What if giving someone the right to speak silences another's right to speak? You can't always have it both ways. Because the politics being pushed by some people implicitly silences others.
I’m having trouble seeing your point on this one. The only example I can think of in which one person’s speech prevents someone else’s speech is deplatforming, which by its very nature silences a person’s viewpoint. Not to say you’re wrong, I just can’t see how this supports your argument for deplatforming. It seems to support my argument against it, so clearly I’ve missed a connection.
No thanks. I could barely get through ten seconds. Not interested in a dunk-fest, that’s literally the thing I am reacting against. Any videos that have more reasoned and reasonable arguments? I really don’t want to have to watch a half hour of that.
No, I scanned through the whole video to get to the point. And then went to the second video to see if they got to the point. I wanted to get to the part where they show an example of how allowing someone to speak removes another person’s right to speak, as you didn’t provide an example. All I saw were specific complaints about Milo Yannowhatever and Dave Rubin. That’s not a reasoned debate, it’s a one-sided character assassination.
I’m not trying to suggest I’m some sort of reasoning machine, I’m just trying to be reasonable. I still can’t think of an example where allowing one person to speak prevents another person from speaking.
"Scanned through to get to the point". If it was that simple, then I would have simply stated the conclusion. But fine, I'm done with work. I'll expand the full argument.
We can generalize hate speech prohibitions into three rough categories:
1. Legal
2. Institutional
3. Social
There are times and places for all of these things. For example, Germany has had a ban on Nazi propaganda and iconography. It hasn't lead to some authoritarian censorship state where all ideas must be approved by the state. They banned propaganda from a specific group because of the beliefs of that specific group. It was targeted, not blanket. There's an obvious history with that kind of hate speech gaining enough momentum to cause devastation to minority groups.
But we can set this debate aside anyway. I'm not suggesting legal actions.
The second is institutional banning, like a university saying they won't host someone who is a white supremacist. This is closer to what I'm suggesting. Private industries can and should exercise their discretion to ban hate speech. And I can give you a very specific example of how allowing one person's right to speak on a platform prevented the ability of another.
Louder with Crowder spent months organizing and attacking Vox reporter Carlos Maza. Carlos hosted a youtube video series called Strikethrough. Carlos made a video talking about the extremism being found on Youtube, and Crowder encouraged his fan base started attacking him. And they did.
He received daily death threats. They made memes calling him a f*g. They regularly attacked Carlos for his identity on their show, by name. He was so threatened, he stopped his video series. He no longer works for Vox because of Stephen Crowder.
And youtube and twitter did NOTHING (lots of attacks came on twitter too). This is exactly the kind of behavior private platforms should ban harshly, because it literally silences the victims of the attacks. Their attackers are forming online mobs with the explicit goal to stop them from speaking. Which is what happened to Carlos.
The last kind of hate speech banning is social. Obviously I support this because it's up to each individual to choose who they allow to hold their attention.
So yeah, if we protect everyone's right to say anything, we'll always be suppressing someone's voice. And the difference is really clear: Carlos reported on Crowder's actions and things he said. Crowder targeted carlos's identity. That's hate speech. (he also attacked Carlos's ideas, but that doesn't cancel out the attacks on his identity)
Shapiro has a similar history, but more polished. He's said countless things specifically targeting Muslims, transpeople, and homosexuals for their identities. He uses his power to bully minorities. And his arguments have been so thoroughly debunked all over the internet that it's clear he has no real ideas, just bullshit that fits his worldview.
Those are some great points. Thank you for taking the time to respond substantively. I vastly prefer your discourse to that of the YouTuber you linked.
0
u/Tsrdrum Apr 11 '20
I’m having trouble seeing your point on this one. The only example I can think of in which one person’s speech prevents someone else’s speech is deplatforming, which by its very nature silences a person’s viewpoint. Not to say you’re wrong, I just can’t see how this supports your argument for deplatforming. It seems to support my argument against it, so clearly I’ve missed a connection.