Eve Moran
Eve Moran
Jul 10, 2017 · 5 min read

Sure you have that right, though, I would suggest against it as it isn’t really that productive, other than creating an ulcer.

Actually, you have argued repeatedly that I should not have such a right:

Put it simply, understand it or not, the right to free speech ends when you try to take it away from someone else.”

That is the difference between an open platform and a closed one. We can come here daily, bicker with each other, and debate ideas from politics to floral arts.

Even here, you shouldn’t demand that Medium deletes every post you personally disagree with. There are the terms of service, that as long as a commentator doesn’t breach, his posts should remain as they are. Even if those posts disgust me, you, or both of us.

Medium is not, technically, an open platform.

You have to register and agree to the terms of service. They can kick you off. It is a space for speech reserved for members. It is closed.

I do not demand that Medium delete any post. Instead, I challenge the things I disagree with, especially when the ideas therein can cripple or destroy my rights.

On a closed platform, like the one given by universities, where a speaker is invited, rather than coming of his own accord, you cannot demand that you get the same treatment or else you disrupt that person talk. The university or the group inviting the speaker have no obligation to give you the same platform.

I want to point out that, earlier, John said the opposite:

It would have been a million times more effective if liberals had put a speaker on either opposite Milo who would preach about feminism and identity politics and basically try to counter Milo’s points

It’s interesting that you both are so antagonized by the idea of protest, and the solutions you both promote are inherently authoritarian. “Make him talk to a liberal speaker on the stage!”, “No one be mad that this guy is talking!”. Those are both ideas that are studiously ignorant of reality: no, the group hosting the speaker didn’t want a debate. The people who wanted to see someone shout at Milo were happy to yell at him from the audience or the quad.

You repeat that here:

“The same goes for news outlets that have a platform that they build for themselves and can use that platform as they choose without considering either of our sensibilities. The people they invite might push narratives we don’t support and at no time are we in a position to demand a certain speaker be invited — we can only suggest they do so. Needless to say that we cannot march to their studios and disrupt their broadcast to prevent them from saying the things we disagree with.”

Why not? That’s what our rights are for. The point of having free speech is that people earning money for their words can be compelled to say shit that isn’t true and that they do not believe. Protecting the rights of individuals to challenge moneyed interests and the speakers they pay is kind of a major thing.

A private company is not bound by the First Amendment but when the same company silences the voices of the marginalized, the public is free to criticize and cease to do business with that company. That is why I keep mentioning the concept of free speech, as opposed to the literal interpretation of it as the First Amendment.

You keep saying “free speech” but the way you use it doesn’t really make much sense. As far as you’ve written here, you seem to think “free speech” refers only to people who can command an audience. In other words, celebrities.

That was precisely my point. You assert that the agitator has as much right to disrupt a presentation, as the presenter has the right to give it. In essence, the agitator is taking away the right of the presenter by doing so.

I would suggest that this problem stems from the extremely weird definition of “free speech” you are using.

By “trying to take it away,” I meant the way agitators pull fire alarms, use bullhorns, and shout during the presentation. Not when they peacefully gather to protest the talk beforehand, spreading flyers, and debate others on the merit of the individual.

I appreciate your clarification.

Finding the random case of discrimination does not represent the overall treatment of LGBT individuals. Apart from a religious school banning a gay speaker because of ideological decisions, which also seem to be an isolated incident, I don’t really see it on par with what happens in universities who ban more than just a particular conservative speaker.

Of course you don’t. You prefer those conservative speakers.

But the inherent problem you fail to see is that these are wildly different communities and you seem to expect the most liberal communities to tolerate extreme conservatism while you are nonchalant about conservative communities actually exerting far more control over students lives.

I did not share a single random case of discrimination: I shared a pattern of authoritarian control over the lives of gay students. They are told who they can date, what schools they can go to and a host of other rules that are discriminatory and not applied to straight students.

You seem to think that is insignificant compared to the problem that 10 guys at Berkeley couldn’t see Milo speak live on campus, even though they had broad access to all his published content in the form of videos and articles.

And if you stand behind the argument of private institutions being able to ban speakers they disagree with, then you should also support a school who doesn’t want to invite a guest speaker based on his sexual orientation. I find the administration banning that speaker quite silly, as the students will eventually meet various people from the LGBT community, whether they know it or not and banning those speakers won’t really protect those students and will create for them problems down the line.

This is all very good evidence that you haven’t thought much about your ideas. I think people have rights: schools do not.

I notice that you did not comment on this at all:

You seem utterly unaware that Berkeley protested their own chancellor at a forum for public education.

So I want to return for a moment, to something you said:

You assert that the agitator has as much right to disrupt a presentation, as the presenter has the right to give it. In essence, the agitator is taking away the right of the presenter by doing so.

If the presenter wanted to speak, why didn’t they use the forums that were available? They were interviewed in the national media, yet they did not use those opportunities to share the presentations they planned to give at Berkeley.

Why do you think that is?

    Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
    Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
    Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade