SJW's in Toronto turn violent

[nextormento]

Me yelling at someone else doesn't "silence" them. That's the core issue with your argument.

It effectively does, and makes the case that speech is not free. It has the price of the most effective loudspeaker.
But that's just a nice piece of rhetoric.

It's a necessary feature, your stance, while consistent, is implicitly defending any abuse of the system. To which you'd probably respond that any abuse is what we legislate against.

Yelling at someone is assault, though. And abusive of the concept and the right to freeze peach: as in abusing the freedom to yell as a pattern of speech.
Not criminal assault, mind you. But in an ever more PC society, ever less concerned with freeze peach (which is the only defense going on for the act of yelling), it's only a matter of time before it's legislated as an offense.

[sethman75]

You mean how the alt-right distorts the entire refugee-discussion with spam?
Or how the only reason Trump has any followers is because the Republican tactic is to scream as loud as possible to overwhelm any reasonable argument?

It's already happening and he is singing the same tune.

Really?

Hillary has almost the entire media in the US under her thumb and Trump is the bad guy for defending himself against the misinformation??

It is a very clever tactic to create white noise to distract from the actual truth. Those Canadian regressives were trying that and Hillary's social media team are really doing that at the expense of the US people.

[Saucexorzski]

Folks, drowning others out with sound is a tactic that goes back to at least the civil rights movement. The KKK did similar to black protester all the time. What's amazes me that these folks would stoop to such tactics the KKK used.

[Deleted]

Of course, it's a legal right and a principle; the problem is that some people interpret the right of...

We are not talking about the right, you are debating a straw man.

The shouting and screaming you see at protests and demonstrations are childish and unproductive, but they have little bearing on the principle of free expression.

Yes, Yes it does.

- - - Updated - - -

Your argument about "value" has no place, because freedom of speech isn't about determining value of speech, at all. Just that you won't face legal or societal sanction for having spoken.

The right is strictly limited.

And before someone says it, "societal" isn't synonymous with "social". If you're shunned by your community for your speech, that's hostile to freedom of speech
, even if it's not legal action by the government. And by "shunned" I mean nobody acknowledges your presence; storekeepers won't sell to you, nobody will serve you, etc. If it's not across the whole community, it's not "societal". A group within that community hating you or your message doesn't trip this.

Not to the right no - This is abject nonsense.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. The right to free speech is the right to be heard. The right to free speech is the right to get your opinion known to others. How can you still have that right if your voice is drowned out?

Because even if someone physically prevents you from speaking, as long as that someone is not a government agent, your right of speech have still not been violated.

- - - Updated - - -

Endus... I wonder if you would sing the same tune if same thing happened to your political allies.
I bet you would either stay silent or claim those who would do the same thing to your political allies are doing hate crimes.

Go ahead.
Dont dissapoint me.

These chaps are not at all detrimental to democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

Folks, drowning others out with sound is a tactic that goes back to at least the civil rights movement. The KKK did similar to black protester all the time. What's amazes me that these folks would stoop to such tactics the KKK used.

They are irony impaired and hypocrisy deficient.

[Rennadrel]

exactly, no one is saying you cant protest or state your opinion, just please do so in a way that other people can still state their view

This is pretty much how all people "protest" other people's protests these days. As I said in an earlier post, these kids made themselves look like fucking twats, due to their absurd immaturity and their failures to provide a counter argument. Their presence was to disrupt and silence, not counter the other protestors who were actually there because they disagree with Bill C-16. It seems that using logical counter arguments is beyond the intelligence level of these regressive leftists. Protesting isn't interrupting someone and being a complete douchenozzel towards them.

[downnola]

We are not talking about the right, you are debating a straw man.

I was quoting you, so if I'm arguing against a strawman, it's one you put it up in the first place.

Gods - How many fucking times do you need to be told - Free speech is both a legal right and a principle.

The principles of free expression are the basis for the legal right; it follows that if one misinterprets the legal right, they're also clueless on about the principles behind it. Change my usage of the word right in the sentence you struck out, and replace it with the word principle; it doesn't change a word of what I said in the rest of the post you conveniently snipped.

[Rennadrel]

I thought this letter is a bit interesting, and certainly sheds some light on this protest and why things went down the way they did.

https://noxious.ca/2016/10/14/a-lett...e-speech-sfss/

The disgusting thing is that the ring leader behind all of this is a racist woman who happens to be a member of both BLC and BLMTO, it's disgusting that she hasn't been imprisoned yet for all her racist rantings on Twitter wanting to kill white people, even though she has been investigated by the police a couple of times. I am surprised she isn't a member and supporter of ISIS, to tell you the truth.

[Deleted]

I thought this letter is a bit interesting, and certainly sheds some light on this protest and why things went down the way they did.

https://noxious.ca/2016/10/14/a-lett...e-speech-sfss/

The disgusting thing is that the ring leader behind all of this is a racist woman who happens to be a member of both BLC and BLMTO, it's disgusting that she hasn't been imprisoned yet for all her racist rantings on Twitter wanting to kill white people, even though she has been investigated by the police a couple of times. I am surprised she isn't a member and supporter of ISIS, to tell you the truth.

Right. And from that link...
http://www.viceprovoststudents.utoro...sibilities.htm

Obstruction
Students have the right to peacefully protest any University activity. However, that right does not extend to the point of disruption of an activity or to the point where a member of the University’s freedom of speech is jeopardized. For example, picketing outside a classroom may be acceptable. Shouting or otherwise preventing a lecture from taking place is not. Disruption is an offence under the University’s Code of Student Conduct (PDF) and charges are dealt with through its procedures.

Just shows how "unbiased" mods we have. Correct, Endus? What are you going to do now, when it's proven that your fellow radical leftists/degenerates violated rules?

[Endus]

Right. And from that link...
http://www.viceprovoststudents.utoro...sibilities.htm

Just shows how "unbiased" mods we have. Correct, Endus? What are you going to do now, when it's proven that your fellow radical leftists/degenerates violated rules?

1> I never supported the protestors, here. I supported their legal right to protest, and their legal right to behave how they were behaving, short of the physicality that briefly popped up. Pretty sure I've called them idiots a few times. Like I've said before; defending free speech means standing up for speech you disagree with, not just speech you support the message of.

2> The rules you're talking about are about the university's student code of conduct, not the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those rules restrict the accepted expressions of free speech on university grounds, but the only consequence is you could be removed from the premises and face administrative consequences within the university, if you're a student. And yes, that includes some restrictions on free speech. There's also greater protections against harassing-type conduct that go beyond what's protected under Canadian law.

[Deleted]

I was quoting you, so if I'm arguing against a strawman, it's one you put it up in the first place.

I have made numerous posts here clearly talking about the principle, not the right.

The principles of free expression are the basis for the legal right; it follows that if one misinterprets the legal right, they're also clueless on about the principles behind it.

No that does not follow.

Change my usage of the word right in the sentence you struck out, and replace it with the word principle; it doesn't change a word of what I said in the rest of the post you conveniently snipped.

Lets see:

Of course, it's a legal right and a principle; the problem is that some people interpret the right of free speech to mean that others have to listen to their opinion or ideas. You're free to hold and express an opinion, but I don't have to associate with you, and you can't force me to listen to it. You also can't stop me from disagreeing with you or challenging your views while you express them.

the problem is that some people interpret the principle of free speech to mean that others have to listen to their opinion or ideas.

Yes, yes it does - because its intent is to foster a marketplace of ideas - that is to say, you say your piece, I say my piece, then we rebut until both parties agree on the same hing, or agree to disagree.

The shouting and screaming you see at protests and demonstrations are childish and unproductive, but they have little bearing on the principle of free expression. A Trump supporter who is shouted down at a protest is still capable of expressing his views elsewhere, unlike a person in Austria, for example, who tries to write a book critical of the validity of the Holocaust. I'm sure you'll agree that having someone shout at you at a protest does little to silence you in contrast to a jail sentence.

Which is just wrong -

[downnola]

Yes, yes it does - because its intent is to foster a marketplace of ideas

Voluntary exchange is the essential feature of a marketplace. I’m not stopping you from selling your goods if I don’t buy them, you’re still free to sell those goods to other people. The principle of you being free to sell those goods is untouched even when people don’t want to buy them.

that is to say, you say your piece, I say my piece, then we rebut until both parties agree on the same hing, or agree to disagree.

You're describing a discussion or debate. Are you arguing that a protest or demonstration is the only atmosphere for a discussion or debate? It's the last place on earth I would to go for a proper discussion.

This is from chapter 2 of John Stuart Mill's book "On Liberty"

Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no more title to it than the worst. It is as noxious, or more noxious, when exerted in accordance with public opinion, than when in opposition to it. If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced

He's arguing against government censorship; the kind of restriction that can completely suppress an idea or point of view from the public. Ironically, the government also happens to be the only institution that can keep the Catholic church from rounding up and burning the books you've written as well as yourself for being a heretic.

None of the above has anything to do with forcing people to listen to what you have to say. If nobody wants to hear what you have to say at Yale University, nothing is stopping you from going somewhere else to express your ideas. The people at Yale might be foolish for refusing to hear an opposing view, but the principle of free expression is not coercive, you can't force them to hear you out.

[Powerogue]

"What's your main arguments? Because you're allowed to go on the mike."
"Oh, I don't want to [because I don't have any arguments lol I just like yelling at people that disagree with me]."

[Deleted]

Voluntary exchange is the essential feature of a marketplace. I’m not stopping you from selling your goods if I don’t buy them, you’re still free to sell those goods to other people. The principle of you being free to sell those goods is untouched even when people don’t want to buy them.

You don't have to buy the ideas.

You're describing a discussion or debate

Which is the very point of the principle of free speech.

Are you arguing that a protest or demonstration is the only atmosphere for a discussion or debate? It's the last place on earth I would to go for a proper discussion.

I'm arguing that a protest or a demonstration can both be construed to be outside the principle, and more importantly, to demonstrate and disturb the expression of ideas you don't like, is not to participate in the marketplace, but rather to distort it.

He's arguing against government censorship; the kind of restriction that can completely suppress an idea or point of view from the public. Ironically, the government also happens to be the only institution that can keep the Catholic church from rounding up and burning the books you've written as well as yourself for being a heretic.

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind." J. S. Mill

None of the above has anything to do with forcing people to listen to what you have to say. If nobody wants to hear what you have to say at Yale University, nothing is stopping you from going somewhere else to express your ideas. The people at Yale might be foolish for refusing to hear an opposing view, but the principle of free expression is not coercive, you can't force them to hear you out.

The principle of free expression is certainly not coercive - It is built on a mutually agreed upon structure, Otherwise it collapses.
I'm faulting them for not holding to the principle - See disturbing the meeting of a group you disagree with is not illegal, and cant really be made illegal, and should not be made illegal - Yet it should not be done, because it is distinctly anti-democratic, and illiberal.

[Endus]

I'm arguing that a protest or a demonstration can both be construed to be outside the principle, and more importantly, to demonstrate and disturb the expression of ideas you don't like, is not to participate in the marketplace, but rather to distort it.

See, this is not just wrong, it's internally contradictory. What you're actually doing is opposing the free market system you're claiming to support, and wanting some "products" to be excluded from that marketplace, to protect "your" products from that competition.

That's not how free markets work. You're explicitly trying to regulate that market to only encourage the particular "products" you want to see gain traction, and to oppose any "products" you don't support.

It's like a local mom-and-pop diner complaining that it's "unfair" for McDonalds to be across the street with better service, cheaper prices, and more attractive marketing. That's not a failure of the market, that's a failure of your participation in that market.

Yes, free markets are prone to behaviour that advantages one party or another. That's how free markets function. You can't take a stand on free market principles and then insist it's "unfair" that there's competition that upsets your "sales".

[Deleted]

See, this is not just wrong, it's internally contradictory. What you're actually doing is opposing the free market system you're claiming to support, and wanting some "products" to be excluded from that marketplace, to protect "your" products from that competition.

No, i dispute that it is a product.

That's not how free markets work. You're explicitly trying to regulate that market to only encourage the particular "products" you want to see gain traction, and to oppose any "products" you don't support.

No, I don't want to regulate anything.

It's like a local mom-and-pop diner complaining that it's "unfair" for McDonalds to be across the street with better service, cheaper prices, and more attractive marketing. That's not a failure of the market, that's a failure of your participation in that market.

To parse this in the marketplace of ideas, McDonalds had a better idea.
McDonalds would not have a better idea if they bribed the health inspector to shut down the mom and pop's place, or if it abused it's size to run at a loss and thus force them out of business, because then they distort the market.

Yes, free markets are prone to behaviour that advantages one party or another. That's how free markets function. You can't take a stand on free market principles and then insist it's "unfair" that there's competition that upsets your "sales".

