Slacker uprising - new Moore film

[vanesch]

That type of thinking is normal in maybe a totalitarian dictatorship but it should be foreign to a democracy and I think the US has far better laws on free-speech than Europe, especially France and some other countries where you can get years in prison for what amounts to essentially, speech. Chomsky has pointed that out.

Although you are right, and I am also sorry about this (the fact that certain speeches are simply illegal in several European countries, such as speeches that favor racial hate, speeches that are revisionist (denial of the existence of the Holocaust) and speeches that are outright Nazi doctrine ; that's about it) and that I'm also in favor of unlimited free speech, you have to understand that Europe had a certain "history" where this freedom of speech was abused and led to the fascist page that led to WWII.

So it was a tradeoff (I think it was a bad tradeoff) between freedom, and the bad things that it caused. That's like any other law: it is a limitation of freedom where the freedom can lead to worse than its limitation (at least according to the legislator).

 

[russ_watters]

Hopefully Moore will show what happened to him when he came to Utah State Univeristy and conservatives tried to force the Univeristy not to let him speak - just like what they do in totalitarian countries.

Hopefully, then, he'll be balanced enough to show when the opposite happens. Like when Berkeley's students censor its own newspaper for coverage that isn't liberal enough.

In any case, freedom of speech doesn't work the way you think it does. A university is not required to give a forum for everyone who wants to speak. Nor should it be - that's not what the school is there for.

 

[russ_watters]

In this context... Just Wow.

What has "truth" got to do with anything. Are not college students supposed to be bright and inquiring? Should now they be able to analyze the content of a speech and determine its value for themselves? It certainly is NOT in the spirit of this country to deny someone the right to speak just because some political group thinks they may disagree with what is going to be said.

I am appalled at the people in this thread who seem to be ok with this repressive mind set.

None of that has anything at all to do with the issue and most of it is wrong anyway. The issue is whether a university needs to give a forum for anyone who shows up at the door asking for one. It is rediculous to assert that they must. The university must first assess the value - that is, after all, why the kids are there, isn't it? For the university to teach them? Heck, if the kids got to choose their own speakers, it would be nothiing but porn stars and Howard Stern.

There is nothing at all repressive about this mindset. I am appalled at how badly some people misunderstand the First Amendment.

Heck, the content filtering we're talking about is not too dissimilar from the principle on which PF operates!

 

[russ_watters]

Wait a minute, are you, OrbitalPower, suggesting that the U.S. is a despotic country? If so, wow, the paranoia has really gotten high.

No, OP is not suggesting that the US is despotic, just the we are fascists.

 

[OrbitalPower]

The logical fallacy that Hurkyl pointed out is that because Hitler also went to the loo, going to the loo is now a fascist practice.

The only fallacy is your own: a false analogy. There is absolutely no comparison between restriction of free-speech on publicly funded places, or having a "restrictionist mindset" altogether, and personal use of the restroom.

Although you are right, and I am also sorry about this (the fact that certain speeches are simply illegal in several European countries, such as speeches that favor racial hate, speeches that are revisionist (denial of the existence of the Holocaust) and speeches that are outright Nazi doctrine ; that's about it) and that I'm also in favor of unlimited free speech, you have to understand that Europe had a certain "history" where this freedom of speech was abused and led to the fascist page that led to WWII.

I wouldn't say it was "freedom of speech" that led to the Nazi regrime, rather, a LACK of speech that prevented people who opposed Nazi doctrine from speaking, and Nazi like beliefs that the government is allowed to censor certain people, namely: political opponents (socialists, anarchists), jews, Gypsies, and so on.

This prevented them from being able to make their case. Then, of course, the brutality increased against these groups, because no one was allowed to make the case for them.

Stalinism, Maoism, Mussolini, and so on, and other privatized dictatorships, did the same thing.

If it was about "freedom of speech being harmful" then certainly in the US we should restrict racial speech, as for years we put African Americans in one of the worst forms of slavery imaginable: that of capitalistic slavery, constitutionally declared them to be three-fifths of a person, and subjected them to decades of economic injustices and Jim Crow laws, which continued from speeches that are racial hatred.

But we do not restrict that speech - and there have been conservative professors in the US who deny the holocaust and are racist.

So it was a tradeoff (I think it was a bad tradeoff) between freedom, and the bad things that it caused. That's like any other law: it is a limitation of freedom where the freedom can lead to worse than its limitation (at least according to the legislator).

