tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2403192759999008406..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: On Comics and Speakers Who BombDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-69149025699207074022022-03-27T08:55:30.618-07:002022-03-27T08:55:30.618-07:00Ultimately I can't convince myself that I have...Ultimately I can't convince myself that I have viewpoint-neutral beliefs about this tactic.<br /><br />If I take the Godwin's Limit and look at four cases:<br /><br />1. A university where Nazi speakers, and only Nazi speakers, are shouted down by outraged students<br />2. A university where no speaker is ever shouted down by outraged students<br />3. A university where the Nazi students shout down non-Nazi speakers, and the non-Nazi students shout down Nazi speakers<br />4. A university where the dominant Nazi party shouts down all non-Nazi speakers, and Nazi speakers go uninterrupted<br /><br />I find I just HAVE to believe that the first campus is in the best shape in terms of free speech. But if that's true, I don't believe in a viewpoint-neutral system for shouting down speakers. But if that's true, I don't want my beliefs implemented by procedure—they have to be implemented by culture & community. Erlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07522602231234725809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-70436985474166294052022-03-21T16:14:08.783-07:002022-03-21T16:14:08.783-07:00I guess. But if (e.g.) the same speaker held anot...I guess. But if (e.g.) the same speaker held another lecture later and the same people who spontaneously booed went to that event to boo, it would be inappropriate.<br /><br />A norm like that protects speech, because if someone's prevented from lecturing by a spontaneous fount of disapproval, as disappointing as that may be, they can try again and get a fair shake again (or self-select a sympathetic group that wants to hear them). It's a disappointment that terminates, not an ongoing blockade.Ari Allyn-Feuerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055655092215413930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-16581737956614699192022-03-21T15:37:53.487-07:002022-03-21T15:37:53.487-07:00This suggests that if the audience of a university...This suggests that if the audience of a university talk comes in genuinely willing to listen to the talk, but as the talk proceeds spontaneously and organically decides "this sucks" and starts booing loudly, that's fine. Which maybe is a valid line, though again, I have no idea how one polices it.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-33250304751977332572022-03-21T15:34:14.451-07:002022-03-21T15:34:14.451-07:00I think a big part of it is that in the case of th...I think a big part of it is that in the case of the heckler's veto of a university lecture, you have two separate groups of people, one who invited the speaker and still want to hear them for the duration of the heckling, and the other group who, whether spontaneously or by premeditation, are trying to stop it.<br /><br />To get truly analogous in the comic case, you'd posit something like this. After bombing somewhere, a comic is booed off that stage. Their fans then organize a new standup set for them at another club, whereupon the people who booed them off the first stage then go to the other club to also boo them off that stage, to prevent their fans from hearing their set at the other event.<br /><br />This more-closely-analogous formulation retains (to my ear) more of the "now it's about free speech" valence of the university lecture case.Ari Allyn-Feuerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055655092215413930noreply@blogger.com