One hell of a night, one brutal morning Kevin Hart kills Judy Gold and college comedy The Washington Post says sorry for being mean to Hamas Be brave, get fired? There’s been a bunch of recent Islamist attacks in the West, actually New York City’s hate crimes leader board
I would call myself a free speech absolutist. But my opinion has no bearing in the world. So like most libertarians my self-righteous and potentially stupid opinions are fun to belittle other with, but maybe we should get concrete here.
On the most recent Reason Live Stream with Russ Roberts, he stated he used to be of the same mind. He mentioned Skokie Nazis. But then said it is easy to be pro-free speech when 45 Nazis show up in a small Jewish Neighborhood of Chicago. But free speech absolutism is hard when 100,000 people are chanting "gas the Jews" on the steps of the Sydney Opera house.
My challenge to the Fif is: it is easy to be free speech advocates when a culturally relevant, anti-hamas cartoon gets cancelled by morons at the most feckless newspaper in the states. But it's hard to be a free speech absolutist when thousands of people march through New York cheering "From the River to the Sea."
And maybe the point is that Islam gets a different set of rules for criticism, which is true. But the tenor of world makes me question myself and I wonder if it does you.
When the speech is unpopular, banning it is unnecessary. When the speech is popular, banning it is dangerous. I wouldn’t call the pro-Hamas viewpoint popular, exactly, but it has been able to draw massive crowds. Banning that speech would be dangerous because the thoughts would exist underground. I’m glad we know what a big problem we have on our hands. Now, as we live in a liberal democracy, we’ve got to use our own speech to fight it.
Oops, sorry - the deleted comment is mine. I posted in the wrong place. And I'm with you Ameya, pushing this ugliness underground can't be a good move.
I don’t want government action against abhorrent speech. I do want private actors to follow their conscience and exercise freedom of association to avoid personal or professional relationships with these shitheads.
I DO want the government to take note of who is saying abhorrent shit, and if warranted, investigate them for the potential of actions motivated by these beliefs.
I don’t know if this absolutist, but it’s close enough for me.
I remain a free speech absolutist, despite how uncomfortable and dare I say fearful I am at what I’m seeing today. This quote from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
(1943) is my lodestar:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Sometimes though, the maxim #bebravecallbullshit matters more than usual and the risk of not doing so is greater than any potential personal cost. This is one of those times imho.
Nah, it's actually pretty easy when you keep in mind that you're not removing free speech rights from a limited group of people, but instead creating precedent to undermine free speech for everybody. When you make it possible to end pro-Hamas speech, then you're just creating a power for the opposition to claim when they come to office. Next it won't be pro-Hamas speech that is illegal, but pro-Israel, and much more beyond that.
Then there is the other concern. The one where Israel takes it revenge too far, and suddenly it's illegal to discuss the actions of our own allies without the chilling effect of this new law.
I actually do not see an ounce of value in using censorship to deal with this problem. It's not a solution, and indeed it's probably something that will exasperate the problem. I see a considerable amount of risk though. And all to protect the sensibilities of some people who THINK that they're form of censorship is going to be enlightened, unlike anyone ever before.
I don't see why free speech principles should be applied differently depending on the number of people involved - maybe you can elaborate on how you see that working out?
But if we're going to engage in that discussion let's stick to concrete and real, not wildly exaggerated numbers. The Sydney protest you reference was attended by ca. 1000 people, not 100,000. And only a small group of those (from all evidence filmed, 50 people at most) chanted "gas the Jews". They were asked to leave and the organisers of the event repudiated their actions. So if we're focusing on explicitly antisemitic speech, we're talking numbers pretty comparable to Skokie.
I watched Russ’ interview with Reason and was immediately jealous that the guys didn’t have him on instead. Maybe it’s not too late? I would love to hear them discuss this on the podcast with Russ.
I’m not sure there’s much of a challenge. London Metropolitan police has been posting pictures on twitter of people they are hoping to find and charge with hate crimes for their signs at recent protests, including some similar to what Russ mentions, and my first thought is “yea glad we don’t do that here”
I totally get it. I love Russ Roberts and I feel for him right now. I want to take a firehose of sewer water to those crowds. But, as you well know, banning doesn't make it go away. I think of the last 5-6 years of public nonsense as a giant filter, separating the sane serious people from the nutters. Let the world watch and take in who are and who are not serious people.
My current philosophy of how to handle nutters: Police for the violent and threatening. Bold persuasion for my peers. And persuasion with a heaping dose of ridicule for my strident young family members/friends ( "Wow! Your ignorance of history is appalling. I'm embarrassed for you. Have you not taken *any* history courses?")
Re: Matt's point about the feeder school thing to the State Dept, totally true. I'm a Georgetown alum and spent a year at the State Department, where I was high-fived on a regular basis while being told "welcome to the mafia." There are so many alumni there that the Georgetown mafia is a well-known cult.
Regarding the people without a country. When ever I listen to the Dispatch and other never-Trumpers like the Editors, I start to wonder how long until they finally realize that we're in on of those periods of party realignment, and that they're no longer Republicans.
I am definitely one of those types. I usually think of it as I am not a Republican but I am definitely not a Democrat either. Or a libertarian for that matter.
I suspect many on the progressive left will be similarly countryless after 10/7.
Not gonna lie, as I quickly scrolled my eye caught the phrase “college hookers” and I immediately scrolled back up, to what I can only describe as disappointment tinged with relief.
Rufo is one of those people whose toxic personality makes me hate everything that comes out of his mouth. The hate-boner he springs for people like David French makes him look like a petulant child.
I'm not on board with Rufo, but I do recognize that he is -- in misguided fashion -- reacting to real problems within higher ed. The ideological monopolization you fear has already occurred.
I had not heard of Finkelstein until Moynihan mentioned him, so I listened to the debate with Eli Lake. Equal parts long winded and vacuous, it was absolutely excruciating. It is hard to tell if he is disingenuous or actually convinced of his dribble. I especially loved the Iron Dome trutherism. He is old school and only speaks in fact, if you were not aware.
The comment section on YouTube seemed to think he executed a death blow on Eli. I found him borderline retarded. What am I missing?
I would like to see more questioning of people who have been greatly enriched by defense contractors and are now very vociferously arguing to attack Iran. It seems the most substantial question to ask of public officials who are basically lobbyists for large companies that will profit off of all of these wars and proxy wars.
Likewise- there has been very little discussion regarding the Israel lobby in the US, US intervention, military aid to Israel, humanitarian aid to Gaza, etc. This is where for me, the rubber meets the road. A lot of chatter about protestors and cancellations and tweets, not much of substance.
In the documentary The Donut King, Gerald Ford was the one pushing to have Cambodians airlifted to the United States. In that same movie, Jerry Brown was pushing to keep them out of California. To echo Matt’s point about Reagan, this is exactly the opposite of the current politics of the immigration.
This is the 2019 article about the Scopes monkey trial Moynihan mentions at the end of the episode.
The title (The Scopes Monkey Trial was about racism, not god) isn't really the thrust of the argument.
Basically, the author's claim is that it was little more than a publicity stunt to boost local business.
And, according to the author, the public fear leading to the Butler Act wasn't as much about evolution as it was the potential impact of eugenics--the proponents of which relied on evolution in their arguments--on poor Tennesseans.
As for the article's title, other than its ties to the eugenics movement, as I read the article, racism doesn't appear to have been a motivating factor in favor of or opposition to the Butler Act. The title is clickbait.
The biggest surprise for me was learning that Scopes was convicted. The article doesn't mention but I subsequently learned that the conviction was later overturned on a technicality.
Holy Shit I didn't realize Ronna McDaniel was related to the Romneys. Wikipedia roasting her good in the first paragraph:
Since McDaniel's 2017 election as chairwoman of the RNC, the Republican Party has had a net loss of seven governorships, three seats in the United States Senate, and 19 seats in the House of Representatives, and the presidency. In December 2022, Axios wrote that McDaniel "has thus far failed to preside over a single positive election cycle."
I would call myself a free speech absolutist. But my opinion has no bearing in the world. So like most libertarians my self-righteous and potentially stupid opinions are fun to belittle other with, but maybe we should get concrete here.
On the most recent Reason Live Stream with Russ Roberts, he stated he used to be of the same mind. He mentioned Skokie Nazis. But then said it is easy to be pro-free speech when 45 Nazis show up in a small Jewish Neighborhood of Chicago. But free speech absolutism is hard when 100,000 people are chanting "gas the Jews" on the steps of the Sydney Opera house.
My challenge to the Fif is: it is easy to be free speech advocates when a culturally relevant, anti-hamas cartoon gets cancelled by morons at the most feckless newspaper in the states. But it's hard to be a free speech absolutist when thousands of people march through New York cheering "From the River to the Sea."
And maybe the point is that Islam gets a different set of rules for criticism, which is true. But the tenor of world makes me question myself and I wonder if it does you.
When the speech is unpopular, banning it is unnecessary. When the speech is popular, banning it is dangerous. I wouldn’t call the pro-Hamas viewpoint popular, exactly, but it has been able to draw massive crowds. Banning that speech would be dangerous because the thoughts would exist underground. I’m glad we know what a big problem we have on our hands. Now, as we live in a liberal democracy, we’ve got to use our own speech to fight it.
11/14 in DC will be a good start.
Oops, sorry - the deleted comment is mine. I posted in the wrong place. And I'm with you Ameya, pushing this ugliness underground can't be a good move.
I don’t want government action against abhorrent speech. I do want private actors to follow their conscience and exercise freedom of association to avoid personal or professional relationships with these shitheads.
I DO want the government to take note of who is saying abhorrent shit, and if warranted, investigate them for the potential of actions motivated by these beliefs.
I don’t know if this absolutist, but it’s close enough for me.
I remain a free speech absolutist, despite how uncomfortable and dare I say fearful I am at what I’m seeing today. This quote from West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
(1943) is my lodestar:
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Sometimes though, the maxim #bebravecallbullshit matters more than usual and the risk of not doing so is greater than any potential personal cost. This is one of those times imho.
Nah, it's actually pretty easy when you keep in mind that you're not removing free speech rights from a limited group of people, but instead creating precedent to undermine free speech for everybody. When you make it possible to end pro-Hamas speech, then you're just creating a power for the opposition to claim when they come to office. Next it won't be pro-Hamas speech that is illegal, but pro-Israel, and much more beyond that.
Then there is the other concern. The one where Israel takes it revenge too far, and suddenly it's illegal to discuss the actions of our own allies without the chilling effect of this new law.
I actually do not see an ounce of value in using censorship to deal with this problem. It's not a solution, and indeed it's probably something that will exasperate the problem. I see a considerable amount of risk though. And all to protect the sensibilities of some people who THINK that they're form of censorship is going to be enlightened, unlike anyone ever before.
I don't see why free speech principles should be applied differently depending on the number of people involved - maybe you can elaborate on how you see that working out?
But if we're going to engage in that discussion let's stick to concrete and real, not wildly exaggerated numbers. The Sydney protest you reference was attended by ca. 1000 people, not 100,000. And only a small group of those (from all evidence filmed, 50 people at most) chanted "gas the Jews". They were asked to leave and the organisers of the event repudiated their actions. So if we're focusing on explicitly antisemitic speech, we're talking numbers pretty comparable to Skokie.
I watched Russ’ interview with Reason and was immediately jealous that the guys didn’t have him on instead. Maybe it’s not too late? I would love to hear them discuss this on the podcast with Russ.
I would like to hear him in a conversation with Justin Amash. Maybe the Fifth is a good place for that.
Agreed
I’m not sure there’s much of a challenge. London Metropolitan police has been posting pictures on twitter of people they are hoping to find and charge with hate crimes for their signs at recent protests, including some similar to what Russ mentions, and my first thought is “yea glad we don’t do that here”
I totally get it. I love Russ Roberts and I feel for him right now. I want to take a firehose of sewer water to those crowds. But, as you well know, banning doesn't make it go away. I think of the last 5-6 years of public nonsense as a giant filter, separating the sane serious people from the nutters. Let the world watch and take in who are and who are not serious people.
My current philosophy of how to handle nutters: Police for the violent and threatening. Bold persuasion for my peers. And persuasion with a heaping dose of ridicule for my strident young family members/friends ( "Wow! Your ignorance of history is appalling. I'm embarrassed for you. Have you not taken *any* history courses?")
Re: Matt's point about the feeder school thing to the State Dept, totally true. I'm a Georgetown alum and spent a year at the State Department, where I was high-fived on a regular basis while being told "welcome to the mafia." There are so many alumni there that the Georgetown mafia is a well-known cult.
Gents, or rather Matt, 2nd Sunday is tomorrow.
Yep. 4 pm is the pencil-in time!
Regarding the people without a country. When ever I listen to the Dispatch and other never-Trumpers like the Editors, I start to wonder how long until they finally realize that we're in on of those periods of party realignment, and that they're no longer Republicans.
I am definitely one of those types. I usually think of it as I am not a Republican but I am definitely not a Democrat either. Or a libertarian for that matter.
I suspect many on the progressive left will be similarly countryless after 10/7.
I think Jonah knows it. I think it will take a while before the NR crowd can get there.
I will say more later but I’m going to say this is one that f the best episodes ever.
Started with the college comedy Judy Gold video with MM interviewing the bookers. I think I just figured out the root of all of our problems.
College bookers. ;)
Not gonna lie, as I quickly scrolled my eye caught the phrase “college hookers” and I immediately scrolled back up, to what I can only describe as disappointment tinged with relief.
Hi Kmele
He's not going to read this.
Hi, Spencer.
Another reason for Spencer to get the 3rd chair. He reads our comments.
He should start the hostile takeover by sending out a Second Sunday Zoom link.
Rufo is one of those people whose toxic personality makes me hate everything that comes out of his mouth. The hate-boner he springs for people like David French makes him look like a petulant child.
"Apologies by Michael Moynihan" would be a perfect Cameo venture. A great way to communicate that you are only saying "I'm sorry" because you have to.
I'm not on board with Rufo, but I do recognize that he is -- in misguided fashion -- reacting to real problems within higher ed. The ideological monopolization you fear has already occurred.
I had not heard of Finkelstein until Moynihan mentioned him, so I listened to the debate with Eli Lake. Equal parts long winded and vacuous, it was absolutely excruciating. It is hard to tell if he is disingenuous or actually convinced of his dribble. I especially loved the Iron Dome trutherism. He is old school and only speaks in fact, if you were not aware.
The comment section on YouTube seemed to think he executed a death blow on Eli. I found him borderline retarded. What am I missing?
I would like to see more questioning of people who have been greatly enriched by defense contractors and are now very vociferously arguing to attack Iran. It seems the most substantial question to ask of public officials who are basically lobbyists for large companies that will profit off of all of these wars and proxy wars.
Likewise- there has been very little discussion regarding the Israel lobby in the US, US intervention, military aid to Israel, humanitarian aid to Gaza, etc. This is where for me, the rubber meets the road. A lot of chatter about protestors and cancellations and tweets, not much of substance.
In the documentary The Donut King, Gerald Ford was the one pushing to have Cambodians airlifted to the United States. In that same movie, Jerry Brown was pushing to keep them out of California. To echo Matt’s point about Reagan, this is exactly the opposite of the current politics of the immigration.
Lost all respect for Judy Gold after she wrote an article defending SNL firing Shane Gillis and basically just calling him racist, sexist, and worst of all, unfunny. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/17/opinions/why-shane-gillis-was-fired-judy-gold/index.html
This is the 2019 article about the Scopes monkey trial Moynihan mentions at the end of the episode.
The title (The Scopes Monkey Trial was about racism, not god) isn't really the thrust of the argument.
Basically, the author's claim is that it was little more than a publicity stunt to boost local business.
And, according to the author, the public fear leading to the Butler Act wasn't as much about evolution as it was the potential impact of eugenics--the proponents of which relied on evolution in their arguments--on poor Tennesseans.
As for the article's title, other than its ties to the eugenics movement, as I read the article, racism doesn't appear to have been a motivating factor in favor of or opposition to the Butler Act. The title is clickbait.
The biggest surprise for me was learning that Scopes was convicted. The article doesn't mention but I subsequently learned that the conviction was later overturned on a technicality.
Interesting read.
https://unherd.com/2019/11/americas-great-victory-for-science-and-scientific-racism/?=refinnar
Frankly sounds like revisionist dreck.
Which part?
Holy Shit I didn't realize Ronna McDaniel was related to the Romneys. Wikipedia roasting her good in the first paragraph:
Since McDaniel's 2017 election as chairwoman of the RNC, the Republican Party has had a net loss of seven governorships, three seats in the United States Senate, and 19 seats in the House of Representatives, and the presidency. In December 2022, Axios wrote that McDaniel "has thus far failed to preside over a single positive election cycle."
She used to go by Ronna Romney McDaniel, but she dropped the Romney when her uncle started clashing with Trump.
yup...she chose a side....wonder how the family reunions are haha