So, Bahar Mustafa has been charged with RMMC (according to the Guardian)

[Tilly]

That's not the case, owning various other things, like porn for example, videos of murder, or hell even signs that say horrible or stuff (God Hates Fags, etc) or even flags representing various things are all protected under free speech laws. Nothing was said about making it, just owning it.

So the analogy is fine. Otherwise owning those things wouldn't be protected under free speech either.

Well just because a law somewhere says something doesn't make it correct. You can't just point to laws in a philosophical argument about principles. Principles are supposed to be what establish laws, not the other way around. Otherwise we ultimately fall into a kind of 'argument by convention' pattern that goes nowhere (i.e "this is right because people currently say it's right")

If that counts as free speech in some country's laws, that's interesting. I don't think it makes much sense classifying it as speech though and private possessions have never been mentioned as part of the long tradition of arguments for free speech (e.g Milton, Mills, Jefferson etc)

One pretty massive difference is that private possessions often need no protection because unless you actively inform other people about them, no-one even knows you have them! Whereas speech, almost by definition, impacts other people (and therefore needs protection because a lot of those other people tend not to like it)

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I always found this system strangely hilariuos. your courts seem to care more about what some backend judge decided half a century ago than what is actually written in the law. such a backwards way of legal system.

Judges decide what is written in the law. We're just pragmatic about it. That is why we rely on precedent to make the law consistent and predictable over time. In theory, and often in practice.

So you have no separation between judicial and Legislative branches? I find that quote hard to believe, and if true, very scary.

I should have said "Judges decide what the law means" or "judges interpret the law". As a matter of settled law, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means I personally get to own a firearm. The meaning of the law is debated, but the Supreme Court says "it is thus" so therefore, it is thus. A court with different political leanings may have given a different interpretation, and may in the future. Or maybe the text of the law will be changed. Until then, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law is the law and that is that. Civil law proceedings also suffer from the need to interpret the law. They just deal with the consequences differently. I don't know how your system does it.

As for the concept of legal precedent, I don't think it is backward. I think it is very much designed to make tomorrow's legal system better. It means in the future, I will be able to know how a law will be interpreted and applied by, well, looking at how judges interpret and apply it. Our system doesn't like two identical cases to have different outcomes. It is also a way to settle judicial interpretation without passing another law that will have to be interpreted all over again. Does the fifth clause of the third amendment to the Freedom Fries Act apply to cases like this? If Judge Billy-Bob rules that it does, then lets just consider the matter to be ruled on and settled until we have some compelling reason to dredge it up again. A judge did rule on it, after all. I don't have to scrap all that and just go back to the statute and adjudicate the same questions over and again for every case. Which leads to inconsistent results. And bad or incorrect precedents are not impossible to correct for. Future judges can do it (though they usually want a compelling reason) or the legislature can step in.

 

[Azure23]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others. Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

^ This right here is exactly why I am NOT a feminist. "Its all about treating people equally but you people over there need to shut up and do as your told your opinions don't matter and are not valid". Either everyone is held to the same standard or you are not fighting for equality it is really is not that complicated.

I see a lot of people confused about this. Being respectful of someone else's experiences, experiences which I as a moderately well off white may not have had, is not the same thing as being told to shut up and do what you're told. No one is telling you to shut up, you're just not talking over people. It's really not too complicated. Step back, let someone else have the floor, and listen and learn. It's a relatively innocuous concept, and yet some people are fucking infuriated at the insinuation that someone else may have a more informed opinion than them on the issues marginalized groups face.

My grandfather is a very vocal man, he's used to having a say about everything, he'll offer unsolicited opinions on pretty much everything, and if it seems like someone else has a better understanding of a subject, he'll talk over them so they don't get as much time to speak. I love the guy but he's a dick. He grew up in a society where his words were valued above those of many others, and he's internalized that. I'm sure he doesn't know he's doing it, but it's annoying and disruptive to healthy discussion. Avoiding that kind of behavior is important if you're a white feminist, even more so if you're a white feminist man.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others. Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

^ This right here is exactly why I am NOT a feminist. "Its all about treating people equally but you people over there need to shut up and do as your told your opinions don't matter and are not valid". Either everyone is held to the same standard or you are not fighting for equality it is really is not that complicated.

I see a lot of people confused about this. Being respectful of someone else's experiences, experiences which I as a moderately well off white may not have had, is not the same thing as being told to shut up and do what you're told. No one is telling you to shut up, you're just not talking over people. It's really not too complicated. Step back, let someone else have the floor, and listen and learn. It's a relatively innocuous concept, and yet some people are fucking infuriated at the insinuation that someone else may have a more informed opinion than them on the issues marginalized groups face.

My grandfather is a very vocal man, he's used to having a say about everything, he'll offer unsolicited opinions on pretty much everything, and if it seems like someone else has a better understanding of a subject, he'll talk over them so they don't get as much time to speak. I love the guy but he's a dick. He grew up in a society where his words were valued above those of many others, and he's internalized that. I'm sure he doesn't know he's doing it, but it's annoying and disruptive to healthy discussion. Avoiding that kind of behavior is important if you're a white feminist, even more so if you're a white feminist man.

You divide the world between those who are respectful to women and minorities (feminist allies) and those who sound like total dicks (people who aren't feminist allies). That doesn't sound like a call for understanding to me. It sounds like blackmail. You're already implying that I'm a total dick just for not joining your crew. I don't even know what arguments you want me to agree to yet. And you're very condescending about it. Which is your right, but people will respond to that with hostility. No I will not "Step back, let someone else have the floor, and listen and learn." Anyone who has a message for me can address me as an equal. I'll give them a fair hearing. And then I might just teach them a thing or two. If you have a message from a female or minority speaker that you think I might benefit from hearing, feel free to PM me and I would be happy to discuss it with you. I promise it won't be the first one I've ever heard or allowed to be heard.

If you want to go around saying "be a feminist ally or you're a racist bastard", fine. But don't be surprised when people don't appreciate being blackmailed like that.

You did say that certain people need to "shut up" before.

 

[Azure23]

I see a lot of people here who are actually flabbergasted by her choice to have a meeting for marginalized groups exclude cis white men, and I gotta ask, why is that such a bad thing?

Bear with me for like the two seconds it'll take to make this point. If you're an ally, it's not about you, it's about helping others. Sometimes that means letting them have their own space, we don't always need to be included if marginalized groups want to meet without us. She made reference to straight and male allies in the email, so she's clearly not looking to exclude white men from activism.

Being an ally means sometimes (a lot of the time) you just kinda need to shut up and try and understand other people's experiences, that's what intersectional feminism is about. If you're a straight white man a large part of the western world is "your space," don't begrudge people a classroom for a few hours. And ask yourself why you feel attacked by a twitter joke hashtag, because that's what Killallwhitemen is, it's a joke. It was created to mock people who characterize feminism as "just so radical, like Marx and Stalin had a baby and it's name was Andrea Dworkin." It's not a sincere expression of hate, and trying to characterize it as such is ridiculous.

I don't know enough about the woman to defend her from some of the criticisms I've seen leveled against her, but I don't believe the choice to exclude cis white men from a meeting designed by and for marginalized groups is abhorrent in the least. As for the rest, if she is indeed being charged for her use of the hashtag (and this may not be the case, there is apparently another communication which we are not privy to yet) then that is some odd application of justice, considering the actual racist, fascist elements present in the UK political body (which she roundly criticized over social media before being charged).

Edit: Also I get that this is a huge sticking point here on the escapist but there is a prevailing definition of racism in academia which specifically cites the presence of oppressive power structures and behavior reinforcing those structures, under that definition, the "oppressed" cannot be racist, they can internalize racist behavior, but it does not in and of itself constitute racism. I feel like the divisiveness of the definition comes from people who want to define racism as specific action and speech, and people who want to define racism as a complex network of social and economic factors. As for me, it's like porn, I may not be able to tell you exactly what makes a speech or deed racist, but I know it when I see it.

^ This right here is exactly why I am NOT a feminist. "Its all about treating people equally but you people over there need to shut up and do as your told your opinions don't matter and are not valid". Either everyone is held to the same standard or you are not fighting for equality it is really is not that complicated.

I see a lot of people confused about this. Being respectful of someone else's experiences, experiences which I as a moderately well off white may not have had, is not the same thing as being told to shut up and do what you're told. No one is telling you to shut up, you're just not talking over people. It's really not too complicated. Step back, let someone else have the floor, and listen and learn. It's a relatively innocuous concept, and yet some people are fucking infuriated at the insinuation that someone else may have a more informed opinion than them on the issues marginalized groups face.