It's not like "any other law." Most laws are about restricting positive liberties in a Democracy. Laws against freedom of speech or freedom of the press, is a restriction on a negative liberty. They are generally harder to define, harder to characterize, and thus more vague than most other laws.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Hopefully, then, he'll be balanced enough to show when the opposite happens. Like when Berkeley's students censor its own newspaper for coverage that isn't liberal enough.

In any case, freedom of speech doesn't work the way you think it does. A university is not required to give a forum for everyone who wants to speak. Nor should it be - that's not what the school is there for.

First of all, the Berkeley student newspapers have had a history of conservatives, David Brock and others, infiltrating them and posting garbage and nonsense and lies in their pages and manufacturing quote.

That is why Berkeley has had their own, conservative newspapers like the "Berkeley Review" and the conservative Berkeley journal. These were generally funded by the Institute for Educational Affairs, a right-wing group headed by William Simon and Irving Kristol, an ex-Trotskyite and one of the founders of "neoconservatism."

Ben Hart and Dinesh D'Souza, the latter a very popular conservative commentor, started the Dartmouth Review as well where they did things like out homosexuals and one of the things they published is an article titled "Dis sho' Ain't No Jive Bro" where the author pretended to be an African American -- that kind of reminds me a lot of the time when the conservative gun advocate Jon Lott pretended to be a woman with three kids on the internet concerned about the issue of gun ownership on usenet.

So, there was generally a reason why conservatives were prevented from editing and writing in school news papers considering the crap they have tried to pull.

Of course, the fact is, no one prevented them from starting their own newspaper though, and to my knowledge it's still running.

Berkeley has also hosted several right-wing professors who believe that the media is manipulated by liberal institutions (corporations?) and ones such as A James Gregor, a "race realist" who in the 60s said that racial segregation was justified because blacks were simply too different from whites.

They've had other professors that border on Holocaust deniers as well, certainly professors that would have been tried and convincted for racial hatred in places like France.

The issue is whether a university needs to give a forum for anyone who shows up at the door asking for one. It is rediculous to assert that they must.

No it isn't. Universities are mostly publicly funded. Even private ones like Harvard have taken in billions of dollars from the public.

When the public funds something, the public forums should be open to the public to use if the University is not using them, especially ones that would generate student interest, even getting students to pay to hear a political discussion.

This is why free-speech codes have been struck down by state supreme courts.

IF the public says that the University is allowed to censor speech at their discretion, then maybe they could do it, but that would violate several US laws anyway.

The university must first assess the value - that is, after all, why the kids are there, isn't it? For the university to teach them? Heck, if the kids got to choose their own speakers, it would be nothiing but porn stars and Howard Stern.

If they are to assess the value, why don't they break up musical events, sporting events, prevent protesters from ever going on campus, and so on? There's a reason they don't do that, and one of those reasons is because they can't.

There is nothing at all repressive about this mindset. I am appalled at how badly some people misunderstand the First Amendment.

My sentiments exactly. Here's an article that might help:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19801011.htm

When LightBulbSun says that anybody "stupid" should NOT be given a platform, that is a restriction of free-speech.

If he says, in his opinion, it would be better if these "stupid people" (do these include people who think the Confederates weren't totalitarian?) had no audience, that would not be calling for restrictions of free-speech.

It's not that hard.

Heck, the content filtering we're talking about is not too dissimilar from the principle on which PF operates!

False analogy. PF is not publicly funded like these Universities are; plus, Universities are big too, they take up a lot of land and space, so it's not like the public has a lot of other places where they can host the large crowds that Moore draws.

 

[vanesch]

The only fallacy is your own: a false analogy. There is absolutely no comparison between restriction of free-speech on publicly funded places, or having a "restrictionist mindset" altogether, and personal use of the restroom.

As a matter of logic, the analogy holds ; after all, logic is purely formal, and doesn't depend on the contents of the statements. You stated: because in countries with property A, they do B, and because in situation C, they also do B, this means that somehow situation C is associated with property A.

A = nazism
B = going to the loo
C = Jack goes to the loo
D = Jack is a nazi, or is associated with Nazism

Clearly, the logic doesn't work.

What you said, with similar logic:
A = totalitarianism
B = limiting free speech
C = certain people want X to be limiting free speech
D = those people are associated with totalitarianism.

Hopefully Moore will show what happened to him when he came to Utah State Univeristy and conservatives tried to force the Univeristy to have him go to the loo - just like what Hitler did.

It is the formal deduction that doesn't work. That's what Hurkyl pointed out.

 

[vanesch]

I wouldn't say it was "freedom of speech" that led to the Nazi regrime, rather, a LACK of speech that prevented people who opposed Nazi doctrine from speaking, and Nazi like beliefs that the government is allowed to censor certain people, namely: political opponents (socialists, anarchists), jews, Gypsies, and so on.

Before they got into power, they couldn't oppress people's expression, right ? Well, they came to power essentially because they were allowed to make public statements about the guilt of the Jews for about anything that went wrong. It was this discourse which was the basis of the popularity of Nazism. Hitler never hid his anti-semitism: it was his essential sales argument. People got convinced by it. That's how the Nazis came to power in the first place: because their anti-semitic discourse was popular.

 

[OrbitalPower]

As a matter of logic, the analogy holds ; after all, logic is purely formal...

Logical fallacies are not all "purely formal" and are based on statements of English grammar, which could never be "purely formal." There are several informal fallacies and even blatant English grammar syllogisms from Aristotilean logic have been showed by Russell and others to be flawed.

You stated: because in countries with property A, they do B, and because in situation C, they also do B, this means that somehow situation C is associated with property A.

A = nazism
B = going to the loo
C = Jack goes to the loo
D = Jack is a nazi, or is associated with Nazism

What I actually was implying was that censorship of speech is one of the building blocks of totalitarianism.

Clearly, the logic doesn't work.

What you said, with similar logic:
A = totalitarianism
B = limiting free speech
C = certain people want X to be limiting free speech
D = those people are associated with totalitarianism.

Wrong - Because I never actually made any such "association." Just like I could state that it is true that using the loo occurrs in both totalitarian and in free-societies (which I contend is still a ridiculous false analogy to my point), would not be any kind of a fallacy, so too I could point out that these conservatives who were trying to shut Moore down shared a characteristic with totalitarianism.

That's not any kind of fallacy, and I merely used that characteristic to build up my belief that this is a kind of totalitarian behavior, and that is why it's illegal in a democracy to prevent people from speaking (keep in mind the University had already set him to speak and it was conservative groups trying to bribe the University and making death threats that I was referring to - "This divided state" documents this).

By using the loo, it is not a kind of totalitarian behavior and is NOT a characteristic of a totalitarian regime - by contrast, the totalitarian behavior of trying to force censorship is totalitarian behavior.

It is the formal deduction that doesn't work. That's what Hurkyl pointed out.

And he's wrong because I never said that because

A and B share the same property or have something in common, that A = C.

I noted it was merely a political characteristic of both A and B -- whereas using the loo is not a political characteristic, so your own statement is a false analogy -- and that then this is one of the basics by which totalitarian regimes come to be formed, which is also true. I never said it makes it restriction of speech even a totalitarian act, but I can provide my explanation of why I do believe that if conservatives or any of these other far right people had their way, it would be a totalitarian society.

So, what I was actually doing was using the definitions of totalitarianism to justify my belief that trying to force censorship of speech is totalitarian.

Before they got into power, they couldn't oppress people's expression, right ?

No, this is incorrect. Prior to Hitler grabbing power by political means, the Nazis and other far right political opponents were battling the communists and after the collapse of the Weimar republic there was some disorder in the Third Reich.

Had the communists and the Socialists ever been able to forge a coalition, they may have been able to defeat the Nazis and even after Hitler got elected hundreds of thousands of people protested him into office and Hitler condemned the first nazi attacks on Jewish businesses.

Both sides committed attacks against others, and generally far right movements begin by being able to stifle the opposition and their voice, like the tinpot Latin American dictatorships.

Had Hitler allowed freedom of speech, I don't think the Holocaust would have been as bad as it was and could have even been completely avoided - but no totalitarian country could ever allow freedom of speech.

Hitler also seized power by corrupt means and fraud, it was never simply because of "anti-semitism" and his earliest political opponents were the Socialists.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Before they got into power, they couldn't oppress people's expression, right ? Well, they came to power essentially because they were allowed to make public statements about the guilt of the Jews for about anything that went wrong. It was this discourse which was the basis of the popularity of Nazism. Hitler never hid his anti-semitism: it was his essential sales argument. People got convinced by it. That's how the Nazis came to power in the first place: because their anti-semitic discourse was popular.

There existed a strong under current of anti-semitism in germany even before the Nazis. The Nazis were populists and appealed to the antisemite and antisocialist undercurrents already present in their society. Freedom of speech is not necessary to protect popular opinion. Restriction of speech protects popular opinion.

 

[Topher925]

There existed a strong under current of anti-semitism in germany even before the Nazis. The Nazis were populists and appealed to the antisemite and antisocialist undercurrents already present in their society. Freedom of speech is not necessary to protect popular opinion. Restriction of speech protects popular opinion.

