SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The fine folks over at The Tennessean bring us this interesting bit of news:
Inspired by a Breitbart News editor whose speeches have spurred protests at colleges across the country, state lawmakers on Thursday touted a bill that they said would protect free speech on Tennessee campuses.
While discussing the bill in a news conference, sponsors Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley referenced the protests against controversial conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a senior editor at Breitbart. Violence erupted at a protest against a planned Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley, prompting officials there to cancel the speech. The lawmakers indicated that the violence had hampered the expression of conservative ideas at Berkeley. Similar issues have cropped up in Tennessee, they said.
Daniel, R-Knoxville, called his legislation "the Milo bill," and said it was "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."
Hensley, R-Hohenwald, said the bill was specifically tailored to defend students with conservative views that he said had been silenced in the past.
"We've heard stories from many students that are honestly on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom," Hensley said. "We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech."
Glad to see my state getting this correct even though they can't pull their heads out of their asses about broadband competition.
[Ed. Note: The current bill has no summary on the Tennessee General Assembly site, but it is likely similar or identical to the previous year's version from the same sponsors which died in committee.]
(Score: 5, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @03:57AM
It is not ok when the primary purpose of speech is to cause violence. Milo has come really close to being nothing but this, and if some alt-right types want to flaunt the bloody shirt of free speech about this, well that is just more of the same. Incitement.
So I would propose a test for free speech: First, it has to be speech. That means actual communication of ideas, not just dog-whistles and race-baiting and being all gay only for effect. Second, it has to be sincere. If someone is making an argument they do not actually hold, just for the purpose of lulz or in the service of The Order of the Golden Apple, they have no right to be heard. Third, the criteria for hate speech always apply. If the purpose of such speech is to implicitly intimidate, frighten, scare, or silence anyone, such speech can be opposed, and opposed prior to its execution. Even when the "chilling effects" are unintentional.
An example: Philosopher Peter Singer holds some rather extreme views on several issues, which is fine. One of these view is the idea that, from a utilitarian point of view, persons whose lives promise more suffering than pleasure would be better off being euthanized. Yes, we could debate all day about this. But Professor Singer was invited to give a talk at a German University on this subject. There were protests, he was shut down, not allowed to give his lecture. His response, much like the Morgany Buzzington, is that the Germans have not really learned the value of free speech. But anyone with a moral compass would say, you do not give a talk about euthanizing persons with birth-defects in a country where only a generation or two ago that was Nazi policy. Political Correctness? Damn straight. Other people call it, manners.
Milo is doing much the same thing, but probably intentionally where Singer just seems to be oblivious. Being given a voice by a university does in fact lend a smidgen of credence to the ideas being presented. No respectable university would allow an Electric Universe proponent to give a talk, or a Scientologist, or a National Socialist Workers Party representative. There are somethings that we can talk about, we can disagree on. But there are others that we risk giving standing to, by even allowing them into the conversation. Fake news? Alt-right? They just want to be allowed to sit at the adult table. But any adult knows that would be a serious mistake. So I say, a ball-gag for Milo! He will probably enjoy it, and he will then be able to tell us all about the violence inherent in the political correctness system. "Did you see that? This is what I'm on about! The mainstream media is trying to silence those of us with "different" opinions!" Poor Milo. So sad. It's true. So sade. Marquis de Sade.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:08AM
Do you truly care more about political correctness than the free exchange of ideas? In that case, I cannot agree with you in any way. If you refuse to allow an argument because it is "offensive", then you can refuse to allow any argument whatsoever for the same reason. I am offended by your argument on this matter, so it should cease to be presented. I demand that you never make postings such as this one again, because to do so is bad manners.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:20AM
I cannot agree with you in any way.
And I to you, oh amphibolous Anonymous Coward, cannot reply, since you clearly do not comprehend the difference between "ideas" and "offence". Here is an example. Racism is wrong because it treats your fellow human beings differently when there is no legitimate reason to do so. That is an idea, and I could make an argument. But if you say, "Reverse Racism! Political Correctness Run Amok!", that is not an idea. It is you. And you have no ideas, because you are stupid, racist, and probably have had carnal relations with Milo. See what we did there? We went from a potentially intellectual discussion about justice and human rights, to me calling you out like the cowardly backwards racist son-of-a-barnacle that you are! I wish you would not make me reduce myself to your level so much. It really is quite offensive.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by art guerrilla on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:59PM
thank you for proving you know nothing of the principles of free speech, nor freedom in general...
(go back and re-read your chomsky, moron)
what *is* amusing is the complete lack of self-awareness in your custom-made definitions to fit your 'morals', never for a second realizing you are acting in the EXACT mirror-image of the presumptuous and dictatorial manner as your adversaries...
we *are* amused...
oh, by the by, there is also no such thing as 'hate speech', 'hate crimes', and all the rest of that snowflake claptrap...
you have the right to NOT be assaulted; you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @05:29PM
here, here!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @12:15AM
There, there. Poor thing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by https on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:01AM
There are quite a few ideas that don't qualify for the moniker "civil discourse". For example, Milo & crew's inference that being black means you deserve a premature and violent death is an idea that doesn't need free exchange - it needs a kick in the balls. With a baseball bat.
Suggesting such arguments are being shouted down because they are offensive (1) is false, and (2) and says a fuck of a lot about you.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by jmorris on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:17AM
Citation needed because I have watched the live stream of several of Milo's stops in his "Dangerous Faggot" tour and never seen anything that, in a sane world, would be all that objectionable. Trollish? Often. Intended to provoke a bit? Yes. Stand up comedy? Yes. Incitement to violence? No. Mostly what he is doing is what used to be called "Speaking truth to power." The Left wants to pretend, when it suits their purposes, that they are not "the Man" now, that plucky malcontents aren't going to now be poking their system to try to get a reaction in exactly the same way they themselves did a generation ago.
If you can't see that Cultural Marxism and "Intersectionality" doesn't have far more opportunity for ridicule and baiting than any old "sexually repressed" establishment authority figure in the '60s it only means you are the one getting laughed at. The modern university campus is what is called a "target rich environment" for people like Milo. And get used to it because he will become legion as it doesn't take much to duplicate what he has done.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:47AM
If you can't see that Cultural Marxism
Could some one please kick jmorris in the balls? It will probably be the closest to "sex" that he gets this decade! Maybe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:20PM
Silly fungus - you're jealous of the Morris!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:20AM
My god your reliance on buzz words is annoying! You have no original thoughts, just key phrases dropped by talk radio and promoted throughout the news cycle. They are manipulating you, manufacturing consensus by seeding specific words and phrases so that all your buddies say the same things and you go "omg this guy gets it too!". Sadly your both brainwashed pawns... Gj on being a sucker.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:22PM
"My god your reliance on buzz words is annoying! You have no original thoughts, just key phrases dropped by talk radio and promoted throughout the news cycle. They are manipulating you, manufacturing consensus by seeding specific words and phrases so that all your buddies say the same things and you go "omg this guy gets it too!". Sadly your both brainwashed pawns... Gj on being a sucker."
That's EXACTLY what I told the annoying progressive who followed me around Walmart last weak.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:44PM
Even the AC who sticks up for jmorris can't come up with an original thought! "What you said, but in Wallymart!" It's almost too perfect of a setup, right down to the shopping venue, but I can't imagine someone sarcastically defending jmorris.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:01PM
never seen anything that, in a sane world, would be all that objectionable
He didn't get kicked off twitter for being a swell guy.
That's one of those statements that has everything to do with who you are and nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Half your posts on soylent are nothing more than animus directed at racial and sexual minorities.
Of course you wouldn't find any of it objectionable. You are too busy cheering him on.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:11PM
He didn't get kicked off twitter for being a swell guy
Back on January 24, I submitted a thing about violent vigilantism.
It was "Accepted" but never made the front page.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:23AM
There are quite a few ideas that don't qualify for the moniker "civil discourse". For example, Milo & crew's inference that being black means you deserve a premature and violent death is an idea that doesn't need free exchange - it needs a kick in the balls. With a baseball bat.
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people? That people should use their own free speech to launch vicious insults at them? That people should use violence against them? That universities and other places shouldn't allow them to give speeches? I would agree with the first one but not the other two, since I value the concept of freedom of speech even if I think the speech is horrendous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:04AM
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people?
That they should die in a fire? That they should die in a fire, with a red hot poker up their ass? I really have a hard time imagining the appropriate treatment for the alt-right racist idiots that have foisted Trump on the American people. But Chinese Buddhist afterlife porn is helpful! Dead, by a thousand cuts? Dead by being tied to a chimney and slowly roasting to death? Dead, by demons with phalluses with the most amazing innovations, not for your pleasure. Death by having the entire civilized world ridicule you, and your President, and his "Cabinet", and Kellyane and Ginger and Spicy, and their little dog too. Wait. Trump does not have a dog? Fuck, even G W Bush had a god-damned Whitehouse dog! What the hell is he doing? Grabbing Pussies in the Whitehouse? Well, we saw how well that worked out a couple of administrations ago.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:27PM
^ this ^
Whatever happened to the concept, "I despise what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death if necessary."
Let's take televangelists for instance. I've never heard one, or even heard OF one, that I can respect. If/when I get trapped into listening to one for even a minute or two, I'm thinking, "Why don't you STFU you cretin?" At the very same time, if some left/dem/progressive/liberal/whatever attempted to silence the inane imbecile, I'd be far more "offended" than I am by the babbling fool himself.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:05AM
You can care about both. They aren't mutually exclusive. Freedom of speech is not an absolute, not license for anyone to say anything whatsoever anywhere and anytime they want, no. We have laws against libel and slander. That means, you can't fabricate a video of people you dislike that seems to show them molesting children or swindling seniors or something else heinous, then spread it around, trying to fool others into believing those fabricated activities really happened. That's libel. You also can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. Would it be okay, would it be free speech, to post the names and addresses of every police officer in the city on a public site?
In this specific case, sure, this Milo can say what he wants. But universities are not obliged to let him visit their campuses and disrupt the school day.
This ugly attack on a transgender person is similar to McCarthy's last days. McCarthy resorted to talking trash about a young law graduate that everyone already knew was a Communist sympathizer, merely to avoid having to talk about more substantive subjects. A random person's career and good name was less important to McCarthy than a few more minutes of evading questions he had to answer anyway soon after. The reply was the famous line: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?" That was what sunk McCarthy. People saw loud and clear the sheer meanness and cruelty of the man, and abandoned him in droves.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:29AM
We have laws against libel and slander.
Which you don't have to agree with.
You also can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.
Straight out of a case that resulted in war protestors being imprisoned. Of course, I don't even agree with the logic. If someone reacts to your speech by being violent or causing damage, that's on them.
Would it be okay, would it be free speech, to post the names and addresses of every police officer in the city on a public site?
I think so, yes.
In this specific case, sure, this Milo can say what he wants. But universities are not obliged to let him visit their campuses and disrupt the school day.
Then they can't claim to value free speech very much. I also don't think they should be accepting money from the government in that case.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:49AM
IMO, when you start making shit up, to incite outrage directed at a specific group (one person in the case of libel), you cross the line into hate speech.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:32AM
Even if it is hate speech, hate speech should be legal.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:18AM
hate speech should be legal.
Yeah, but speech that hates hate speech should not. And speech that tries to stop hate speech, well we obviously cannot allow that! And speech that shots paint balls into the heads of hate speakers, not cool! But lead projectiles at random proponents of free speech? OK? Nah, I always say, encourage the racists and the Nazis, take pictures of the bastards, and dry-gulch them when the least suspect it. Not that any law abiding person would ever do such a thing! But we could, if we wanted to. So perhaps, maybe, it is alright to shut down such rancid provocateurs such a Milo, before things come to such a pass? Or are you a Anal Pumpernichal Nazi? Well, are you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:42AM
What about your imbecilic comments? They contribute nothing other than more posts to sort through in favor of actual insight.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:02PM
Hate speech is legal.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday February 13 2017, @03:16AM
The problem with hate speech is that it leads to genocide.
That is why it is illegal in many jurisdictions.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Monday February 13 2017, @05:33PM
In Canada, hate speech is against the law. It is defined as knowingly spreading false news to incite hatred against an identifiable group. It is extremely difficult to get a conviction in a case of hate speech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:37AM
And we're back to those days with the rise of Trump. He can say the most vile and factually incorrect shit, but when he is criticized legitimately he throws a hissy fit more appropriate to a 5 year old. The bigots have had enough shaming (and to be fair PC has gotten ridiculously out of hand) and are pushing back. Too bad for them but the world is comprised of more decent folk than bigoted blowhards, so this is just the dying gasp for relevancy.
