General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsfor my 50,000th post: The "White Knights" of the First Amendment
(a lengthy, excellent read on a very difficult subject)
The White Knights of the First Amendment
In June 2016, faculty defenders of the First Amendment faced off against University of Oregon administrators and staff in a symposium originally intended to educate people about the work of the campus Bias Response Team. At places like Emory University, University of Oregon, University of California, Santa Barbara and over 100 additional institutions, Bias Response Teams were created to provide targets of bias a safe space to have their voices heard, to promote civility and respect, to effect change around these important issues in a quick and effective manner and to ensure a comprehensive response to bias incidents. But according to First Amendment advocates, when the BRT contacted faculty members to talk about complaints that had been made to the BRT concerningto take one example, derision about the use of gender-neutral pronounsthis created a climate that undermined their freedom of speech. There was little room for discussion at this symposium, recorded for the purpose of podcasting, but a great deal of conversation about the dangers of safe spaces, politically correct thought police and the chilling effects of institutional responses to bias. What happened on the University of Oregon campus was not an isolated incident, but part of a string of similar incidents that have unfolded over the past two yearsin which mostly white, cis men have transformed criticism of their speech and the ideas they propagate from women, queer people and people of color into challenges to their freedom.
As Alice Marwick and Ross Miller point out in an article about online harassment, hateful, defaming or harassing speech is protected by the First Amendmentwhich has made it extraordinarily difficult for women, people of color and queer people to protect themselves from online harassment. In attacks on campus BRTs and so-called social justice warriors (SJWs), conservative students on college campuses are now extending Mens Rights Activists use of the First Amendment to protect their ability to harass and discriminate against marginalized folks.
We asked Ms. if we could publish this article using a pseudonym because of our concern that we will be harassed by Mens Rights Activists and those who sympathize with them. Our desire for anonymity is at once a symptom of the climate we go on to describe and a by-product of an emphasis on free speech that is proving to be a screen for unethical and vicious on- and offline harassment. These attacks are part of a longer tradition of conservative attacks on campus activists aimed at ridiculing and undermining critiques of sexist, racist and homophobic utterances and practices under the guise of protecting freedom of speech.
Political Correctness, GamerGate and Defenders of the First Amendment
The current attack on campus social justice activists has its roots in the early 1990s, when political correctness entered popular culture. The term, originally used on the sectarian left, was revived in 1991 by conservative Allen Bloom in his The Closing of the American Mind. Bloom followed the longstanding anti-communist tradition of suggesting that liberals were policing speech on college campuses. In the subsequent series of articles written by conservative journalists, the 1990s moral panic about political correctness re-animated an older anti-communist trope that saw threats to systems of power from which they had long benefited in struggles for civil rights, economic equality and gender equity. Transforming victimizers (those espousing racist or sexist beliefs that understood people of color and women as being genetically inferior to White men, as in The Bell Curve), critics of political correctness represented themselves as champions of free speech and First Amendment Rights. They were, they claimed, being silenced by left wing criticism when, in fact, they were intent on silencing their critics.
In the summer of 2014, the inheritors of this political legacy once again rallied around the belief that they were the beleaguered defenders of free and open speech and journalistic ethics during a series of incidents that became known as GamerGate. The Mens Rights Activists campaigns mobilized during GamerGate began in the wake of the suicide and mass shootings perpetrated by Elliott Rodgers in Isla Vista, California in May 2014, notably online protests against the hashtag #yesallwomen. Online attacks against women gained momentum later that summer, with an aggressive online attack on independent game developer Zoë Quinn. Quinn released the interactive fiction game Depression Quest in February 2013. The game was intended to draw attention to the challenges of living with this illness, but it also drew the ire of male gamers who made it their business to police what counted as a legitimate or serious games. When Quinns game received positive reviews, online protectors of the integrity of games understood to be serious (e.g. manly) began to grumble and then take shots at Quinn. Motivated by the belief that praise for Quinns game resulted not from the merits of her design, but because of Quinns relationships with journalists writing about games, the situation erupted in August 2014, when Eron Gjoni, Quinns former boyfriend, published an inchoate, meandering post. In it, Gjoni claimed that a favorable review of Depression Quest on the gaming blog Kotaku resulted from Quinns presumably sexual relationship with the reviewer.
