The right to free speech does not give you a right to a platform. -Owen Jones

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Putinbot1
The title quote by Owen Jones sums it up. It's not a case of Free Speech means you have to be heard, if people don't want to listen to you why should they have to?

Rightists don't understand the majority of people with any kind of Education or brains often find their views disgusting as well as they find the views of many radicals including radical Islamists like Anjem Choudary (I might add most Muslims also find Choudary disgusting and speak out against him, it's just not reported).

Gay cures, Anjem Choudary, Tommy Robinson, none of these deserve a platform for normal people.

If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them.

snowdragon
Why would you shift the poles in the discussion from free speech/platform to an acceptable distance from people you oppose views with?

In as far as a platform, if a group of individuals invites Milo to university to have a discussion in an auditorium then those that oppose his positions aren't forced to listen to him.

Putinbot1

snowdragon
I don't keep up with Robinson so I have a hard time having a decent discussion about who is and what he does other then flash in the pan quick search videos.

On the note of public Universities, if they are on the govt dole they cannot prevent free speech. Private universities can of course prevent them from coming and there you go.



You said this:



Unless the word near means something different in the UK, in the USA that has to do with proximity and not dialogue.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by snowdragon
I don't keep up with Robinson so I have a hard time having a decent discussion about who is and what he does other then flash in the pan quick search videos.

On the note of public Universities, if they are on the govt dole, they cannot prevent free speech. Private universities can, of course, prevent them from coming, and there you go. And Public Universities have a right to protest and make it uncomfortable for them if they do not have the right to exclude them. Although I would suggest if the majority of the student body and staff do not wish to hear them, they have no right to a large hall, just the janitors closet. We are more democratic in the UK and would go with the majority view, stands to reason.

snowdragon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
And Public Universities have a right to protest and make it uncomfortable for them if they do not have the right to exclude them. Although I would suggest if the majority of the student body and staff do not wish to hear them they have no right to a large hall, just the janitors closet.

The right to a large hall has nothing to do with whether or not specific people want to hear the individuals, they don't have to even go to the appearance.

If people want to protest, go ahead. No violent protests, don't block individuals from entering said venue, easy peasy.

Putinbot1

snowdragon
So mob rules the day with emotional responses elicited by the loudest vocal minority.



This is myopic and a fool's errand, in the USA one only has to look at Berkely denies Bill Maher (very liberal) a platform, Berkley protests calling Ben Shapiro(very jewish) a nazi, Brett Weinstein (forced off campus when the vocal minority wanted everyone to not enter campus for activism) called racist.

If the measure of the majority is used to determine the value of free speech, then you have lost your understanding of freedom and liberty.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by snowdragon
So mob rules the day with emotional responses elicited by the loudest vocal minority.



This is myopic and a fool's errand, in the USA one only has to look at Berkely denies Bill Maher (very liberal) a platform, Berkley protests calling Ben Shapiro(very jewish) a nazi, Brett Weinstein (forced off campus when the vocal minority wanted everyone to not enter campus for activism) called racist.

If the measure of the majority is used to determine the value of free speech, then you have lost your understanding of freedom and liberty. Not the loudest minority, the majority, in the UK all students in a University belong to the SU. the SU provides the platform for guests. As in any representative democracy, the SU is ruled by the majority opinion of the representatives or in important matters direct vote or referendum. If a direct vote says Tommy Robinson is not wanted the majority have spoken, then the majority do not wish to give him a platform or hear his words as he is unwanted. The US is clearly different and not as democratic in this.

Surtur
They don't have a right to a platform.

But what they do have a right to is to speak if they are invited. And whiny little weasels from the college do not get to use the hecklers veto to stop it.

And guess what snowflakes? If you don't agree with a speaker do not attend their speech.

Oh and since we're discussing free speech: kneeling during the national anthem isn't a free speech issue either.

Surtur
Originally posted by snowdragon
Why would you shift the poles in the discussion from free speech/platform to an acceptable distance from people you oppose views with?

In as far as a platform, if a group of individuals invites Milo to university to have a discussion in an auditorium then those that oppose his positions aren't forced to listen to him.

I will never understand why grown ass adults who don't like a speaker are not simply capable of...not attending the speech.

If just being on the same campus as someone they disagree with triggers them...that is the most pathetic thing in the universe.

And most kids on college campuses lean left As do most professors. If we go by the majority there would NEVER be a conservative speaker at these places again.

Putinbot1
Originally posted by Surtur
They don't have a right to a platform.

But what they do have a right to is to speak if they are invited. And whiny little weasels from the college do not get to use the hecklers veto to stop it.

And guess what snowflakes? If you don't agree with a speaker do not attend their speech.

Oh and since we're discussing free speech: kneeling during the national anthem isn't a free speech issue either. Ah, a red piller, fortunately in the UK we have democratic voting and can simply refuse to give them a platform democratically. Student's in the US are clearly not given the ability to democratically make decisions. That doesn't make them snowflakes, just disempowered and lacking responsibility.

Surtur
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Ah, a red piller, fortunately in the UK we have democratic voting and can simply refuse to give them a platform democratically. Student's in the US are clearly not given the ability to democratically make decisions. That doesn't make them snowflakes, just disempowered and lacking responsibility.

Lol if a student can't handle a speaker they disagree with being on campus that makes them a snowflake. Period.

