose the debate?  People aren’t banned for no reason.  They say or do something that the community finds objectionable enough that they are no longer invited to speak.  Emphasis on invited, because no one is entitled to an audience.

The majority of news outlets have declined to interview or reference Dr. Judy Mikovits.  Why?  Because she is not credible, and the things she has to say could be actively dangerous to spread.  Your point here would be that CNN has to have her on to interview and debate her.  That college campuses should be required  to give her a lecture hall in order to debate her.

I disagree.  I think CNN, campuses, and communities in general have the freedom to decide who they will give their platforms to.

Again, no one here has said that people are guaranteed platforms.

But as I said in post #60:

As I understand it, if an organization in good standing invites a speaker, then the speaker should be allowed to speak.

Events can continue to transpire after an invitation is extended.  If I invite you to my birthday party, and then between the invitation and the party you murder my wife, I’m probably revoking your invitation to the party.  That is an extreme example, but the point is to make it clear that an invitation is not a guarantee of access.

There are also examples of certain controversial speakers seeming to actually invite protests and a revoking of an invitation.  Instead of speaking on a campus to 200-500 students, now they get to be interviewed on Fox News in front of millions of viewers.  They actually like it, and it would suggest that their speech has actually been amplified and not silenced.

The actual evidence points to people “being concerned” over free speech, but there is no evidence that free speech is actually being harmed.  You’re asking me to worry about a problem that demonstrably doesn’t exist.  It isn’t even that we cannot determine if a problem does or doesn’t exist, but the evidence tells us the problem does not exist.

There is no “War on Christmas”.

 
weird buffalo
 
Avatar
 
 
weird buffalo
Total Posts:  306
Joined  19-06-2020
 
 
 
06 August 2020 13:38
 

As started in this thread, this “problem” is portrayed as being something that exists on the left.

Josh Hawley, a US Senator, wrote a letter to the NBA complaining about the slogans that were appearing on t-shirts and uniforms in the NBA.  He complained that certain slogans were not on the permitted list, and that the NBA was kowtowing to China and failing in it’s patriotic duty.  Of course he was wrong, since the list of acceptable slogans was negotiated between the league owners and the players union.  The list reflects those that were agreed upon by both sides.

Adrian Wojnarowski is a prominent NBA reporter for ESPN.  He fired off a private e-mail that had some expletives in it to the senator.  The senator screen shot and publicized the e-mail, which resulted in Woj getting suspended without pay by ESPN.

Conservatives bitch and moan about even a whiff of “cancelling” people by the left, but when a conservative does it, no one says a fucking thing.  Complaining about “cancel culture” isn’t about protecting free speech.  It’s about silencing voices that aren’t welcome at the table.  It is literally the thing it complains about.

 
lynmc
 
Avatar
 
 
lynmc
Total Posts:  542
Joined  03-08-2014
 
 
 
06 August 2020 15:51
 
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:42 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 10:25 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 10:22 AM
Jefe - 31 July 2020 09:56 AM
icehorse - 31 July 2020 09:22 AM

Again, no one here has said that people are guaranteed platforms.

But as I said in post #60:

As I understand it, if an organization in good standing invites a speaker, then the speaker should be allowed to speak.

Does then, an invitation, become a contractual obligation?  Or can the organization change their minds?  Are there acceptable reasons to rescind an invitation?

Wouldn’t contractual obligations be on a case by case basis?

The situation I’ve sen that seems wrong is when a group invites a speaker, and adversarial groups protest so loudly that they get the “heckler’s veto”. And in effect the speech cannot be heard by those who want to hear.

As we’ve said before, freedom of speech also affirms freedom to listen.

So really, you just don’t like speakers being interrupted by the crowd, and are less concerned about the procedural handling of invitations and speaking engagements?

Not sure why you would make this guess at this point? I made a general claim. I was asked for an example, I gave one. It was just an example of a broader perspective.

Here’s another example: On many campuses the anti-Israel, BSD crowd often disrupts a pro-Israel speaker (in various ways), such that listeners don’t get to hear what the speaker had to say.

So there are many strategies and tactics that these censors employ. I’m trying to zoom out and just notice when the various attempts at censoring cross the line and impinge on the 1st.

And yet, it seems that the pro-Israel crowd probably tries to “cancel” speakers more than other group, specifically, cancel those who criticize Israel.  For example, Zionists pressured Fordham University to deny “good standing” i.e. club status to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP, see

https://palestinelegal.org/news/2020/7/27/civil-rights-groups-ask-appellate-court-to-reject-renewed-palestine-censorship-efforts-by-fordham-university). 

As someone said, hecklers rarely actually prevent speakers from getting through their talks, universities in the US never “cancel”  war criminals from giving talks - so long as the war criminals are allied with the US or Israel.  Yet Zionist-instigated smearing and bullying pro-Palestine activists, prevention of hiring of professors with a pro-Palestinian bent, or not granting SJP status as noted, does have the effect of suppressing free debate and free speech.  Well, no wonder, Zionists base a lot of their arguments on lies, they don’t want honest debate.

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6