tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post5160771696255506363..comments2024-03-03T13:55:46.243-08:00Comments on Ambling Along the Aqueduct: Guest post by Sally Seattle: Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the UW ShootingTimmi Duchamphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00673465487533328661noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-79530363653278458402017-02-16T15:17:09.489-08:002017-02-16T15:17:09.489-08:00Interesting podcast. Most striking was the point w...Interesting podcast. Most striking was the point where Mark Bray, who was explaining the politics of anti-fascism and coming out straight and saying that to some extent, the values of anti-fascism does not square with the liberal values of free speech and open dialogue. I find that disturbing. On the other hand, it's commonly accepted by liberals that if you see a Nazi poster on a pole, the right thing to do is to tear it down. Maybe the dividing line is not whether the speech is tolerated, but whether we explicitly ask the government to prohibit it. On that second point the U.S. constitution is quite clear: the government may not make laws against speech. I'm not sure how anti-fascists see that aspect of it.Sally Seattlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-15061830224128308442017-02-11T16:38:28.016-08:002017-02-11T16:38:28.016-08:00Yesterday On the Media aired a discussion of free ...Yesterday <i>On the Media</i> aired a discussion of free speech issues that at one point focuses on Milo Yiannopoulos's tactics & provocations. You can find it here: http://www.wnyc.org/story/on-the-media-2017-02-10/Timmi Duchamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00673465487533328661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-83213053595397000212017-02-07T18:34:11.369-08:002017-02-07T18:34:11.369-08:00Thanks for your thoughts. What's happened at U...Thanks for your thoughts. What's happened at U.C. Berkeley and elsewhere has raised more questions for me. The speech at U.C. Berkeley was allowed by the college administration but shut down by protesters, and more specifically, by property damage. <br /><br />It sounds like students there might have been concerned that undocumented students would be doxxed. I didn't know how reasonable that concern was, but Yiannopoulos does have a history of doxxing at events (at University of Wisconsin last year, for example). And Yiannopoulos had been expected to speak about sanctuary cities and undocumented students at the Berkeley event. So it sounds like a reasonable concern. <br /><br />I kept searching and found a New York Times article from November 2016, "Even at Berkeley, I Face Threats as an Undocumented Student." There had been anonymous emails threatening to report the students and their families to immigration officials and the administration had not followed up. The author compared an instance where anti-Semitic posters had appeared and the administration had swiftly condemned the language with an instance where a "Build the Wall" protest was treated as political speech and ignored. <br /><br />The author also pointed to comments made by the president of the UC system, Janet Napolitano, who had said in a Boston Globe op-ed that although speech intended to personally intimidate or harass falls outside First Amendment protections, exceptions to free speech should be narrowly construed. <br /><br />I'm broadly in agreement with that concept--especially now that we are entering a phase of repressive government. I'd go farther and say that asking the government to shut down a speaker sets a precedent the far right would be more than happy to follow. <br /><br />At the same time, across the board, it does seem like personally harassing speech and hate speech is being treated as equal to political speech. That doesn't sit right with me. <br /><br />I'm still wrestling with your suggestion: "They should take no action to prevent protestors from going to his event, shouting him down, or otherwise making it difficult for him to get his message out." It does seem like a simple solution. But it does cut both ways. <br /><br />One solution I like is to give the students on campus who are inviting Yiannopoulos exactly what they are asking for: free speech in the form of a fairly moderated debate, consisting only of students. That has the advantage of keeping it a real conversation, between real people. <br /><br />Sally Seattlenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5360814020056871156.post-67687328058761957132017-01-31T14:23:18.363-08:002017-01-31T14:23:18.363-08:00The free speech issue is complex, even when it inv...The free speech issue is complex, even when it involves someone who is using it as a means of engaging in hate speech. I note that the ACLU has, in the past, defended the right of Nazis to march. I tend toward the belief that the First Amendment is perhaps the most valuable part of the US, but I confess to being tired of having to use it to defend awful people. <br /><br />This whole issue calls to mind another aspect of the gamergater situation: Anita Sarkeesian had to decline an invitation to speak at a university because they would not take steps to protect her. In this case, it appears that the university not only protected the speaker against any threats to his safety, but also against anyone protesting his appearance. Free speech does not mean unopposed speech. Perhaps the best answer here is for universities to allow this man on campus, but to only provide him with some physical protection should his presence draw threats against his person. They should take no action to prevent protestors from going to his event, shouting him down, or otherwise making it difficult for him to get his message out. After all, the protestors also have the right to free speech.<br /><br />While I sympathize with the political opinions of the person who was shot, the fact remains that such a restorative justice system does not exist. Nothing will be done about the shooter unless legal action is taken against him. Since the shooter is likely a danger to other people, the authorities should take action against him. Even in a better justice system, it isn't in the best interest of society as a whole to let dangerous individuals roam the streets at will. Nancy Jane Moorehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01030267999537291250noreply@blogger.com