When I wrote yesterday about the notion of "safe spaces" being used to annex public spaces and dictate what may be spoken within them, I didn't imagine that modern academia would provide me with another example so swiftly. The place is the University of Missouri, where students accused the administration of indifference to overt racism. Activists demanded, and got, some high-level resignations over the matter. (They didn't get everything they wanted: as far as I can tell their distinctly Maoist demand for a handwritten confession and acknowledgement of ideological tenets was not met.) Agree with them or not, the Mizzou activists engaged in classic protected speech, at least to this point.
The safe-space-as-sword came during the victory celebration. The proposition was wantonly naked: the university's public spaces that activists had chosen to occupy were a no-dissent zone, where activists were entitled to be free from differing interpretations of events:
The "parameters" in question were the public university's quad, one of the most quintessentially public spaces in American law and tradition. This sentiment — that students could take over a public space, use it to express their views on a public issue, and shut other views out of it in the name of emotional safety — was vigorously enforced by a crowd threatening a photographer and a communications professor shouting for "muscle" to help her expel media.
All of this — engendered by accusations of racism against African-Americans — comes within living memory of people asserting their right to make public venues culturally "safe spaces" free of African-Americans. Of course, those safety-minded citizens were somewhat less sophisticated in their jargon. They had signs too.
Some people look on this sentiment and despair. I don't. It's a good thing for America to see how mainstream the spirit of censorship is. Some people say the censorship discredits the substantive values the students are fighting for. I don't. The protest about racism rises or falls on its own merits; the anti-dissent sentiment is so banal and common in academia now, and students aren't taught any different. It would be like saying that t-shirts and bad hair discredit the ideas the protesters are fighting for. Some people suggest that these students (and professors) deserve to face the censorship they encourage. I don't. Deserve's got nothing to do with it. We routinely protect the freedoms of people who scorn freedom: Nazis marching at Skokie, Westboro Baptist Church members protesting at funerals, and other assorted nitwits who dream of an America where their whims are law. That's the deal. We're not going to change because some academics and students are thuggish louts. We're not them. The sentiment "only people we agree with deserve rights" is theirs, not ours.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Popehat T-shirts available again - September 4th, 2018
- Washington Post Today On The Problems With "Flipping" - August 24th, 2018
- Today in Newspapers And Radio - August 22nd, 2018
- Some Friendly Advice To New Law Students - August 16th, 2018
- All The President's Lawyers: Manafort's First Trial Draws To A Close - August 16th, 2018
"Some people suggest that these students (and professors) deserve to face the censorship they encourage. I don't. Deserve's got nothing to do with it. We routinely protect the freedoms of people who scorn freedom: "
As regards to these professors, their freedom to be censorious idiots would be preserved by their dismissal from academia.
I actually have some sympathy for the students, as well, I was an idiot at their age too.
but the professors, journalists and adults in the wider sphere that encourage this…. nay, not just encourage, but actively campaign and push for legislation and policy have no excuse at all.
This is a dangerous regressively movement, with an ideology that impacts some of the basic tenets of society.
I freely confess I was not able to figure out what the fuck was going on in that scene. I guess some of the protesters were living in tents on the quad now? Was the human barricade allied with them, because they wanted some privacy in their little village? That's…kind of dumb, but I guess understandable. Was the human barricade actually there to keep the press from having access to the protesters? That's stupid regardless of their goals; the protesters have openly spoken to the press on many occasions, and they could easily make contact with the press via skype, twitter, etc. Were they just being huge pricks for the sake of it? That's sadly not a surprising possibility.
As a guy who lives in Missouri, let me tell you, the reaction to this fiasco has been strident. Not so much the part you are talking about, but the football team forcing the resignation of the President. I've had a lot of people telling me that we've let "the blacks" have too much power. That boggles my goddamn mind. It's very clear that the university is receiving a great deal of value from the hard work by their football players, and that the football players are not receiving as much as they would like in return. They can't be compensated financially due to the rules (which may be right or wrong, but aren't on the table right now.) So, they want a seat at the table in University administration decisions.
Well, that's what happens when you make a person or group of people indispensable to your operation. They gain a lot of power; power proportional to their value, in fact. If you expect them to never flex that muscle, then I dare say you are either ignorant of economics, or you're hoping against hope that they are.
"The "parameters" in question were the public university's quad, one of the most quintessentially public spaces in American law and tradition."
A brit enquiries – anyone want to tell me how that works – is it similar to our UK system of public right of way?
So the public have the right of access to the grounds because it's publically funded is that about the size of it?
One of the biggest things that has come out of this that I think most people have missed is just how much power a small group of students have over the school.
Had the boycott of the game gone through Missouri would have been on the hook for over 1 million in penalties for missing the game as well as additional penalties around that amount from ESPN and then the lost revanue. Imagine that this had gone on for the rest of the season… talk about a kick to the old bank account. The best part about it? In an effort tk give the students less legal backing to sue the school / NCAA the school actually had nothing they could legally do to the students. A few people that are involved with the collegate sports programs even went as far as to say the scholorships could not be revoked.
Amazing how much schools rely on these amateurs in order to survive.
This is one of those situations where I totally get it, right up until the point it's put into practice. I can completely understand that it's problematic for students to genuinely feel unsafe on campus, especially those who actually live there. But I have a hard time believing that those are the same people who feel comfortable getting in screaming matches and physical altercations with strangers. I think it's great when students take university administration seriously and get involved with the institution they're a part of, especially when it comes to concerns that schools tend to sweep under the rug. But it's hard to see the rationale behind somebody's anger when they insist on acting totally deranged and refuse to articulate themselves to anybody.
Ken wrote:
I do despair somewhat at the absence of simple English language metrical scansion in their allegedly poetic chant.
From the linked article:
Spondee, Spondee / Amphibrach, Quartus Paeon
just doesn't scan well.
Historically, these "hey hey ho ho" chants have been mostly:
Spondee, Spondee / Tetrabrach (or Primus Paeon or Ditrochee), Anapest
along the lines of "Hey Hey Ho Ho / Dean Magoo has got to go."
But, I'm probably an establishmentarian pig who neither understands nor cares for their precious and delicate feelz.
Yes, there's something sinister about excluding people from a public space you and yours are trying to establish as a safe place. However, I'm marginally sympathetic to the notion of media as active (even sinister) agents rather than "just people."
From a long time ago:
"I would be drunk if I did not point out that just as the media symbol for the collapse of public order is looting– i.e. the opposite of shopping, the media symbol for a collapse of civil society is the destruction of a media news van.
Show me some broken windows or broken heads and I will wait to be told who is to blame, but anyone who attacks the media is self-evidently a degenerate. The odd thing is that while the media are supposed to be impartial and invisible, the most active in terms of agenda, framing, and activity, is that very media. Their specific function at that riot is to make money, and they're surprised they became a target? If you start a riot, the very first thing you should flip over is the news van. Just don't then stand on it."
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/11/joe_paterno.html
I'll add to the chorus saying that it's good those football players are exercising their power. I don't know enough about the situation to know if I like the policies they want, but the fact that this multi-billion-dollar industry has been riding on the backs of "amateurs" who just discovered they can bring the whole thing to a halt makes me smile.
Also, way to be a stereotype: http://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/11/10/us/10missourivideo/10missourivideo-superJumbo.png
I could understand them, at the least, putting up signs that say something to the effect of "We are not doing any media interviews today, if you're looking to write a story you'll only be told no comment or be met with silence," but why do they insist of making it into such a demand as "NO MEDIA! THIS IS A SAFE SPACE".
On the right we have Trump conjuring up images of Mussolini demanding Italy be for Italians and on the left we have people like these conjuring up images of Mao demanding that only questions that China approves should be answered.
Americans need to abandon an us vs them mentality and learn there are shades of grey to everyone.
and refuse to articulate themselves to anybody
Given that the student protestors have articulated themselves quite clearly a number of times, what on earth are you talking about?
(Always good to see someone talking disparagingly about the articulateness of minority students)
"I freely confess I was not able to figure out what the fuck was going on in that scene. I guess some of the protesters were living in tents on the quad now?"
Thankfully Gnon will dispense with those tent protesters in short order. Missouri is on the great plains and winter there can be authentic!
@DataShade, yes it is delicious that the media starting to reap the bad fruit that they have sown!
A blog carefully cataloged stories and noted that the New York Times published 106(!!!) stories on Ferguson, Missouri between 8/10/2014 and 8/30/2014. That is just insane, considering this was solitary suburb and a single incident.
http://28sherman.blogspot.com/2014/12/media-megaphone-contributed-to-brooklyn.html
The media narrative turned out to be almost entirely false (as evidence, which was plainly available to any media actually interested in the truth, showed that Michael Brown violently attacked a shopkeeper minutes before and then attacked the police). Meanwhile as a result of this media malpractice, race relations in Missouri have been poisoned for a generation.
@Dan
No, in fact that "media malpractice" probably didn't make a dent. Ferguson was about a lot more than Michael Brown, as plenty of media gladly documented (led, arguably, by Radley Balko). Ferguson was just one of many counties were essentially the poor had been reduced to serfdome, having to tithe extra based on the whims of local state actors. It went on for decades.
That poisoned race relations in Missouri, point of fact.
While much of the media didn't cover that situation correctly, much of the public ignored the real problems. Ones that got talked about.
I don't know whether to nominate Oberfuehrer Click for for the Joeseph Goebbels award for journalism or the Ernst Roehm award for group security. or both.
