News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Cancel Culture: a case study

Started by Cassia, December 24, 2020, 08:54:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mike Cl

What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

This is much like theists that tell us that abortion (for example) is an infringement upon their freedom of religion.  What they don't want to understand is that stance is actually an infringement of my rights, not theirs.  If they don't want an abortion (or whatever they are complaining about) then don't get one.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?<br />Then he is not omnipotent,<br />Is he able but not willing?<br />Then whence cometh evil?<br />Is he neither able or willing?<br />Then why call him god?

Cassia

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2020, 09:21:37 AM
Do Americans have a right to be racist? Do Americans have a right to say hateful things about individuals or groups of people? Should what people say on their own time allow employers and schools to fire them? There doesn't appear to be a consensus. The temptation is to censor people who say disagreeable or hurtful things but, as someone who admittedly has a history of saying disagreeable things, I prefer to allow people as much latitude as possible. The singer in question should use whatever language she wants, particularly since music is an artistic expression, and listeners should be able to criticize her for it. I would take issue if YouTube kicked her off the platform.

I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

Blackleaf

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2020, 08:40:43 AM
[Spoiler=Snip]I don't know if this qualifies as "cancel culture" but I thought it was interesting.

A Cheerleader’s Vulgar Message Prompts a First Amendment Showdown

WASHINGTON â€" It was a Saturday in the spring of 2017, and a ninth-grade student in Pennsylvania was having a bad day. She had just learned that she had failed to make the varsity cheerleading squad and would remain on junior varsity.

The student expressed her frustration on social media, sending a message on Snapchat to about 250 friends. The message included an image of the student and a friend with their middle fingers raised, along with text expressing a similar sentiment. Using a curse word four times, the student expressed her dissatisfaction with “school,” “softball,” “cheer” and “everything.”

Though Snapchat messages are ephemeral by design, another student took a screenshot of this one and showed it to her mother, a coach. The school suspended the student from cheerleading for a year, saying the punishment was needed to “avoid chaos” and maintain a “teamlike environment.”

The student sued the school district, winning a sweeping victory in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia. The court said the First Amendment did not allow public schools to punish students for speech outside school grounds.

Next month, at its first private conference after the holiday break, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear the case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., No. 20-255. The Third Circuit’s ruling is in tension with decisions from several other courts, and such splits often invite Supreme Court review.

In urging the justices to hear the case, the school district said administrators around the nation needed a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on their power to discipline students for what they say away from school. “The question presented recurs constantly and has become even more urgent as Covid-19 has forced schools to operate online,” a brief for the school district said. “Only this court can resolve this threshold First Amendment question bedeviling the nation’s nearly 100,000 public schools.”

Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale and the author of “The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court and the Battle for the American Mind,” agreed with the school district, to a point.

“It is difficult to exaggerate the stakes of this constitutional question,” he said. But he added that schools had no business telling students what they could say when they were not in school.

“In the modern era, a tremendous percentage of minors’ speech occurs off campus but online,” he said. “Judicial decisions that permit schools to regulate off-campus speech that criticizes public schools are antithetical to the First Amendment. Such decisions empower schools to reach into any student’s home and declare critical statements verboten, something that should deeply alarm all Americans.” ...[/spoiler]

I don't think this counts as cancel culture, but it is an interesting case. Public schools are (poorly) funded by the government, which does, I believe, make this an actual issue of free speech. Usually when people talk about "my free speech," they're not actually talking about free speech. Platforms like YouTube have no obligation to respect all opinions equally. They can ban someone for any reason they want. They're a private business. Here, I think the school was within their rights. The student's comments were hateful and unproductive. Like, she made no suggestions to improve, but was just lashing out. But at the same time, I think you have to show a little mercy with kids. You can't expect them to have as good judgement as adults. They're wired differently. Suspending a student for an entire year seems excessive
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Cassia on December 29, 2020, 09:38:25 AM
I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

Last week I read Giving the Devil His Due by Michael Shermer and he has publically debated holocaust deniers. He sides with free speech and I tend to agree with him.

It is my contention that we must protect speech no matter how hateful it may seem. The solution to hate speech is more speech. The counter to bad ideas is good ideas. The rebuttal to pseudoscience is better science. The answer to fake news is real news. The best way to refute alternative facts is with actual facts. - Shermer, Michael. Giving the Devil his Due (p. 37). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

https://youtu.be/houCSgBZoMg

Baruch

#19
Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

This is much like theists that tell us that abortion (for example) is an infringement upon their freedom of religion.  What they don't want to understand is that stance is actually an infringement of my rights, not theirs.  If they don't want an abortion (or whatever they are complaining about) then don't get one.

In Commie-fornia you have a right to say what you weed ;-)  Of course you folk would burn down every religious institution and every non-Democrat political building.  That is your "freedom of speech".  I will never be against hate speech, because without hate, I would have little to say ;-))
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

#20
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2020, 09:21:37 AM
Do Americans have a right to be racist? Do Americans have a right to say hateful things about individuals or groups of people? Should what people say on their own time allow employers and schools to fire them? There doesn't appear to be a consensus. The temptation is to censor or punish people who say disagreeable or hurtful things but, as someone who admittedly has a history of saying disagreeable things, I prefer to allow people as much latitude as possible. The singer in question should use whatever language she wants, particularly since music is an artistic expression, and listeners should be able to criticize her for it. I would take issue if YouTube kicked her off the platform.