Very true, Hitler just exploited the antisemitism that already existed in 1930's German culture.
A lot of that antisemitism still exists today.

I will agree with the OP on one point though. I would take Moore's word over the word of Fox News any day. I've seen some of his stuff and he does get his information from primary sources, you can't dispute that. However, he usually only tells one side of the story and his work is typically very bias.

 

[tribdog]

None of that has anything at all to do with the issue and most of it is wrong anyway. The issue is whether a university needs to give a forum for anyone who shows up at the door asking for one. It is rediculous to assert that they must. The university must first assess the value - that is, after all, why the kids are there, isn't it? For the university to teach them? Heck, if the kids got to choose their own speakers, it would be nothiing but porn stars and Howard Stern.

There is nothing at all repressive about this mindset. I am appalled at how badly some people misunderstand the First Amendment.

Heck, the content filtering we're talking about is not too dissimilar from the principle on which PF operates!

You could do worse than porn stars and Howard Stern. In fact I personally would put more faith into something said by a porn star or by Howard Stern than in something told to me by a politician. At least with H.S. and the porn stars you can feel safe in believing that they believe what they are telling you is true.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Yes, the University had indeed already agreed to let the man speak, that's what started the whole dispute and many conservatives went too far in trying to censor him.

 

[Evo]

Yes, the University had indeed already agreed to let the man speak, that's what started the whole dispute and many conservatives went too far in trying to censor him.

It was a student, Joe Vogel that invited Moore, the college (Utah Valley State College) withdrew the invitation after protests.

 

[OrbitalPower]

It was a student, Joe Vogel that invited Moore, the college (Utah Valley State College) withdrew the invitation after protests.

Moore was eventually allowed to speak:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/images/1022-03.jpg

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1022-21.htm

"The student government officials who booked the event were subject to threats and bribes to cancel the show by a vocal group of parents, students and alumni. There were demands to “balance” Moore with a conservative speaker, despite years of consistently conservative bookings. One parent actually filed suit to stop the event. Like many liberal activists, I foolishly assumed that there was plenty of time to get tickets. Despite the efforts of opposition groups, once the event was advertised, it sold out 8000+ seats in three days.
"


They made a movie about it called "This divided State:"

29vHG0CRP-M[/youtube] And a book...886249318/?tag=pfamazon01-20']Free Speech 101


The students who organized it never backed down or sold out. And there must have been a million other things that guy could have spent his money on than trying to get someone barred from speaking.


Ralph Nader also spoke at USVC as well and I personally attended that one.

 

[Evo]

If he eventually got to speak, then why are you even bringing it up?

You seem very obsessed with Moore. As you can tell, he's not popular with the people on this forum.

 

[OrbitalPower]

I brought it up because I wondered if, in Slacker Uprising, he documents his experience at the college and because conservatives went to extremes to try and censor him with death threats and so on - but he was never actually rejected from speaking and I don't think the college withdrew the invitation.

If anybody wants to debate me on a Moore position then they can PM me, but that wasn't the point of the thread.

 

[Hurkyl]

D = those people are associated with totalitarianism.

Because I never actually made any such "association."

Did you already forget the statement in your opening post?

... tried to force the Univeristy not to let him speak - just like what they do in totalitarian countries.​

Not only did you juxtapose this particular attempt at censorship with the idea of censorship in totalitarian countries, you actually wrote the latter as a modifier to the former!


If your intent was not a condemnation of the attempt at censorship, then it would be extremely helpful if you made a cleear statement about what your intent really was. If you really were intending to condemn the attempt at censorship, then I really don't understand how you can deny our criticisms. (at least, in an intellectually honest fashion)

 

[Moonbear]

I brought it up because I wondered if, in Slacker Uprising, he documents his experience at the college and because conservatives went to extremes to try and censor him with death threats and so on - but he was never actually rejected from speaking and I don't think the college withdrew the invitation.

So, Moore should be given carte blanche to speak anywhere he wants, but if someone is a "conservative" (by your definition) who wants a "balanced" program, they are NOT allowed to express their opinion of disagreement with the invitation and should be condemned for it? Hmm...I didn't know free speech was only allowed for liberal extremists with good publicists.

 

[LightbulbSun]

When LightBulbSun says that anybody "stupid" should NOT be given a platform, that is a restriction of free-speech.

If he says, in his opinion, it would be better if these "stupid people" (do these include people who think the Confederates weren't totalitarian?) had no audience, that would not be calling for restrictions of free-speech.

