There are a bunch of different points in there, only some of which I can agree with.
Yes, someone who merely expresses vile opinions should not on that basis be banned from speaking. Yes, someone who incites others to violence or hateful crimes – such as rape – should be penalised for and prevented from doing that.
Roosh V, who incites men to rape women and was planning to do so again, falls under the “incite others to a crime against a category of others so should be stopped” category. Yet she contradicts this principle by explicitly saying he should be allowed to do that? I agree with the former Julie Bindel, but not the latter Julie Bindel.
Yes, someone who merely expresses vile opinions should not on that basis be banned from entering a free country. Yes, government attempting to forcibly prevent the expression of opinions is unacceptable; that’s censorship.
Donald Trump doesn’t AFAIK say more than his own hateful stupid opinions, not incite people to criminal acts; on that basis he should be allowed into Britain. The “no-platforming” of Julie Bindel is not censorship. I agree with the former Julie Bindel, but not the latter Julie Bindel.
If she wants to speak out about no-platforming, she should be as free as the rest of us to do so. It’s not “censorship”, though, and she contributes to the stupid misunderstanding of free expression by using that term.
She defends also those with whom she disagrees. Stronger than that: she defends even those whose views she herself considers abhorrent, and not just in general terms, but with concrete examples.
Sure, some details can be questioned (Ben Finney above), but basically … yes, this is *the* approach, the exact opposite of the horrible “but it’s ok when we do it”. I’m really, really looking forward to seeing more of it in the future.
Roosh V, who incites men to rape women and was planning to do so again, falls under the “incite others to a crime against a category of others so should be stopped” category. Yet she contradicts this principle
I can’t see the video but I think Bindel is right, incitement to violence has to be a real credible incitement to an actual crime to merit barring. Roosh V was calling for the legalisation of rape, I think, that isn’t an incitement however moronic it may be and so should be protected. Again, it shouldn’t but does need repeating: freedom of speech is not designed to protect views we agree with but those we (or the state) find deeply offensive
If she wants to speak out about no-platforming, she should be as free as the rest of us to do so. It’s not “censorship”, though, and she contributes to the stupid misunderstanding of free expression by using that term.
No platforming is a form of censorship. It is designed with censorship in mind. The whole aim of it is to prevent, as far as possible, the expression of certain views. What else could it be?
Roosh V’s “make rape legal” platform is not the only thing he’s done. David Futrelle’s recent article may be of interest here. I think “incitement of rape”, particularly when we note that he is advocating behavior he does not recognize as but is in fact rape, is a reasonable interpretation.
I think “incitement of rape”, particularly when we note that he is advocating behavior he does not recognize as but is in fact rape, is a reasonable interpretation.
I think, when it comes to something as desperately important, as free speech, we have to be more secure than ‘reasonable interpretation’. If he says ‘go out there now and rape those women’, yes, incitement, otherwise, it is just an opinion and should be protected.
This has been coming to a head since the late 90s. Bindel is right. We’re becoming a culture of cry babies, taking offense at anything and everything we find even slightly distasteful.
Again, it shouldn’t but does need repeating: freedom of speech is not designed to protect views we agree with but those we (or the state) find deeply offensive
Sorry to repeat myself; I’ve said this a million times but here’s a million + 1: the issue with Roosh V (and many others) is not views we agree with or don’t, it’s views that incite harm to others. The issue is not “deeply offensive” or not; it’s harmful. I wish people would keep that straight when talking about this.
Speech can get people beaten up or killed. It happens all the time. If you’re going to insist that only “go out there right now and kill this specific person” is dangerous enough to restrain, then you should do it honestly.
No platforming is a form of censorship. It is designed with censorship in mind. The whole aim of it is to prevent, as far as possible, the expression of certain views. What else could it be?
The exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
An organization has every right to decide for itself which persons will be invited, or disinvited, to speak at its events. Scientific conferences don’t have to allow creationists or flat earthers or climate change deniers to give a speech. The NAACP doesn’t have to allow white supremacists to share the stage and “debate” the equality of the races. Goldman Sachs can decide to hire Hilary Clinton to deliver a speech to its employees and not Bernie Sanders.
