Guest post by Sally Seattle: Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the UW Shooting

 [Note: "Sally Seattle" is a pseudonym for the author of this post, who is personally known to me. I have agreed to preserve the author's anonymity to protect the privacy and safety of them and their family. I welcome further contributions to this discussion, provided, of course, that they meet Aqueduct's sense of community standards. --Timmi]

Hate Speech, Free Speech, and the UW Shooting 
by Sally Seattle

On January 20th, a man was shot outside an event at which Milo Yiannopoulos was speaking. The event took place in Seattle, Washington, USA, at the University of Washington's "Red Square." The alleged shooter was apparently a Trump supporter who had showed up to the event intoxicated and with a loaded gun. And the victim was an antifascist and member of the Industrial Workers of the World General Defense Committee. (He has asked his name not to be shared publicly.)

The incident has received international attention now, with articles appearing in major U.S. newspapers, a Southern Poverty Law Center report, and the Guardian newspaper. (Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-speech-seattle-charges) It is also raising a lot of questions, the kind that are tough to handle. Since the feminist science fiction community has dealt with similar problems, I thought I would put out a general “ask” for advice and opinions, specifically to be shared with people doing antifascist work.

 1. How to tackle the "free speech" angle?

In the weeks leading up to the event, I listened to discussions from the left about why "hate speech is not free speech" or why, conversely, leftists should support the right to free speech. There was an ongoing discussion about whether shutting down Yiannopoulos was the right thing to do, or whether it would be better to ignore him and hold a competing event. These conversations are repeating themselves every time a Yiannopoulos event is held. It seems to me that the entire debate has taken a wrong turn somewhere. But I don’t have a solid analysis here -- just a collection of questions and thoughts.

One thing that strikes me: Yiannopoulos' right to free speech was never truly at risk. As a member of the one percent, he has the money and the fame to say whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and get the word out to all his supporters. In fact, Yiannopoulos could have easily given the exact same speech virtually rather than in person, probably without the protests.

Another thing is that the university gave him not only free speech, but also a platform, publicity, and a police presence. At the same time, earlier in the day, they tore down posters that protestors had put on the building.

It seems that people are skipping an important conversation about which limits we typically put on free speech and why. It is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, for example. But the kind of violence Yiannopoulos is notorious for doing is more indirect. People are arguing that this is or is not free speech, but not talking about where exactly the line should go.

There is also a general lack of clarity of what constitutes a limitation of free speech. There is a big difference, often missed, between shouting somebody down and asking the government to do it for you.

Finally, the specific context of Yiannopoulos speaking on college campuses is worth exploring. It is fundamentally ironic that the speaking event is part of a right-wing attempt to silence left-leaning professors, on the grounds that left-leaning professors are silencing their students by putting limits on hate speech. Also, looking at the history of Gamergate, which violently suppressed the voices of women gamers, it is clear to me that Yiannopoulos wants free speech for himself alone. But that wouldn’t be clear to his followers or to confused bystanders.

2. How to handle accountability?

On the one hand, there is a call going out (https://itsgoingdown.org/shooter-unarmed-anti-racist-walks-free-authorities-silent/) asking why the alleged shooter has not been charged with a crime, and there is concern that failing to arrest them sends a message that it's fine to go into a crowd and shoot an unarmed person.

On the other hand, according to news sources (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/25/shooting-milo-yiannopoulos-speech-seattle-charges), the shooting victim himself is asking not for charges but for a "restorative justice" process. This comes out of a much-needed movement against the prison-industrial complex--which is the modern-day continuation of slavery.

Who exactly should be held accountable, and what form should that accountability take?

3. Did the university and the police take a side?

As local activist and blogger Geov Parrish has pointed out (http://geov.org/gp/?p=653), the police presence was unusual. Ordinarily, if a crowd of fascists and anti-fascists were occupying the same space, police would stand between the two sides. All the police were up front, protecting the people coming to see Yiannopoulos, leaving the people in the crowd unprotected.

4. What can the feminist science fiction community contribute to this conversation?

The science fiction community has had its own run-ins with Gamergaters, in the form of the man who calls himself “Voice of God.” He invoked the right to free speech after calling author N.K. Jemisin an extremely vile name on an official Science Fiction Writers of America forum, and there was a hue and cry over his ultimate ejection from SFWA. He went on to start his own publishing house and rig the Hugo Awards through his “Rabid Puppies” campaign. Along the way, liberals and feminists became rebranded as “social justice warriors” -- and, as warriors, a legitimate target for attack.

There is a thorough treatment of these events in an article on Eruditorumpress.com, in an article whose title begins with the strangely appropriate beginning “Guided by the Beauty of Their Weapons. ” ((http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/guided-by-the-beauty-of-their-weapons-an-analysis-of-theodore-beale-and-his-supporters/)

Science fiction fans ultimately decided, through voting and much discussion, that we wanted diverse voices rather than rabid dogs. That was a win. There are a ton of lessons to be learned here. And some of them are extremely relevant to ongoing attempts to deal with Yiannopoulos’ tactics. I’m just not sure what they are.

5. How soon will the shooting victim recover?

I left this question for last, but it is topmost on my mind. Although the struggle going on here is political, it is also deeply personal. At the same time as we are fighting fascism, we are also trying to heal the hurts in our communities, and this is one of many. In the days after the shooting, his situation was upgraded from "in critical condition" to "stable" to "recovering." May he make a full recovery.

And in the meantime, there is a fundraiser for his medical expenses, which are unknown at this point.

Fundraiser link: https://www.crowdrise.com/medical-fundraiser-for-iww-and-gdc-member-shot-in-seattle/fundraiser/gdcsteeringcommittee

Quote of the day

The orator of violence is merely an instrument of dictation by tics and reflexes. There's nothing gratifyingly original about the language of attack, in which old speech plays through the accuser; it's the one who speaks the damage who becomes its sounding board. (I'm not inching toward a sneaking sympathy for the utterer of hate: that he himself is not remotely in possession of his language does nothing whatsoever to soften his words as they streak through him to crash onto their target.) Rage speaks monotonously. The righteousness of wrathful diction's vocabulary sorely restricts it, the tirade marked by that lack of reflection which alone lets the raging speaker run on and on. Once any awareness of his repetitiousness creeps over him, rather than feel vindicated by the tradition which is driving him, he's more likely to feel embarrassed enough to stop. His fury may be exaggerated by his helplessness at being mastered by his own language (whether or not he gives this description to his subjugation). For the language of anger is so dictatorial that it won't allow him to enjoy any conviction that he's voicing his own authenticity. Meanwhile, my very existence as the butt of his accusation is maddening to him, since under his onsalught, I'm apparently nothing for myself any longer but am turned into a mere thing-bearer of his passion. --Denise Riley, Impersonal Passion: Language As Affect