caused his appearance to be canceled (and also catapulted him into increased fame and fortune).

he's also just a weird, sick guy.

He's not a big deal.

He only becomes a big deal when people riot and shut down his events.

If he was just a college speaker, no one would know him or care.

children online can have a platform based on nothing that doesn't transfer into the real world. From what i saw he did himself no favors on Maher and now he can just go waft into obscurity.

what I saw on Maher.

it really didn't do anything for him at all...what works on the internet doesn't carry over into real life...it slays me that people online are so willing to fall in line behind him so easily.

He didn't really represent himself well at all, and honestly if I didn't know who he was I would question Maher's judgement for even having him on, like, who IS this guy and why is he wasting our time.

Plus his issues are all online issues as well, what they are talking about is freedom of speech *online* and their real foes are moderators and admins of websites...when you go on something like Bill Maher and say the stupid stuff he does it just makes you look like an asshole, which he did.

on the other hand the two guests he had on were great (the southern shill sucked but I guess that was for contrast) so it was like Milo was on there on a great night anyway, I hope he drew some viewers to listen to all of what the intel guy had to say

At least on the main show ( he said some obnoxious stuff on the post-show discussion), the only thing Milo said that was clearly obnoxious was about gays and women not showing up to work on time. And of course people booed that. Then Milo said like "oh, you're so easily triggered" or something to that effect. But WTF did he expect if he said that? And of course the main reason he said it was to get a reaction. So really, maybe the best thing is just to ignore him.

What I don't get is the psychology of someone who *wants* to get attention for saying obnoxious things and seems to *want* to be hated.

Sure, I detest every single one of them, but they have a right to say what they say. The thing is if we're going to defeat Trump's agenda in 2018 we have to unite and stop them in their tracks. We can't let them get to us. There's too much at stake in 2018. It's best to ignore the trolls and focus on what's really important.

My thoughts exactly

Beware of shiny objects. He is going to continue to throw shit against the wall and see if it sticks. And although it's hard, we have to pick and choose our battles and use our energy wisely. This is going to be a knock down, drag out type of deal. It's only getting started. We have to maintain our sanity and be proactive instead of reactive.

This world is ruled by violence, but I guess that's better left unsaid. - Bob Dylan

if we let him under our skin that is our fault

eventually he will take on a pro wrestler and get the snot kicked out of him and we can all smile

Was funny

Calling milo's speech "dangerous" only feeds into his own narrative- "buy my book, find out what the liberal thought police dont think you should be allowed to think!" Hell, he named his own speaking tour "dangerous".. why give him that much credit?

The only dangerous thing about Milo's real time appearance was how stupid and dangerously out of his intellectual depth he was on that show.

Certainly, Bill Maher should have pushed back against his trans people in bathrooms crap- but it is worth noting that, one, nothing Milo has said is any worse than the crap Ann Coulter spews on her regular real time appearances-

and two, his anti-trans bigotry is identical to the stuff "trans exclusionary radical feminists"-- like the folks running the michigan womyn's music festival-- have been spewing for years; and while some of them have indeed been denied platforms to speak, I dont remember any dumpster-burning riots when Julie Bindel or Gail Dines came to town.

And yes, the 1st Amendment protects the right of people prostesting milo just as it protects his wrong-ass opinions. But having him on to get thoroughly owned by the likes of larry wilmore (and told to go fuck himself, in the process) is way more effective than trying to silence him.

The Washington Post had a good article on it a few months ago...https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2016/10/24/this-professor-devotes-her-life-to-countering-dangerous-speech-she-cant-ignore-donald-trumps/?utm_term=.35f2dee7ae70

1. Milo's influence and his previous pull on Twitter in his ability to get his followers to doxx people like Leslie Jones is proof that he is a powerful speaker.

2. It's universal, but the question is what is being said and what message is being pushed.

3. This is the one thing where I'd agree with you. Most of these right-wingers stop short of calling for violence...they do everything but that. To be fair, the article is in reference to Donald Trump's dangerous speech...not Milo's.

4. Easy, there is historical context that shows that hate speech is favorable to leading to violence

5. This is a weak example as well. I wouldn't say Milo is the "sole source of information" for his audience. However this is a major problem with confirmation bias on the Right. We see it in how they shut out and ignore evidence that they don't agree with. So while Milo isn't the sole source of info on targeted groups, he exists within a right-wing bubble where this type of rhetoric is routinely circulated...often times with little to no pushback.

