[Intro Music]
Hey, let's get into free speech!
I haven't done that recently, and totally am not sitting on hours of conversation on
the topic already...
Well, I am...
It's much harder to get motivated to edit hours of conversation than half an hour or less, especially
when a ten-minute video can ultimately take more than 8hrs of work.
But I think it's an important topic, and I also couldn't let some of this slide.
Rationality Rules: "but here lies the first point I want to make.
Angus is conflating two questions - one being "Is all speech protected by free speech?",
and the other being "Whose speech should we prioritise defending?", and he's acting
as if we must choose to either protect the speech of those we hate, or the speech of
those most under attack, when this simply isn't the case."
Actually, this can sometimes be the case.
And you will later actually demonstrate for me precisely how one person's speech can be
at odds with another person's ability to speeak - or ability to listen, for that matter - later
However, I will grant, for now at least, that the context of the discussion you're responding
to does not actually have this problem.
That it is, in fact, possible to protect both at once.
Rationality Rules: "If we say "All speech is protected" (which is not the same as
saying that all speech carries no consequence, or that all speech can be exerted anywhere
and anytime), then we get to defend our own speech, our adversaries', and those who're
most under attack (and let's face it, the latter two are often the same).
Or in other words, if we say "Free speech means free speech for all people and all ideas"
then priority simply isn't a concern."
Again, I'm going to postpone putting where priority is a concern until it's demonstrated hands down
for me.
But I do want to take a moment to point out the distinction.
You said this:
Rationality Rules: "which is not the same as saying that all speech carries no consequence,
or that all speech can be exerted anywhere and anytime"
I agree that speech has consequences.
I agree that this absolute view of free speech does not apply at all places and times - it
doesn't apply, for example, to forcing me to let anyone stand in my home and speak if
I want them to leave.
I would say that any reasonable person puts limits somewhere - the question is where and
why.
But an absolute view, requiring no restriction, does necessarily mean that all speech is allowed
wherever and whenever it is applied.
If someone happens to apply the concept to everywhere and all time, then it does come
out to mean that all speech is allowed in all places and times.
This is the unfortunate rational end of declaring anything less than absolutism means someone
doesn't care about free speech - a concept I still seem to run into occasionally.
The moment you place anything above it even in a limited context, some of those who agree with
you about it being absolute can come out against you as someone who hates, or at least doesn't
care about, free speech.
Which is, of course, ridiculous... just a bit of ridiculousness I get from time to time.
Rationality Rules: "Now as a slight side-note, I want to emphasize that the reason I'm
using Angus' defence of this position (which is held by a hell of a lot more people than
you might think) is because it's a sophisticated rendition (a steelman, if you will),"
I want to take a moment to consider just how concerning that graph actually is.
While this video gets very wishy-washy and all over the place in general, that graph
is actually discussing laws.
That is one area that we need to make our decisions very carefully.
Were the entire argument actually about protecting absolute free speech in a legal sense, I would
not be responding at all.
There may be ways to relatively safely enact such laws and protections, but it's very dangerous
ground to tread on.
The possible issues can be seen in many places that have such laws, or other restrictions
on freedom of speech.
In the sense of avoiding all, or at least damned close to all, laws prohibiting speech
I am an absolutist, or at least as incredibly close as I can imagine being.
Rationality Rules: "but before we move on, I think it's necessary to give an example
of what this position looks like in practise, because it ain't pretty:
"I believe in open discussion."
"You believe in a platform for hate!"
"And oppression."
"A platform for hate!"
"May I respond?"
"No.
I'm not interested."
"I believe in open dis--" "I don't care what you believe!"
"We don't want you here!"
"You're not welcome here!"
"I will stand--" "You're not welcome here."
"Just go away!"
"Go away!"
"Excuse me."
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
"Go away!"
"Go, go, go!"
"Nazi scum, off our streets!"
"Nazi scum, off our streets!"
"Nazi scum, off our streets!"
"Nazi scum, off our streets!"
"Nazi scum, off our streets!"