Also, free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed a platform wherever you'd like.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @09:33AM
The bigots have had enough shaming (and to be fair PC has gotten ridiculously out of hand
No, and no. Bigots never get enough shaming, until they cease to be bigots. This is why certain allegedly Native Americans need to get their shit together and figure out which side they are on. Because they are not on the side they think they are on. And PC? Fuck your PC, shove it right up your ass (not you, AC, but those to whom you refer), because it does not fucking exist, anymore than the mythical SJWs! And I ought to know, since I am one. So fuck Trump, fuck dTrumpf, fuck his supporters, fuck those who voted from him! OK, you made your point. Now do the right thing to save your own ass and that of your country. White people are stupid, we know that. Trump products suck, we know that. Jeff Sessions is a racist asshole, and the Attorney General of the United States of the Confederacy. Oh, Shit. So, fuck you, racists! Fuck you, anti-semites! Fuck you, misogynists and zenophobes, and arachniphobes, and acrophobes, and trisdecacalliaphobists! All of you scaredy bastarts! Boo!, Trump! Boo!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:47AM
Sweety, the only violence caused by Milo's speaking has been from the left.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:06PM
FFS, who mods this shit up? Aristarchus is in effect telling us, "Censorship is bad, unless censorship conforms to my expectations!" Or, maybe more accurately, he is saying, "You're doing censorship all wrong, let me show you how it should be done!"
And, for that, he gets modded "insightful"?
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:43PM
I am convinced that this site has been targeted for wrongthink, and is being shilled on accordingly. Suddenly, after Trump's victory, this site went from about 50-50 wrongthink vs progressive, and now the modding is like 20-80.
Call me paranoid, but I can post objective fucking documented proof that the CIA was studying memes and how to control and combat them. Nothing is beyond possibility anymore.
Look up "Media Matters", their ties to Clinton, and their stated internal purpose - to "dynamically influence" opinon and content on the internet through ratings and pageviews.
Also note that major MSM sites have been buying traffic from China according to Alexa
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/fake-news-fake-stats-half-ny-times-wapo-guardian-traffic-china-wth/ [thegatewaypundit.com]
We live in dangerous times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @12:37AM
I am convinced that this site has been targeted for wrongthink, and is being shilled on accordingly. Suddenly, after Trump's victory, this site went from about 50-50 wrongthink vs progressive, and now the modding is like 20-80.
Look up "shilling", it does not mean what you think it means. And loud does not indicate numbers or even percentages. We (progressives) surround you!
Call me paranoid, but I can post objective fucking documented proof that the CIA
Oh look! Someone from Infowars! How quaint! Or it could just be that the real support for the far right in America, let alone on this site, is around 12%, same as the deadender death-eaters that supported Bush at the bitter end.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @01:51AM
You surround everything in the same way that a rancid hunk of feces surrounds my cock as I push deeper and deeper into your rectum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 14 2017, @02:33AM
"We (progressives) surround you!"
Something like the other AC said. You surround us like the stench of meat rotting in a septic tank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:32PM
> So I would propose a test for free speech: First, it has to be speech. That means actual communication of ideas, not just dog-whistles and race-baiting and being all gay only for effect.
Hypothetically: an artist goes "all gay" to make people react and think about their reactions. Unfortunately any communication is communication of ideas, yes even race-baiting communication, so this can't discriminate.
> Second, it has to be sincere. If someone is making an argument they do not actually hold, just for the purpose of lulz or in the service of The Order of the Golden Apple, they have no right to be heard.
Many Christians say that divorce is wrong but then get divorced. How could sincerity be objectively judged?
> Third, the criteria for hate speech always apply. If the purpose of such speech is to implicitly intimidate, frighten, scare, or silence anyone, such speech can be opposed, and opposed prior to its execution. Even when the "chilling effects" are unintentional.
Yes to the former. To unintentional cases - no! I myself used EXTREMELY race-baiting imagery in a publication once, unintentionally. Because I don't live in the USA, I simply didn't know that some actions and images are 'club patch' equivalents for lynch-mob racists. I literally did not know. It's probably my most embarrassing moment. But nobody should go to jail for a mistake they could not have reasonably forseen. I wasn't driving with my eyes closed, and my (normally diligent) editor was in a rush and didn't read it, just ran a spellchecker; she isn't at fault either, and also doesn't deserve to be a criminal.
> So sade. Marquis de Sade.
3 u aristarchus. I hope you and Milo end up together, and that you hold the reins, but don't hold back.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday February 12 2017, @11:56PM
Political Correctness? Damn straight. Other people call it, manners.
And philosophers would call it philosophizing (assuming that's the term they use in that discipline).