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

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.

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

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.

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.

It also claimed Mr Robinson “has been jailed unfairly due to his politics, which should frighten any American who values freedom of speech.”

The promotional material gave no explanation as to when or where Mr Robinson might have been “unfairly jailed”.

Nor did it mention that the EDL founder was jailed for 12 months for a drunken assault in 2005, jailed again in January 2013 for using someone else’s passport to enter the US illegally, and again in January 2014 for his part in a £160,000 mortgage fraud.

Mr Robinson, who founded the EDL in 2009 but left the street-protest group in October 2013, has repeatedly been accused of making inflammatory and divisive statements about Muslims.

The day after the Manchester Arena attack, he made an online video in which he stood outside a mosque in the city, alleging that 16 people within a two-mile radius had fought for Isis, and claiming: “In these houses are enemy combatants.

etc.

However, unlike the UK refusing entry to that Lauren Southern thing, Columbia hasn't told the truth about who Robinson is.

No one is moving any goal posts, people have always had a right to not give a platform to scum if they own the platform or the majority do not want to hear it.

It's only the red pillers in their dream world who don't get that.

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.

No one is moving any goal posts, people have always had a right to not give a platform to scum if they own the platform or the majority do not want to hear it.

You said this:

why should they have to have him near them

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by snowdragon
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.

I've personally never wanted to stop anyone talking. But free speech is basically being used to say what you want and not be challenged over it. To not be given a platform is not an infringement of free speech if it is a majority decision.

Jones explains better than I could here.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/31/tommy-robinson-freedom-of-speech-far-right

If student unions refuse to provide a platform to those they deem bigots, that is not an attack on freedom of speech. They are simply telling the bigots: you may have the legal right to say things we find offensive or even disgraceful, but that does not mean we are compelled to provide you with the advantage of amplifying such bigotry to our audience. It is striking that when the bigotry of a far-right figure is verbally challenged, their apologists will screech that freedom of speech is under attack. For the far right, “freedom of speech” means “the right to say hateful things without being challenged”.

But those on the far right do not believe in freedom at all. They call for the banning of mosques, banning of burqas, mass deportation of migrants and refugees, clamping down on civil liberties. They portray their opponents as traitors. Condemning the likes of Yaxley-Lennon instantly brings threats of violence on social media: recent messages I’ve received include “Owen Jones your get what’s coming to you very soon you prick”, “Until one day one of us bumps into you I can’t wait”, “I hope someone fills your jaw you little prick”, “Remember places, traitors’ faces, you will pay for crimes”, ad infinitum...

The hypocrisy of the alt-rightists in action.

I've personally never wanted to stop anyone talking. But free speech is basically being used to say what you want and not be challenged over it. To not be given a platform is not an infringement of free speech if it is a majority decision.

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

If student unions refuse to provide a platform to those they deem bigots, that is not an attack on freedom of speech.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not the loudest minority, the majority, in the UK all students in a University belong to the SU.

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 US is clearly different and not as democratic in this.

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.