Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'free speech'.
Found 4 results
You might be aware of Vox Media's problem with Steven Crowder. They are trying to convince YouTube to crack down on Crowder and everyone else who engages in "hate speech," particularly against "marginalized groups." Vox claims to support free speech, but by that they mean speech that doesn't include "slurs" or "harassment" of certain people. They connect Crowder's slurs of Maza to his fans harassing Maza. I suppose they consider Crowder to be a Manson-like cult leader who's responsible for the actions of his followers. This might be true, if Crowder told his audience to harm or harass Maza, but I don't see how he's done that. No, it appears that the crusaders at Vox simply hate being hated, and instead of dealing with the actual harassers, they've decided to whine about being called names, like a bunch of little children. Crowder is mostly a goofball with regurgitated conservative talking points, which is why he resorts to base name-calling for cheap laughs on his show. Vox is exploiting this situation to push their agenda of identity politics and "hate speech" codes, and to compel YouTube to pick a side in this culture war.
The current debate over free speech on the Internet offers us a prime example of how different strands of collectivists play ping-pong with each other. It begins with a serve of the ball. For example, companies like Twitter or Facebook or Google convince people that their social media sites are "communities." They say this in their TOS and use it to justify forming "community standards" of behavior. And when prominent people start suffering from demonetization or deplatforming because of their speech, the users send a sharp volley back to the server. They accept the notion of "social media as community," but follow the premise to its collectivist conclusion: social media is public space. This game continues back and forth until both sides settle on a compromise: an Internet Bill of Rights. Of course such a Bill of Rights is based on the false premise that social media is a community, when in reality it's only media. If you watch prominent Internet talk show hosts like Joe Rogan or Dave Rubin, you'll see them struggle to integrate free speech with property rights, because they still hold the collectivist principle. They see humans as primarily members of a group, instead of primarily as individuals. And so any form of media is primarily group-owned, communal property. The concept of "community" has been thus pilfered and abused by collectivists. Its genus used to be actual people. People living together. Now it includes products. People and their online products together. This is a contradiction. And since it cannot exist, people evade the fact that they don't actually live on the Internet together. They must evade or compartmentalize this fact in order to accept "social media as community" and continue playing collectivist ping-pong. Unfortunately for us individualists, it's a game that increasingly opposes individual rights until the most skillful collectivist wins. If we can't convince them to stop playing the game, we are doomed.
There has been another clash with the Speech Police in Canada over the use of illegal pronouns. First it was psychologist Jordan Peterson who became famous for defending free speech against Bill C-16. Now it's grad student Lindsay Shepherd, who merely played a TV debate involving Peterson for her grammar class. Read her story here. Shepherd, a TA at Wilfrid Laurier University, wanted to expose her students to the ongoing debate over using "they" as a singular pronoun, referring to one person only. And for this sin she was summoned to the newly formed Diversity Inquisition and reprimanded for general evildoing. Thankfully she recorded the meeting, so we can experience firsthand the nonsense she endured at the mercy of the Speech Police. Apparently a trans student complained about the Peterson video and felt "their" rights were violated. The Inquisition agreed and accused Shepherd of harming the student. Shepherd said students should be taught to be strong enough to deal with opposing views. But then she retreated after an inquisitor implied that she was calling the complaining student weak. Shepherd is a confused liberal, and not a very good defender of free speech. But the hardened advocates for censorship and safe spaces have become so ridiculous and absurd that even emotional, non-intellectual grammar TAs look good in comparison.
I'm curious as to this upcoming protest, which seems to at least have a somewhat coherent message: Truck Drivers For the Constitution, and their website but I'm even more interested in how it relates to the law, and the actions of two companies, Facebook and Twitter. *Their Facebook about page(which was recently shutdown by Facebook, and then had to be reopened) reads: "The American people are sick and tired of the corruption that is destroying America! We therefore declare a GENERAL STRIKE on the weekend of October 11-13, 2013! Truck drivers will not haul freight! Americans can strike in solidarity with truck drivers!" My question is about the legality of this planned protest in relation to how the Right to free speech is limited when it infringes on others, if it is illegal to obstruct and block traffic then also,too, it's as I understand, illegal to plan to stage an obstruction of traffic? Would it have been/is illegal for Facebook to keep this page up? Morality and legality are often in opposition with our unprincipled government, so, does an illegal activity such as this intentional slowly of traffic deserve sanction today? A wrong(limitless Gov control) does not justify another wrong(obstruction of traffic on Gov highway). As I understand, censorship is and only is when the Government restricts ones speech. Now, both companies, Twitter and Facebook have acted to stop this planned protest, which is just fine if they think sanctioning this group is "cutting their own throat". Twitter has suspended "Truckers Ride for the Constitution" and Facebook had closed their initial Page, which is now reopened, for now at least. As for drawing a parallel, how is this act different than Dr.King's lead of peaceful, sit down protests?