So here we have someone very politely defending free speech by holding a sign that reads "The
right to openly discuss ideas must be defended", and yet (because the protesters are against
the speech of those they hate) he's been silenced, physically maneuvered, and called
a Nazi… again, for saying that everyone has the right to express their thoughts…now
needless to say, I don't like Nazis, but for me the problem here is outrageously obvious!"
Okay, so here we have an example of where speech itself can clash with freedom of speech.
Obviously, the physically pushing him away is not speech and is beyond it.
But did you notice what else came up as a complaint here?
Being called a Nazi.
Being silenced, separate from physical action.
Both of these were done with speech.
And, had it not escalated to forcing him away, we would have a case of "whose speech do we
defend?"
The speech of the obnoxious people insulting him and cutting him off, or the speech of
the person politely holding a sign supporting free speech?
I'd certainly be more in favor of the polite guy, even if they'd never gone beyond mere
words.
I don't like the way those other people were behaving at all.
But a consistent, absolutist view of free speech applied to that situation, prior the
force, would necessitate defending their right to call him a Nazi and say they don't care
what he has to say instead of hearing him out.
And in a legal sense, I would - I don't think they should be arrested for it, fined for
it, etc. - but I'd do so while also criticizing what they were doing there.
And possibly while pointing out the absolute lack of evidence (in that video, at least)
that he was, in fact, a Nazi.
When he gets back on track is where I, honestly, begin to get a bit irritated and eventually angry.
Here...
Rationality Rules: "Anyhow, to get back on track, here's the second reason that Angus
gave:" "When we're talking about free speech
and protecting free speech we need to be very, very clear on what we mean.
Because, Milo Yiannopoulos does not have a right to speak at the UC Berkeley campus,
and I say that as a First Amendment absolutist.
Richard Spencer does not have a First Amendment right to speak on any campus, and again, I
say that as a First Amendment absolutist.
The American campus is a place where it's a community, and it's an institution – it
is not a place where anyone has an equal right to speak."
Rationality Rules: "So first off:" "So does Richard Spencer have a right to
speak at college campuses?
Turns out legally he does [...] Let's say that your college has a policy whereby…
a public college has a policy whereby you can rent space, um, then Richard Spencer has
as much right to rent that space at a public college as anyone else does, and you can't
bar him."
Now, let's look at a little bit MORE of what the original argument said here:
Angus Johnston: "we're talking about free speech and protecting free speech, we need
to be very, very clear on what we mean because Milo Yiannopoulos does not have a right to
speak at the UC Berkeley campus and I say that as a 1st Amendment absolutist.
Richard Spencer does not have a 1st Amendment right to speak on any campus and again I say
that as a 1st Amendment absolutist.
The American campus is a place where it's a community and it's an institution.
It is not a place where anybody has an equal right to speak.
"Fascists are like vampires, they can't come through the door unless you invite them in.
They don't have a right to come onto your campus.
This is what Richard Spencer has done in the recent past, is he has scoured the nation
for campuses, public campuses that have a policy that say that anybody may speak, that's
not a 1st Amendment thing, that's a policy thing.
They have decided to open their doors to anybody who wants to spend the money to rent a room.
It's basically like renting a room at a Holiday Inn and they do this to raise funds.
"I'll be done in a second, but they do this to raise funds.
They do it to be nice to people in the community who might not have a place for the knitting
club to meet and so what Richard Spencer does is he engages with this policy in a parasitical
way and what campuses are doing in many cases is they are changing that policy."
So, as you can see, the first thing Rationality Rules quoted here was already addressed to
a degree before it was even stated in the original debate.
What the response provided did was not only shift back away from the First Amendment,
which is not the entirety of free speech discussions, but shift to how a combination of factors
can result in a handful of places where literally anybody has the right to speak.
That this has to be, specifically, a public campus, and that it only works while discussing
spaces that are either rented out to or freely accessible to anybody at all should actually
give a hint as to what's going on.
This is supposedly a steelmanned version of the argument, and yet the underlying point
- that these platforms usually discussed are not a right protected by the First Amendment
(contrary to the beliefs of some) - seems to have been soundly missed.
Rationality Rules: "And secondly (and more importantly), despite Angus saying that when
we talk about free speech we have to be "Very, very clear on what we mean" he ironically
didn't refer to free speech… he referred to the First Amendment, and they're actually
not the same thing:"
I agree, they're not.