If you don't like a speech don't listen. If it's difficult for adults to do then it's time to leave college all together and go back to pre school.

snowdragon
We know from history over and over again if you develop the proper message line that illicit some strong emotional response the minority easily controls the mobs (that is the very nature of rule itself.)



The fastest way to stamp out minorities, freedoms, and liberty is to have majority rule in place. Majority rule doesn't make something better or more "fair," generally it's the opposite. As culture changes, mores change one has to be careful of the mob, what is acceptable today might not be tomorrow and heaven help those that don't fall in line.


I understand your position though, what I mean by that is I too could argue for majority rulings and the prevention of free speech (as it pertains to "hate speech etc."

Surtur
The problem is a majority of snowflakes on campuses lean left. As do a vast majority of teachers.

Giving these jackals final say over who speaks would just turn these campuses even further left(if that is even possible) and that will never ever be a positive thing.

If they are gonna whine over conservative speakers...fine, do not invite a single leftist to speak either. Stay consistent and try not to be weasels.

Speaking of left leaning speakers...I will note you rarely hear about cons using the hecklers veto to stop speech.

Surtur
Leftists in this country should move to the UK. It's far easier to be a snowflake and crack down on speech that hurts ya fee fee's in that country. It would be a dream come true for them. I bet they'd get a hard on just knowing a guy got fined for a nazi dog joke. They'll be having wet dreams about an American where they can implement these same backwards views on speech.

Silent Master
Wow, I can't believe people are actually arguing that it's ok to ban minorities from speaking.

Robtard
Originally posted by Putinbot1
Ah, a red piller, fortunately in the UK we have democratic voting and can simply refuse to give them a platform democratically. Student's in the US are clearly not given the ability to democratically make decisions. That doesn't make them snowflakes, just disempowered and lacking responsibility.

Fascist Alt-Right broflakes need to be allowed to rant imo, as long as they're not inciting violence, as freedom of speech/freedom of expression is important so you take the good with the bad. I don't necessarily like it, but I accept it for the greater good.

But you're talking to a guy who lost it because a black man knelled peacefully and quietly in protest. Somehow that's too much.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Putinbot1
The title quote by Owen Jones sums it up. It's not a case of Free Speech means you have to be heard, if people don't want to listen to you why should they have to?

Right. Which is why no one forces you to show up to a speech or talk you don't like. If you don't like it, don't show up. If you like it or are curious, show up.


Originally posted by Putinbot1
If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them.

I don't believe that is the case in almost every situation. The problem is a vocal, and sometimes violent, minority of leftist babies throwing tantrums and destroying property because they don't like to be told that there are Muslim Rape Gangs and that Identify Politics are toxic bullshit.

cdtm
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. Which is why no one forces you to show up to a speech or talk you don't like. If you don't like it, don't show up. If you like it or are curious, show up.




I don't believe that is the case in almost every situation. The problem is a vocal, and sometimes violent, minority of leftist babies throwing tantrums and destroying property because they don't like to be told that there are Muslim Rape Gangs and that Identify Politics are toxic bullshit.


And any time someone like Jordan Peterson brings it up, they dance around the question.

Such controvery like "When can the left go too far"?

After a long, long list from him of the right going too far.

Surtur
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right. Which is why no one forces you to show up to a speech or talk you don't like. If you don't like it, don't show up. If you like it or are curious, show up.

I still haven't figured out why grown adults are simply not capable of not attending a speech given by someone they despise.

Playmaker
Originally posted by Putinbot1
If the majority of students at a University find Milo disgusting why should they have to have him near them.

1.) The majority don't get to dictate who is and isn't allowed to step foot on a public campus. Private universities can do whatever they want.

2.) Have him near them? You do know that just because there's a speaker on campus, doesn't mean you have to go listen to the speaker. You can stay at home and binge watch Netflix. Problem solved.

3.) Why do you think that student organizations like the YAF (or similar groups) shouldn't be allowed to host a speaker because someone is butthurt about it?

BackFire
I've never even gone to a speech from someone I actually like.

I don't have a problem with a controversial figure giving a speech at a campus they were invited to. I also don't have a problem with a campus changing their mind if they decide it's not worth the controversy.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with people protesting said speaker, either. As long as they do it peacefully and without violence or attempts at intimidation.

Also likewise, I have zero problem with people kneeling during the national anthem, but it's up to the NFL how they wish to deal with that.

I also don't have a problem with TV personalities being boycotted after saying something that is seen as offensive to the point that their career is threatened because of a loss of advertising revenue. That is capitalism at work.

dadudemon
Originally posted by BackFire
I've never even gone to a speech from someone I actually like.

I don't have a problem with a controversial figure giving a speech at a campus they were invited to. I also don't have a problem with a campus changing their mind if they decide it's not worth the controversy.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with people protesting said speaker, either. As long as they do it peacefully and without violence or attempts at intimidation.

Also likewise, I have zero problem with people kneeling during the national anthem, but it's up to the NFL how they wish to deal with that.

I also don't have a problem with TV personalities being boycotted after saying something that is seen as offensive to the point that their career is threatened because of a loss of advertising revenue. That is capitalism at work.

Agree with every point in this post. But if everyone was this reasonable, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

Playmaker
Originally posted by BackFire
I also don't have a problem with TV personalities being boycotted after saying something that is seen as offensive to the point that their career is threatened because of a loss of advertising revenue. That is capitalism at work.

I'm always on the fence with that one.

Surtur
Can any leftists here explain to me why grown adults are incapable of not attending a speech they don't like? I'm still curious.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.