Defend Mahmoud Khalil with SENSIBLE arguments, not the bogus "freedom of speech" nonsense. Oppressors have no right to use any weapon, not even speech, to oppress.
I appreciate your arguments on this subject which reflect some of my own thinking. Free speech is a very commonly used, yet meaningless and misleading concept absent the framework of anti/pro oppression speech. The free speech argument has been used successfully (on both a legal and cultural basis) to defend pornography, which in its current mainstream internet video form is no less than the enactment of ritualised sexual torture of (mainly) women and girls and vehicle for normalising such torture throughout the culture, which has absolutely devastating effects on the most oppressed (incest abuse victims, trafficking victims, domestic violence victims etc).
We all know it’s a crime to dishonestly yell FIRE in a crowded theater, but oppressive speech goes on all the time and may be more dangerous. Thanks for the enlightening pov.
Thank you for letting me know you agree with what I wrote here. I was just kicked off a "progressive" email list for stating these views on it. This shows that "Houston, we have a problem!"
you wrote: Depending on the circumstances, it may be wiser to let them speak and refute what they say. The goal is to build maximum opposition to what they say. I AGREE
You then wrote: In some circumstances the way to do that is indeed to forcibly prevent them from speaking. I DISAGREE. Why? Because what is or is not oppressive speech is debatable. I am against males saying they are females and thus playing in women's sports. Some trans people would say my views are oppressive.
In the scenario we are talking about with the high school and the neo-Nazi racist flyers, the oppressiveness of the flyers is NOT DEBATABLE!
You are refusing to say that oppressors have no right to use speech to oppress..
You seem to be ashamed to come right out and say that you support the right of oppressors to use speech to oppress (although you never deny that they have that right), so you evade the question as you are doing in these comments.
You are, frankly, PROFOUNDLY WRONG.
Your mode of thinking on this question is exactly what the oppressive ruling classes of the world LOVE.
And your mode of thinking on this question is robustly opposed by the good and decent ordinary people of the world.
I appreciate your arguments on this subject which reflect some of my own thinking. Free speech is a very commonly used, yet meaningless and misleading concept absent the framework of anti/pro oppression speech. The free speech argument has been used successfully (on both a legal and cultural basis) to defend pornography, which in its current mainstream internet video form is no less than the enactment of ritualised sexual torture of (mainly) women and girls and vehicle for normalising such torture throughout the culture, which has absolutely devastating effects on the most oppressed (incest abuse victims, trafficking victims, domestic violence victims etc).
We all know it’s a crime to dishonestly yell FIRE in a crowded theater, but oppressive speech goes on all the time and may be more dangerous. Thanks for the enlightening pov.
Thank you for letting me know you agree with what I wrote here. I was just kicked off a "progressive" email list for stating these views on it. This shows that "Houston, we have a problem!"
John explains how the right to free speech is used and abused by the rich to control the narrative.
you wrote: Depending on the circumstances, it may be wiser to let them speak and refute what they say. The goal is to build maximum opposition to what they say. I AGREE
You then wrote: In some circumstances the way to do that is indeed to forcibly prevent them from speaking. I DISAGREE. Why? Because what is or is not oppressive speech is debatable. I am against males saying they are females and thus playing in women's sports. Some trans people would say my views are oppressive.
In the scenario we are talking about with the high school and the neo-Nazi racist flyers, the oppressiveness of the flyers is NOT DEBATABLE!
You are refusing to say that oppressors have no right to use speech to oppress..
You seem to be ashamed to come right out and say that you support the right of oppressors to use speech to oppress (although you never deny that they have that right), so you evade the question as you are doing in these comments.
You are, frankly, PROFOUNDLY WRONG.
Your mode of thinking on this question is exactly what the oppressive ruling classes of the world LOVE.
And your mode of thinking on this question is robustly opposed by the good and decent ordinary people of the world.