[btomba_77]

It seems he uses the liberal opposition to the [i]Citizens United[/i] ruling and failure to give and equal platform to speakers advocating evolution and climate change denial as the primary evidence for liberals hating “free speech”.
 
 
 
This is becoming a quite common (and tiring) refrain from the Right about having their free speech infringed upon by liberals.

Look.  No one is [i]silencing[/i] anyone.  “Freedom of Speech” is not the same thing as speech free of consequences.  “Freedom of Speech” does not mean that stupid, wrongheaded, bigoted, or scientifically inaccurate peech should be given equal treatment in the public domain.  And “Freedom of Speech” imho does not equate to unlimited, unregulated, and anonymous political money being spent to influence our politics.
 
 
 
 

I am free to tell my boss to go f*ck himself.   That is constitutionally protected.  But that doesn’t mean I can do it and still expect to keep my job.

Ben Carson can equate homosexuality to bestiality all he likes.  But that doesn’t mean that he won’t have invitations for speaking engagements revoked.
 
Ken Ham can cite “answers in genesis” all he wants as an explanation for why man exists, but that doesn’t mean his theory deserves any attention in a public school science class.
 
 
 
 
You are all too correct that the author is extremely biased.

[kayla.meyer_144]

The reality of facts that Conservatives don’t like.
 
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” – Daniel Patrick Moynihan
 
“Reality has a liberal bias.” – Stephen Colbert

[Unknown Member]

Quote from dergon

Look.  No one is [i]silencing[/i] anyone.  “Freedom of Speech” is not the same thing as speech free of consequences.  “Freedom of Speech” does not mean that stupid, wrongheaded, bigoted, or scientifically inaccurate peech should be given equal treatment in the public domain.  And “Freedom of Speech” imho does not equate to unlimited, unregulated, and anonymous political money being spent to influence our politics.

Granted. 
But
There are degrees of this…..
 
You are perfectly free to criticize the regime – but the penalty is we will kill you. 
You are perfectly free to criticize the regime – but the penalty is 20 years in prison – but please feel free to criticize.
 
 
 
The author notes events such as Condoleeza Rice being disinvited as a commencement speaker as capitulation to loud objections from her opponents. Not appropriate.
 
I have noted a knee jerk response from many to simply [b][i]MAKE THEM STOP SAYING THIS.[/i][/b] The ways they propose to make them stop saying it involve various degrees of imposed discomfort. From bullet to the head to simply turning their backs. And this is among people who should be defenders of the traditionally liberal tradition of free speech. I am always amazed that these people do not get that free speech means nothing at all unless there are people saying things that really really upset you.
 
These sorts of conflicts should be  – should be – teaching moments. “Listen to this man. Do you agree? why or why not?” Free speech allows us to know where the idiots are so we can protect ourselves from them. 
 
 
 

[btomba_77]

I don’t buy your “degrees”
 
“You are perfectly free to criticize the regime – but the penalty is we will kill you.  ”
 
to

“You are perfectly free to criticize the regime – but the penalty is 20 years in prison – but please feel free to criticize”
 
 
to
 
“You are no longer welcome to give this University commencement address”
 
Are not at all along even the same axis line.    The first two are governmental interventions that [b]do[/b] represent what we in the US would consider a violation our freedoms.
 
The latter is at its heart a political dispute among private citizens and institutions.
 
 
I do not agree that any individual saying any crazy, hurtful, ignorant thing should get the benefit of   “Listen to this man. Do you agree? why or why not?”   
 
Some speech is so abhorrent, some words so harmful to public discourse and safety, that the greater benefit to society is marginalize the speaker and let it be known that while he is free to say what he likes, we are under no obligation to provide him with a megaphone.
 
 

[suyanebenevides_151]

The problem with your response is that these people were invited, aren’t crazy, and then they are politically lynched (oftentimes but the very people that in fact will disrupt and truly cause the violence, the protestors).
 
Rice is peaceful. Hirsi Ali is peaceful. Both were invited with legitimate vetting and points of view. Then, the lynching came.
 
You have to be honest and stop quoting some buffoon like Colbert.

[suyanebenevides_151]

“Some speech is so abhorrent, some words so harmful to public discourse and safety, that the greater benefit to society is marginalize the speaker and let it be known that while he is free to say what he likes, we are under no obligation to provide him with a megaphone.”
 
Thoughts like this make free speech impossible. Who is the executor of standard? The mob or the louder megaphone or threatening body.
 
I love it when progressives talk about things “so abhorrent” yet complain that others make conclusions about a world that is not that simple, it’s not “black and white.” You use a standard of qualification that you vilify others for. You become the arbiter of the free speech. That’s not free speech, my friend.

[btomba_77]

I’m not saying that anyone needs to be named “the executor of the standard”.
 
What I am saying is that there is no obligation for individuals or organizations to provide an equal platform for disagreeable speech.
 
If I want to host a forum on Darwin I am not blocking anyone’s free speech by choosing [i]not[/i] to invite an Answers in Genesis speaker.
 
 
I am not saying that the creationist shouldn’t be allowed to speak his mind, just that there is no violation of his rights by me not inviting him speak at my lecture series.
 
If someone else finds value in inviting him to speak or putting him on TV they are free to do so.

[kayla.meyer_144]

So what is the real argument here? It is not about Hirsi Ali or Condi Rice, it’s smoke & mirrors. Which Conservatives who are complaining are complaining that they don’t have a subscription to Charlie Hebdo? Or complaining that there isn’t an english version? Is the complaint that the NYTimes didn’t publish the Mohammed cartoons? But didn’t Fox decline the privilege also?
 
Other than dancing what is the issue? That Liberals don’t offend? That’s really it???
 
Oh, I forgot to add this:
[attachment=0]
 
Let’s not forget Andres Serrano or Robert Mapplethorpe to name just a few.
 
Bull dung argument from the Right.
 
 

[suyanebenevides_151]

Frumi, you’re just like the rest, you just can’t resist being exactly the same.

[kayla.meyer_144]

The argument is very stupid as well as false. Not to mention the false equivalents.

There are too many like you cigar, who either can’t develop an argument based loosely or firmly on facts or won’t & just meander & deflect with silliness.
 
 

[Unknown Member]

……. But he says it with such conviction

Just like the gold 3500$

He was so absolutely and undeniably sure and anyone who didn’t share his feelings was obviously very foolish

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…/aclu-free-speech.html[/link]

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis[/h1] An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.
__________

Smerconish did a great interview this morning with the ACLU Jewish lawyer who defended the Skokie Nazis in the 1970s.    The ACLU has drifted from its long-term focus on civil liberties to an organization focused on “do gooder” litigation and social justice.

The massive influx of $$ to the ACLU during the Trump era, especially in the wake of Charlottesville, led to a dramatic hiring of staff, often without any evaluation of their commitment to civil liberties and instead focusing on Trump opposition. 
 

[clickpenguin_460]

What’s your opinion on that change? 

[btomba_77]

I still support the organization (both financially and politically).  I think my views on free speech are probably closer to that of the 70s ACLU …
 
… but there are so many problems with our democracy under attack that I can totally see justifying reallocating resources away from defending hate speech as a matter of principle.
 
 
 
   My view a lot of the new 1A issues gets distilled down to: You’re free to speak your mind but no one is obliged to give you a megaphone.

[btomba_77]

[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/doxing-far-right-violent-extremists/2021/06/20/35f730e2-ba68-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F33e88bd%2F60d0bb8f9d2fdae30288a86e%2F5ee157649bbc0f3a78dfb713%2F10%2F74%2F60d0bb8f9d2fdae30288a86e]https://www.washingtonpos…d0bb8f9d2fdae30288a86e[/link]
 
[b]Unmasking the far right: Left-Wing activists are Doxing Right Wingers  [/b]

The disclosure online of Dawsons personal information a phenomenon known as doxing is part of a growing effort by left-wing activists to punish members of far-right groups accused of violent behavior by exposing them to their employers, family and friends. The doxing of Dawson highlights the effect the tactic can have unemployment and personal upheaval followed by a new job that pays much less than his old one but also the limits of the technique: Dawson is unrepentant for his role in galvanizing a mob to harass Jedeed and continues to espouse far-right views.
 
…
 
Antifa activists say that hateful rhetoric is protected by the First Amendment but that that doesnt mean those who advocate or use violence as part of their ideology shouldnt be exposed, including to their employers. They argue that doxing is a nonviolent response to violence.
 
…
 

Doxing is having an effect on some far-right groups, particularly less committed members who may have drifted into the far right, said Daniel Martinez HoSang, a Yale University associate professor and co-author of the 2019 book [link=https://www.amazon.com/Producers-Parasites-Patriots-Right-Wing-Precarity-ebook/dp/B07PPKQSG4/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=]Producers, Parasites, Patriots: Race and the New Right-Wing Politics of Precarity.[/link]

There seems to be a visceral pleasure that brings people into these groups, and that is really interrupted when people have to deal with the repercussions at home and at work, he said. Theyre not ideologically hardcore about this stuff. They get wrapped up in this story thats quite divorced from their day-to-day lives.

 

[satyanar]

Interesting dergon. I once told my wife that Trump winning the election in 16 would cause the true extremists and most dangerous on the right to out themselves and that it would be important to take the opportunity to pay attention.

[kayla.meyer_144]

I don’t like the idea of doxxing anyone to the mob. We already know too many examples of people and their families being threatened with violence by vigilante mobs who don’t like what they said or did. He threatened & stepped on her foot of the female reporter to further intimidate her and then apparently seeing things get dangerous, safely escorted her from the mob. He does not deserve a free pass but he does not deserve doxxing & mob vigilantism, both of which is likely to push him further into extremism.
 
This isn’t the America I was raised to believe in.