boombang wrote: » Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point. I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.
Overheal wrote: » Shapiro has exercised his free speech quite a bit - the freedom of speech isn't a blanket protection against the people he pisses off through homophobia and intellectual-bashing though. Again there, you have the problem with a viewpoint that is not based on rationality, robust facts, or critical thinking nearly as much as it is about feelings and emotions and cherry picked information and biases - so it is very difficult to respond to such by using said tools of rationality. Hate for the sake of hate will often be met in kind.
Manach wrote: » Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy. Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.
Jcarroll07 wrote: » Ten people showed up for the protest. They simple made a lot of historical noise rather then actually representing a large sections of societies views.
Havockk wrote: » I'm confused now. You are posting in support, now, of those ten students who decided to freely express their right to speech in protest?
Jcarroll07 wrote: » No I am simply stating ten people showed up to the protest. Prior to that many had called for Farage to be no platformed. Members and former members wrote and open letter and the auditor came under a lot of pressure from some to disinvite Farage. They can protest all they like I would be a hypocrite if I said they could not, how ever that does not mean i can't criticise them or their actions. But like I said in my first post on this trend this issue in general is not really one that effects Ireland there is little support for the idea of blocking and disinviting speakers because the vast majority of people thankfully see it as idiotic. It might be a different story in the UK and the US and maybe it may even change here, but at the moment I don't think it is that big an issue, as other recent examples which i pointed out in a previous posts show, the college administration don't just not support the idea of no platooning ect, thats have actively come out against it which is a very health position to be in I think.
Havockk wrote: » Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?
Overheal wrote: » Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.
Eric Cartman wrote: » Yes, I would give them a platform. Id give the KKK a platform at trinity, id give anyone a platform. Stopping people from giving a point of view or expressing an opinion is fascism. I don't care if its the KKK, communists, feminists or the Green Party, its not up to me to decide that the radical, frankly irrational views of many groups are 'not ok' while others are.
Overheal wrote: » Would you give them the platform over others that had more merit? Given that these venues have limited resources of time and space. Would a god hates fags lecture be a more worthy use of these finite resources than a TED talk series on the latest discoveries in the sciences for instance?
Varik wrote: » Do you think that's something that comes up, does the whoever is in charge of theatre bookings in a university have that choice. That they double booked or had to choose. None of the past protest and speaker bans were due to an alternative being denied.
Overheal wrote: » That you're aware of. In another frame, look at the short lived Keurig boycott last year in the US. This was brought about because Keurig customers complained to the company that they were sponsoring Sean Hannity's program while he was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, against the reporting of his own network. So, they pulled the ads. In response, pro-Hannity viewers staged a boycott of Keurig and were seen on the twitterverse destroying many a coffee pod machine. Keurig ultimately decided to resume sponsorship. Who was wrong in this situation? I would argue nobody violated the free speech of anyone else. Again, I don't see the injustice of protesting the accommodation of controversial speakers to have a platform. Nobody can silence Farage, Hannity, WBC, Milo, Shapiro, or anyone else. They don't have to give them a microphone for it to be free speech. They can all run their own blogs and write their own statements, nobody is compelled to listen nor are they barred from making their opposition known to others.
Overheal wrote: » That doesn’t address my question. I pick those people because that’s what I’m familiar with. As it is I don’t even recognize the names you mentioned off hand. But yes insert whatever more fitting examples you feel like depending on your leanings and please answer the question.
Eric Cartman wrote: » Who was wrong - the advertiser for pulling the ad's , that was done to influence an agenda in the media, its the reason that journalism has become so populist , every title is afraid of advertisers pulling out. If trinity or another venue feel that they should invite people to speak, then who are antifa or anyone else to deny them a platform.
As the news filtered through, a group of around 50 Trinity students celebrated wildly, hanging Union Jack flags from college buildings. This display didn't go down well with students at University College Dublin, the Catholic-Nationalist rival to Trinity. Legend has it that a band of students, led by a young Haughey, rushed to the scene in time to witness a "tired and emotional" Trinity student set fire to an Irish Tricolour. According to the same legend, Haughey got himself a Union Jack and set it alight in response.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Im against the idea that self appointed left wing students should be able to try dictate what political issues can & can,t be publicly debated in a public forum,
FreudianSlippers wrote: » Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » Id support the idea of fining colleges/unis if they cancel a speakers appearance once the a meeting or debate has being booked to take place,
Eric Cartman wrote: » I notice you picked a bunch of people on the same side of the aisle. What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints. I wouldn't dare take away their platform , but in your mind you may not see their right to speak as the same as Farage say...
Brian? wrote: » I’m sorry but that’s absolute nonsense. What “hateful, dangerous viewpoints” do they hold that compare with the Westboro Baptist Church? This post is typical of the whataboutery that goes on here. It’s the same whataboutery that’s used to defend Neo Nazi marches as paragons of free speech. It’s like you’ve picked a team “the right” and will refuse to hear any criticism or even slightly implied criticism of your team. As to the major question. Let everyone speak. Let everyone air their ideas peacefully. The Nazis didn’t take over Germany by peacefully speaking, they violent attacked counter protests and used violence against socialist rallies. Everyone should be allowed to protest and counter protest. Talk themselves to death, the line should never be drawn at speech it should be drawn at violence.
Eric Cartman wrote: » The Nazi party were socialists.... One of the largest examples of left wing authoritarianism re-branded as 'far right' by academics.
The westboro baptist church stand on street corners with signs , its hateful and the worst of the worst end of hardline christianity but I think parallels can definitely be drawn with that sect of radical feminism that calls for the death of all men or those sections of movements like 'black lives matter' that call for the deaths of police. Both sides of the spectrum have awful actors that represent niche views that are dangerous. It just depends where you draw the line of 'dangerous' for instance saying 'we need immigration controls especially from muslim countries to try stamp out extremism' , to me is a moderate sensible call, to a moderate person with left leaning ideals it might be seen as an over-reach, but then you have that person that calls you a nazi or a xenophobe for agreeing with that statement. If antifa was protesting a guy literally showing up in an SS uniform to a meeting called 'kill all the non whites' id say yeah, have at it (however I still defend that groups right to speak) , however what we now have (with reese-mogg, farage, trump etc...) are guys showing up to say 'hey, lets put in border restrictions and kick out illegal migrants' and getting a response of antifa showing up throwing bottles, smashing windows, causing damage and calling the speaker a nazi
What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints
Eric Cartman wrote: » The Nazi party were socialists.... One of the largest examples of left wing authoritarianism re-branded as 'far right' by academics. The westboro baptist church stand on street corners with signs , its hateful and the worst of the worst end of hardline christianity but I think parallels can definitely be drawn with that sect of radical feminism that calls for the death of all men or those sections of movements like 'black lives matter' that call for the deaths of police. Both sides of the spectrum have awful actors that represent niche views that are dangerous. It just depends where you draw the line of 'dangerous' for instance saying 'we need immigration controls especially from muslim countries to try stamp out extremism' , to me is a moderate sensible call, to a moderate person with left leaning ideals it might be seen as an over-reach, but then you have that person that calls you a nazi or a xenophobe for agreeing with that statement. If antifa was protesting a guy literally showing up in an SS uniform to a meeting called 'kill all the non whites' id say yeah, have at it (however I still defend that groups right to speak) , however what we now have (with reese-mogg, farage, trump etc...) are guys showing up to say 'hey, lets put in border restrictions and kick out illegal migrants' and getting a response of antifa showing up throwing bottles, smashing windows, causing damage and calling the speaker a nazi
Brian? wrote: » Absolutely untrue. Revisionist nonsense.https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/ Snopes is not a reliable source. More whataboutery. I ask you to qualify your statement about Una Mullaly etc. and you evade the question by bringing up Antifa. This is what you said: Well? How can you compare any of these people to the Westboro Baptist Church?