Though I would suspect it is actually an act of, in fact, being very, very clear about
what was meant.
"What campuses are doing in many cases is they are changing that policy.
Texas A&M; did it.
Richard Spencer wanted to come and they said, "Okay, well, we're going to close our open
door policy."
Nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
His 1st Amendment rights weren't violated there,
but if you look at the media coverage and the public debate around all these fascists
on campus, you will see it framed in a very unsophisticated
way as if what were in play was the 1st Amendment
and that is very frequently not the case."
That may be showing a problem - that one person wants to talk about the First Amendment specifically
while another wants to talk about free speech more broadly - but I'm not sure it's ironic.
Brendan O'Neil: "At the New York Law school, a couple of weeks ago I was debating Angus
Johnston [...] and he describes himself as a First Amendment absolutist... however, he
supports the new forms of censorship on campus, like trigger warnings, or shutting down meetings
that are too extreme, and so on, and as he said this I thought 'You know what?
There actually isn't necessarily a contradiction between those two things', because you can
support the restriction on any government intervention of censorship but also giving
a green light towards the more informal censorship."
Good job!
You've figured out that one can be a First Amendment absolutist without also being a
free speech absolutist when discussing things beyond government.
Way to go!
[Exasperated sigh]
Now, I need to go back to something just said:
Brendan O'Neill: "he supports the new forms of censorship on campus, like trigger warnings,"
I'm gonna have to call bullshit right here.
Allow me to put two definitions up for you.
This is what the word "censorship" means.
And this is what the phrase "trigger warning" means.
Guess what?
They're not the fucking same.
This is as bad as the misunderstandings surrounding safe spaces.
This is up there with insisting on limitless freedom of speech for everyone, even the most
vicious internet trolls, then arguing that your freedom of speech is violated when you're
called a racist or whatever.
Way to butcher the language people!
[Inhale] [sigh]
For those who may be confused as to why I just "lost it" there, a trigger warning is
actually an extension of the preexisting content warnings that have long existed on various
forms of media.
The basic, underlying idea is that some content - such as depictions or descriptions of a
rape - may cause certain people issues and, stemming from the medical use of the term,
"trigger" symptoms of mental illnesses such as PTSD or panic attacks.
As with the safe spaces, the concept can be and in some instances is taken too far.
Also, like safe spaces, it has come to be a place where the people ridiculing it are
talking about the excessive version, while the people supporting it are frequently not.
But there's this one potentially important detail about including a warning on your content,
whether it's traditional media, a syllabus, or online social media, whatever: It doesn't actually
mean removing anything at all from the rest of the content!
If I swear like a sailor in a video, and I decide to put a warning at the beginning of
it about obscene language because I think - rightly or wrongly, with or without good
reason - someone might come along and be harmed by it, or even if I do it merely because they
might be offended, you know what I haven't done?
Remove the fucking language this douche apparently thinks is being censored by that little bit
of god-damned text I just displayed.
I've only given you a heads-up that it existed, allowing you something of a chance to make
your decision to continue engaging in the content or not.
And ANYTHING beyond that going on, including the alleged examples of people opting out
of class content with no penalty because of those warnings, is actually a conversation
of something beyond trigger warnings themselves.
And this is only about halfway through Rationality Rules' video.
I've looked a bit further, and I know for a fact I have at least one more thing to address...but
I need to cool down for a bit first.
Thanks for hearing me out!
As always, civil discussion, suggestions, and constructive criticism are welcome
in the comments or via social media.
Feel free to rate, comment, and share.
If you want to hear more from me, subscribe and click the bell for notifications.
And checkout the description for any sources that I've used.
[Outro Music]
For more infomation >> Jak fungují TRENDY na YouTube?! - Duration: 2:54. 
For more infomation >> We Belong Together Forever | BL China | Couple Gay 2018 - Duration: 3:27. 
For more infomation >> Grandes documentales | Gigantes del Atlántico. Las Islas Azores. - Duration: 51:33. 
For more infomation >> Overwatch Moments #145 - Duration: 10:30. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét