—
February began with University of California Berkeley canceling a planned lecture by controversial alt-Right speaker Milo Yiannopoulos following violent protests opposed to his appearance. Conservatives referred to the decision as censorship by “leftist cowards” organizing a “liberal lynch mob.” Some accused UC-Berkeley itself of censorship, even though the decision was motived by public safety, not opposition to Yiannopoulos’s positions.
Shortly thereafter, the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) invited Yiannopoulos to speak at this year’s event. People on the right gloated of their higher commitment to free speech. No matter that Yiannopoulos regularly and deliberately espouses positions meant to provoke disgust and hatred – Simon and Schuster paid a healthy advance for the aptly named “Dangerous,” he outed a transgender student at a recent event, and he bathed in pig’s blood to protest “globalization” and he blames female victims for being harassed: Never mind that. Liberals who oppose him, went the narrative, are cowards who are intolerant of any opposing views.
And then, video emerged of Yiannopoulos apparently praising adult men, including priests, having sex with young boys. This was a bridge too far for CPAC: They rescinded his invitation. Simon and Schuster also canceled the book deal, and he has even resigned from Breitbart.
◊♦◊
This is the perfect learning opportunity: conservatives have a line, liberals have a line. Yiannopoulos, who made a career of trying to cross as many lines as possible, managed to finally cross CPAC’s, and possibly even Breitbart’s. The question is: Will conservative Americans take this experience to heart? Will they realize that their own revulsion at his positive comments about hebephilia is similar to the revulsion that liberals feel when he willfully attacks women, Muslims, transfolk, and others?
There are plenty of articles that point out that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, and that the First Amendment does not require that speech must be granted a platform. Yiannopoulos’s First Amendment rights have not been trampled; all the organizations that have refused to allow him to air his positions further are within their legal rights.
The courts have ruled that, in the United States, the First Amendment is not absolute. “Fighting words” and certain incitements to crime are two cases where speech can be limited legally. Even so, it is not clear that Yiannopoulos has crossed those lines.
However, his comments have consistently been outside the political mainstream. As such, this ought to be a moment for reflecting on empathy. Empathy is about recognizing the validity and reality of someone else’s pain. Because reasonable people of conscience across the political spectrum have different reasons for rejecting his complete message, it should be easier to empathize with the disgust of others.
Perhaps it is difficult for conservative males to see why someone would be so deeply offended by Yiannopoulos’s outing of transgender students, but they are equally offended by his comments on man-boy relationships. As a liberal, I do not expect a conservative to necessarily understand my defense of transgender rights. I do hope that a reflective conservative can have the empathy to understand that silencing this individual is not about political disagreement, it is about wanting to minimize the amount of hatred deliberately spread in the world.
There are conservatives who also reject elements of his platform. In the wake of the scandal, Jonah Goldberg, senior editor of National Review, was particularly scathing about CPAC’s interactions with him: “Apparently, conservatives still draw the line there, but not at anti-Semitism or racism. The tent, sad to say, is big enough for that.”
In saying this, Goldberg shows some of that much-needed empathy, and should be praised for that. But is this the status quo? Even Goldberg seems to be admitting that it is not. Whether it really was, CPAC’s invitation appeared to be a tribal nose-thumbing at the liberals who had pressured UC-Berkeley: “We think free speech includes hearing Milo’s important perspective,” wrote the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp.
◊♦◊
I support Free Speech. I support everyone’s right to share reasonable positions within a free society, with the intent of the betterment of society. When someone is being deliberately provocative, though, and when they are acting in ways that are hurtful to others, regardless of their political viewpoints, society has a right and an obligation to voice disgust with those positions.
My call for greater empathy is not limited to this case. If you consider yourself a conservative and have trouble understanding liberal complaints about other issues or speakers, especially if you think that liberals are supposed to be tolerant but don’t always act like it, take a moment to consider: Is there something you’re not seeing? Perhaps you’ve truly found a case of liberals being intolerant of simple dissent, but perhaps there’s just cause for their disgust and intolerance.