You don't see it because you don't want to see it. Just know that at a Milo event in Minnesota, one of his supporters shot an anti-racist activist. So the notion that his followers can't be led to commit violent acts is ignoring the history of this type of speech.

And the reason no charges were filed against the shooter is, there was a substantial amount of video that showed him being attacked first and firing in self-defense.

That's not to defend the ideology of one group over another, but the Seattle police would have charged him if it hadn't been pretty clear cut. He was released immediately, and the video of the event is available all over.

Some type of chance is needed now. I hate to make it a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe we should do what I have done to Bill Mahar and not listen to him anymore, not even on youtube. He can sink and not have any customers and that will solve that. What is that fake Baptist church that is always chanting funerals. I think Hells Angeles took care of them.

and I absolutely disagree that we "need" to "do anything" about it. In fact, I think that's the bad idea to end all bad ideas.

Did you actually watch this show you're opining about? How do you know what was said, if you didn't?

One of the reasons I wont shut up about the 1st Amendment, is because I know that it is a stronger bulwark against totalitarianism than any censorship, however well-intentioned, ever could be.

The pro-censorship authoritarians who want to "fix" the 1A so they can get rid of the sports illustrated swimsuit issue, or 'blasphemous' cartoons, or even genuinely hateful, bigoted speech... never seem to understand that the first speech to go would be that of magrinalized groups, protesters, dissent they likely agree with.

You speak of victimized groups having a different take on hate speech. I come from a Jewish family that had relatives in Europe, sent to the camps. I would consider that a visceral understanding of victimized groups. And yet, I agreed with the ACLU in defending the rights of Nazis to march in Skokie.

Not despite my family's experience, rather in part because of it; I grasp that free speech absolutism, as you put it, is antithetical to everything the Nazis stood for.

Allowing them to speak was a defeat for them. Censorship would be giving their way of thinking a victory.

People don't like what is being said by someone, tough fucking shit.

I don't care if it is hate speech, porn or whatever.

I am appalled that so many on the Left have become proponents of banning various types of speech. It is especially hypocritical because the Left protests more than the Right.

Like it doesn't even occur to them that maybe especially NOW we should appreciate the 1st Amendment, not crap on it.

Yes, he has the freedom to say what he likes. But the left has the freedom to call him on his bullshit and to refuse to give him a platform to say it.

Bill Maher can have whomever he likes on his show, but the risk he's taking is that he won't debate them effectively (and I don't think he did) and therefore both give them a platform and legitimise them.

Other guests have the freedom to go on or not go on the show according to their own consciences.

What I thought was particularly bullshit about Milo's argument (and the right's anti-PC argument generally) is that they conflate calling someone a racist with silencing them. They refuse to recognise that hate speech has legitimate consequences and saying "I was just kidding, lighten up" when you get called out is just immature and self-absorbed.

They were laughing together and calling those who disagree with them "little girls". Bigots of a feather flock together. It's telling for me who defends this.

So I'm not sure why some people are so shocked that he would have Milo on.

Personally, I'd much rather have Milo come on and look intellectually outgunned (and get told to go fuck himself), as he did last night, than have him kept off the show in the name of ideological purity--- giving him an opportunity to sell more books since he was "censored", in the process.

Like I said, he's dragged Ann Coulter's creepy cryptkeeper ass out on that stage more times than I can count.

The sole selling point "Milo" has is this assertion that "the left" is full of sanctimonious thought police types who try to censor everything they don't like.

Now, you and I know that's just a fringey, cranky minority. Right?

....But when someone like Maher actually lets Milo blather, once he gets past "the principle of free speech is good" -something all good progressives actually believe- he has nothing to say and the deficiencies and intellectual contradictions in his shtick become glaringly apparent.

The good news for Milo is there is still probably enough "YOUUUU ARENT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT" outrage in some peoples' gas tanks to fuel his book sales.

& probably there is a bit of flirtation there. I wish Maher would come out eventually as bi curious he would be so much nicer & not so damn bitter

Bother them is just what he wants ! Jeez. Just laugh at his dumb ass.

Trying to silence them is not. Denying anyone's right to speak is to deny everyone's right to speak.

Just my opinion. YMMV.