@Nathan:
It's simple, the tweet said it all: "…be protected from twisted, insincere narratives." They want control over the narrative, of how the story is presented, the values that are highlighted, and the conclusions tat are drawn. The narrative defines the truth, at least as far as political action is concerned, so controlling that is the core to political action in your favor. Both right and left understand this, that's why (for example, and painting with broad strokes here) the right complains of "liberal bias in the media" and why the left wants to ban two way conversation on certain issues.
It's no surprise to me that a communication's professor was the one taking the lead kicking press out. She certainly knows the power of controlling the narrative.
A group that wants control over a narrative should begin by learning to speak literate English. The only thing these thugs "clearly articulated" to anybody is that the high schools from which they graduated need to be shut down for incompetence.
"No, in fact that "media malpractice" probably didn't make a dent. Ferguson was about a lot more than Michael Brown, as plenty of media gladly documented (led, arguably, by Radley Balko). Ferguson was just one of many counties were essentially the poor had been reduced to serfdome, having to tithe extra based on the whims of local state actors. It went on for decades."
And yet somehow civil order in St. Louis collapsed just since the hysteria so enthusiastically stirred up by the Grey Lady.
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2015/10/01/st-louis-has-the-highest-murder-rate-in-the-nation
http://www.ktrs.com/latest-murder-beats-last-years-murder-rate-in-st-louis/
Why that is, is a riddle wrapped in an enigma. The world may never know! This is so hard and confusing!
If I were king, I would toss aside civil liberties completely, in order to force New York Times staff to live in Ferguson, Missouri! An unbelievable 106 stories peddling a false narrative in only three weeks, from the national paper of record! That has to be the equivalent of getting a nuclear bomb dropped on your city!
The only thing these thugs
Oh, good. The racists have arrived.
"The only thing these [bad word[ "clearly articulated" to anybody is that the high schools from which they graduated need to be shut down for incompetence."
Ugh. Those incompetent high schools.
I am really, REALLY getting sick and tired of these over-emoted disasters speaking for so-called "minorities." God! I hate that term. However, it works here, so if you want an alternative perspective from one who's grandfather came here from Mexico read it here: Progressives and Racism – A Minority's View.
I should add a trigger warning… If you're a Progressive, your small, narrow worldview will be challenged. Now get out of my life.
so, if i understand you correctly, you are saying that african americans forcing the majority culture to let them into public squares they were explicitly kept out of is THE SAME as african americans asking the mainstream media to let them tell their own story? so photographer for huff post as rosa parks?
because, not to put too fine a point on it, that idea, and your writing thereof, is just totally inane. false equivalency score of 100.
@Dan
It's called "the straw that broke the camel's back". It could have been any number of things that touched this off. The various counties in Missouri didn't really need much of a spark to catch fire the way they did. Again, there's coverage illustrating this.
Well, I suppose it is for people who have their heads buried in the sand.
@En Passant:
I'm just bugged by the fact that "fellowship" is not a verb, despite their tweet using it as such.
@Dan
Well, the northern half of Missouri is the Great Plains (I generally put the dividing line at roughly the Missouri River). Columbia's kind of the southern border of that transition, though.
Also, looking at murder rates for the City of St. Louis (I'm assuming that's what those were referring to) is very much a Small Sample Size issue – with only 300,000+ in the City proper (those don't look at the County, which includes Ferguson), it's easy to skew, and has been for years.
I guess that's true, however, that is a very minimal benefit and it is useful only as long as people see it for what it is and don't just shrug it off.
As things currently stand one can reasonably write off colleges and universities as the places where there are intellectual debates or respect for free speech. In 2-5 years, these un-grown children will be in a work space environment and will continue with the same fervor looking to establish what they consider their safe spaces regardless whether they are encroaching into everyone else's. More accurately, they'll continue to actively push to eliminate different-think spaces.
I got nothing against their free speech rights. Whatever they want to do they can do it, as long as they don't enforce it on me. And yes, that's where they are going towards. Don't know the speed but the direction is unmistakable – the land of no choice.
I've seen that place, I've lived in that place. It's called communism, it's hellish, and I won't just stand by and let history repeat itself but for my children.
**Breaking news**
Oh, heavenly Father, what have we done to deserve such delicious trollful goodness? It turns out that the President and Chancellor of Mizzou were brought down by a hoax!
http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/10/was-the-poop-swastika-incident-at-mizzou-a-giant-hoax/
Yay!! What is coolest of all is the President of Mizzou committed ritual seppuku even though he did nothing wrong *because* he is committed leftist.
I should have known something was up when I saw what the community organizer leading the charge at U of Missouri looked like. For someone doing a death-fast he was unexpectedly chubby.
Roman style justice at its best: The mob screams for blood, and the Emperor puts his sword through a few people to quench their blood lust. The wider populace then assumes those put to the sword had it coming.
@ZugTheMegasaurus:
From the "rationale" section of the Wikipedia article on "safe spaces":
______________________________________________________________________________________
@Reginald Vel Johnson:
If people are actually living in the quad and want to relax, it would be difficult to relax if you knew you were being recorded by the media. Of course, in that case, they should have plainly said "people are living here and want some privacy".
@Matthew Cline:
"If people are actually living in the quad and want to relax, it would be difficult to relax if you knew you were being recorded by the media."
The lawful cure to that conundrum is to not "live in the quad and want to relax".
@Raul Ybarra
I don't disagree with anything particular in your linked post, but at the same time I feel that the "moral majority" part of the Republican party is just as scary to me. They are also trying to define and control my beliefs and especially my actions. No, I don't believe in the same things you do, yes I do believe in science and evolution, yes I do believe that policy decisions affecting more than just the folks in your specific small town or what not where it's homogeneous should be made using as unbiased as possible facts and should be less based on emotion & fear.
I'm not saying you, personally, embody or believe that. Just that while Progressives get fanatical about taking offense on others behalf (which the modern version often does way too much and often, rather than trying to _enable_ those who take offense to be able to speak out for themselves, I'm thinking civil rights movement here), to me it's scarier when a group of people invoke religion as the highest and mightiest and only way to govern. The world unfortunately has a very long history that's still ongoing where religion is used and interpreted to benefit a small minority and/or repress all those who don't conform.
The general thought and goal of "we expect people to take responsibility for themselves" is noble and worthy. I feel much of the modern national (say, 20+ years) implementation is more about consolidating power for them as well as increasingly pushing intolerant viewpoints and policies. And the obsession with unbridled Free Market as the Holy Grail of our economy is ludicrous. That, IMO, only truly works if you have the heads of companies with a conscious and keep in mind civic responsibility. Even then, it's often not a reasonably fair (meaning availability of opportunity, not everyone should earn a princely salary) to those who don't start out with a certain level of wealth. Think of the railroad barons, child labor, cities with horrible pollution.
I have read Melissa Click's apology. While it is cleverly worded, it avoids apologizing for her worst behavior. She apologized only for the "languages and strategy" she used. She's not apologizing for blocking reporters from reporting. She's only apologizing for the strategy she chose in doing so. Not a single word about freedom of the press or freedom of speech.
Sort of. People don't have the right to access all publicly funded spaces for First Amendment purposes (for instance, you could be kicked out if you attempt to hold your demonstration inside a lecture hall and disrupt classes), but areas like streets, sidewalks, and parks are considered "traditional public forums" and are generally always considered open for public expression. A university quad, which is usually a park-like area for students to gather and hang out is pretty solidly in the "traditional public forum" category, except for in cases where it's a private university.
I'm not entirely certain what the "public right of way" in the UK entails, so I can't really compare it to that.
@Robert Green
If Ken thinks it's THE SAME, he most likely would have said so. If comparing A and B is the same as equating them, then perhaps the point is not fine enough. If someone has said that the student photographer is Rosa Parks, you should go argue with that person, rather than put words in someone else's mouth.
Plenty?
This isn't a serious statement. The shit sandwich of local government Ferguson natives get isn't much different than places with similar demographics and voting patterns from sea to shining sea. If Radley Balko is on the case you can bet the media "following" it is not a quantity of "plenty"
Imagine how much clout the Mizzou football team might have if it weren't 4-5 for the season.
"A university quad, which is usually a park-like area for students to gather and hang out is pretty solidly in the "traditional public forum" category, except for in cases where it's a private university."
You aren't clear about it, but if you're implying that the distinction is between publicly funded and private universities, that's not quite it. Government-owned public spaces enjoy the highest level of protection, but some privately owned property (generally that which could be considered the "traditional public forum" you talk about) may be treated as a quasi-public forum, usually when the owner invites the public to come and treat it as a public space and derives some benefit from doing so. (The big cases involved malls/shopping centers.) In these cases, the owner still has the rights enjoyed by private property owners, such as the right to exclude people from access, but they become limited by some of the rights of the invitees–most notably, they can't always use the state to trespass certain people based solely on the content of their speech.
In the case of universities, I think the big sit-in/protest type free speech battles of the past few decades have been fought more in the media than the courts, so I'm not sure how much the quasi-public v. private distinction has been tested for them. (IIRC, the university free speeches of late have been more about things like whether a public university can censor their employees or how much the administration can regulate a student newspaper.) In general, I think you can make a pretty strong argument for quasi-public forum–even private universities like to hold themselves out as bastions of free speech and often welcome visitors, and doing so probably benefits their reputation. Most top-tier schools are major tourist attractions, and I'm sure the universities encourage that.
There are some private universities that don't really open their campus to the public at all, and I imagine the courts will have no issue with these guys censoring the hell out of their students. As for the other schools that are more open to the public, I think that the courts will grant a great degree of First Amendment protection for students and visitors alike, at least with regard to spaces generally open to the public.
It's sad for me to see the de facto leaders of this group (that is majority black, and was named for the year the first black students were admitted to Missouri), the ones that were shouting the loudest and taking the most overt actions to censor speech, were white women. This incident, then, enforces the notion that radical feminists, especially white feminists, will talk over other minorities…especially since the photographer was an Asian man. And this would be the perception even if none of the women identify as feminists.
It's also within living memory that the idea of public space safe for all has even been an attainable and desirable goal, and the whole point of the protests in Missouri is that the public spaces there haven't been kept safe for black people. To hold protesters to a standard that hasn't existed for them (and I'm not talking about Melissa Click) until now seems … unjust.
I'll be honest: I have no problem at all with the students saying that TONIGHT, they'd like the media to stay away. The media can say what it wants – it does NOT have the right to put itself wherever it wants to be. Yes, it's a public space, but they were asking to use it as THEY wanted to use it for one flipping evening. That really isn't THAT absurd – no more absurd than asking reporters not to stand on a casket while it's lowered into the ground, no more absurd than asking people to not hold a paintball fight on the middle of a beach, no more absurd than being able to book a gazebo at a public park, and not let anybody else in for that duration.
It's not like the press was being told that they could NEVER go there, or NEVER report on the story. They were being asked to stay away for that short while. That really doesn't seem that absurd. Especially when you consider that the press DOES harass, and DOES misreport, and that the students were, factually, not wrong.
@GuestPoster wrote, "The media can say what it wants – it does NOT have the right to put itself wherever it wants to be."
Nope. The media has every right to be in public spaces. The organizers of these protests are unclear on the concept: Protesters occupy public spaces because they want attention for their cause. That is the *whole point*! I'm pretty sure MLK didn't shout "stop looking at me" over and over as he marched on Washington.
"and that the students were, factually, not wrong"
Um, about that. It turns out that the racial 'incident' that sparked everything, was a HOAX! Now this is awkward!
>
Except the very woman who was calling for muscle to remove the media was the same one who sent out tweets begging the media to come cover this big, important story (her words).
Had no media showed up, the protesters would no doubt have decried the censorship of the power structure as demonstrated by no one caring.
Never mind equating the media recording/reporting a public demonstration on a public location with "stand[ing] on a casket as it's lowered to the ground." Wow. Just wow.
So, it gets better and better:
1. Remember, MU prides itself on the quality of its "J-school" (journalism school), which apparently was among the world's first.
2. The journalist being harassed turned out to be a senior in that program. There is some real irony there.
3. One faculty member harassing him (Click) teaches in the Comm department (and has since resigned a "courtesy" appt in that department), another was a dean. Both have since apologized and nattered about being caught up in the "heat of the moment."
More here (the Columbia Missourian is a public newspaper that is in fact run by the J-school).
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/news/higher_education/update-mu-faculty-member-resigns-courtesy-appointment-apologizes-for-photojournalist/article_6e2cedaa-87c7-11e5-ae63-87e5cacea580.html
Slow down. There certainly have been fabricated instances of harassment in the past. But here all we have so far are reporters asking questions about the evidence of the incident.
It's fun to point out "rush to judgment" by the other side, but that doesn't mean you can ignore rushes to judgment you do yourself.
@Fobbing: I was unaware of that, thank you for the additional information. That DOES rather change things a bit. It's one thing to, essentially, hold a celebration in a public space, know that the media tends to mis-report such events, and ask them to butt out. It rather is another to invite the media to your event, directly inserting the event into the 'newsworthy' column, and THEN ask them to stay out of it.
It's sort of like celebrities for me. Those who do a good job of keeping their public and private lives separate, I think they have an incredibly good argument to make when they complain of always being hounded by reporters. Those who go out of their way to be in the camera at all times? I think they have a much worse argument when they complain of the exact same issue. And in either case, I think there needs to be a balance between 'I happen to be using a public place' and 'as such, apparently it's totally legal for anybody and everybody to film/photo/record me and paste it all over the internet'. People, after all, should still be able to expect a certain degree of privacy in a public place. There really is a difference between somebody happening to see you as they pass by, or happening to overhear a word spoken, and somebody with a camera recording you while you sit, and refusing to go away if asked.
I do not expect them to face censorship of their speech. I do, however, desire that they be punished for their behavior. Severely. Pushing people around and calling for "muscle" to help them expel press from their event in the public square should be grounds for the dismissal of the faculty involved and the expulsion of the students.
@Matt L
I'd go slightly farther. Calling for "muscle" sounds to me an awful lot like a threat and an incitement to violence.
If I where the reporter, I think it would make me feel unsafe…
@Matt L,
Melissa Click, the faculty member involved, has resigned. Although criminal charges are probably warranted, at least losing her job is something.
Some 2nd rate Dan wannabe wrote,
"But here all we have so far are reporters asking questions about the evidence of the incident."
No sir! No reporters allowed, you silly Dan, you. And you said "evidence"! LOL! There was none, except for a picture of a swastika of smeared poop on a bathroom wall floating around on social media. As it turns out, that picture has been on the Internet for at least 11 months. Yeah, baby!
But I'm glad they got rid of the President and Chancellor of the University, just in case. Now if we could just get rid of the rest of those pesky faculty I think that would give Mizzou students the safe space they need to heal and move forward.
@(not-the-purple-avatar-fool)Dan
She still has her primary prof job. She only resigned from a particular role (that involved mentoring graduate students, read through the page you linked for details). It probably isn't going to be helpful for her career longterm but I'm guessing it isn't the end of it either.
It shouldn't matter at all what they called (speech) for, what should matter is their actions. The reporters shouldn't have left and if they were assaulted they should have called the cops and had everyone arrested that was involved including the person that incited the violence. I'm not one of those people that thinks you should automatically arrest someone "calling for violence", you should only act if the violence materializes. And on top of that there wasn't necessarily a call to violence, it was a call for muscle which could have meant anything really, such as forming a nice strong human chain that would block access while remaining perfectly legal in most locations.
I'll never understand this jump to "Punish them for their call to violence". Most often it's used as a method to punish speech someone doesn't like rather than actual calls for real violence. There are plenty of perfectly legal statements that can be interpreted as a call for violence if you set the bar that low. And let me guarantee something to you, you set the bar that low and that low bar will be used to cut the feet out of people you support. This is why we need to defend these attempts to limit speech. There are plenty of euphemisms (even incredibly common ones) that can be interpreted as calls to violence if you set the bar that low.
@Dan
If I understand correctly (as per the article you cited), Click resigned only from her "courtesy appointment" to the journalism department, not from her actual day job, i.e., her position in the "communications" department.
It appears from the footage that she herself actually jostled the videographer – perhaps trying to swat the camera out of his hands – before calling for back-up, aka inciting violence. Hopefully the school will take that into account in reviewing her conduct.
So if I openly call for someone to "rough you up" in a quite serious and non-hyperbolic/non-hypothetical way, but I don't act myself, I'm home free, right? Or is it my correct understanding that I too should be arrested if others were to act with no further act on my own part?
I'm looking forward to a philosophically coherent explanation of how the exact same utterance can be a crime or not, based solely on the action or inaction of independent third parties.
Well, Trent has just singlehandedly overruled Brandenburg v. Ohio, so let's call it a day.
She was recorded on video yelling “Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here.” It was necessarily a call to violence. Deal with it.
I don't believe any call to violence that doesn't result in violence should ever be charged as a crime. There lies a slope that is far too slippery IMO.
Whether or not there is supreme court precedent resolving this does not change my belief that this speech should remain free absent actual violence. There are currently many supreme court rulings I'd like to see changed and I doubt you feel any differently on that score. So your facetious challenge is nothing but bluster and boot licking of authority.
Just as when Sara Palin posted pictures on the internet of Congress people with targets on them and made a verbal call to "take them down" it was a call to violence, yes? And she should be punished for it just like your call to punish this woman, right?
The appropriate response to this person has happened, she has received countering speech of enormous quantity and is being punished through acceptable social stigma. I see no need for the government to get involved and ruin the rest of what remains of her life. But you of course would like to see an example made of her, but you will scream like a stuck pig when that same call to action from your side gets someone you like prosecuted.
This is a category of classification that is far too easy to abuse, you fail to see that at your own peril.
I mean, their entire argument is "he hasn't done enough to combat various small incidents of racism, many of which he couldn't combat or are unconfirmed! And we're definitely not going to give him advice on how to do this."
Always good to see someone jumping on some nonsense like this. I think they're pathetically inarticulate, and I keep forgetting they are black in the first place.
By the way, 'thug' is only a racial slur in the same way that any negative word could be a 'slur', because racists will always use negative words on the race they hate. 'Thug' is a word that has a pretty specific and known meaning as well.
Until they release some detailed explanation of what the president did wrong and what he could do right (not just 'he didn't do enough to address', because that is nebulous as all fuck), no one should have any respect for them at all.
http://www.pennlive.com/steelers/index.ssf/2015/11/deputy_ray-ray_steeler-raiders.html
Question for the 1st amendment lawyers here: does barking at a police dog count as petitioning the government?
Fail. Slippery slope arguments are not philosophically coherent explanations. They merely say "I can draw the line here, but not here, because I'm unwilling to put any effort into evaluating a situation that does not match my personal beliefs as to how this should work."
Again, how can the exact same utterance can be a crime or not, based solely on the action or inaction of independent third parties? You simply need to acknowledge that you're endorsing derivative criminal liability and collective punishment, which is totally not a "slippery slope" (sarcasm intended), so that you can be awarded your "appropriate social stigma."
Ah yes, your unsupported argument is principled and just. My reference to a well reasoned explanation of why imminent threats of lawless action are not protected speech is bootlicking… got it.
Brandenburg test. Read it.
