"Free speech" and engaging those we disagree with

[Spider-Dan]

On Friday, Bill Maher had Milo Yiannopoulos on his show, Real Time With Bill Maher.  Milo is the tech editor for Breitbart News and is a notorious conservative firebrand; he was permanently banned from Twitter last year over accusations of harassment of SNL's Leslie Jones.  Milo is also a frequent target of liberal protests, particularly when he has been invited to give speeches.

When Milo's appearance on Real Time was announced, another regular guest, Jeremy Scahill, cancelled his scheduled appearance, saying in part:

"But Milo Yiannopoulos is many bridges too far.  He has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes.  There is no value in "debating" him.  Appearing on Real Time will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign.  It will be exploited by Yiannopoulos in an attempt to legitimize his hateful agenda."

Bill Maher criticized Scahill for this, responding that "If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night."  And when the show took place, Maher and Milo primarily talked about the importance of allowing dissenting opinion, even if distasteful, to further our free and open society.

And then over the weekend, video of Milo defending pedophilia surfaced.  Suddenly, the same camps who insisted that those who would try to silence Milo for advocating racist principles are stifling free and open debate... well, those groups no longer seem to be be so interested in making sure that alternative viewpoints are heard.  Immediately, Milo was disinvited from CPAC and his book deal was cancelled.  (Bill Maher has yet to weigh in.)

---

It seems to me that this entire episode is just another indicator of the obvious: racism is considered to be within the realm of "acceptably distasteful" speech, but pedophilia is not.  (And it's clearly not a matter of legality; celebrities talk openly about use of illegal drugs, and even make popular songs and movies glorifying them.)

The next time someone tries to tell you that protesting someone with terrible, hateful ideas is anti-democratic oppression of open debate, think back to how Simon & Schuster, the erstwhile publisher for Milo Yiannopoulos' book, was perfectly happy to print whatever vile things he had to say - in the interests of freedom of speech - when he was only saying hateful things about minorities and immigrants.  But the moment he speaks approvingly about adult men with 13-year-old boys, the door is slammed shut and we cannot tolerate such immoral viewpoints.

Illuminating.

[Phishfan]

I watched the segment and thought it was softball.

Now to get to your positioning, no it isn't a matter of legality. It is a matter of his defending abuse, the actual harm of another human being. I admit I don't follow the guy but from what I understand, his racist statements have never been along the lines of harming anyone. While I don't agree with statements about blacks being inferior, I can differentiate the difference between that statement and one calling for lynchings. One is distasteful and ignorant, the other is promoting physical harm.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Breaking news:  There is a significant portion of the population that hold racist opinions, there is also a significant number who are okay with drug use. However, there is however not such tolerance of pediphelia. 

[Spider-Dan]

Now to get to your positioning, no it isn't a matter of legality. It is a matter of his defending abuse, the actual harm of another human being. I admit I don't follow the guy but from what I understand, his racist statements have never been along the lines of harming anyone. While I don't agree with statements about blacks being inferior, I can differentiate the difference between that statement and one calling for lynchings. One is distasteful and ignorant, the other is promoting physical harm.

No, Milo was talking about consensual pedophilia, not rape.

One might be inclined to retort that children are legally incapable of providing consent... which, again, makes it a question of legality.  But I'm pretty sure that there is virtually no one interested in promoting free and open debate about whether 13-year-olds should legally be allowed to consent to sex.

Which brings us right back to the original point: such discussion is outside the bounds of being "acceptably distasteful," but when it comes to giving racists and ethno-nationalists a seat at the discussion table, suddenly we have to defeat them by encouraging open debate?

Breaking news:  There is a significant portion of the population that hold racist opinions, there is also a significant number who are okay with drug use. However, there is however not such tolerance of pediphelia.

Exactly.  Those who insist that we have to defeat the ethno-nationalists through the free exchange of ideas aren't so gung ho about the principles of open democratic discussion when it comes to pedophiles.