—
Photo credit: Getty Images
The first amendment doesn’t guaranty a platform, but Berkley gave him one. Destroying someone else platform or taking it away when it wasn’t yours to begin with does violate someone’s free speech rights as well as possibly other rights. You don’t get to burn down a newspaper publisher because you don’t like what they’re printing.
Well apparently you can depending on what your political stance is. Its becoming clear that the rules of engagement seem to change depending on your ideology. If what happened at Berkely had been done to Rachel Maddow (or anyone deemed progressive) it would be condemned as an act of terror and hate. But since it was Milo its just fine.
This is the Left basically refusing to take any responsibility for Trump winning. They think that if they just bully a little harder, harass more widely, and silence just a little more they will get their way.
What? Liberals have valid grounds to be intolerant, but conservatives don’t? Is that what I’m reading.
The author seems to be more concerned about empathy in some directions more than others.
We now have a new meme called fake news, we need a similar one to identify fake opinion pieces. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has listened to, or read the transcripts, with a minimal degree of generosity, that Milo’s reaction and words were in line with his temperament, as well as being nuanced – and hence prone to fake opinion pieces. Just in case there is doubt, below is Milo own explanation: “I’ve reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don’t believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I… Read more »
Funnily enough, liberals didn’t seem to have a problem with George Takei and Eve Ensler when they said the same frigging thing Milo did.
I mean,I did-and do- but then I know what moral consistency is.
For Takei, I assume you’re referring to this: http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/22/double-standard-liberal-actor-george-takei-once-laughed-about-adultminor-sexual-relationships-too/ And while it’s inappropriate that everyone (including Takei) is laughing during that, you’re comparing a man relating a single, uncomfortable story about his own life when he’s prompted about it vs a man promoting hebephilia as a social good. In the Howard Stern portion of that audio, Takei even acknowledges that the encounter messed him up for a few years from normal sexual experiences. Meanwhile, Milo says he’s grateful for his experience because he learned how to give good head. So, no, it’s not the “same frigging thing.” Google “false equivalence”… Read more »
How is it not? Both are relating- from the position of victims- sexual encounters with adults that happened to them. Just because they don’t literally use the same words doesn’t mean it’s not the same situation.
while I’m at it, why don’t YOU google the “fallacy fallacy”
As far as Eve Ensler: in the Vagina Monologues one of the scenes tells the story of a thirteen (later changed to 16) year old girl who is plied with alcohol and has sex with a much older woman. The girl later describes the experience as “a good rape”
Again. This the left cherry picking based on their purity tests of moral virtue when the opposition is someone they would normally defend. When the opposition calls them on their bs, anyone that challenges their collective tribalistic nature, they burn them at the stake for them same occurrance. Yes, he said what he said. Not the greatest words spoken in the same manner as Takei, but the notion was the same that, for him ot benifited him, when he was in trouble with his identity and had no one to trust. Someone more experienced gave a searching amd lost growing… Read more »
Good point about the Vagina Monologue which was praised by many and still is. And being 16 isn’t any better.
I can’t find the story about Eve Ensler that you’re referring to.
How can you not find info on the Vagina Monologues? Its one of Ensler’s most widely known and celebrated works. Its like saying you can’t find any info on William Shakespear.
In early versions there is a story of a 13 year old girl is given alcohol by an older woman and then they have sex. The age of the girl was upped to 16 later on.
I had assumed Jax was talking about a true story that Ensler had related, not fiction.
It’s interesting that you mention William Shakespeare, since by the litmus you and Jax are using, he is also a hebephile (Juliet is 13, and Romeo is likely several years older, in “Romeo and Juliet”).
But fiction is not reality. Otherwise, Dexter is promoting serial murder and Breaking Bad is promoting meth labs.
It’s interesting that you mention William Shakespeare, since by the litmus you and Jax are using, he is also a hebephile (Juliet is 13, and Romeo is likely several years older, in “Romeo and Juliet”). And he isn’t attacked for it. But fiction is not reality. Otherwise, Dexter is promoting serial murder and Breaking Bad is promoting meth labs. But we are constantly told that music and video games promote violence (but let’s be honest the people that bring this up are usually one concerned about violence against women). I agree that fiction isn’t reality so why do people pick… Read more »