@JR
That, Sir, was simply brilliant. Such that I corrected the errors and tweeted it. Please feel free to retweet. Again, simply brilliant, thank you.
Nomination for Joseph Goebbels Award for Journalism & the Ernst Roehm Group Security Award on Twitter
"Question for the 1st amendment lawyers here: does barking at a police dog count as petitioning the government?"
Indeed my understanding is that it does. I base this on a legal class I recently took with Professor David Chappelle. Professor Chappelle presented a case study he called "Half-Baked" in which an upstanding citizen was convicted of killing an officer of the law when he shared his munchies with a diabetic police horse.
@Dan Weber
Speaking of awkward….for The Perpetual Fool/Troll In Purple @Dan, and Sean Davis…..
http://www.scribd.com/doc/289392992/Mizzou-Poop-Swastika-Police-Report
@Dwight, people like you take themselves way too seriously. It is harshing everyone's mellow and killing comedy. Failure to appreciate humor is a primary indicator of Asperger's. But help is available! Many sufferers find support in My Little Pony. There is no need to suffer in silence!
"By the way, 'thug' is only a racial slur in the same way that any negative word could be a 'slur', because racists will always use negative words on the race they hate."
Personally, I tend to lean more towards the "thug is just general insult and not a specific racial slur," but language evolves, and I do sort of see thug slowly drifting towards the gray region of the spectrum. Just think of the phrase "spear chucker." I imagine there was a period after English started to resemble the modern incarnation, but before it became most widely used as a specific slur against Africans, where the term was more of a general insult (or maybe a complementary term for skilled Amazon warriors, who knows.) That changed in the way language often does.
I personally think people are overly sensitive to the word "thug" and the majority of people don't use it with any deliberate racial undertones. That said, I do think there are now emerging a growing number of people who do use it as a thinly veiled substitute slur (sort of like how my therapist told me to just say "That's your opinion. I disagree but I respect it." as a substitute for "You're a moron, and I don't give two shits.") Even before the media started to make a big deal out of it, I definitely noticed there seemed to be more people in the comments calling the black criminals thugs than the white ones. The disparity wasn't as noticeable with violent crimes (perhaps because everyone was calling those guys thugs), but with things like non-violent drug offenses and white collar crime, I noticed far more comments labeling the black criminals thugs than the white ones.
Of course, my thesis isn't the only possible explanation for the disparity. It's also possible that the term itself is still race neutral, but people simply assume that the black drug dealers and embezzlers are carrying guns and engaged in all sorts of violent crimes they weren't caught for, while the white drug dealers and embezzlers are innocent of any crimes not specifically charged.
The second interpretation is also consistent with the face that (probably a whole different set of) commenters like to throw the term around when talking about any sort of prosecutors/law enforcement, even when the story has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of use of force. (EPA trying to implement new regulations? Bet you we can get from that to "Obama's jackbooted thugs taking away my smokestacks" in less than six degrees of Kevin Bacon.)
"It's not like the press was being told that they could NEVER go there, or NEVER report on the story. They were being asked to stay away for that short while. That really doesn't seem that absurd. Especially when you consider that the press DOES harass, and DOES misreport, and that the students were, factually, not wrong."
You're not wrong about that last bit. When I was in school, I remembered that there were media on campus during lottery day, when the freshmen all find out what upperclassmen houses we were assigned to. It was a particularly busy day, as the upperclassmen were out with banners and costumes and such welcoming people to their new homes, while the first years were all walking around to see where their friends ended up (at the time, I think at most 1/4 of students had cell phones.) I remember wondering why the hell this was newsworthy–as it turns out, all the footage was being used for a report on an unrelated protest against George W Bush (which, if memory serves, was something like a dozen non-university-related people gathered in the square off campus.) I don't think they ever issued any sort of correction.
But anyway, I don't think that splitting the "media stay out for now"/"media stay out forever" hair makes as much of a difference as how they asked and when they asked. Having attended a fish bowl for four years I can certainly understand saying, "Please, can just I eat a damn meal without media/tourists taking pictures?" What I have a problem with is that they didn't ask, they demanded (with a thinly veiled threat of violence to back that demand up.) What I also have a problem with is that they weren't saying "I know you think this is a public park, but the dorms are our home and the quad is like our front yard. Please leave us in peace." They were in fact inviting their supporters (including, I imagine, at least some non-students) to come gather–using the area as essentially a public forum for their message–while specifically excluding those they believed would be less sympathetic to their message. That I also find troubling.
The t-word is imperialist cultural appropriation. It is not okay to use that word if you aren't talking about Indian assassins.
Bravissimo Ken! You nailed it.
@Dwight —
So it seems that the 'poop swastika' did exist. There is still no indication of who is behind it. Based on fabrications we know of so far, it wouldn't be surprising if this too was a hoax.
The one spearheading the protests, Jonathan Butler, has already been caught in two major lies.
(1) He spread the totally false rumor that the KKK was threatening black students on campus. He caused a campus-wide panic before people realized it was not true.
(2) More damning, his claim that he was struck by the Mizzou President's car during the protest is belied by video evidence to the contrary. Video shows that Butler walked or ran toward the front bumper of the car during the protest.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/11/video-shows-university-missouri-activist-jonathan-butler-falsified-key-claim-president/
I'm sure you don't trust Breitbart. No matter, watch the video.
The lie about the President's car was what fueled protests more than anything else, and what forced him out.
Does wearing the mantle of victimhood while coming from dynastic wealth count as a lie? Probably not, but it sure is deceptive.
All I can really say is that it boggles my mind that these protesters DIDN'T want the media documenting their protest. If you want to control the narrative for ANYTHING, you have to CREATE it. I had thought that was the whole point of a protest, to draw attention to your issue…
They should have invited media coverage, even going as far as to actually contact friendly journalists to get them to cover the event. Were it me, I would have welcomed reporters with open arms, lukewarm coffee and talking points.
I mean, their entire argument is "he hasn't done enough to combat various small incidents of racism, many of which he couldn't combat or are unconfirmed! And we're definitely not going to give him advice on how to do this."
So they actually *have* articulated their position, only you don't find it sufficient? So my response is, in fact, correct. Thanks!
By the way, 'thug' is only a racial slur in the same way that any negative word could be a 'slur', because racists will always use negative words on the race they hate. 'Thug' is a word that has a pretty specific and known meaning as well.
You're one of those folks who likes to argue that "people of color" is identical to "colored people" and you can't figure out why everyone is protesting the latter, aren't you?
@Total, with all due respect and no offense intended, you're an idiot.
Nowhere does it claim poor articulation against "all" minorities for the sole reason they are "minorities," and you know it! You're doing the same thing that Obamacrats do by accusing all Obama haters of being "racist." By this logic, couldn't I ask you the same about potential animosity against caucasians? I hardly call screaming in a riot fashion filled with curse words, "articulation." It's what the mob does. If they believe in political correctness, how come they're so disruptively rude? Kinda hypocritical.
Aside from that, you can hardly call them the "minority" anymore. Even where they're not more numerous in population, they usually get what they want, regardless of how conceited and entitled they are being, as evidenced in this article! That's its own "majority," in predominance of ideology.
@Total to respond to your other comment, how the H*LL is colored persons any different in definition than people of color.
It's the SAME d*mn phrase and everyone knows what is being said; only people as stuck-up as you find offense in that. How does switching the order and adding "of" change what the overall meaning of it is? The answer to that is: it doesn't.
It's like fighting over calling a pizza pie, a pie of pizza. Who cares? This is why it's so hard to take those who act like you are acting, truly serious. You question our claim of them being inarticulate, and you're giving the prime example of the same inarticulacy. Articulacy isn't just what you say but HOW you say it, and let's face it, you're not winning any hearts here, by trolling, so just go home. Please don't make me make a much more politically incorrect remark just to move you along!
respond to your other comment, how the H*LL is colored persons any different in definition than people of color.
Never has a point been proven quite so quickly. Thanks, Kyle, for reacting exactly as I thought you would.
@Manatee, @Total, @Kyle and any others, in the previous article, Ken described those who use safe spaces as a sword as practicing rank thuggery, so the use of the word 'thug' is referencing that specifically (or could be argued as such).
@Janine, LOL! unless you're serious, then err…?
My thoughts on the Mizzou portion of this issue, looking mainly at First Amendment issues, is here (and let's not forget the First includes freedom of assembly): http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/11/journalism-vs-mass-communication.html
Was the horse a sworn officer?
Trent
Speech is an action.
So, if someone hires someone they think is a hitman to kill someone, but the other person turns out to be an FBI agent, they shouldn't be charged anyone because no violence resulted?
DRJlaw says
There are plenty of actions that are treated differently depending on the actions of others. For instance, if I shoot someone and the paramedics show up and save the person, I'll be charged with attempted murder. If a paramedic screws up and kills the person, I'll be charged with murder.
No, that wasn't a reference to a well reasoned explanation. It was a sarcastic, condescending and arrogant assertion that merely by expressing an opposing point of view, Trent was "overruling" the Supreme Court. By implying that the mere fact that the Supreme Court has taken a particular point of view, all other points of view are invalid, you were indeed taking a quite authoritarian point of view.
Anyone who drew a swastika with poop in Nazi Germany would have been beaten to a pulp and thrown into a concentration camp (unless they were excused as mentally defective, in which case they might have been humanely euthanized).
It is absurd for the campus furies to claim to see some anti-progressive agenda behind it.
@Yarrgh,
Not sure if you actually read my comment, but thanks for the heads up all the same. Like I said, I lean towards "thug" being used with no racial overtones the vast majority of the time, and I tend to think that's even more true here, given that "censorious thuggery" is an oft-repeated meme all the same.