. . . .
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2016/09/14/the-white-knights-of-the-first-amendment/
Coventina
(27,101 posts)I deeply admire the work you do to bring attention to women's issues here on DU.
niyad
(113,259 posts)and I am happy to be a very small part of it.
longship
(40,416 posts)You are one great DUer.
niyad
(113,259 posts)justhanginon
(3,290 posts)I always read your posts and feel I have learned much from them. Don't always agree but you do make me, as an old geezer, think and see things from a different perspective for which I thank you.
niyad
(113,259 posts)perspective and information.
sheshe2
(83,744 posts)Yes, they do.
I will have to read the rest later, on the run right now. Thanks for posting this important subject, niyad.
Congrats on 50K as well.
niyad
(113,259 posts)Mc Mike
(9,114 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 19, 2016, 01:18 PM - Edit history (2)
I didn't have the whole historic overview of where the on line / street theatre right wing provocateur movement was coming from, and the MS article fills in the info. There were a lot of people and incidents in the article that I saw reported on by different media sources as they came up, but I hadn't ever put the pieces together.
It all boils down to some whiny right wingnuts wailing "How dare you not be tolerant of our nazi-style intolerance?" The creeps who attack and death threaten everyone now piss and moan about how they're being attacked.
There is one big squirming maggot nest of them, all combined, the echoes people, the O Keefe breitbart Milo provocateur "reporters", the online MRA manosphere. They attack, then the staid authorities in charge of academia and in the corporate press give credence and coverage to their hysterical claims that they're being attacked. Exactly like the coverage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the debate around it.
Their crazy, gleefully evil crowd has constantly attacked (EVERYONE) and threatened violence, and then runs and makes an appeal to authorities to "please defend us poor right wingers because we're being attacked". To be forced to debate that alt-reality with these people, by "referees" who are academic or media authorities, is itself a propagandic black psy-op attack on all the people who those rightie freaks are attacking. ("Dig, it's like Gaslight" -- Lenny Bruce)
When this crowd were 7 year olds, they were cowardly bullies on the playground. They would see a kid they thought they could pick on, and once they were sure of a win, would take the kid's hand and hit the kid in the face with it, and say "stop hitting yourself!" There was never a valid "free speech" debate argument to be had, in a discussion between the coward bully and the person getting hit, about who was attacking and who wanted the attacks to stop. In any discussion occurring during the attack, any verbal response was another victory for the attacker, because their stupid seven year old alt-reality was being discussed, when both sides knew it was fiction. The only proper response was a good swift kick in the ding ding.
And those rightie cowards still think their seven year old kid alt-reality strategy is genius. Because actual reality hasn't caught up to them yet.
Divine Discontent
(21,056 posts)niyad
(113,259 posts)niyad
(113,259 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)niyad
(113,259 posts)This article is really sickening.
"We want to offer guidance for those encountering defenders of free speech"
"it is also vital to recognize that the First Amendment is not the Word of God"
"When free speech is called upon as a rallying cry, we must think of whose speech is being promoted and defended"
"Who Is Protected by Defending Free Speech?"
Wow.
hunter
(38,310 posts)And it's perfectly reasonable for people who have been oppressed, raped, abused, etc., to exclude others from their conversations, most especially those who haven't experienced such.
Nothing interrupts a good conversation like the whining of a bunch of white guys who feel their privileges are being threatened, or their superior (ha-ha) wisdom is being questioned or ignored, especially when they're not present.
Do you think the First Amendment is the word of god?
I hope not.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts).....George W Bush did say the Constitution was just "a goddamn piece of paper".
Maybe you have some interesting company.
hunter
(38,310 posts)... there are nuances to the first amendment.
Public and private spaces are not easily defined.