And the actual or potential members or supporters or customers of those organizations are free to criticize those choices and demand that they be changed. Scientists can condemn the organization that invited the creationist/flat earthers/climate change deniers, and announce their intent to boycott the conference and/or the organization unless the invite is rescinded. The NAACP’s donors and members can withhold their support if the organization is providing a platform for speakers hostile to their interests. Goldman Sachs’ shareholders can object to paying Clinton to give a speech.
I don’t have an objection to “no-platforming” in general. Not everything needs to be “up for debate” any where and any time that one person insists it be. Free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform or audience, and if you’re going to define “censorship” to include any judgment by anyone that they prefer not to spend their time, mental energy, money, or other resources listening to a particular speaker, then you’ve defined that word beyond all recognizable meaning.
It simply isn’t true. No-platforming is a form of “we don’t want to hear this, and we won’t put any of our resources to expressing it”.
That does not constitute any form of censorship.
To constitute censorship there needs to be the capacity of the censor to use force of law to prevent the expression publicly.
Any non-government institution, that simply denies their own privately-held platform, cannot constitute censorship if they don’t have the legal force of preventing public expression everywhere.
It is designed with censorship in mind.
Yet it does not constitute censorship, so it should never be called censorship.
The whole aim of it is to prevent, as far as possible, the expression of certain views. What else could it be?
‘when it comes to something as desperately important, as free speech’
Thanks for that–it’s good to know my personal safety is trivial compared to your principle. Though I’m guessing it’s a different story when it comes to your personal safety.
I have rather strong views about no-platforming at the universities. However, the universities are sorta special and in this thread – as I understand – the scope is broader. So, how about no-platforming in general?
I find the issue complicated.
Screechy Monkey @11 called no-platforming “the exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of association”, adding that “free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform or audience”. Ben Finney says that “No-platforming is a form of ‘we don’t want to hear this, and we won’t put any of our resources to expressing it’. That does not constitute any form of censorship.”
This will be quite accurate in many situations. But is it always right?
Consider free markets – the exercise of freedom of buying and selling. They don’t give anyone the rights to a particular group of customers, no way. If you are not able to sell your products, then well, cry me a river: that’s nobody’s fault but yours! People just do not want to buy them, right?
Yeah, quite right … sometimes. And sometimes very wrong. Just one well-known example: attempts to compete on a free market with a powerful monopolist can be doomed from the start, no matter that you are “legally free” to do this. In short: free markets can be plagued by pathologies. We all know this. How about saying that monopolies are not a problem for free markets because … you know, because they do not have the legal force to prevent you from selling – or because free markets are “the exercise of freedom to buy and sell”? Imo such a defence won’t do. Your opinion?
I hope you see what I’m getting at: I’m trying to understand whether free markets of ideas are similarly vulnerable. Are ideas really that special? If so, why? Can’t there be groups which have become so influential and well-entrenched, that if they no-platform their opponents declaring them “horrible and vile”, the result would be that of effectively excluding the opponents from the mainstream of the public life (to make it clear: no, writing an obscure blog doesn’t count)?
At the moment I’m not sure at all whether such groups exist in Western societies – ah, you are from the West, so you tell me! If the correct answer is “yes”, then indeed I would call no-platforming a problem of free speech, explicitly rejecting the view that free speech is just a legal issue. But even if the answer is “no”, I sincerely wish a considerable lack of success to everyone engaged in such practices, as too much success brings the risk of creating a monster.
Universities have a duty and a responsibility to present an array of opposing views so that as many angles as possible of any debate/issue can be explored. These institutions are there to broaden minds and to expose people to the greatest number of viewpoints. If certain of those viewpoints offend someone, then tough shit.
