When "free speech advocates" don't give a fuck about free speech being suppressed...

[Patooka]

One thing I've noticed about this forum is barely a week goes by where a thread is started describing some obscure event around the world where the implication is that free speech is suppressed. There isn't a lot of context provided in these incidents, they rarely if ever involve people in power and normally it's defending someone's "right" to say or do something controversial to a group that historically has either been persecuted or discriminated against. This isn't unique on this forum; just about every example of "cancel culture" can be summarised as someone being a cunt and then being held accountable for their actions. But apparently in internet circles, immunity from consequences and defending free speech are the exact same thing. So when an elected official abuses their power in using standover tactics and actually suppressing free speech in the 21st century equivalent of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?", I thought the usual suspects who claim that the right to free speech allows one to be homophobic in baking a cake or whatnot would be legitimately outraged.

Well, it's been over a week since this story came to light so I can't even begin to imagine why advocates of free speech here haven't commented nor would I presume what (if any) their reason for not caring. For everyone else, here's some context:

- FriendlyJordies is a shit-stirring internet troll. He is labelled as a comedian, but I find his humour to be on the level of a really shitty Adam Sandler movie. Just not my thing.

- John Barilaro is the Deputy Premier of Australia's most populated state. His role is comparable to a Lieutenant Governor in the US, but he also has to represent an electorate (pretty much a district) during an election.

FriendlyJordies has made several youtube clips accusing Barilaro of corruption. The main one titled "Bruz" shows that the Deputy Premier is not only a dodgy cunt, Barilaro himself is proud to be labelled as "Pork Barilaro". In another youtube clip, FriendlyJordies shows how fire aid in NSW after those huge 2019 bushfires (remember those?) was somehow only given to rural electorates that voted for the coalition (the political party he represents).

In a fair and just world, this matter would be reffered to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and Barilaro would be looking at a fun jail sentence. Nope he sued FriendlyJordies instead.

Now, personally, I think an elected official suing a Youtube dickhead for pointing out some inconvenient truths is not suppressing free speech, but considering how outraged people are towards cancel culture, one would have thought Cancel Culture Warriors would be onto this story in a heartbeat. Especially as all this was reported in the media 3 weeks ago.

Oh, and for some inexplicable reason, the media knew about this lawsuit before FriendlyJordies did. They didn't even approach FriendlyJordies for comment which is pretty shit journalism, but par for the course in a state where all the newspapers are either run by Rupert Murdoch or Peter Costello. Also, Barilaro tried to insist that the youtube clips be taken down, which last time I checked was censorship.

Three weeks later, still nothing from Cancel Culture Warriors. Weird.

This is where the story gets obscene. FriendlyJordies' producer got arrested by the counter terrorism and special tactics command fixated persons unit. When you read what they're responsibilities and powers are, you can't help but think this is excessive to apprehend a 21 year old uni student who posts shit on youtube. I don't think posting shit on youtube warrants a home invasion of plainclothes assailants who allege to be police only to be driven off in an unmarked car, but I also don't claim to be an advocate for free speech either.

Just to remind everyone, this saga is weeks old, with the home invasion part being public knowledge for at least over a week.

Here is the media providing some context on this blatant abuse of power from an elected official:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQS1N84Tius[/youtube]

And here is FriendlyJordies statement on the whole affair, pointing out and showing video footage that exonerates the producer what he is being charged for:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXtq4a8829g[/youtube]

This is why I am skeptical when certain people extoll the virtues of free speech online. Apparently, I'm supposed to be outraged when personalities like Sharon Osborne get sacked (despites years of complaints from co-workers being the reason, not cancel culture) or someone's right to free speech is taken away from them because they can't say something transphobic at their university.

But when an elected official abuses their position of power to sic a goon squad against someone bringing into the spotlight said official's well documented instances of corruption - apparently apathy is the correct response if the elected official is right-leaning politically. Fuck that.

 

[laughing dog]

To be fair, it happened in the land where men thunder, so most US free speech advocates would not be aware. But the OP makes an interesting observation about some "free speech advocates".

 

[Metaphor]

I'm sorry, my Right Wing Outrage News Aggregator (TM) didn't serve me this story. You are correct to infer all my values are fake by my lack of starting a thread Patooka thinks I ought have started, based on this story of somebody being sued for YouTube commentary, and a related arrest where the charge is stalking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

or someone's right to free speech is taken away from them because they can't say something transphobic at their university.

This is the sort of speech that's disgusting but I think we are better off not prohibiting unless repeated to the point of bullying.

 

[Jarhyn]

or someone's right to free speech is taken away from them because they can't say something transphobic at their university.

This is the sort of speech that's disgusting but I think we are better off not prohibiting unless repeated to the point of bullying.

Said once, some utterances go far beyond bullying.

"I heard Derek used to be called Deborah..." Said once to the right (wrong?) person is an evil beyond thinking. It is a magic spell that can cause bullies to sprout like foul mushrooms.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've followed #friendlyjordies for a few years now.
He punches up and knows about asymmetric rules of engagement. What's the story here? That free speech advocates are selective in whose free speech they defend? Is that really newsworthy?

I recently visited a supposedly free speech AvT forum but even they had a TOU rule about, quote, "being a dick" which they used as a proxy to ban/censor unpopular opinions.

 

[Rhea]

I'm sorry, my Right Wing Outrage News Aggregator (TM) didn't serve me this story.

Good summary of the main points.

 

[Patooka]

I'm sorry, my Right Wing Outrage News Aggregator (TM) didn't serve me this story.

No worries, brother. I have your back.

You are correct to infer all my values are fake by my lack of starting a thread Patooka thinks I ought have started *snip*

I'm sorry, I thought I was being obvious in my sarcasm. I never thought you would start a thread about a conservative Australian politician demanding censorship, or using NSW police in a diet Mohammed bin Salman manner. I never expected you to comment on this at all.


I'm quite serious. I did not believe this would get a mention from you. I hope that clears things up. I do look forward to your next thread about some university in Bumfuck, Whogivesashit where some university tries to stop a student from being a dick. That is paramount with regards to free speech.

*snip* based on this story of somebody being sued for YouTube commentary, and a related arrest where the charge is stalking.

...which is not how the story is being reported anywhere except SKY news. Nor is it an accurate interpretation. Seriously, channels 7, 10, the ABC and even channel 9 are critical of Barilaro's actions. Up until last week (when Ben Roberts-Smith's lawsuit started) this lawsuit ran neck and neck in Australia with Christian Porter's suit against the ABC in terms of coverage. And all you know about this case is what Dominic Perrottet has said? I am very skeptical about that.

To be fair, it happened in the land where men thunder, so most US free speech advocates would not be aware.

The story is not as obscure as you'd might think. Also last time I checked, Vaush has more viewers/subscribers than Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin combined and he's talking about this. Hell, even Count Dankula of all people is talking about this. I wouldn't call this mainstream, nor would I call this obscure. It is definately a story people who genuinely give a shit a free speech would have heard of by now. Most of the links I have provided are over a week old and this whole issue began months ago.

 

[laughing dog]

The story is not as obscure as you'd might think. Also last time I checked, Vaush has more viewers/subscribers than Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin combined and he's talking about this. Hell, even Count Dankula of all people is talking about this. I wouldn't call this mainstream, nor would I call this obscure. It is definately a story people who genuinely give a shit a free speech would have heard of by now. Most of the links I have provided are over a week old and this whole issue began months ago.

Of course it is obscure - it is not about someone against oppression of the transgendered, women or minorities.

 

[Patooka]

The story is not as obscure as you'd might think. Also last time I checked, Vaush has more viewers/subscribers than Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin combined and he's talking about this. Hell, even Count Dankula of all people is talking about this. I wouldn't call this mainstream, nor would I call this obscure. It is definately a story people who genuinely give a shit a free speech would have heard of by now. Most of the links I have provided are over a week old and this whole issue began months ago.

Of course it is obscure - it is not about someone against oppression of the transgendered, women or minorities.

Fuck, you're right. My apologies - I wasn't thinking.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm sorry, I thought I was being obvious in my sarcasm. I never thought you would start a thread about a conservative Australian politician demanding censorship, or using NSW police in a diet Mohammed bin Salman manner. I never expected you to comment on this at all.


I'm quite serious. I did not believe this would get a mention from you. I hope that clears things up. I do look forward to your next thread about blah blah blah

Yes, we got all that. But your interpretation seems to be a bit off. What you appear not to be taking into account is that this is a politics forum, where people start threads not just to emote but to make some political point, usually a point to the effect of "My political opponents are wrong." If there's a news story about somebody mugging a little old lady, we don't expect to see a thread popping up about how awful it is that a little old lady got mugged, because nobody's in favor of mugging little old ladies, and nobody's political theories imply little old ladies should get mugged. So the story doesn't show that anybody besides the mugger is wrong. So what's anybody's motivation to start a thread? There's no controversy.

I think we can all agree that Barilaro is a jerk who ought not to have done what he did. So there's no controversy. The reason it's reasonable for you to expect Metaphor not to comment is not because it's reasonable for you to expect people like Metaphor to support Barilaro -- it isn't -- but because it would be reasonable for you to put yourself in Metaphor's shoes, recognize that he knows his political opponents won't support Barilaro any more than he does, expect him to figure out that there's no controversy and that the Barilaro news doesn't prove any of his political opponents are wrong, and expect him therefore to have no reason to post about the story if he even heard about it.

To summarize: you started this thread to show your political opponents are wrong. It doesn't show that. And the reason it doesn't is because your political opponents aren't cartoon villains; they're normal people just like you.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm sorry, I thought I was being obvious in my sarcasm. I never thought you would start a thread about a conservative Australian politician demanding censorship, or using NSW police in a diet Mohammed bin Salman manner. I never expected you to comment on this at all.


I'm quite serious. I did not believe this would get a mention from you. I hope that clears things up. I do look forward to your next thread about blah blah blah

Yes, we got all that. But your interpretation seems to be a bit off. What you appear not to be taking into account is that this is a politics forum, where people start threads not just to emote but to make some political point, usually a point to the effect of "My political opponents are wrong." If there's a news story about somebody mugging a little old lady, we don't expect to see a thread popping up about how awful it is that a little old lady got mugged, because nobody's in favor of mugging little old ladies, and nobody's political theories imply little old ladies should get mugged. So the story doesn't show that anybody besides the mugger is wrong. So what's anybody's motivation to start a thread? There's no controversy.

I think we can all agree that Barilaro is a jerk who ought not to have done what he did. So there's no controversy. The reason it's reasonable for you to expect Metaphor not to comment is not because it's reasonable for you to expect people like Metaphor to support Barilaro -- it isn't -- but because it would be reasonable for you to put yourself in Metaphor's shoes, recognize that he knows his political opponents won't support Barilaro any more than he does, expect him to figure out that there's no controversy and that the Barilaro news doesn't prove any of his political opponents are wrong, and expect him therefore to have no reason to post about the story if he even heard about it.

To summarize: you started this thread to show your political opponents are wrong. It doesn't show that. And the reason it doesn't is because your political opponents aren't cartoon villains; they're normal people just like you.

If the intent of the OP was to show that some free speech advocates here are not really free speech advocates because they did not bring up this travesty of free speech, your entire argument is invalid.

 

[Metaphor]

I'm quite serious. I did not believe this would get a mention from you. I hope that clears things up. I do look forward to your next thread about some university in Bumfuck, Whogivesashit where some university tries to stop a student from being a dick. That is paramount with regards to free speech.

Look, I wouldn't live in Melbourne either but I have friends there. It isn't that bad.

...which is not how the story is being reported anywhere except SKY news. Nor is it an accurate interpretation. Seriously, channels 7, 10, the ABC and even channel 9 are critical of Barilaro's actions. Up until last week (when Ben Roberts-Smith's lawsuit started) this lawsuit ran neck and neck in Australia with Christian Porter's suit against the ABC in terms of coverage. And all you know about this case is what Dominic Perrottet has said? I am very skeptical about that.

I know even less than that. I don't even know who Dominic Perrottet is.

It is definately a story people who genuinely give a shit a free speech would have heard of by now. Most of the links I have provided are over a week old and this whole issue began months ago.

Patooka, your thesis boils down to this:
* I don't give a shit about free speech, because if I did, I'd know about the story and I'd've started a thread about the story on this particular message board. I reject your premise.

 

[Bomb#20]

... it would be reasonable for you to put yourself in Metaphor's shoes, recognize that he knows his political opponents won't support Barilaro any more than he does, expect him to figure out that there's no controversy and that the Barilaro news doesn't prove any of his political opponents are wrong, and expect him therefore to have no reason to post about the story ...

If the intent of the OP was to show that some free speech advocates here are not really free speech advocates because they did not bring up this travesty of free speech

And that certainly appears to be the case.

, your entire argument is invalid.

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

 

[Jarhyn]

And that certainly appears to be the case.

, your entire argument is invalid.

I'm not following. What inference rule takes you from the premise to your conclusion?

Oh, oh, let me!

"The failure to bring up some given travesty of free speech does not itself make someone hypocritical. There is not enough time to discuss all such events. It is a logical fallacy to say "they are not advocates", merely because they are, in your estimation, bad advocates. It is, in fact, a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Therefore your argument does not follow to your conclusion, so it is... Can you guess it?"

 

[crazyfingers]

The story is not as obscure as you'd might think. Also last time I checked, Vaush has more viewers/subscribers than Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin combined and he's talking about this. Hell, even Count Dankula of all people is talking about this. I wouldn't call this mainstream, nor would I call this obscure. It is definately a story people who genuinely give a shit a free speech would have heard of by now. Most of the links I have provided are over a week old and this whole issue began months ago.

Never heard of any of those people. Never heard of this story. I care about freedom of speech but I don't get my news from youtube.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

or someone's right to free speech is taken away from them because they can't say something transphobic at their university.

This is the sort of speech that's disgusting but I think we are better off not prohibiting unless repeated to the point of bullying.

Said once, some utterances go far beyond bullying.

"I heard Derek used to be called Deborah..." Said once to the right (wrong?) person is an evil beyond thinking. It is a magic spell that can cause bullies to sprout like foul mushrooms.

We already have a suitable system there--that's slander.

 

[Jarhyn]

Said once, some utterances go far beyond bullying.

"I heard Derek used to be called Deborah..." Said once to the right (wrong?) person is an evil beyond thinking. It is a magic spell that can cause bullies to sprout like foul mushrooms.

We already have a suitable system there--that's slander.

Not if it's true.

 

[Metaphor]

Said once, some utterances go far beyond bullying.

"I heard Derek used to be called Deborah..." Said once to the right (wrong?) person is an evil beyond thinking. It is a magic spell that can cause bullies to sprout like foul mushrooms.

We already have a suitable system there--that's slander.

Not if it's true.

Jarhyn objects to the uttering of the truth, like any religionist.

 

[Bomb#20]

Not if it's true.

Jarhyn objects to the uttering of the truth, like any religionist.

Well, you generally shouldn't out people if they're trying to stay in the closet. It's an invasion of privacy.