An idea should be evaluated on its merits - Not whether or not a group of people can get together and force something out of business with shady practices, we call that a cartel.

[Endus]

No, i dispute that it is a product.

If you want to use the free-market concept of the "marketplace of ideas", then you're arguing that speech is a "product" to be marketed on said market.

No, I don't want to regulate anything.

When you try and exclude speech you dislike, that's exactly what you're advocating.

To parse this in the marketplace of ideas, McDonalds had a better idea.
McDonalds would not have a better idea if they bribed the health inspector to shut down the mom and pop's place, or if it abused it's size to run at a loss and thus force them out of business, because then they distort the market.

And now you're moving goalposts.

Their advertising that totally overshadowed the mom-and-pop is the equivalent of what we're talking about. There's nothing dishonest or unfair about it. You're having to insert that, and that makes your counter here a circular argument.

An idea should be evaluated on its merits - Not whether or not a group of people can get together and force something out of business with shady practices, we call that a cartel.

What you're explicitly advocating is precisely that kind of cartel. You're trying to "drive out" speech you don't like.

Your entire misconception of the marketplace of ideas is predicated on failing to understand what "liberty" actually is. If others have a "product" you don't like (meaning "speech"), in a free marketplace, your only response is to better market your own competing ideas.

Your entire argument is about attacking the liberties of those whose speech you find unacceptable.

[endlesswaltz]

this moderator makes me really unimpressed with the general upkeep of this sub forum, off to reddit

[nextormento]

And here I was thinking that analogies are not meant to be exact mimics.
Talk about speech fundamentalists.

[Deleted]

If you want to use the free-market concept of the "marketplace of ideas", then you're arguing that speech is a "product" to be marketed on said market.

Yes, and i disputed that shouting 'two legs bad, four legs good' constituted a 'product'.

When you try and exclude speech you dislike, that's exactly what you're advocating.

No, to regulate means to force people, I'm not proposing we force anyone do anything.

And now you're moving goalposts.
Their advertising that totally overshadowed the mom-and-pop is the equivalent of what we're talking about. There's nothing dishonest or unfair about it. You're having to insert that, and that makes your counter here a circular argument.

You get that advertising is actually distorting the market from the 'ideal' right? - at least if we are talking about a market in its philosophical sense.

What you're explicitly advocating is precisely that kind of cartel. You're trying to "drive out" speech you don't like.

No, i don't.

The principle of free expression is certainly not coercive - It is built on a mutually agreed upon structure, Otherwise it collapses.
I'm faulting them for not holding to the principle - See disturbing the meeting of a group you disagree with is not illegal, and cant really be made illegal, and should not be made illegal - Yet it should not be done, because it is distinctly anti-democratic, and illiberal.

Your entire misconception of the marketplace of ideas is predicated on failing to understand what "liberty" actually is. If others have a "product" you don't like (meaning "speech"), in a free marketplace, your only response is to better market your own competing ideas.

I thought getting together with 20 people who think like me and disturbing their meeting was kosher?

Your entire argument is about attacking the liberties of those whose speech you find unacceptable.

No - No it is not.

[Endus]

Yes, and i disputed that shouting 'two legs bad, four legs good' constituted a 'product'.

Refusing to recognize people's expression as "valid" is, like, Chapter 1, page 1 of "how to attack the freedom of speech".

You get that advertising is actually distorting the market from the 'ideal' right? - at least if we are talking about a market in its philosophical sense.

Err, no. It isn't. What you're talking about is a completely nonfunctional idealized myth, not anything that's actually practical in any sense. Plus, it's not even the ideal that you're talking about. It's your subjective ideal.

Yes, when you set out to define "speech" as "only those things I support and agree with", it's easy to attack anything else as not being "valid". But that's not a position based on freedom of speech.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about freedom of religion, your argument would boil down to "People are free to be as Christian as they want! That's what freedom of religion means! Not those OTHER religions."

And that's just wrong.

No, i don't.

Yeah, except that principle isn't what free speech is about. Freedom of speech is about how everyone has the same rights even when they can't mutually agree on that structure.

If we all agreed on what to say and how to say it, we wouldn't need to protect anyone's freedom of speech, because the issue's never challenged.

Here, you're making an argument akin to "we don't need to make murder a bad thing if everyone just, like, stops killing each other". It's ridiculously idealized and nonfunctional and ignores why that principle exists.