He is so not worth all this. I wish people would stop flattering him by giving him more attention than he deserves.

Last edited Sun Feb 19, 2017, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

When the a-hole said he's hated equally by both the extreme Alt-Right and the extreme Left, Larrry said:

[font size=5]"I think you're leaving out a whole lot of people." [/font]

Go Larry!

he really cut Milo off at the knees

I am in favor of laws against hate speech. Canada has them for a reason. They work.

It must bother you that donations to the ACLU have gone through the roof, then, ever since we got that authoritarian jackwit with no respect for the 1st Amendment, in the White House.

Can people in Canada read Milo's columns on Breitbart?

Can people in Canada buy Ann Coulter's books?


...you seem well informed about these supposedly superior Canadian speech laws, so maybe you can answer that.

Here's a free clue: there is no right to not be offended.

Hate speech is in fact entitled to Constitutional protections (R.A.V. v. St. Paul 505 U.S. 377 (1992)).

Hate speech not entitled to Constitutional protections is that which advocates for imminent violence or lawlessness Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)).

the best thing to happen is he keeps on talking

A platform to a cretin as vile as Milo. Shame on Maher!!

That's the most important thing for a TV show.

If people don't like it, they can always turn it off.

Selling our souls to the devil for ratings is how we got trump.

Milo was just vapid and boring and said very little of note, the southern shill embarassed himself, Larry Wilmore rocked, Leah Remini was great against scientology, and the veteran intel guy was amazing. I am really glad actually that Milo was on this particular night because it may have drawn more viewers than it would have other wise and a lot was said that was mind blowing, about Russia and the spying. Milo did not make any great showing of himself, he seemed like an exhibit, honestly. He won't gain any new fans from this show.

I can also call Bill Maher a fucking hate-speech promoting asshole. too. If they don't like it that's too damn bad! Hate speech needs to be called out!

There is no fairness doctrine or equal time requirement

I didn't see where having a public platform was required for it to matter!

but allowed to speak.

It probably would have been far more effective as Milo got favorable publicity with the cancelation and demonization of protestors.

I can recall going to a George Wallace for POTUS rally in 1968 at the Cow Palace and there may have been more PD tact Squad present than actual Wallace supporters, by far the majority there came to jeer Wallace.

The right wing extremism and xenophobia needs to seen in the light of day.

I did not see Maher's show but am disappointed that Maher had other than a condemning reaction. Most of these "liberal" "comedy" shows have been quite effective in exposing and diminishing hateful ideologues to the public.

Bill Maher has so-called controversial guests on his show quite often. Milo is a mental midget and the way he giggled and rambled showed it. Nance and Wilmore schooled him. Bill just let him show his ridiculousness. The important thing is how to handle it. I think it's better to call it out than ignore it.

Yep!

That free speech and First Amendment jurisprudence concern solely the relationship between government and those governed – not between or among private persons and organizations.

When liberals act in the capacity of private persons to oppose and denounce the hate, racism, and bigotry common to most on the right, such opposition in no manner ‘violates’ the free speech rights of conservative bigots and racists.

This is significant because many on the right will attempt to propagate the lie that liberals are ‘hostile’ to the free speech rights of conservatives, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Last, as already correctly noted, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not ‘absolute,’ they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government; conservatives will also attempt to distort and misrepresent this fact of law.

We could shut down all speech we don't agree with. Why give them a platform,right. Sarcasm

I know that Berkeley police cancelled the event after the violent protests and the shooting, but police have also cancelled rock concerts, rap concerts, country music concerts, etc... for violence. The police acted to protect public safety. They were not quelling the right to speak.

This is what we need to remember. Freedom of speech is about the Government infringing upon the right.

Private citizens protesting is fine. Being violent is not. Causing such a disruption as to make businesses or other venues rethink having someone speak is a tactic that has been used and should continued to be used, just not through violence.

Also, rifts on the left are caused by breathing.

But Bill Maher that's his show,to have controversial people on. Larry Wilmore telling that little scum bag to "Go Fuck Himself" made my day.