In other words, we can debate racists because racism isn't that bad, but we can't debate pedophiles because pedophilia is absolutely unacceptable.  This is a value judgement, and I think it needs to be explicitly acknowledged.

Although on a positive note, it's good to see that even in the Age of Trump, the ultimate political disqualifier still applies: dead girl or live boy.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Difference is pediphilia is a lot simpler.

For the most part everyone agrees racism is bad just like we agree pediphilia is bad.  And we all agree what pediphelia is. 

There is not general agreement on what is racism and what is not....I.E. does AA combat racism or promote it.  Is BLM a racist organization or one that is a reaction to racism.  Both you and I tend to see policies that have a racist result as being racist even if the don't have a race component built in...e.g. Voter id laws.  And don't view policies that try to fix historical problems as being racists such as aa.  However, it is valid to say a policy of giving a preference to minority's is the very definition of racism-- judging someone on the basis of race.

[Spider-Dan]

I think that still misses the point.

It would be one thing to argue, "I don't think the things Milo has said are racist," which is an argument that can be addressed.  That, however, isn't what Bill Maher et al. are saying; they are saying that we must use the free exchange of ideas to defeat even those whose views we find abhorrent.

...except if we find their views REALLY abhorrent, in which case we gotta shut that nonsense down immediately and end the discussion.

The CPAC organizers originally claimed they invited Milo because they were "standing up for free speech."  But when that free speech turned out to be something they vehemently disagree with (as opposed to something that they think is overblown and/or no longer exists), suddenly "free speech" is not so much of a concern anymore.

That's the point here.  These self-styled defenders of open discourse are hiding behind a fake shroud of Freedom and Liberty, but when it comes time to defend free speech that they ACTUALLY disagree with, they disappear into the mists.

[CF DolFan]

These self-styled defenders of open discourse are hiding behind a fake shroud of Freedom and Liberty, but when it comes time to defend free speech that they ACTUALLY disagree with, they disappear into the mists.

This is what is really funny to me. The right says this all the time about the left. That is politics summarized. What you are doing is evil until me and my friends need to do it. Then we will make an excuse as to why it is OK.

Case in point. The nomination of a Supreme Court judge. There have been tons of hypocritical and two faced statements and stances made by both parties on this one subject depending on who did the nominating. That's the biggest failure of our country. We no longer work together but continually look for ways to divide and being a hypocrite is fine in doing so.

[Phishfan]

No, Milo was talking about consensual pedophilia, not rape.

There is no such thing and he says so in his apology.

"My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was."

I know he goes on to clarify things and even backtrack, so I guess we can take it all with a grain of salt what he really meant at the time he said his remarks.

[CF DolFan]

Since it appears you guys are interested in Milo I figure I'd post his press statement.

STATEMENT DELIVERED AT PRESS CONFERENCE 2/21/07

I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.

Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.
My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.
Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.

A few years ago I realized it was time to do something good with my life. I started focusing on work. But the black comedy, gallows humor and love of shock value I developed in my 20s did not go away.

I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I do say some things on the tapes that I do not mean and which do not reflect my views.
My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I am horrified by that impression.

I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics.

And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. I was also the first journalist in the UK to ask after Jimmy Savile’s death whether the real story of his rampant child abuse would ever be told. My professional record is very clear.

But I do understand that the videos you have seen, even though some of them were deceptively edited, paint a different picture. I am partly to blame.

I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is "about right." I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.

I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.

I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.

I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.

Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly. To repeat: I do not support pedophilia. It is a disgusting crime of which I have personally been a victim.

The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences. I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions.

But I am sorry to other abuse victims if my own personal way of dealing with what happened to me has hurt you.
I will never stop making jokes about taboo subjects. Go into any drag bar or gay club and you will see performers cracking jokes about clerical sexual abuse. I am not afforded that same freedom, because the media chooses to selectively define me as a political figure in some circumstances, and a comedian in others.

But I said some things on those internet live streams that were simply wrong.