Do you even know what totalitarian means? Can you point to credible historians stating that the confederacy was totalitarian?

 

[vanesch]

There existed a strong under current of anti-semitism in germany even before the Nazis. The Nazis were populists and appealed to the antisemite and antisocialist undercurrents already present in their society. Freedom of speech is not necessary to protect popular opinion. Restriction of speech protects popular opinion.

I agree with you, and as I said, I regret these restrictions of free speech in several European countries - but I understand where they came from. As you say, I think it is an ineffective way to try to suppress populism based upon racial hate or anti-semitism (which is the goal of these laws), but even if one doesn't think that it is an effective means, one can understand where it comes from.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I agree with you, and as I said, I regret these restrictions of free speech in several European countries - but I understand where they came from. As you say, I think it is an ineffective way to try to suppress populism based upon racial hate or anti-semitism (which is the goal of these laws), but even if one doesn't think that it is an effective means, one can understand where it comes from.

I see where it comes from. Similarly here in the US there are places that have made 'symbolic bans' of the 'N' word. It seems to be more heavily censored than most other epithets. Technically an actual ban would be unconstitutional though so it remains as an odd point of contention.

 

[vanesch]

No, this is incorrect. Prior to Hitler grabbing power by political means, the Nazis and other far right political opponents were battling the communists and after the collapse of the Weimar republic there was some disorder in the Third Reich.

If you read "Mein Kampf" (published in 1925 and 1926), Hitler's anti-semitic views are very very clearly expressed. Ok, he *also* hates the communists which he thinks is driven by Jews, but it is clear from the beginning that he is convinced that all evil comes from the Jews. Mein Kampf was published well before the Nazis had any power in Germany.

BTW, if Stalin had read that book, he would have known that Hitler would attack him sooner or later. (maybe he did, in fact...)

 

[Andre]

Yes freedom is speech is a great thing. We just have to cope with speakers who have gift to paralyze the brain of the average intelligent person. it's called demagoguery. Most common form:

A:There is a dangerous enemy/danger threatening us.

B: But we know exactly what he is after/what the danger is.

C: I have studied the problem extensivily and I know that we can fight it, but it requires utmost dedication and devotion. Since if we don't, we (or the world) will perish.

D: I ask you; do you want to save ourselfs (the world)? (slow and loud)

E: Now, if you all listen to me and do exactly as I tell you, we will save ourself/the world and create a better world for our children.

F: If you are not for me you're against me. There are some greedy people around who don't care about the world, only about their personal greed. They are to blame for everything. Will you help me to destroy them?

etc, etc

 

[vanesch]

Yes freedom is speech is a great thing. We just have to cope with speakers who have gift to paralyze the brain of the average intelligent person. it's called demagoguery. Most common form:

A:There is a dangerous enemy/danger threatening us.

B: But we know exactly what he is after/what the danger is.

C: I have studied the problem extensivily and I know that we can fight it, but it requires utmost dedication and devotion. Since if we don't, we (or the world) will perish.

D: I ask you; do you want to save ourselfs (the world)? (slow and loud)

E: Now, if you all listen to me and do exactly as I tell you, we will save ourself/the world and create a better world for our children.

F: If you are not for me you're against me. There are some greedy people around who don't care about the world, only about their personal greed. They are to blame for everything. Will you help me to destroy them?

etc, etc

The power of words and its associated dangers are with us since at least the ancient Greeks (see the sophists !). I wonder whether laws can do anything against it. The best thing to do is education, I'd say.

 

[Integral]

So, Moore should be given carte blanche to speak anywhere he wants, but if someone is a "conservative" (by your definition) who wants a "balanced" program, they are NOT allowed to express their opinion of disagreement with the invitation and should be condemned for it? Hmm...I didn't know free speech was only allowed for liberal extremists with good publicists.

I really do not think that this is what anybody is saying. I have no idea how one would go about forcing universities to let someone speak. Unfortunately the drift I get from this thread is that you and others seem to think that he should not be ALLOWED to speak at universities. Surely this cannot be correct.

 

[Evo]

I really do not think that this is what anybody is saying. I have no idea how one would go about forcing universities to let someone speak. Unfortunately the drift I get from this thread is that you and others seem to think that he should not be ALLOWED to speak at universities. Surely this cannot be correct.

Moonbear is saying that the University shouldn't be condemned if they decide they don't want to invite him. That is what Michael Moore is doing, he is condemning the University for deciding not to invite him, that is what this thread is about, btw.