"Milo Yiannopoulos has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes. There is no value in "debating" him. Appearing on Real Time will provide Yiannopoulos with a large, important platform to openly advocate his racist, anti-immigrant campaign. It will be exploited by Yiannopoulos in an attempt to legitimize his hateful agenda. Yiannopoulos's apperance could also be used to incite violence against immigrants, transgender people, and others at a time when the Trump Administration is already seeking to formalize a war against some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Yiannopoulos has shown he will use his apperances to publicly attack and shame specific ordinary people by name, a practice which could lead to violence or even death. Real Time, of course, has the right to book whomever it wants on its show, including Yiannopoulos. But I cannot participate in an event that will give a platform to such a person. For these reasons, I have informed the producers of Real Time that I will not appear on the show"

While some think this is just giving Yiannopoulos a voice on National airwaves an exercise in free speech, was the CNN discussion "are Jews really people", also an exercise in free speech?

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a50906/are-jews-people-was-a-real/

Part of the problem is there is no requirement for equal time or a "fairness doctrine" anymore. Giving racists, sexists, or other hate groups a forum legitimizes their hate, and as Jeremy Scahill pointed out, Yiannopoulos has ample venues to spew his hateful diatribes.

90% of the radio talk airwaves are already bombarded with hate radio.

The days of Father Coughlin were not that long ago, and with the Rush Limboughs, Sean Hannitys, and Alex Jones, the real danger will not be Yiannopoulos getting his "free speech" opportunities, but suppressing those they attack, by silencing the victims of their attacks.

Joe McCarthy is alive and well

The whole idea of free speech is subversive.

I don't care if he is or not. It has no bearing on the rotten things he has done to people.

Because that's what his bullshit is about, and these fuckers always need somebody to hate

pretending it is.

Thankfully no one is buying the foolishness contained within the OP.

but there are clearly different opinions out there. You can simply go to Twitter and Facebook where this topic of Milo and Maher is being talked about and see the varying degrees of opinions...especially among POC. Everyone isn't a free speech absolutist and I think you can not be an absolutist and still value free speech. I think people should also be conscious of communities that have dealt with centuries of verbal and psychological abuse before judging why certain people react differently to the idea of hate speech.

Muslims. For no reason other than it was prayer time at the mosque. We have hate crime laws here. The police are looking to see if they can be used in this case. There is something comforting about having the option to shut vile hatred intended to become viral down. Don't know if this case will cross that line. I hope it does.

Collaborepublicans. The real issues. Everything else is distraction.

If Hitler's free speech had been silenced.

Last edited Sun Feb 19, 2017, 04:35 AM - Edit history (1)

How the fuck is this little Greek troll with the bad oversized sweaters anything like Hitler?

Two, maybe if Weimar Germany had had the Bill of Rights, specifically the 1st Amendment, Hitler never would have been able to come to power, censor the press, etc etc.


It's fucking gobsmacking to me that even with an authoritarian in the White House displaying dangerous contempt for our norms and institutions, the people with a censorship fetish still have a fucking hard-on to screw with the 1st Amendment because of this ill-thought-out fantasy that they're going to shut up the people they don't like.

a slippery slope with that logic. That is a way to shut down conversations, not to illuminate them and show the world that people like Hitler are the insane, irrational people that they are.

It isn't that Hitler needed to be silenced, it was that his dissenters were silenced.

Of course a protest doesn't rise to that level, and of course that in itself is free-speech. As to shutting down someone like Milo, I understand it, but I'm not sure it was the best way to do things. It only ceded right-wingers some of the high ground on conversations about free-speech, whereas having him on Maher, as many people have pointed out here and in other threads, only showed him to be pretty incapable of selling the hatred he espouses when actually challenged.

Try yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre and see what happens. Now let's talk about hate speech and then fighting words... these are all examples of speech that are NOT considered free. This ain't hard. If your public speech attacks others for their race, their sex, their age, their location or their religion or incites violence against groups of people - it's a dangerous and sometimes lethal.

BTW you are dead wrong - Hitler should have been silenced early on during his beer hall days when he was scapegoating groups of people and inciting violence. When it comes to weighing the public speaking rights versus public speaking responsibilities I'm ok with that. Twenty million civilians suffered horrible torture and were put to death because of the words of one man. He should have been stopped by any means necessary.

have been ignored or placated. It should have been responded to full-throatedly by everyone who recognized the vileness of his words. You think shutting something down is even possible when you don't have the mechanisms of the state? All you do is to give it power when you try to do that.