My employer Breitbart News has stood by me when others caved. They have allowed me to carry conservative and libertarian ideas to communities that would otherwise never have heard them. They have been a significant factor in my success. I’m grateful for that freedom and for the friendships I forged there.

I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting, which is why today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.

When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them. For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.

My book, Dangerous, has received interest from publishers after my previous publisher Simon and Schuster informed me they no longer wished to release it. The book will come out this year as planned. I will be donating 10 per cent of my royalties to child sex abuse charities.

I haven’t ever apologized before. Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But to be a victim of child abuse and for the media to call me an apologist for child abuse is absurd.

I regret the things I said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything in my whole life. This isn't how I wanted my parents to find out about this.

But let's be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.

I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.
I started my career as a technology reporter who wrote about politics but I have since become something else. I am a performer with millions of fans in America and beyond. I’m grateful for the tens of thousands of messages of support I’ve received and I look forward to making you all laugh, cry and think for many decades to come.

My full focus is now going to be on entertaining and educating everyone, left, right and otherwise. If you want to brand or stereotype me, good luck with that.

Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want. America has a colossal free speech problem. The land of the First Amendment has some of the most oppressive social restrictions on free expression anywhere in the western world. I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression.

I want everyone in America, the greatest country in the history of human civilization, to be able to be, do, read and say anything. I will never stop fighting for your right to do that.

Thank you.

[Spider-Dan]

This is what is really funny to me. The right says this all the time about the left. That is politics summarized. What you are doing is evil until me and my friends need to do it. Then we will make an excuse as to why it is OK.

In this particular case, I am also criticizing ostensibly-liberal Bill Maher.  So this isn't a left-right criticism as much as it is a criticism of the idea that we must always defend the right to make abhorrent speech in public forums.

Generally speaking, I'm in favor of giving people as much rope as they want to hang themselves with.  However, there comes a point where respectable mainstream institutions giving a microphone to fringe elements enables them and normalizes their vile statements.

There is no part of the First Amendment, or any other free speech law, that demands that we give abhorrent speech a spot on stage to lecture at a college or a chair at the table for a television broadcast.  I don't think we should shut down Stormfront, but I do think we should stop handing microphones to neo-Nazis.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Spider,

Don't conflate CPAC and Maher.  

Maher is a free speecher, but is not racist.  CPAC actively promotes policies to expand white privilege, they are not free speech proponents.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

There is no part of the First Amendment, or any other free speech law, that demands that we give abhorrent speech a spot on stage to lecture at a college or a chair at the table for a television broadcast.  I don't think we should shut down Stormfront, but I do think we should stop handing microphones to neo-Nazis.

Skipping college b/c two different standards if public vs private.  But with Bill Mayer etc it is an economic issue.  Major problem is the far right gets page clicks both from those who agree and disagree.  Example from the election Sanders would make a sensible policy proposal on the same day Trump rambles and both the left and right would discuss Trump and ignore Bernie. So Trump would get more coverage. 

Stop responding to Brietbart articles and start posting and forwarding Rolling Stones (but not the stories about Brietbart the ones about how the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation)

[Spider-Dan]

CPAC used the same argument as Maher: we are giving a microphone to someone we (sometimes) disagree with because of the importance of free speech.  As you point out, their true underlying motivations are different (ratings vs. red meat for the base), but the public justification they offer is the same: we must not "silence" those we disagree with.

In this context, public vs. private colleges is not a factor.  Unless you're saying that public colleges should be required to give forum time to groups like NAMBLA...?

[Tenshot13]

One is distasteful, hateful and can be ambiguous, one is distasteful, hateful and illegal.  That's the difference.

[Spider-Dan]

As I already stated:

1) discussing illegal drugs is no less illegal
2) it is not illegal to advocate for changes in law; changes like lowering the age of consent

(Furthermore, in many contexts racism is also illegal, as per the Civil Rights Act.)

So must we give NAMBLA a microphone so they can make their case as to why age of consent laws should be changed?  Are we enemies of free speech if we don't put them on stage at a public college?