Let me further clarify-- free speech is a natural right. The only violation of free speech then, occurs when someone prevents someone else from speaking through physical force. When an individual or organization does this, rather than the state, it is still a violation of the right. However, when the government does it, due to its power, it is a much more serious matter. Furthermore, even when the state uses "soft" methods to censor speech, it always does so with the threat of overwhelming physical force behind it.
But what brucepig seems to be saying is that "free speech" means you get to say whatever you want (barring what the government defines as "hate speech") without any consequences-- no one is allowed to organize against you, protest you, shout you down or try to influence the administrators of private property you want access to. None of these things is a violation of the natural right to free speech-- it's simply being an inferior organizer to your opponents and being a big ole pussy crying "free speech! free speech!" because you don't want any active opposition to or consequences of sharing your ideas. Now this may not exactly be what brucepig was saying, but it seems close and even if it isn't his recent behavior in debates with me, makes me, quite frankly, not give a fuck if I'm misrepresenting his position here. And regardless of Senor Cerlo's ridiculous assumptions, I think people of ALL political perspectives have a tendency to shout "you're violating my free speech!", when no such thing has occurred.
OK seeing as I'm not in a formal debate with you I reserve the right to make comments and speculations about anything I choose. If I go off on a tangent............
"UP TO ME"
Don't moan, this is an internet forum not The Oxford Debating Society. Get over it splosher chops
Free speech is a natural right and the government should never be allowed to use force to curtail what people say unless they incite violence. So we agree on that then.
We are both pro free speech at the governmental level but at street level you reserve the right to shout down those you disagree with. Therefore you are not really pro free speech.
You reserve the right to shut down the debate if you dislike the opposing view.
You seem to have the typical radical bias against Western governments so I can see why you think the government should stay out of it but when it comes to the crunch you are less for free speech and more about direct action trumping free speech.
If you support and partake in direct action that is aimed at stopping people from talking then you do not support free speech you support "he who shouts the loudest wins".
Saying that the government should stay out of it means nothing if you then go on to say that you support the censoring of voices via direct action.
Why not debate someone you disagree with and let them make their speeches in peace. Why not treat political differences as an open dialogue not a war in which all means are necessary to stop the other from being heard.
(Just so you don't get confused I am now going to talk about these tactics and the majority of people who use them, I am not putting words in your mouth, chill Winston)
What this tactic is essentially about is vetoing someones voice and censoring their opinion. It's a surprisingly effective tactic and it has two prongs.
One prong is to turn up to wherever your opposition rears it's ugly head and make as much noise and disruption until they stop speaking. Job done. Keep doing it whenever they organise an event until they give up trying to be heard.
The other prong is to slander them as nazi's, fascists, racists, homophobes, misogynists etc etc etc until some mud sticks. Which is surprisingly easy, an accusation alone usually does the trick. Evidence is not needed.
The trick is to get it to a point that even people who agree with your opposition keep it under their hat for fear of being branded racist themselves.
This is so effective.
Accusations of racism, sexism or imperialism are the lefts verbal nuclear bombs. They can ruin your reputation without any evidence like a rape or child abuse accusation can.
That is why these pampered, self righteous, anti Western armchair revolutionaries use these nasty tactics so much. Because they work.
Q-Man calls the people who oppose this childish tactic of harassing speakers and barring them from campuses "big ole pussies" what a juvenile thing to say.
I think the people who take this kind of direct action against people with a different view are the real pussies who can't win in debate so they throw the rattle out of the pram and close down the voice of the opposition.
I think the mentality behind this tactic is that the radical feminists, multiculturalists, anti imperialists and anti racists have come to the conclusion that their opinions are so right, so altruistic and so noble that anyone who disagrees must be uncaring, hateful and wrong.
The very act of defining yourself as a feminist, anti imperialist or anti racist means that if anyone opposes your views they must be misogynistic, racist imperialists and as such dangerous, fascistic extremists who deserve nothing but contempt.
That is why the left has taken on a tactic that was used so effectively against the racist far right but now they apply it to anything that moves.
Well done Q for sticking up for these shenanigans and the over privileged tossers who employ them.
Topic: Ban Hussein Ye