No one, absolutely no one, has a right NOT to be offended. If the ideas of A.H.A., for example, offend certain Muslim students, that in no way constitutes any justification for banning her from speaking. Universities exist to disseminate ideas; they are not there to exercise censorship on behalf of anyone who feels slighted by this or that point of view. NOR are they there to promote or favor particular agendas or ideologies because doing so defeats their entire reason for being.
we have to be more secure than ‘reasonable interpretation’
Actually, the courts often use a standard of what “any reasonable person would think” – in short, intent isn’t always magic. They look at the idea of whether a reasonable person (definition? Sort of arbitrary in the case of the courts) would believe this to mean X, and not Y. This is a far from perfect standard, and leaves a lot of room for “eww, that’s nasty, so I say a reasonable person would think it’s harmful” sort of thinking. I’m not even saying I agree with it – I think there is a lot of subjectivity to defining what constitutes a reasonable person, and there is also the assumption that societal mores are correct. I’m just pointing out that the standard you don’t like is the one that courts use all the time.
Thanks for that–it’s good to know my personal safety is trivial compared to your principle. Though I’m guessing it’s a different story when it comes to your personal safety.
What part of calling free speech ‘desperately important’ implies that personal safety isn’t? Come on, don’t play the performative outrage game.
The particular comment where Pinkeen said that does dismiss the safety issue, which is why I said what I said @ 10. Roosh V is a plausible threat to women’s safety because of the nature of what he “teaches.” I’m not saying therefore he should be banned, I’m saying we shouldn’t minimize or conceal what he’s saying in order to argue that he should be free to say it.
The particular comment where Pinkeen said that does dismiss the safety issue, which is why I said what I said @ 10. Roosh V is a plausible threat to women’s safety because of the nature of what he “teaches.” I’m not saying therefore he should be banned, I’m saying we shouldn’t minimize or conceal what he’s saying in order to argue that he should be free to say it.
I do not minimise questions of safety, but I believe danger has to be very clear and present before clamping down on speech should be tolerated, and I think you agree with that if you don’t think that Roosh V should be censored. I think the category of ‘harmful’ speech is a very suspect one once it is distanced from actual physical danger and we should be very cautious about it.
I am amazed how many people can’t see no-platforming as censorship, it is after all the whole point of it, to deny certain people the opportunity to express their opinions. But there are always more censors about than will admit to the title.
There are a bunch of different points in there, only some of which I can agree with.
Yes, someone who merely expresses vile opinions should not on that basis be banned from speaking. Yes, someone who incites others to violence or hateful crimes – such as rape – should be penalised for and prevented from doing that.
Roosh V, who incites men to rape women and was planning to do so again, falls under the “incite others to a crime against a category of others so should be stopped” category. Yet she contradicts this principle by explicitly saying he should be allowed to do that? I agree with the former Julie Bindel, but not the latter Julie Bindel.
Yes, someone who merely expresses vile opinions should not on that basis be banned from entering a free country. Yes, government attempting to forcibly prevent the expression of opinions is unacceptable; that’s censorship.
Donald Trump doesn’t AFAIK say more than his own hateful stupid opinions, not incite people to criminal acts; on that basis he should be allowed into Britain. The “no-platforming” of Julie Bindel is not censorship. I agree with the former Julie Bindel, but not the latter Julie Bindel.
If she wants to speak out about no-platforming, she should be as free as the rest of us to do so. It’s not “censorship”, though, and she contributes to the stupid misunderstanding of free expression by using that term.
This video is traumatizing please take it down immediately.
She defends also those with whom she disagrees. Stronger than that: she defends even those whose views she herself considers abhorrent, and not just in general terms, but with concrete examples.
Sure, some details can be questioned (Ben Finney above), but basically … yes, this is *the* approach, the exact opposite of the horrible “but it’s ok when we do it”. I’m really, really looking forward to seeing more of it in the future.
Roosh V, who incites men to rape women and was planning to do so again, falls under the “incite others to a crime against a category of others so should be stopped” category. Yet she contradicts this principle
I can’t see the video but I think Bindel is right, incitement to violence has to be a real credible incitement to an actual crime to merit barring. Roosh V was calling for the legalisation of rape, I think, that isn’t an incitement however moronic it may be and so should be protected. Again, it shouldn’t but does need repeating: freedom of speech is not designed to protect views we agree with but those we (or the state) find deeply offensive
If she wants to speak out about no-platforming, she should be as free as the rest of us to do so. It’s not “censorship”, though, and she contributes to the stupid misunderstanding of free expression by using that term.
