I was outraged over the cancellation of Milo’s speech by the University of California Berkeley recently. So were a lot of people — many of whom are on the right.
You know, the people who call themselves conservatives?
And now that a major conservative organization has also canceled his speech, we’re told (by the same people who screamed about him being censored at college campuses) that that’s different!
Hypocrites.
So what’s the rule here?
All inflammatory opinions are equal, but some inflammatory opinions are more equal than others?
Leftists become unhinged when it comes to questioning feminist or diversity dogma. Similarly, religious conservatives become unhinged where it comes to questioning the age of consent. For years they have been calling Harvey Milk a “pedophile” because he had a lover he met when the guy was 16.
They don’t know what pedophilia is. A 16 year old may or may not be ready for all adult activities, but he or she (or whatever he or she may want to call himself or herself) is not a child.
Moreover, in many countries, the age of consent is 14.
I’m not here to argue what the age of consent should be, nor am I defending the merits of Milo’s opinions. I’m just saying that if free speech means anything, it means being able to offer opinions on feminism, gender studies, Title IX, or anything else.
Including age of consent laws.
I feel like I’m stating the obvious here, but obviously I am not.
MORE: As I haven’t been blogging much these days, I didn’t explain far enough, but Sarah Hoyt has, and God bless her, because this is important stuff.
Comments
12 responses to “It’s only censorship if they’re censoring something I agree with!”
Sigh – that may actually be the one thing both sides agree on.
States vary between 16 and 18. Canada’s age of consent is 16.
And actually, quite a number on the right are defending him.
I disagree with the premise of your argument that CPAC uninviting a guest speaker is the same as a Berkley uninviting that same speaker, regardless of who that person is.
1) CPAC is not a publicly/state/ and federally funded institution
2) CPAC as far as I know has never lifted itself up as place where everyone’s speech is equal and should be given equal weight.
3) To my knowledge, CPAC uninvited this particular speaker because he did not represent the values and opinions that that private organization wishes to be associated. The decision was not made over fears that CPAC members might riot and burn the building down.
I don’t think that CPAC’s decision was made because they feared backlash from its members or the community, but simply because this particular speaker did not represent the type of speech they support. That is their choice, just as much as it is anyone’s choice to speak, it is their choice NOT to be forced to give that person a podium to speak from. Free speech works both ways.
CPAC has always had a problem with gay-cooties.
I remember your post http://classicalvalues.com/2013/03/is-breitbarts-ghost-uninvited/
They should know that girls are where cooties come from!
Someone at Ace’s yesterday wrote, “He’s getting the Derbyshire treatment.”
Exactly.
Some people have to virtue signal that they hate the right people.
Thanks Veeshir!
Milo has been uninvited from a number of universities, public and private:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/10/21/several-universities-cancel-appearances-conservative-writer-milo-yiannopoulos
The reason is that what he says he is considered too inflammatory. While universities or other entities are free to not invite or uninvite any speaker they choose, what I don’t like is that many people (on both the left and the right) condemn “censorship” only when they happen to agree with the content that is being censored. If they disagree, then it seems censorship is just fine.
There also seems to be a consensus that certain types of speech are beyond the pale. On the left this often takes the form of banning “hate speech,” and now Milo has run into similar mindset on the right because he raised questions over what is an appropriate age of consent.
But at least in this country he is still in theory free to say pretty much what he wants. (I say “still” because I see that freedom being eroded as it is voluntarily surrendered by people who are intimidated.)
In many countries, he would be put to death for his “blasphemy.”
I always considered CPAC anti-gay. It wasn’t until last year that they even recognized the Log Cabin Republicans (who are WAY more “respectable” than our flamboyant Milo).
I actually had a dropped jaw about them inviting him at all. I’m not at all surprised they reneged – it was probably a bare majority that approved that invite in the first place.
CPAC is free to invite/disinvite anyone they choose. And I’m free to ignore CPAC. I read what Milo said and wrote, and the actual content isn’t really all that shocking. Nothing to do with the typical headline, something like “Yiannopolis says pederasty is good for kids”. What he was quoted as saying might look a bit more shocking for someone primed by the headline and careless about paying attention to the real words. And there still are primitives in the Republican party who truly believe the entire universe was created in 6 days 6,000 years ago, and that homosexuality is a sin. Another tempest in a pisspot. It would be a wonderful world if the only real issue worth discussing were who speaks at CPAC.
@MM Indeed – I wasn’t at all shocked.
“Conservatives” are a hard nut to crack.
I’ve set as my goal cracking them.
It will not be done in a day.
as a person who gets regularly banned, say what you want. I have the right to boo! the banners have almost always (probably always) been wrong. liberals are now joining conservatives in banning free speech. do any of you know what mario savio and the free speech movement was all about? most think it was about using obscene words they are wrong.
I’ll see your Mario Savio and raise you a Franz Fannon.
btw, have you ever heard of James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, James Branch Cabell, or Wilhelm Reich? All had books banned. Reich had his books burned in an incinerator. It did happen here.
Here’s Mario’s famous speech:
“.. But we’re a bunch of raw materials that don’t mean to be — have any process upon us. Don’t mean to be made into any product! Don’t mean — Don’t mean to end up being bought by some clients of the University, be they the government, be they industry, be they organized labor, be they anyone! We’re human beings! … There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious — makes you so sick at heart — that you can’t take part. You can’t even passively take part. And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.”
Pure incoherent emotionalist leftoid bilge. Is that all you’ve got to support your “free speech”? Infantile screeching. High-chair pounding. Pre-literate irruptions from the collectivist id.
If it’s OK to riot and/or occupy a building to protest for free speech, against Vietnam or whatever your favorite righteous issue du jour happens to be, then it must equally be OK to occupy said building for Jesus and against abortion, or for for invisible purple moonbeams from Mars as well, coherent issue optional. Sauce, goose, gander. Some assembly required.
Umm. @MM. Re: Savio.
If I stand up in a public space and declaim; “wefoic whe eoJ2 k’fegrajie!”
That falls under “free speach” – no matter how incoherent it may be.
(In case you are wondering – that’s not code – I just mashed down on the keyboard.)