*The following is a retooled repost of an older entry that I did. I was tired after a long day and I didn’t use my better judgement at the time when I published what was essentially a very rough first draft. It was disastrous. What people read (at least the intro,) gave the wrong idea of what I had in mind. I hope this newer one gives a better picture of my concerns. *
Last month, before infamous (now former) Breitbart editor, Milo Yiannopoulos, came onto Bill Maher’s show, journalist Jeremy Scahill decided to boycott appearing on the show because Yiannopoulos was booked. As a response, Maher defended himself:
“Liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech,… 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.”
‘Liberals will continue to lose’: Bill Maher defends Milo Yiannopoulos booking after panelist boycotts
The Washington Post
February 16, 2017
What Scahill was afraid of is featured in the following tweeted letter:
In the end, Milo ended up losing his job and book deal but does that make giving a known provocative hatemonger a larger audience okay? I can see exposing fringe ideals when they have little to no power, but when such said ideals are being pushed to the forefront since the 2016 Election, wouldn’t it have been more likely to backfire if the slip ups didn’t happen? Won’t giving any more attention to these very beliefs and ideals only serve to further give credence or legitimacy? It wasn’t like he lost his job for saying the usual trash, as he was just one representative of such ideologies that have now successfully found its way into our government and media. Despite that, Bill Maher took a victory lap while comparing Milo to a naughty little brother who pesters his siblings, which only down plays an individual who is actually more akin to Adam Cramer from the 1962 film, ‘The Intruder’.
This incident is emblematic of a larger question: In the time of neo-fascists and their willing affiliates usurping power, would it be hypocritical to deny them the same public platforms; especially now when they have acquired much power from the 2016 Election?
While researching information for this entry, I ran across the author, Darkhan Omirbek, who took the words straight out of my mouth. I’ll let his words state some more of my main points for me:
David Greenwald [publisher of Davis Vanguard] argues that we should not restrict the expression of bad ideas because first, we have to be consistent in our support of free speech, and second, tactically, such limitations do not give the results we want. Greenwald writes that attempts to squelch Mr. Yiannopoulos’ speech only make his voice stronger, and even if we manage to suppress him on campus, his ideas will not disappear. They might turn up on the Internet, where they might blossom, or very likely, he will go elsewhere to speak. The author suggests that we should ignore people like Milo Yiannopoulos, or if we wish, attack their ideas, but not their right to speech. He also agrees with Yiannopoulos that people today are too sensitive to alternative viewpoints and blames social media for exacerbating the problem.
We cannot take comfort in the notion that there is somehow an inverse correlation between freedom of expression and hatred on the Internet. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London, writes that the main drivers of online inflammatory comments, ortrolling, are anonymity and temporary identity loss. When we can hide our identity, we may feel that all restrictions are lifted and we may then show our worst hateful selves (The Guardian, Sept 18, 2014). Therefore, allowing people to express offensive speech publicly may even increase online trolling, as public speakers spread hate without any consequences. Meanwhile, the contamination of the Internet with excessive bigoted comments shows what might happen in our public discourse if we lift political correctness offline.
Furthermore, Greenwald asserts that the purpose of defamers is to attract attention and that to ignore them makes them lose their power. I would retort that sometimes ignoring actually empowers the perpetrator. In fact, we have seen in recent history how this response has led to an increase in totalitarian movements. In “The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of Small Minority” Nassim Taleb insists that a persistent intolerant minority may impose their ideals and beliefs on a tolerant majority, which ultimately brings us to another kind of tyranny (Medium, Aug 14, 2016). This is exactly what happened in Germany and Russia when fascists and communists came to power. Hitler was spreading hatred against Jewish people and those who ignored him ultimately paid a very high price. Because of this, Julia Serano, an American writer and activist, insists that tolerating intolerance is equal to supporting it and therefore it is right to not endure intolerance (Medium, Feb 6, 2017).
In addition, Greenwald advises to respond and to confront the speakers who seem to be offensive. This might work if you are a full member of a majority group where you can easily generate immense support, but as long as you are a minority and assailable that does not work. As Julia Serano puts it, harassing and intimidating speech is usually used to oppress vulnerable people, depriving them their right to speech – speech that paradoxically is protected by the First Amendment. When you are the only Muslim among hundreds of white people and one of them criticizes you and your religion, you cannot always reply сonfidently. Rather, you just try to defend yourself, desperately disproving the accusations; ironically, when you justify yourself it partly makes you seem guilty. In order to attack someone’s ideas, you have to have enough voice and community support.
Advocates of absolute free speech say that if we censor speech we will slide down the slippery slope toward tyranny. But the reality is that we have slippery slope on both sides and we can also fall to tyranny down the other side, if we do not identify proper limits to the First Amendment. Therefore, it is important to remonstrate against Milo Yiannopoulos and others like him who would promote hate speech on campus.
Darkhan Omirbek is a Presidential Bolashak Scholar from Kazakhstan
A Conundrum of Free Speech
The Davis Vanguard
March 15, 2017
We already have laws against defamatory statements, as well as perjury, false advertising and creating unnecessary panic. Clearly we have a variant of checks and balances against such abuses because there are unstated limits to the usage of free speech even under the First Amendment. When this illegitimate regime and their supporters propagate their ideologies, knowingly or through willful neglect spreads lies and misinformation, isn’t that similar or even somehow worse than the barking of a snake oil salesman? The main purpose behind the ideologies of neoreactionaries is the promotion of power for the few at the expense of disrespecting the rights of others. What other beliefs and ideals you look at, you can make an argument that a vast number have a right to existence, solely because their main foundations are to promote the better angels of human nature. Whatever corrupting influences gets built upon them, those main foundations are still there and could possibly be recovered. When neoreactionary foundations are concerned, there is nothing to recover because the foundation itself is corruption. Disrespect of others’ existence and disharmony within a society is their philosophy.
You all know we have the Second Amendment and there are people in this country who we know shouldn’t be trusted with guns, yet the Second Amendment absolutist would argue that a violent mentally unstable citizen should allowed to buy a gun with no barriers whatsoever. Though the First Amendment is not one that deals with tools of violence, speech can still be abused to hurt others. Then there’s this large group whose basic plan is to use their First Amendment rights to promote the disintegration of rights — including free speech — for everyone else not like them. Keep in mind they have people in power who can possibly do this if they get the chance, and an emboldened audience who discount real facts as propaganda and have been known for hostile reactions (violent even,) against innocent people, for exercising their own rights or just for being who they are. Would you still trust people, who you know have ill intentions, to not abuse their rights to get rid of yours?
NO, I’m not saying we should make it illegal for neoreactionaries to freely express themselves, but maybe reconsider (WITHOUT entertaining any possibility of government interference) being so laissez-faire with giving them public platforms, during a situation where they gained a lot of power and attention through a humongous victory, which in turn risks becoming something seemingly legitimate. By doing so, it is only laying the groundwork for the destruction of the rights of the country’s general populace, which is counterintuitive and self-destructive for an aspiring free society. The longer we let them say what they want throughout things like far reaching mediums, the more their spread their influence and strengthen their hold. If our enemies get their way, it doesn’t matter whether you or the people next to you believe the vitriol or not, you will be converted or eliminated one way or another. As citizens who want to live in a nation of democratic values where everyone can exist to do their own thing, should it be our civic responsibility to care for it and safeguard its basic principles of equal rights and opportunities against those who want to be rid of it? To snuff out the neo-fascists and their willing affiliates from public acceptance wouldn’t be hypocritical as keeping rabid wolves out of your house. It is only self-preservation from the obvious threat to our future.
Wednesday, Apr 5, 2017 · 11:13:37 AM +00:00 · TheLovingThinkingFighter
I decided to tweak the title a little after thinking it over some. I thought more people would’ve understood that the old title was in reference to the fact that without government interference, as assured by the First Amendment, that its the responsibility of US citizens themselves to guard against oversaturation of neoreactionary propaganda. However, a whole bunch saw the title as a possible call to make certain speech illegal, which I too am against. Hopefully, the new title will be less likely to give off the wrong impression.