I don't know why so many white guys are so intent on invading the safe spaces of groups that have been oppressed, raped, or otherwise violated.
It's disgusting.
They've nothing to contribute but "What about me? Don't you care what I think?"
No. Just 'cause you are a white guy with opinions doesn't mean everyone has to include you in their discussions.
Go stand on the corner yelling at passing cars like a schizophrenic street preacher. That's free speech. Invading other people's safe places is not.
romanic
(2,841 posts)That the villification of these "white guys with opinions" and the double-down of "safe spaces" has led to the possibility of a Trump presidency and the rise of the fabled alt-right.
I mean hello, just saying Authoritarian and free speech in the same manner is something that those on the right can use against liberalism.
25,000 posts on a political message board and... http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017133120#post3
but can't stand white guys with opinions.
romanic
(2,841 posts)I knew something was off, the guilt and self-loathing, ugh. Thank God I wasn't his gay black friend in Whitopia, I would've dropped him like Wi-Fi in a descending elevator.
hunter
(38,310 posts)But yeah, I've got no respect for racists or misogynists, even the clueless sort raised in bubbles of white privilege.
[IMG][/IMG]
I still don't understand why you think the 1st amendment is "nuanced".
hunter
(38,310 posts)Nice gif.
melman
(7,681 posts)the hostility towards free speech that I see on this board sometimes.
I'm sure the tune will change when the tables turn on them. If Trump - God forbid - gets elected then free speech will get a helluva lot more expensive. Will the decriers be so smug then?
melman
(7,681 posts)Seriously.
With a straight face, they'll say it's different for them and their speech is more important.
TipTok
(2,474 posts)... because they're right and the hetero-normative patriarchs are wrong.
hunter
(38,310 posts)You could always go to http://discussionist.com if you don't like the bouncers here.
melman
(7,681 posts)Bouncers here? What does that even mean?
I was commenting on the article. Judging by your posts it seems like you didn't even read it. Maybe you should.
hunter
(38,310 posts)It's pretty simple.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice
melman
(7,681 posts)Seriously, what are you on about?
hunter
(38,310 posts)... a room at a public university, that sort of thing.
If I bring a case of beer to the meeting and put it on the table next to the coffee and donuts, and then I go around telling everyone they are wussies and all they have to do is learn how to stop drinking one drink before they black out, that's not "free speech." That's being an asshole.
Likewise, a man telling women what misogyny "really" is, or a white guy telling non-white people what racism "really" is.
Here on DU I've seen plenty of whining white guys push on to ridiculous appeals to authority whenever they are challenged, literally posting dictionary definitions of words, or fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution, and then going pressing on to "explain" those as if they are some sort of messiah just because they are white guys.
You clearly didn't read the article. Maybe you ought to do so if you have so much to say about it.
linuxman
(2,337 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 16, 2016, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)
They aren't mutually exclusive. Free speech protects unpopular speech. It sure as hell isn't there to protect the speech everyone agrees with.
hunter
(38,310 posts)Do you agree, or not?
And who the fuck cares about "popular?"
linuxman
(2,337 posts)I can't come in your living room and preach Calvinism.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. Speech that is largely approved of and given the thumbs up doesn't really need anyone to stand up and defend it. It is defended my the 1st, but nobody actively defends it day to day, because nobody has to. It's the unpopular, harsh, and scary opinions and words that benefit most from free speech. Everyone forgets that until they hear something awful coming out of someone's mouth. The dumb ones never imagine that what comes out of their mouth might be terrible to the other guy, and that free speech is as much their ally as it is for the abrasive, foul, and contemptible person.
Throd
(7,208 posts)It will never be used by those same goons from central casting against liberals.
hunter
(38,310 posts)Especially when I'm off my meds.
Here's the thing:
There are a certain number of white guys who deeply fear there's a time coming when they'll be oppressed just as their culture oppressed others.
Good thing they are well armed...
It's appalling how many on the Left want to restrict speech.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Thank you for all your contributions here at DU!