No platforming is a form of censorship. It is designed with censorship in mind. The whole aim of it is to prevent, as far as possible, the expression of certain views. What else could it be?
Roosh V’s “make rape legal” platform is not the only thing he’s done. David Futrelle’s recent article may be of interest here. I think “incitement of rape”, particularly when we note that he is advocating behavior he does not recognize as but is in fact rape, is a reasonable interpretation.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/daryush-valizadeh-leadining-new-barbarians-believe-resistance-seok-1541990
I think “incitement of rape”, particularly when we note that he is advocating behavior he does not recognize as but is in fact rape, is a reasonable interpretation.
I think, when it comes to something as desperately important, as free speech, we have to be more secure than ‘reasonable interpretation’. If he says ‘go out there now and rape those women’, yes, incitement, otherwise, it is just an opinion and should be protected.
This has been coming to a head since the late 90s. Bindel is right. We’re becoming a culture of cry babies, taking offense at anything and everything we find even slightly distasteful.
Pinkeen, could you please follow the convention and indent when you quote something rather than italicizing? It’s a better convention.
Just one point: Pinkeen @ 4
Sorry to repeat myself; I’ve said this a million times but here’s a million + 1: the issue with Roosh V (and many others) is not views we agree with or don’t, it’s views that incite harm to others. The issue is not “deeply offensive” or not; it’s harmful. I wish people would keep that straight when talking about this.
Speech can get people beaten up or killed. It happens all the time. If you’re going to insist that only “go out there right now and kill this specific person” is dangerous enough to restrain, then you should do it honestly.
Pinkeen @5:
The exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of association.
An organization has every right to decide for itself which persons will be invited, or disinvited, to speak at its events. Scientific conferences don’t have to allow creationists or flat earthers or climate change deniers to give a speech. The NAACP doesn’t have to allow white supremacists to share the stage and “debate” the equality of the races. Goldman Sachs can decide to hire Hilary Clinton to deliver a speech to its employees and not Bernie Sanders.
And the actual or potential members or supporters or customers of those organizations are free to criticize those choices and demand that they be changed. Scientists can condemn the organization that invited the creationist/flat earthers/climate change deniers, and announce their intent to boycott the conference and/or the organization unless the invite is rescinded. The NAACP’s donors and members can withhold their support if the organization is providing a platform for speakers hostile to their interests. Goldman Sachs’ shareholders can object to paying Clinton to give a speech.
I don’t have an objection to “no-platforming” in general. Not everything needs to be “up for debate” any where and any time that one person insists it be. Free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform or audience, and if you’re going to define “censorship” to include any judgment by anyone that they prefer not to spend their time, mental energy, money, or other resources listening to a particular speaker, then you’ve defined that word beyond all recognizable meaning.
It’s not MRA groups no-platforming Bindel : it’s feminist groups.
Feminism needs radicals.
It simply isn’t true. No-platforming is a form of “we don’t want to hear this, and we won’t put any of our resources to expressing it”.
That does not constitute any form of censorship.
To constitute censorship there needs to be the capacity of the censor to use force of law to prevent the expression publicly.
Any non-government institution, that simply denies their own privately-held platform, cannot constitute censorship if they don’t have the legal force of preventing public expression everywhere.
Yet it does not constitute censorship, so it should never be called censorship.
Exactly what you said. And that’s not censorship.
‘when it comes to something as desperately important, as free speech’
Thanks for that–it’s good to know my personal safety is trivial compared to your principle. Though I’m guessing it’s a different story when it comes to your personal safety.
I have rather strong views about no-platforming at the universities. However, the universities are sorta special and in this thread – as I understand – the scope is broader. So, how about no-platforming in general?
I find the issue complicated.