And if you think that shutting free speech down with the mechanisms of the state is a good idea, I have no idea what to tell you. That is a lot of trust in authority to decide what is inappropriate or "Hitleresque."

How do you think such an approach would have been used or was, against people like Malcolm X and the Black Panther party?

It was NOT Hitler's magical rhetoric alone that gave him the power he had. It wasn't that magical. It spoke to people who weren't given a counter-argument. It won in a world of propaganda where opposing views were shut down. It can't win in a world where that isn't the case.

There is no legal prohibition against- much less, even a definition of - "hate speech" in the United States.

Fire in a crowded theater- again, the most overused, misused, tortured metaphor in the existence of this debate.

"Fighting words" - last time that went to the Supreme Court, the government was trying to silence anti-Vietnam War protesters (that's the principle you're so excited to defend, here ) and the Government lost. Free speech won.

As for Hitler, if someone had killed Hitler- one of the most popular uses for imaginary time machines, I believe - lots of lives would have been saved, too. Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against murder?

I am a lifelong First Amendment absolutist and nothing that has happened in 2016 and the Idiot's three week reign of awfulness has changed that. The First Amendment is one of the reasons this country became great. When we do something that eviscerates that freedom, I am TOTALLY against it. We are giving the other side ammunition when we do this and, frankly, it is used against us.

I watched the Maher video, and Bill was toying with Milo Y, and was pretty much leading him by the nose. That to me is the way to deal with fearmongers like Mr. Y: tackle them head on with substance. Milo, and others like him, thrive on the negative publicity from things like the violence from the Berkeley riot a couple of weeks ago. Why would anyone give this guy more press by violent protests?

I am totally fine with protesting, as this too is a form of free speech. However, for heaven's sake, make it non-violent! If for no other reason, engaging in violence just makes the protesters look like hypocrites. Let the forces of evil (like Milo Y) speak and then bury them with their own words and/or walk away.

IMHO, also don't shut them up: all of this is used against us to make us look like hypocrites! Just let them talk and they will dig their own grave.

Totally agree!

I want to make it clear that I'm not advocating that. I'm simply talking about simple protest. You said you're totally fine with protests, so we're really in agreement on the core issue.

and he certainly wouldn't have been on Maher's show. Shutting his speech down was a great career boost for him
and has resulted in him having a much larger audience.

there was nothing of substance that he contributed to what was otherwise a great show.

The guy is a poseur who craves publicity. In this particular case, ignoring him is the only effective response. Everything else generates more attention and profit for him.

And when they actually saw him on real time they were like "yawn, big deal. He's an impish kid who likes saying things that set people off."

I think Maher having milo on was effective in debating and deflating him, but he - Maher - absolutely should have pushed back on the "dangerous transgender people" bullshit. Watching Larry Wilmore tell milo to go fuck himself over that during overtime was priceless, though.

The left for reactions and the right for money. I don't think he's worth anyone getting upset over. He's a fake.

Yes Milo and others have the right to free speech, but I have the same right to stand up and say your wrong. The repugs have never got that. They take criticism as a challenge to free speech it's not its called a discussion

That, to me, is exactly how it should work. Far better than silencing him and leaving people to wonder "what is it about this guy that liberals are so a-skeeered of?"

And Milo I immediately just want to punch in his face.

So needless to say I didn't bother watching st all.

now that pedophilia = Conservative values.

Hopefully they won't pull him from the keynote speech at CPAC!

100 years ago, 13 year old girls were married off in conservative society. No rights for women is how conservatives want it.

and is advocating man/boy love, not pussy grabbing.

Let's HOPE so.

He IS a disgusting, perverted piece of filth--Advocating for sexual abuse of minor boys.

HE should be "Locked Up."

with this: http://heavy.com/news/2017/02/milo-yiannopolous-pedophilia-transcript-pederasty-video-full-sex-boys-men-catholic-priest-cpac-quotes/

All the folks I am connected to seem to be leaving their one and only issue that matters to them bullshit behind because now ain't the time for hairsplitting, shit flinging, whining or division.

I see some are still holding out though. Hang in there, lots more unity and solidarity coming, could be challenging times for certain folks...

They all chose to be on the show and make their positions clear. I am deeply suspicious of anything "real" on tv. It was supposed to be entertainment and each was promoting the brand that they were meant to. So I would no more make Milo a hero than I would any of them.