I just find it fascinating how language evolves, and interesting that I might be seeing it evolve during my lifetime. Also interesting how the vast majority of linguistic evolution I see online seems to be coining new ways to be dicks to other people.
@Kyle
"how the H*LL is colored persons any different in definition than people of color.
It's the SAME d*mn phrase and everyone knows what is being said; only people as stuck-up as you find offense in that. How does switching the order and adding "of" change what the overall meaning of it is? The answer to that is: it doesn't."
Kind of like how if you remove the word "from" and switch the order, "man from China" doesn't suddenly become a derogatory word, right?
"It's like fighting over calling a pizza pie, a pie of pizza. Who cares? This is why it's so hard to take those who act like you are acting, truly serious. You question our claim of them being inarticulate, and you're giving the prime example of the same inarticulacy."
Honestly, I'm not sure if I find this statement hypocritical or not. By my definition, you are communicating your points well (even if I find those points based on poor reasoning or a fundamental misunderstanding of linguistics), so I would consider you articulate. But the definition being used to judge the students, however, seems to be "It doesn't matter how well you communicate your points, if I think the reasoning behind those points are faulty, then you're not articulate." By that metric, you are no more "articulate" than them.
"Aside from that, you can hardly call them the "minority" anymore. Even where they're not more numerous in population, they usually get what they want, regardless of how conceited and entitled they are being, as evidenced in this article!"
For somebody who seems to pride himself on how "articulate" he is, you sure seem to enjoy twisting the definitions of words to suit your own agenda.
"I hardly call screaming in a riot fashion filled with curse words, "articulation." It's what the mob does. If they believe in political correctness, how come they're so disruptively rude? Kinda hypocritical."
Just curious, are there any other articles floating around where you made multiple comments calling out a mostly white "mob" for being "inarticulate?" Judging by your unsubtle comment, I imagine there are plenty of non-minority protests/mobs/riots that you'd be perfectly happy to criticize–Code Pink, Occupy [various places], Philadelphia Eagles games.
"Aside from that, you can hardly call them the "minority" anymore. Even where they're not more numerous in population, they usually get what they want, regardless of how conceited and entitled they are being, as evidenced in this article!"
Have you been reading the news at all? Even on Popehat, we've seen plenty of stories where mostly white or racially ambiguous groups have gotten some censorious thing they wanted. But while those principled libertarians among us read all that and say, "Wow, it's amazing what people can do by mobilizing the mob, we really need to step up to defend free speech," you just cherry pick the ones involving "minorities" as proof that their "minority" status have put them on top in our society.
And just look what a privileged position they have. Prominent people in law enforcement keep trying to use their status to bring down people who promote #BlackLivesMatter, by claiming it implies that other lives don't (which incidentally I find rather hypocritical, as #BlueLivesMatter came first, and apparently none of these police leaders were worried about implying that non-police lives don't matter.) They've tried, with various degrees of success, to use their social status to punish people who promote that agenda in real life, and sometimes tertiary individuals whose only "crime" was that they didn't affirmatively stop some guy from pushing his agenda.
You say minorities are privileged? Maybe that's true. I don't know. What I do know is that if I were, say, an athlete, and I used my minor fame to tell the world that "The lives of people from my ethnic group matter," and in response leaders from among the people who were sworn to protect my rights decided that I should be kicked off the team, and that my coaches should be fired for not stopping me more forcefully, and more shockingly, it turns out that a substantial amount of the public agrees with them, then you would have to be very, very articulate indeed to convince me that [my ethnic group] is in any sort of superior position in this country.
Regarding "People of Color" and "Colored People"
Language is inherently illogical. Words convey meanings both intended and unintended, not based purely on a logical progression. People of Color is, amongst some, a preferred way of referring to non-white ethnic groups. Colored People is not. It isn't something that some have asked to be called, it is something that has a history that ALSO comes from attempts to be more kind, but now carries implicit meanings of a tie to the 'bad old days.'
@Yarrgh wrote,
"@Janine, LOL! unless you're serious, then err…?"
Yarrgh, your laughter diminishes my culture. We assassins were oppressed by the imperialist British, often imprisoned merely for expressing our culture and our identity. In the end, we were driven to the fringes of society. Did you know that the British East India passed laws designed expressly to discriminate against us? When people carelessly throw the word thug around, they are stealing the most important part of who I am, and that's not okay.
@David
Sure you can speculate that it is a "false flag" fabrication, although you would be doing so without any actual evidence of that being the case. But that certainly isn't what Dan put forward. He leap to the conclusion that it -was- a hoax. In part based on … well I guess questions being asked? Questions being asked, OK. Someone coming up short looking for the answer to their question, that can happen and not necessarily via malice just incompetence and/or unconscious bias (my understanding is that police report came via bog standard FIO).
But Dan leap past even that.
No one should.
And yeah I watched the video. The car is indeed moving forward towards them. Yes, he puts himself in the way and frankly it's one of times when "blame" is a very grey (and shared) but the car does advance. *shrug* Welcome to basketball foul calls. :)
As for the rumor passing on….that doesn't make it a lie. Just poor info vetting, poor PR work, and poor judgement.
So neither deserving of the [grossly overused] word "lie", and certainly not anything connecting him with feces based arts & crafts.
Mr. Schrute,
Butler, in blocking the homecoming parade, was breaking the law. The video shows many things:
(1) Butler and his crew were the intimidators, the bullies. They are never in danger in the video.
(2) Butler and his crew had no legal right to do what they were doing or be where they were.
(3) Butler clearly went at the car. For him to then claim that he was struck by the car is certainly a lie. A lie he repeated over and over. Any contact was negligible and caused by Butler.
(4) The car was not being driven in a personal capacity, but in an official capacity, in a parade. The president was representing all the students.
(5) Ultimate failure lies with the campus police, who should have removed the students, who were breaking the law by blocking the parade.
(6) Mr. Schrute, you are not known to be an athlete, but you should still understand the basic rules of basketball. In basketball, the defender would have to set their feet to draw an offensive foul. If the defender is moving toward the offensive player the time contact occurs, a blocking foul will be called on the defensive player. However, in this instance the 'defender' was actually not a player at all and should have been removed from the court by the referees.
I urge you to attend to your farm. Those beets won't harvest themselves.
Perhaps "People of Color" vs. "Colored People" is something like "People's Front of Judea" vs. "Judean People's Front"?
In a way blacks are understandably upset. The social justice parade has become a clown show and it is hard for their causes to be heard. Caitlin Jenner, who meets nobody's definition of underprivileged, has been the latest vaudeville act. The left needs to understand union dynamics better. You can't possibly admit everyone into the victim club and expect compensation to stay the same, so to speak. You have to limit membership.
Professors Christakis thought they were lifetime, dues-paying members of the club, but in the giant buffet they helped create, the patrons must eat!
That is not the difference between a crime and not-a-crime, that is a difference of degree in punishment. Your example effectively shows why Trent is wrong — attempt is a crime despite the fact that the act has not yet necessarily culminated in a tangible social harm. The paramedic does not make the shooter a criminal; the shooter has already done so. If you were to argue that the shooter is guilty of a crime only if the paramedic fails, then you'd risk becoming on-point.
It was more than "merely expressing an opposing point of view." To wit:
"And on top of that there wasn't necessarily a call to violence, it was a call for muscle which could have meant anything really, such as forming a nice strong human chain that would block access while remaining perfectly legal in most locations."
and
"There are plenty of perfectly legal statements that can be interpreted as a call for violence if you set the bar that low."
and
"This is why we need to defend these attempts to limit speech. There are plenty of euphemisms (even incredibly common ones) that can be interpreted as calls to violence if you set the bar that low."
Advocating for a different standard is one thing. Changing the facts on the ground and characterizing a recruitment-to-battery or threat as a "perfectly legal statement" is another. The sarcasm and condescension was well earned.
The actual implication was that Trent's characterization of this speech as a "perfectly legal statement" is invalid. Since legality is inherently authoritarian, I'll wear that label.
However, Trent's advocacy is not invalid, it is simply wrong-headed. The fact that I agree with the Supreme Court's reasoning does not equate to saying that the reasoning is correct merely because the Supreme Court adopted it — only the latter is authoritarianism. The Brandenberg test requires intent, immediacy (immanence), and a likelihood of the harm. The Watts/Elonis "true threat" test is similar in that it requires intent and at least likelihood of the harm (i.e., excludes hyperbole). Those seem to be essential limits. Specifically, neither of you have actually answered the hypothetical that I posed. Nor, I bet, would you care to apply Trent's advocated position to an actual "true threat" (not Sarah Palin's political rhetoric; but a person walking up to the reporter with their hand hand in their coat and saying "Get out of this Quad or I'm shoot to stab you."). Only speech, and no further act, so if no violence materializes there's no crime, right?
It's interesting how the Left eschews linguistic prescriptivism except when it suits them. We can't criticize black people for saying "they is", because that's privileging a particular dialect of English. But it's perfectly okay to accuse someone of being morally deficient for using a word that in your particular ideolect has a particular connotation, regardless of whether it has that connotation in the speaker's ideolect. It's also perfectly okay to declare that someone is using such words as "racist", "man", "misogynist", "white", etc. incorrectly based on your own personal definition of the words.
Re: Colored people vs people of color
The rational I've heard for preferring "people with disabilities" over "disabled people" is that "disabled people" presents the disability as the most important attribute of the person, whereas "person with disabilities" presents them (both literally and figuratively) as a person first, disabilities second. It might be a similar rational with colored people vs. people of color.
Personally I try to avoid the whole issue and don't get worked up about it. Life's too short to argue the phraseology people want to use to describe themselves.