Screechy Monkey @11 called no-platforming “the exercise of freedom of speech and freedom of association”, adding that “free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to a particular platform or audience”. Ben Finney says that “No-platforming is a form of ‘we don’t want to hear this, and we won’t put any of our resources to expressing it’. That does not constitute any form of censorship.”
This will be quite accurate in many situations. But is it always right?
Consider free markets – the exercise of freedom of buying and selling. They don’t give anyone the rights to a particular group of customers, no way. If you are not able to sell your products, then well, cry me a river: that’s nobody’s fault but yours! People just do not want to buy them, right?
Yeah, quite right … sometimes. And sometimes very wrong. Just one well-known example: attempts to compete on a free market with a powerful monopolist can be doomed from the start, no matter that you are “legally free” to do this. In short: free markets can be plagued by pathologies. We all know this. How about saying that monopolies are not a problem for free markets because … you know, because they do not have the legal force to prevent you from selling – or because free markets are “the exercise of freedom to buy and sell”? Imo such a defence won’t do. Your opinion?
I hope you see what I’m getting at: I’m trying to understand whether free markets of ideas are similarly vulnerable. Are ideas really that special? If so, why? Can’t there be groups which have become so influential and well-entrenched, that if they no-platform their opponents declaring them “horrible and vile”, the result would be that of effectively excluding the opponents from the mainstream of the public life (to make it clear: no, writing an obscure blog doesn’t count)?
At the moment I’m not sure at all whether such groups exist in Western societies – ah, you are from the West, so you tell me! If the correct answer is “yes”, then indeed I would call no-platforming a problem of free speech, explicitly rejecting the view that free speech is just a legal issue. But even if the answer is “no”, I sincerely wish a considerable lack of success to everyone engaged in such practices, as too much success brings the risk of creating a monster.
Universities have a duty and a responsibility to present an array of opposing views so that as many angles as possible of any debate/issue can be explored. These institutions are there to broaden minds and to expose people to the greatest number of viewpoints. If certain of those viewpoints offend someone, then tough shit.
No one, absolutely no one, has a right NOT to be offended. If the ideas of A.H.A., for example, offend certain Muslim students, that in no way constitutes any justification for banning her from speaking. Universities exist to disseminate ideas; they are not there to exercise censorship on behalf of anyone who feels slighted by this or that point of view. NOR are they there to promote or favor particular agendas or ideologies because doing so defeats their entire reason for being.
Actually, the courts often use a standard of what “any reasonable person would think” – in short, intent isn’t always magic. They look at the idea of whether a reasonable person (definition? Sort of arbitrary in the case of the courts) would believe this to mean X, and not Y. This is a far from perfect standard, and leaves a lot of room for “eww, that’s nasty, so I say a reasonable person would think it’s harmful” sort of thinking. I’m not even saying I agree with it – I think there is a lot of subjectivity to defining what constitutes a reasonable person, and there is also the assumption that societal mores are correct. I’m just pointing out that the standard you don’t like is the one that courts use all the time.
What part of calling free speech ‘desperately important’ implies that personal safety isn’t? Come on, don’t play the performative outrage game.
The particular comment where Pinkeen said that does dismiss the safety issue, which is why I said what I said @ 10. Roosh V is a plausible threat to women’s safety because of the nature of what he “teaches.” I’m not saying therefore he should be banned, I’m saying we shouldn’t minimize or conceal what he’s saying in order to argue that he should be free to say it.
Oh yes, I wasn’t paying mind to that which he was replying.
Advocation of rape = advocation of violence = incitement = free speech rights go bye-bye.
Don’t do that. Don’t boil it down to ten or fifteen words. My whole point is that it’s not that simple. Mindless blurts don’t make it so.
I do not minimise questions of safety, but I believe danger has to be very clear and present before clamping down on speech should be tolerated, and I think you agree with that if you don’t think that Roosh V should be censored. I think the category of ‘harmful’ speech is a very suspect one once it is distanced from actual physical danger and we should be very cautious about it.
I am amazed how many people can’t see no-platforming as censorship, it is after all the whole point of it, to deny certain people the opportunity to express their opinions. But there are always more censors about than will admit to the title.