Black Lives Matter's newest enemy? The ACLU!

[KeepTalking]

Regardless of the law, shouting down a speaker at a scheduled event is a bad thing to do.

Unfortunately we have some low grade morons who don't seem to get that silencing speakers in the name of free speech is a bit like fucking in the name of virginity.

I agree. I can't understand why some low grade morons think that it is fine to silence someone in the name of free speech just because that person is speaking more loudly than another speaker.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^ You have a constitutional right to speak. You do not have a constitutional right to be heard.

 

[ronburgundy]

Liberalism != white supremacy. That's stupid.

However, 100% free speech may defend genocidal maniacs which I think is the point.

Yes, the point of free speech is precisely to protect unpopular speech, otherwise there is no need for any protection.
That is the point that the dangerously raving idiots in BLM and the regressive authoritarian left fail to grasp. Every authoritarian enemy of free speech (including genocidal governments) has used the excuse of "But that speech is immoral" as their bullshit rationale. Every modern progressive aspect of morality (including gender and racial equality) was deemed immoral by the dominant culture of the past and only allowed to be voiced and advanced because of the principle of free speech that only exists when "immoral" speech is protected.

Their "liberalism = White supremacy" notion is only stupid if one rejects their moronic notion that liberty can exist without free speech and the free speech can exist if "immoral" speech is silenced. These idiots are correct in one thing, that they are the enemies of liberalism and thus of liberty, reason, and anti-authoritarianism. Liberalism does = allowing white supremacy views to be expressed, and since they oppose that they oppose the core values of liberalism and should be viewed by liberals as enemies.

University's statement:

Silencing certain voices in order to advance the cause of others is not acceptable in our community.

So, we shouldn't silence pro-genocide political parties, even if they win elections, such as the Presidential election?

We should stop any genocidal actions and argue against any genocidal speech, and vote against any who engage in such speech (something that so many BLMers and leftists refused to do in the last election).

We should not prevent the speech itself, because that is the definition of authoritarianism which is not the inherent root of many evils, and (not so coincidentally) a close ally of genocide. Those who act to prevent others from being able to speak about their pro-genocide views are actually doing more to promote genocide in the long run than the speaker themselves. They are promoting a society where authoritarianism is acceptable and the critical foundation of all moral, political, and scientific progress (free speech) is abandoned in favor of a short-sighted desire to not have views they disagree with heard by anyone.

 

[ronburgundy]

^ You have a constitutional right to speak. You do not have a constitutional right to be heard.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire. And the principle behind that is not merely about government but applies equally to citizens allowing other citizens to speak with each other, which is the cornerstone of all liberty and essential to all moral, political, and scientific progress. In terms of principles of liberty, what these students did is the same as jack booted thugs of government coming in and shutting down the event. Any who agree with their tactics are fascistic authoritarians and enemies ore liberty and reason.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

 

[Derec]

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

Point to the right to disrupt speech in the constitution.

 

[ronburgundy]

Unfortunately we have some low grade morons who don't seem to get that silencing speakers in the name of free speech is a bit like fucking in the name of virginity.

I agree. I can't understand why some low grade morons think that it is fine to silence someone in the name of free speech just because that person is speaking more loudly than another speaker.

The protesters were engaged in the equivalent of criminal theft and trespassing, and should be in jail for that, not the content of their speech. Others who wanted to hear the speaker had arranged for the use of that space, and these protesters stole that and became tresspassers as soon the organizers asked them to leave. The effect of their actions is no different than if cops starting busting into every place BLM was trying to have a meeting and blasted noise so that BLM could never have a discussion. The fact that you are too authoritarian to grasp what the principle of free speech is even about is what makes you an enemy of liberalism, liberty, and actual progress.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

Point to the right to disrupt speech in the constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

 

[ronburgundy]

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Only the most pathetically dishonest fascist would deny that preventing all others from listening is equivalent in every relevant way to preventing the speaker from speaking. Numerous writings make it clear that the founders were not concerned with whether a person could move their vocal chords at will (the only thing accomplished with speech that no one is allowed to hear), but with free discourse between people, which requires free speakers and free listeners.

Congrats, you've just proven that you are as great an enemy to liberalism and moral progress as white supremacists.

 

[Derec]

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want. It does not include the right to disrupt speech of others.

It is quite funny how the modern Left has taken up this anti-free speech cause.

How times change ...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It does not include the right to disrupt speech of others.

So now Derec and ronburgundy actually think that I have the right to hear Kaepernick and other quarterbacks express themselves in the NFL and the NFL cannot block them.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

...snip bunch of insults...

No, it is not inherent as the Constitution talks about congress not making laws...that may extend to states since states may have their own laws about anti-free-speech legislation being blocked, but what it does not do is block individuals from having their own free speech. Other laws, in particular laws about assault and threatening violence, block people from violently forcing others to silence.

 

[dismal]

Shit, are you people trying to establish you are complete idiots?

Has anyone argued there is a "right to be heard in the Constitution"?

Attempting to create a false version of the other side's view so it can be shot down is a fallacy with it's own special name. It's called a "strawman".

This one is particularly silly.

If you would like to actually attempt to address the argument that is being made I can restate it again.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Has anyone argued there is a "right to be heard in the Constitution"?

Perhaps you should read the thread.

You have a constitutional right to speak. You do not have a constitutional right to be heard.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want.

 

[scombrid]

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want. It does not include the right to disrupt speech of others.

It is quite funny how the modern Left has taken up this anti-free speech cause.
View attachment 12772
How times change ...

The sign that the guy is holding is absolutely true.

But it is also a massive whitewash of their true motivation.

I wish their opposition would quit taking the bait and allowing them to play the fake victim card.

The message on his sign is very disingenuous coming from the white supremacists. Peel that onion just a tad and you'll find that they really don't give a rats ass about free speech, especially for minorities out of their group. It is just the card they are playing for political advantage. What they say when they are crying about the right to be heard and what they ultimately want to do are very different things.

I certainly don't have any sympathy for the people shouting them down or trying to physically block their "speech". I'd rather help them shine their light. But I'll not fall for their game either as their defenders here seem to have done. Or maybe their defenders here are just sympathetic to their actual cause.

 

[dismal]

Perhaps you should read the thread.

You have a constitutional right to speak. You do not have a constitutional right to be heard.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want.

Ah. so the problem is you don't speak English?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps you should read the thread.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want.

Ah. so the problem is you don't speak English?

Any objective reader can see that Ron and Derec have over-reached but you're just out to insult posters you view as not on your side.

 

[dismal]

Perhaps you should read the thread.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want.

Ah. so the problem is you don't speak English?

Any objective reader can see that Ron and Derec have over-reached but you're just out to insult posters you view as not on your side.

A reader who understands English would not say they are arguing there is a right to be heard.

One clue is they are arguing from a hearer's perspective, not a speaker's.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Perhaps you should read the thread.

You have a constitutional right to speak and others have a constitutional right to hear any speech they desire.

Point to the right to hear any speech in the Constitution.

It is inherent to what the the Constitution clearly was referring to by "speech" itself.

Now, where does it say you have the right to hear any speech you want?

Freedom of speech, to be meaningful, must include the right to be hear speech you want.

Ah. so the problem is you don't speak English?

Any objective reader can see that Ron and Derec have over-reached but you're just out to insult posters you view as not on your side.

A reader who understands English would not say they are arguing there is a right to be heard.

They ARE, though. Derec and ron apparently implying that for free speech to be meaningful, it implies that said speech must be able to be received by its intended audience regardless of interference.

The problem is, the constitution doesn't gaurantee you the right to hear what you want to hear, only the right to say what you want to say. If you are giving a speech in a public place and I show up with with a 60-man acapella group singing "Ride of the Valkyries" as loud as we can, we are BOTH exercising our right to free speech. My speech just happens to be louder than yours, and it renders yours inaudible.

Likewise: if the NFL doesn't want Kapernick to protest the National Anthem, all they have to do is stop playing the national anthem at football games, or tell the TV producers not to film him when they're doing it, or order EVERYONE to take a knee so nobody can tell the protestors from the patriots.

Thus:

they are arguing from a hearer's perspective, not a speaker's.

Is irrelevant, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee you a right to hear. Just the right to speak.

 

[KeepTalking]

I agree. I can't understand why some low grade morons think that it is fine to silence someone in the name of free speech just because that person is speaking more loudly than another speaker.

The protesters were engaged in the equivalent of criminal theft and trespassing, and should be in jail for that, not the content of their speech.

What did they steal? I don't see it being an issue of theft. Trespassing? Maybe, it depends on whether the venue was public, or private.

Others who wanted to hear the speaker had arranged for the use of that space, and these protesters stole that and became tresspassers as soon the organizers asked them to leave.

What is your evidence that they were asked to leave? The article linked in the OP makes it clear that the person speaking initially welcomed the protesters, and the event organizers eventually even provided them with a microphone to assist them in making their speech. Seems odd for them to do either of those things if they were asking them to leave

The effect of their actions is no different than if cops starting busting into every place BLM was trying to have a meeting and blasted noise so that BLM could never have a discussion.

You are wrong. These situations are quite different. This was a singular event, not BLM blocking every ACLU meeting. No one had to "bust in", in fact it seems that this may have even been a public event. No one "blasted noise", the BLM protesters used their own non-amplified voices until the event organizers provided them with a microphone. And finally, BLM is not an agent of authority, and certainly not an agent of the government, unlike the police.

The fact that you are too authoritarian to grasp what the principle of free speech is even about is what makes you an enemy of liberalism, liberty, and actual progress.

I am far from authoritarian, sorry but you are on quite the wrong track there. And I think I am grasping the principle of free speech just fine, thank you. It appears to me that others in this thread (yourself included) are the authoritarians who are advocating that the government step in to keep BLM protesters from exercising their free speech rights, so that the ACLU can more comfortably exercise their free speech rights.