Black Americans have a right to be a drug using/selling hoodlum ;-)  Why are you against White crime?  Black crime = reparations, White crime = racism.  I would love to see all the Black loving Whites get what is coming to them (reincarnated as a Watts drug dealer).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Cassia on December 29, 2020, 09:38:25 AM
I would like for it to be put to a vote at least. We need to set some legal precedents. Is it OK to publish material that denies the wholesale, racially motivated slaughter of millions committed by the Nazis. Should it be legal to publicly deny the genocide and persecution of Native Americans?  Should we allow the publication of instructions to build WMDs? Personally I think that if intent to harm is proven, then a penalty is in order.

Pure Bolshevism.  You were born 100 years too late, Comrade!
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Baruch

Quote from: Blackleaf on December 29, 2020, 09:54:41 AM
I don't think this counts as cancel culture, but it is an interesting case. Public schools are (poorly) funded by the government, which does, I believe, make this an actual issue of free speech. Usually when people talk about "my free speech," they're not actually talking about free speech. Platforms like YouTube have no obligation to respect all opinions equally. They can ban someone for any reason they want. They're a private business. Here, I think the school was within their rights. The student's comments were hateful and unproductive. Like, she made no suggestions to improve, but was just lashing out. But at the same time, I think you have to show a little mercy with kids. You can't expect them to have as good judgement as adults. They're wired differently. Suspending a student for an entire year seems excessive

Schools have rights, as "in loco parentis" but since y'all want to cancel parents, I see this as moot.  What you want is bloody dictatorship, with lots of drugs (like the SS, who were motivated by cocaine pills).

Holocaust deniers are real.  But the Commie-caust deniers are far more common.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Mike Cl on December 29, 2020, 09:33:44 AM
What I find interesting is that many people say they have the freedom/right to say whatever they want.  What they don't want to hear or understand is that I have a right to respond.  And they have to take responsibility for what they say and they don't want to hear about any consequences they receive for saying what they say.

When I was 19 I worked the night shift at a convenience store for minimum wage in the worst part of Asheville. This was 1985 and Asheville had a small-town atmosphere in many ways. I had a gay pride t-shirt that I wore occasionally but not at work. Wearing a t-shirt that says "No one knows I'm gay" is nothing today but at the time and place it was provocative. My manager called me into the office and said there was a complaint because they had "a known homosexual" working for them. She said she wasn't going to fire me but "in the future you need to be more careful." So the consequence of my free speech was having my meager employment threatened.

When people say "people don't want to accept consequences for what they say" they need to consider who is delivering those consequences and why.

Cassia

#24
Quote from: Baruch on December 29, 2020, 10:12:24 AM
Pure Bolshevism.  You were born 100 years too late, Comrade!
You missed the whole "put it to a vote part". But then again now we see how conservative boot-lickers don't really care for the vote when they are the losers, LOL.
I think Holocaust deniers are unworthy of any honest academic "debate". I prefer that these issue of potential "hate crimes" are dealt with by ballots instead of a handful of judges. I have no fear that a majority of Americans would ever support, raise a bill or vote to ban pro-LGBTQ public expression. However, I do believe certain events were so terrible that they have the capability of causing physical/mental damage if they are publicly denied. We should have a say in how public deniers are dealt with. There are already laws against causing panic, liable and bearing false witness, so no you can not legally just say or print whatever you want .

Gawdzilla Sama

Shit will eventually calm down, or maybe nukes will be deployed. Either way is fine by me.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Blackleaf

Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2020, 10:35:12 AM
When I was 19 I worked the night shift at a convenience store for minimum wage in the worst part of Asheville. This was 1985 and Asheville had a small-town atmosphere in many ways. I had a gay pride t-shirt that I wore occasionally but not at work. Wearing a t-shirt that says "No one knows I'm gay" is nothing today but at the time and place it was provocative. My manager called me into the office and said there was a complaint because they had "a known homosexual" working for them. She said she wasn't going to fire me but "in the future you need to be more careful." So the consequence of my free speech was having my meager employment threatened.

When people say "people don't want to accept consequences for what they say" they need to consider who is delivering those consequences and why.

Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville--

Baruch

#27
Quote from: Blackleaf on December 29, 2020, 01:24:43 PM
Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.

Being gay isn't a political statement, but using it as a political meme is.  Being Black or White isn't a political statement, but using them as a political meme is.  There is no escape from the insanity of politics.  Both R and L lead to extinction.

Free speech?  The Virginian at the saloon talking to Trampas ... "Smile when you say that!"
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

GSOgymrat

Quote from: Blackleaf on December 29, 2020, 01:24:43 PM
Yeah, this is not about free speech. That's just discrimination. Being gay is not a political statement.

Although I'm glad wearing a gay pride shirt isn't considered a political statement in 2020 in America, wearing a t-shirt stating you were gay in 1985 in the South was definitely a political statement and that is what got me into trouble. At the time, that shirt pissed a lot of people off.

Baruch

#29
Quote from: GSOgymrat on December 29, 2020, 11:22:51 PM
Although I'm glad wearing a gay pride shirt isn't considered a political statement in 2020 in America, wearing a t-shirt stating you were gay in 1985 in the South was definitely a political statement and that is what got me into trouble. At the time, that shirt pissed a lot of people off.

And did you love every minute of attracting hostile attention?  Today the woke want to murder the MAGA hat people?  So moral!

In some places I wouldn't be caught dead in a Dem or Rep t-shirt.  And I am not sure those should be protected forms of speech.  What about a "I am a Chinese agent" or "I am a traitor" t-shirts?  Just how open minded are y'all?  I see no evidence that people today are beyond mere tribal warfare.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.