The joke behind that was various groups allegedly fighting for the same thing who fight each-other.
It's closer to the difference between, say, "Everyone present tonight and "Y'all people here." Same meaning literally. Yet different meaning with unstated aspects.
It is. Though as a person with a disability, I prefer to be referred to by whichever is grammatical in the situation, rather than pressing the issue. Terminology can be tricky, because, again, language makes no sense.
@Papillon
Personally, speaking as a disabled person, I prefer the term that is easier to say and write and doesn't end up shortened to PWD (that's not even words anymore, that's alphabet soup).
I don't know how other people feel about their prefered terms, though. This is just me.
how the Left eschews
You lost all credibility as soon as you asserted that "the Left" exists as a single entity.
However, in this instance the 'defender' was actually not a player at all and should have been removed from the court by the referees.
Yes, because life is exactly like a game.
@David
Oh,
I saw your post before, didn't realize you were responding to me as you post doesn't actually address both key component I pointed out going on in that scene (that of course the voice over also skips over) and of your overall attempt to then use it in regards to the police report (AKA involving someone else).
1) Yes, the protestors were very much confrontational (and given Wolfe's demonstration on his cluelessness when display fielding the question about "systematic oppression" hardly surprising to find him at the pointy end of such toxic ire). However the car was in motion towards the protestors. Did you notice that before? If not I suggest taking to fully watch that video with the off the commentator's voice over, that's priming you up to see and conclude what he wants you to see and conclude, turned off to help you pay attention to what was physically happening. Watch the wheels, notice the relationship of your view on the pavement features relative to the first of the vehicle.
Whether an apology should be forthcoming (and from whom) is a different matter but your accusation of "lie" simply doesn't square with that video.
2) Even if you were on mark there there simply is no reasonable rational path from their to "Nazi poop hoax". Nada.
P.S. My understanding is someone was charged and plead guilty to vandalism prior this year that involved swastika etched using the more traditional art medium of charcoal.
FYI here's a link to a news story on the prior swastika graffiti incident.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/crime/mu-student-accused-of-hate-crime-pleads-guilty-to-lesser/article_65dd266f-40d4-58ba-b38a-321233c798b9.html
It is clear the claim or even suspicion of hoax is an extra-ordinary in this context, thus with it lacking any actual evidence falls well within the category of baseless speculation. You aren't trying to go as far as Dan but your grasping is still well beyond your reach.
Having a disability myself and helping others in the same position, I know some call themselves "disabled people" because their disabilities are an important part of who they are and they don't want to deny them. And others call themselves "people with disabilities" because they don't want to be pigeonholed based on their condition.
So in that kind of situation, what do you call the person? What he or she wants to be called, that's what.
I don't think 'non person of color' is unambiguous enough to become common usage.
@Jeffrey Deutsch:
"So in that kind of situation, what do you call the person? What he or she wants to be called, that's what."
You must henceforth perpetually refer to God Emperor And Generally Good Guy Frank Who Has A Long Identity Name.
I think it more like "Lord of War", instead of "Warlord".
God Emperor And Generally Good Guy Frank Who Has A Long Identity Name–
See, there, that wasn't hard.
Actually, he lied about being in contact with the police and frigging National Guard
@Dwight, I did not say that it is known that the "poop swastika" was a hoax. I simply said it wouldn't surprise me if it were.
These are the same people who fabricated Klansmen and created a campus wide panic. There is zero indication where the "poop swastika" came from and the accusers are known to not be entirely honest.
Fake hate crimes on college campuses are a major thing. Here is one of numerous projects out there the document fake hate crimes, which are widespread.
http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/fakes?page=1
Of course the biggest lie of all, the thing that originated the tension in Missouri, is the narrative around Michael Brown as an innocent victim. Those who have any interest in the truth know he was caught on camera violently robbing a convenience store and then soon after attacked a police officer, and that he tried to enter Officer Darren Wilson's police car and attempting to steal officer Wilson's gun. They know that ballistic evidence and many eyewitness accounts supported that Brown was shot in the front as he was charging the officer. Brown was a giant of a man, precluding forms of subduing that might work on smaller men. Officer Wilson was scrutinized as few police officers in history have been including by the Obama administration. Nothing could be found against him.
Those who uphold Michael Brown as a martyr are deluded and have no credibility. Justifiable homicide is the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached by the honest analyst. The Mizzou activists have no credibility for this reason first of all. The entire movement is based on lies.
@Encinal
"We can't criticize black people for saying "they is", because that's privileging a particular dialect of English."
Your arguments are poorly formed, smacking of oversimplifications, generalizations, and strawman arguments. I don't claim to speak for "the left" or even part of "the left." I will say that my personal opinion on the subject as a person who's actually studied linguistics is
1) I think that the common, somewhat racially-biased accusation that black folks are "inarticulately" or "too dumb to talk right" or "ungrammatical" are invalid in light of what we know of how language works. The vernacular English most commonly (but not exclusively) spoken by lower-middle class black Americans is grammatically self-consistent, even if those rules don't match standard American English (which in itself doesn't always track with British English.) So when individuals like yourself repeatedly use those inconsistencies to argue that black people are simply too lazy or too dumb to learn proper English, I just shake my head at your ignorance. And I revel in the hypocrisy of the fact that a slight majority of the people I see making those arguments often speak or write in a manner that's also inconsistent with standard American English.
2) I have no problem with criticisms that aren't inconsistent with facts. Most Americans are lucky enough that the vernacular they speak is highly consistent with SAE. Some aren't. Either way, for the sake of consistency and clear communication we need to conform to some standard in more formal settings. In that respect, I have no problem with criticizing people who fail to conform in a setting where it is reasonable to expect conformity. If the SATs don't give special allowances to people who learned Spanish grammar as their first language, they shouldn't do it for black English, or Creole, or Appalachian English.
"But it's perfectly okay to accuse someone of being morally deficient for using a word that in your particular ideolect has a particular connotation, regardless of whether it has that connotation in the speaker's ideolect.""
3) One would figure that if you know enough about linguistic to know the term ideolect, you'd also know enough to understand the importance of language as a shared standard. I personally ascribe no moral failings to the guy who uses a word he doesn't feel is offensive. Most of the time, however, when I see a large group of people calling someone out for doing so, it's usually after this sort of exchange:
"Hey, Asians don't like being called Oriental, many of them consider it a racial slur."
"Screw you, I don't consider that word offensive, so stop oppressing my personal lexicon, you Oriental fascist."
"Look, the N-word (apparently spelling it out will get your posts moderated here) isn't racist. I've always used it to mean 'a person of low moral character,' regardless of race. The fact that black people (and white supremacists) consider it a racial slur has nothing to do with me, so please stop trying to undermine my political campaign by quoting what I said about that group of black people of low moral character."
The more intimate the setting, the more our audience understands our unique ideolect and the more reasonable it is to expect them to. But the reason we each have our own ideolect isn't because we think it's a good thing to deliberately cultivate our own lexicon and grammar that is different than the mainstream and to value our uniqueness over clear communication (well, for those of us who aren't narcissistic assholes, anyway.) It's because the whole process of more or less passively absorbing a language is an imprecise endeavor to begin with, and our personal dictionaries don't always line up even when we make our best efforts to.
I don't think it's fair to criticize someone because their personal trip through this imprecise undertaking yielded quirky results. However, I do think it's perfectly fair (and in practice, this is where I see the vast majority of this form of criticism you're condemning) to go after someone who has been made aware that his personal lexicon makes him speak in a while that's offensive to large segments of society, and who has explicitly stated that he not only doesn't give a damn, but often goes after his critics by saying that they're oppressing HIM by not changing their behavior to cater to his… quirky worldview.
"It's also perfectly okay to declare that someone is using such words as "racist", "man", "misogynist", "white", etc. incorrectly based on your own personal definition of the words."
4) Well, while they were drafting the Constitution, their definition of "person" didn't include black slaves, which doesn't match my personal definition of "person," which is a bit more race neutral. Does that mean you're arguing that I'm wrong to criticize that old definition?
5) While I don't subscribe to the notion that either the Left or the Right is a monolithic entity, I do make this observation: Of all the times I have seen someone make the argument that "your personal definition of [racist/misogynist] is wrong" (usually followed by "therefore you're a fascist for calling me a [racist/misogynist]," I would estimate that 80% or 90% of the time, that poster is someone I usually see espousing views that would be more stereotypically attributed to the Right.
@Harold
Certain angry pseudoconservatives need to understand "the Left" better. First, I think that movement is more than "Commie unionists," and has been for a few decades.
Second, I think there are very few people who are still looking for "forty acres and a mule" reparations for being in "the victim club." Your "union dynamics" argument falls flat because the "compensation" they usually demand usually isn't a concrete, finite resource. Actually, considering that transgender folks are one of the groups that ARE often demanding concrete, possibly costly accommodation (for those trying to go the unisex/individual public restroom route), your Caitlyn Jenner example is a particularly poorly chosen example because I haven't really seen her or her closest supporters lobbying too much on that point. At least from what I've seen of her in the mainstream media, the main thing she's trying to accomplish is to get people to stop prejudging her and assuming unrelated moral failings due to one aspect of her identity. (And it worked, at least on me. I never thought much of Bruce Jenner, morally speaking, and I don't really think any more or less of Caitlyn Jenner.)
In fact, for the most part it's the "new union members," as you would call them, who are making the most reasonable requests that don't really take away from the "pool of compensation." Take gays. They want some sort of marriage or civil union right. As a libertarian, I have no problem with that. Sure, it doesn't match my personal definition of marriage, but neither does a marriage that you can get after a 24 hour waiting period, get annulled within a few weeks, or terminate with divorce on a whim. Certain religious groups take for granted that many of our early laws were largely based on a Protestant interpretation of Judeo-Christian morality, and now they feel that–in spite of Constitutional language to the contrary–that they are entitled for this to always be the case, and thus they feel that the accommodations gays want is infringing upon their sacred right, when in fact they've never had a right for government to be 100% consistent with their religion–they've simply been lucky. Muslims have learned to deal with the fact that they can't get drivers' licenses wearing a burka, Jehovah's Witnesses have learned to accept the federal government celebrating a false birthday of the Saviour with thinly disguised pagan rituals, and the only thing it's cost them is being annoyed.
The main leftist causes I've had a problem with were the old ones–racial quotas, regulation of commerce, distribution of government contracts and grants to minorities–and that's mainly because I object to the execution on principle, and not the goals. Comparatively, I find the new causes–the ones that seem to irk you the most–to be the most reasonable. Many of the contemporary causes aren't even "victim club" specific. Lack of accountability of police is a problem that affects us all–black people just happen to be complaining the most about it. Obama sending the IRS after conservative groups? That certainly raises issues of due process and profiling. And wouldn't it have been pragmatic to fight that legal battle alongside blacks and Muslims complaining when they felt that THEY were being unfairly targeted for their group affiliation, instead of sitting back and denouncing them for "playing the victim card"? (Also something something undermining our national security.)
These things aren't raise money that gets diluted in the "union" gets too large. Sure, there are costs associated with reforming corrupt bureaucracies, but the benefits aren't a finite resource that everyone gets less of the more people want it. If I get freedom from a corrupt asset forfeiture system, there is no marginal cost to letting you also enjoy freedom from a corrupt asset forfeiture system. If the courts decide that police need more than "he's Muslim and therefore slightly more likely to be a terrorist" for probable cause, then it'll only make the fight easier when the police are trying to argue that "he owns guns and is therefore slightly more likely to shoot people with guns" is enough for probable cause.
Let not the spectre "censorship"
disturb your peace, my little waif.
An censorship doth triumph here,
the easier to call it "safe".
-Wang-Lo.
What confounds me, is that the professors and other academics guiding the protests seem very keen on the whole idea of Marxist ideas and tactics, but should the revolution that they seem to want succeed, they would be labeled "reactionary academics", humiliated, forced to confess, then executed. Because no matter what they believe, they will always be class enemies of the workers.
@Manatee —
Your analysis could not miss the point more completely. The transgender sillies and the rest of the "pay-attention to meeeee" parade are taking up the most valuable resource of all for the left, mind-space. For example, normalizing homosexuality has been a twenty-year project, taking up far more advocacy resources (and advocacy intensity) than economic issues, although economic issues affect an order of magnitude more people.
Protecting working class jobs and ensuring that the economy provides economic opportunity for the less-educated and blacks used to be the biggest focus of the left. Aside from the occasional murmurs on minimum wage, the left has been almost entirely absent from this battle, and an enormous swath of people, the left's traditional constituency, have been left out in the cold for many years.
The left's recent focus on transgenderism is an example I find notable because it is almost impossible to find a tinier constituency. The crime spike across America's cities garners hardly a mention from the left even though this impacts far more of the core Democratic constituency.
My guess is that the reason you are so confounded is that you choose to pigeonhole "people who disagree with me" into one big box full of people with perhaps many ideological similarities, but also many ideological differences among them, and then you become confused when one subgroup's actions seem inconsistent with some of the beliefs of an entirely separate subgroup. It's the same fallacy (of association?) you see in action, for example, when conservatives are criticized because the actions of religious conservatives seem inconsistent with the principles of libertarian conservatives, when in fact those two wings of the right don't even claim to agree on those particular principles.
The "Marxist" professors you criticize would certainly be foolish to support Stalin or Mao style Communism because those movements had a fervently anti-intellectual bent. Which is probably why they don't. In general, "mainstream" American socialists (if such people can ever be considered mainstream) tend to be much more contemporary European style–more government redistribution of income and taxing inheritance, and less government owning everything and trying to create a command economy and new culture out of whole cloth.
It's also noteworthy that except for the part about being executed, the results you describe seem eerily similar to what actually happened during the McCarthy hearings–and perhaps we only stopped short of the executions because Senator Joe's revolution, while it certainly gained a great deal of power, never entirely eliminated the opposition party from government. So perhaps the "Marxist tactics" you imply are exclusively the province of Marxists are, in fact, more generally used by all sorts of radicals who gain a little bit of power.
@Manatee,
Just a short reminder: Obama did not actually send the IRS out to target 'conservative groups'. The IRS has, however, been instructed to collect taxes as per the law. And the law does allow certain groups to register for tax-exempt status. And it turns out that tax-exempt status cannot be obtained by groups with a primarily political purpose. And it turns out that there aren't enough IRS agents to equally vet every application, and so they take… shortcuts. One of these shortcuts was to have a list of words (of which SOME were commonly used by right-wing political groups, SOME were commonly used by left-wing political groups, and SOME were just commonly used across the political spectrum) which, if encountered on an application, would flag it for secondary screening.
One can argue that this was a terrible idea. One can argue that the implementation was terrible. One can argue that the IRS should not be in the business of determining if organizations claiming tax-exempt status actually qualify for it. One could even argue that the IRS was founded by satan himself, and that it is the single most evil organization to have ever marred the earth's blue/green/white surface.
But it is at least a bit unfair to buy into the conservative propaganda and suggest that Obama had the IRS target conservative groups. He had the IRS do its job, and target ALL groups that looked suspiciously political in nature – and by 'target' all that is meant is that they verified the status of the group before agreeing to not collect taxes from it. The only difference is that the liberal groups which used words from the list didn't get all huffy about the IRS daring to figure out if their application was legit or not.
@GuestPoster —
Meanwhile you recite the leftist talking points. Lois Lerner, then head of the IRS, deleted much email evidence and broke Federal law by destroying evidence during an investigation.
A suspect looks much more guilty if they run from the cops, cutting through yards and climbing over fences in a panic.
She was held in contempt of Congress for her willful noncooperation and efforts to destroy evidence, but Attorney General Loretta Lynch refuses to prosecute, citing 'prosecutorial discretion.' What a farce.
My apologies Ricky. Next time I make a factual post, I'll try to remember to balance it with lunatic conspiracy theories about how a government official chose to delete lots of evidence pertinent to a case in which, to date, no wrongdoing has been demonstrated. I'll certainly be sure to leave out there there is also no evidence, at all, of wrongdoing by that particular government official, and that the destruction of tapes was done according to normal procedure, and that the laptop in question does appear to have simply died, as computers are prone to do, and that much as republican members of the committee have pressed for such a statement, the investigators in charge have refused to suggest that the data was intentionally deleted in disregard of orders or that the deletion was in any other way anything but a horrible mistake/accident. I will certainly be sure to leave out that, to all appearances, there was a communications breakdown of exactly the sort one expects from a drastically underfunded bureaucracy, which appears to be the root cause of the tape magnetization. I will very carefully make sure not to mention that a congressional hearing, especially with the current congress and that at the time, is nothing but a farce in which politicians drive a political agenda while making noise about doing the people's work and pretend to be running a trial while granting no constitutional protections for the accused, and that being held in contempt should honestly be seen as a badge of honor for refusing to play their McCarthyistic games. I will be ENTIRELY sure to not mention that the only group denied tax-exempt status as a result of this so-called 'conservative targeting' was a progressive group. I will try to avoid mentioning that the contempt charge was issued because the woman in question dared to invoke her constitutional rights at the kangaroo court to which she had been summoned, but I might forget, as it is at least a bit funny that a political party always screaming about the importance of the constitution so routinely ignores it when it becomes inconvenient (ie: about 95% of the time).
I promise. Next time I write a factual report about an issue that I happen to find interesting, I will try to take your feelings into account and balance each fact with a suitable anti-fact, in order to push a conspiracy theory which I think might suit your point of view. This time, however, I did not do that, as I was not previously alerted to your desire for anti-facts and quarter-truths to be included in discussions, so you will simply have to settle for my apologies.
The 'kangaroo court' was US Congress, our elected representatives. Or don't you believe in democracy? Don't worry, most people don't at this point.
Lerner's raging hatred against conservatives was not hidden in her emails and is not a matter of dispute. She called Lincoln the worst President, apparently because she hates the South so much that he wishes it were not part of the Union.
That a significant amount of evidence did disappear in the course of the investigation is also not in dispute. Several of email 'accidents' occurred, including several with Lerner and several with employees in Cincinnati. It seems awfully suspicious. My federal agency has never lost one of my emails, ever. It's all server-based, with numerous copies floating around. Even if my computer were wiped, copies of my emails would exist with all of my recipients, and senders.
While this is not proof, neither is it a resounding demonstration of innocence.
And so Americans' trust in government continues to plummet.
Just to be clear here… you're using Lerner's dislike of Lincoln, one of the most liberal presidents in history, who dealt one of the harshest blows in history to states rights, freed the slaves, and essentially took a Marxist approach to claiming southern territory and redistributing it, as evidence that she hates conservatives? You're using an email in which she claims that the south should have been allowed to secede (something southerners/conservatives still claim today!) as evidence that she has a raging hatred against conservatives?
Your point, and your evidence, are at odds with one another. If anything, her views match those of conservatives, and are very anti-liberal.
But still, I promised that with my next fact-based post, I would insert some anti-facts, to spare your feelings. So here goes.
Ummm… Lincoln was actually a republican sent back from 2217, on the only ever allowed time travel trip, in order to found the party. In fact, democrats are the most evil people on earth, and aren't even people – they are space aliens sent to destabilize the US. This is finally revealed in 2216, when a brave republican, Abraham Lincoln Senior, takes a board with a nail in it and drives all the democrats away. The country instantly rebounds, with an economic growth rate of 20 bajillion percent. Thus time travel is invented, and the last son of Lincoln is sent back in time, to ensure that the future is allowed to happen.
That is painfully disingenuous.
The reason that progs weren't complaining was that their groups were ultimately gaining approval. And most importantly, they were gaining such before the 2012 election.
Meanwhile, all the tea party groups were basically shut out of the process until after 2102- except for a very few which required outside intervention to get processed.
See here — http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/i-r-s-approved-dozens-of-tea-party-groups-following-congressional-scrutiny/ —
How big of a schmuck do you have to be to be an apologist for that?
@Bill Kilgore
Checking the fine print….
"…. identifying left-leaning groups is more difficult, as there are is no clearly defined nomenclature on the left equivalent to the Tea Party."
What was really happening was a large raft of new, blatantly political applicants that were very similar in that they were riding the fab language of the time that made them stand out more-so. Then, when it became clear that the law was effectively unenforceable as the applicants could get by on bald face farce claims (especially after the sloppy, unConstitutional process that was engaged in by the IRS worker-bees) the processes got approved.
Also your characterization "…basically shut out of the process until after 2102…" doesn't actually match what that article outlines. The bulk got approved during the summer.
P.S. The funny part is it isn't entirely clear what advantage they were seeking? Lack of approvable on this classification certainly didn't preclude them operating.
@Dwight,
That also confused me. How in the world were they unable to pursue their goals without tax exempt status being certain? Honestly, sounds like a scam… which seems to be why so many people got upset over a thorn being put in their side. Nobody likes when their scam gets stopped.
And, again, the ONLY group caught by the list and not granted status was… liberal in nature. Which is at least a bit amusing, considering as it's the conservatives who got in a huff over the IRS doing its job. Mind you, I'm also curious as to exactly what part of what they did you consider unconstitutional, but since the constitution doesn't make anything at all they did wrong, I doubt I'd get a terribly impressive answer.
The superficial use of names to filter (for both the "left" and the "right" versions). It goes by various names, such as "profiling". What it boils down to is using a sloppy shortcut of non-causal/tangental indications to guide investigation, which puts it at high risk for false positives. This brings in the 4th amendment with all it's probable cause and related goodness.
If that still doesn't make sense to you maybe someone else can help out and take a crack at explaining it to you? I don't have a link handy for a good breakdown of it.
P.S. That's why Obama went public-ballistic when he found out about this. It's pretty much textbook unconstitutional.
@Harold
No, I think the main "flaw" in my analysis is that it simply challenges you on an assumption that you still believe to be unassailable and axiomatic: that there is a finite resource (that you have now dubbed "mind space") that is limiting our ability to get stuff done. This simply isn't true. As has become clear to me, the average person isn't particularly bright or inclined to think hard about ideas and their long term consequences. He's quick to be dismissive towards people he doesn't understand, and doesn't particularly care about people he doesn't identify with or ideas that don't resonate with his preconceived notions of the world. In other words, he's not a fungible packet of attention that can redirected at a new cause with 100% efficiency.
Though it's a nice idea if you're primarily interested in bolstering your feeling of superiority over people who disagree with you, there is no monolithic liberal movement that can swarm a cause on command regardless of personal beliefs. People are passionate about causes they can relate to in some way. Look at black voters, for example. For decades, the Democrats have been courting their vote (or at the very least, not going out of their way to antagonize them) and it's yielded results–but not nearly as much as when they put out a black candidate who was able to speak more directly to the black voters. In other words, there was a large chunk of votes/attention/time that simply didn't care enough to be engaged–an underutilized resource.
If tomorrow someone said "every liberal needs to care about this cause and nothing else" you're not going to get everyone who lobbied for any sort of liberal cause to suddenly devote 100% of that energy towards the new thing. Most of those people will just stop caring about anything. The reason some people are so passionate about things like helping the homeless, or treating "those silly trannies" (as you call them) like actual human beings, or letting gays marry, is that there is something in a particular cause that speaks to them. It may be a personal connection, or the belief that your own struggles closely mirrored that of someone else you otherwise might not care about. Maybe the battle some stranger is fighting is so closely related to your own future battles that you don't need to be particularly smart or forward-thinking to see the connection. It's politically hard to be a Republican supporting gay rights, but Dick Cheney didn't shy away from it. I wonder if having a gay daughter has anything to do with it? When southern blacks were dealing with institutionalized discrimination, a substantial portion of their white supporters were Jews, a group with a history that probably makes them particularly able to empathize with people suffering under laws specifically drafted to target them based on their parentage.
You think that Caitlyn Jenner is just taking attention that would otherwise go to, I dunno, something about black people, while the total pool of attention remains the same. And for some conspicuous celebrity activist types, the former may be true–but they're a small part of the [people who disagree with you on stuff] and probably the least important part. What you will have though is more engaged people who would otherwise be sitting on the sidelines. You'll have gays who might otherwise be ready to sit out and rest after getting Don't Ask Don't Tell ended and marriage allowed, but suddenly they care about something else because they empathize with people boring white men consider icky. You'll have people who never thought too hard about ethnic minorities and whether they're treated unfairly, but they have a son who likes to wear dresses, and for the first time they care about the issue of discrimination.
Perhaps there is a theoretical point where everyone is 100% engaged on something or another, and perhaps at that point your assumption might be true enough to make your observations somewhat relevant. We are far from that point, though.
I'm not sure how to take this post.
The conclusion paragraph appears to equate a belief that this series of documented physical assaults on journalists – directed and engaged by professors no less – should be acknowledged and addressed seriously with calls for the censorship of those who crossed the line from speech to assault.
That whole paragraph feels like a big straw man built on "some people" saying stuff I've never really heard anyone saying.
Safer to point the serious criticism at spoiled rich kids from Yale?
Boy these leftists sure are tiresome with their wordy screeds. Whatever happened to sharp and punchy? You might almost think they don't have jobs or something.
@Bill Kilgore — Cut it out with the data. Every time new facts are presented, the left has to work overtime on narrative production, like antibodies reacting against new germs. It is exhausting for them.
Providing approval mere months before the election- when applications had sat for outside of two years – effectively precluded those organizations from having any substantial impact on the election utilizing their chosen from of organization. While there's plenty of debate as to how much impact they would have had under legitimate scrutiny, there is no debate that they could not participate on equal terms with their ideological opponents until approval was granted.
They wanted the "advantage" of being tax exempt. But much more importantly, they wanted the "advantage" of being treated as progressive groups were being treated. And they got it- once it was too late to impact Obama's election.
Probably just a coincidence.
If you want to argue that the tax exemption should be done away with- fine. But that's not an executive decision to make. And certainly not when it impact's the relevant executive's own reelection prospects.
As for the nomenclature defense, it's really hard to imagine someone actually buying that. It might carry some wait if there were tens of thousands of applications to review, but that was far from the case. A competent analyst- individually- cold have run through the entire field of apps in less than a month- and not needed to rely on buzzwords. But that didn't happen. What did happen just happened to be precisely what the White House would have preferred to happen.
These coincidences all seem to be pointing one direction, no?
@Bill Kilgore
Whine much?
Anyone who thought the country was in peril in 2010 and let the absence a tax exemption block him from acting … I would question the depth of that person's convictions.
@Bill Kilgore
Incorrect. Because the pending approval on this particular classification did NOT preclude them operating. It has little to no operational impact on the organization, as I already pointed out … and then you quoted.
But the really crazy thing? Even if they had missed that 2012 cycle? These organizations weren't really about partisan political operations anyway, right? :^) I mean that is what they were classifying themselves as, right?
Bottom line is sloppy shortcut by people in an duty swamped department, yes. Political conspiracy? Not even really circumstantial evidence of that once you dig into it.
So back from the tribal wars to the post, Smith College never disappoints.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2015/11/traditional_media_not_welcome.html
Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but isn't this the blog where people generally throw stones at the press for Getting Things Wrong?
So when a group decides to exclude the always-gets-things-wrong press, it's a problem?
What's the legal, ethical, moral, constitutional issue anyway?
@Guy who looks things up
Perhaps you should look up the difference between silencing offensive speech (in this case, offensive due to inaccuracy) and countering it with more speech.
@Czernobog
Not different in principle from answering "no comment."
The press has not been silenced, just denied access to information.
I had thought that the reason the protestors wanted to keep media out was not control speech within the so-called safe zone but rather to control the public's view of their movement. It is not unusual for more extreme groups to soft pedal their core radical aims while promoting themselves with anodyne slogans that nobody disagrees with ("black lives matter"). The danger that outside reporters posw is that they may publish less attractive but more indicative words from actual movement participants. So the issue is not censorship of what is said at the protest site but the dishonesty of hiding the ugly face of radicalism from public view
Yeah, keeping the message they want to send out on script (whether that's actually "soft pedaling" or not, that terminology doesn't quite sit right here). It isn't actually a free speech issue, as it doesn't stop anyone from saying what they want about the message or the aims.
The issue has more to do with a question about the use and access to a public space. Keep in mind that blocks of time of areas of public spaces are from time to time permitted out (rented, however you'd like to put it) to different groups for their specific gatherings with more control (and responsibility) than just free-for-all. As long as the entity that approves these blocks has a process doesn't gate which groups can rent in violation of the 1st then that's generally Constitutionally acceptable. I couldn't say if that was the case here, though.