My grandfather is a very vocal man, he's used to having a say about everything, he'll offer unsolicited opinions on pretty much everything, and if it seems like someone else has a better understanding of a subject, he'll talk over them so they don't get as much time to speak. I love the guy but he's a dick. He grew up in a society where his words were valued above those of many others, and he's internalized that. I'm sure he doesn't know he's doing it, but it's annoying and disruptive to healthy discussion. Avoiding that kind of behavior is important if you're a white feminist, even more so if you're a white feminist man.

You divide the world between those who are respectful to women and minorities (feminist allies) and those who sound like total dicks (people who aren't feminist allies). That doesn't sound like a call for understanding to me. It sounds like blackmail. You're already implying that I'm a total dick just for not joining your crew. I don't even know what arguments you want me to agree to yet. And you're very condescending about it. Which is your right, but people will respond to that with hostility. No I will not "Step back, let someone else have the floor, and listen and learn." Anyone who has a message for me can address me as an equal. I'll give them a fair hearing. And then I might just teach them a thing or two. If you have a message from a female or minority speaker that you think I might benefit from hearing, feel free to PM me and I would be happy to discuss it with you. I promise it won't be the first one I've ever heard or allowed to be heard.

If you want to go around saying "be a feminist ally or you're a racist bastard", fine. But don't be surprised when people don't appreciate being blackmailed like that.

You did say that certain people need to "shut up" before.

This could not be a more combative and confrontational reading of what I've said. Never once did I imply that people who don't identify as feminists are dicks. I specifically said that if you call yourself a feminist ally then there are standards of behavior that you should try and hold yourself to so as to avoid talking over people you could potentially learn from. I don't honestly see how it's all that different from someone addressing me as an equal, I've certainly never felt attacked or made to feel guilty for the circumstances of my birth among the feminists I know, although I'm sure that would've been different had I insisted on seeing my viewpoint represented to the exclusion of others' (which was the behavior I was addressing, and not specific to any group, ally or otherwise, as I felt I made clear) .I'm not putting forth an argument to try and change your mind or anything, after reading your first response I looked at a few other posts you made and decided that you were someone who held very strong convictions on the subject, and it was unlikely that further debate would lead to anything productive, so I didn't respond. What I am trying to do in my posts here is offer an alternative interpretation as to why Mustafa chose to conduct the meeting in that way, because I see a lot of people assuming the worst, and I generally don't like to do that. If you felt my post was condescending than that was your interpretation and entirely not my intent.

On another note there was quite a significant backlash because of her decision, with some pretty ugly threats. I suspect those threats did not come from anyone actually interested in attending the meeting (as I would expect the allies to realize the relative innocence of the decision), and more from people who saw the opportunity to create yet another ideological battlefield on which to tar and feather the sjw menace of the week.

 

[Flames66]

While I enjoy the sweet irony and schadenfreude, I do not think she should be charged. Freedom of speech and all that. I do think she should be removed as diversity officer as she clearly does not understand diversity.

This is the person that said that "women of color" can't be racist or sexist, right?

To be honest it'll take pretty severe consequences for me to feel sorry for her.

I agree. She has some nerve describing herself as a "person of colour". While she may come from an ethnic minority, this is in no way visible in her appearance, mannerisms or speech.

 

[Arctic Werewolf]

This could not be a more combative and confrontational reading of what I've said. Never once did I imply that people who don't identify as feminists are dicks. I specifically said that if you call yourself a feminist ally then there are standards of behavior that you should try and hold yourself to so as to avoid talking over people you could potentially learn from. I don't honestly see how it's all that different from someone addressing me as an equal, I've certainly never felt attacked or made to feel guilty for the circumstances of my birth among the feminists I know, although I'm sure that would've been different had I insisted on seeing my viewpoint represented to the exclusion of others' (which was the behavior I was addressing, and not specific to any group, ally or otherwise, as I felt I made clear) .I'm not putting forth an argument to try and change your mind or anything, after reading your first response I looked at a few other posts you made and decided that you were someone who held very strong convictions on the subject, and it was unlikely that further debate would lead to anything productive, so I didn't respond. What I am trying to do in my posts here is offer an alternative interpretation as to why Mustafa chose to conduct the meeting in that way, because I see a lot of people assuming the worst, and I generally don't like to do that. If you felt my post was condescending than that was your interpretation and entirely not my intent.

Are you calling me a self-righteous blowhard?! Just kidding. I know it to be true.

If you're saying that the standard for feminist allies is they need to be open-minded about views from women and minorities and then use their own judgement in evaluating those views, I don't think that message is clear in your posts at all. I think you'd have to squint to see that in there. And why feminist allies, specifically? And "white male" is also in the mix. Telling people they need to shut up and listen and learn from people who know better than them isn't a great way to encourage open-mindedness. Does that not speak for itself? Or how does any of this put Mustafa in a good light? All this seems like having your cake and eating it, too. "Listen and learn, straight white penis-man. If I can get you to shut up for a second, that is. I mean that in the most open-minded way possible." Nah. Homie don't play that.

It sounds like you're used to talking this lingo, and maybe forgot what it sounds like to people who don't share a lot of your assumptions. Including the people who are just nauseated by all the boot-licking. Maybe the feminists you know are really cool. Based on this thread, I doubt it.

Since you're not being condescending, tell me one more time how complicated this is.

some people are fucking infuriated at the insinuation that someone else may have a more informed opinion than them on the issues marginalized groups face.

Sounds like a bunch of dicks. Ignorant about the issues marginalized groups face, close-minded dicks. Who are these dicks? Because you can't mean feminist allies. It is not at all clear from your first two posts that this is purely a high-minded call for pure open-mindedness. Combative and confrontational was how you put it.

I'm not offended that you thought addressing me was a waste of time. Well, a little bit. But based on the crap I post, I get it.

On another note there was quite a significant backlash because of her decision, with some pretty ugly threats. I suspect those threats did not come from anyone actually interested in attending the meeting (as I would expect the allies to realize the relative innocence of the decision), and more from people who saw the opportunity to create yet another ideological battlefield on which to tar and feather the sjw menace of the week.

Apparently she was slightly dickish about uninviting people, even before we get to the provocateur "killallmen" stuff. I would have been mildly irritated, personally, but my time is dear for people who want me to bleed for the cause (metaphorically speaking). But yea, like you, I doubt the worst of the backlash came from the people most affected.

 

[Tilly]

Child porn, no matter how much you dislike it, is the same as other forms of protected speech (owning porn, videos of murder or torture, hate speech signs, hate flags) yet isn't protected. Like you said, principles are supposed to be what establish laws, not the other way around, yet these principles you talk about seem to be arbitrary and inconsistent. That's a terrible position to argue from when arguing for free speech.

You'll have to explain to me what's arbitrary and inconsistent about defining speech to be what someone says with their mouth or their writing and not having that contain any claims about private ownership.
What you're suggesting is arbitrary is just the actual dictionary definition of speech or expression and I challenge you to find a single dictionary that mentions private ownership as part of the definition of either.
The concept really does depend on the fact that you're transmitting ideas to the public. That's what all of the arguments that started in the enlightenment were about protecting. Private ownership has no part in those arguments and should be defended on completely different grounds in my opinion.
The flags and signs you include in the same list only become a means of expression or speech when you're showing them publicly. When they're at home in your cupboard, they are a form of neither.

 

[Tilly]

Laws aren't dictated by what a dictionary says, so that point is moot.

Free Speech also doesn't change based on how many people hear you say it. You can have a sign in your house where no one see's it, or you can have it outside where many people see it, it doesn't suddenly change from being not free speech to being free speech based entirely on proximity to others. It's just free speech all the time, other people not seeing it doesn't change that.

Even if you think that owning things, like signs or flags or well anything that's not written presumably, shouldn't fall under free speech, it does. Child porn falls within that same guidelines yet it's censored, whilst videos of comparable or much worse things, like gruesome murder and torture, isn't.

If you argue for free speech you should argue for free speech. Arguing that speech, which isn't going to cause immediate harm or death, should be censored based on your morals isn't an argument for free speech. It's just an argument for censorship hidden behind the hypocritical feel good tagline of "free speech".

Well I'm not arguing for censorship at all. I'm just arguing for laws that actually have a consistent theoretical basis. I'm in favour of all of those things you're saying count as "free speech", I just think they should be protected on completely different grounds.
All of the arguments that arose around free speech in the 17th and 18th century with people like Milton and John Stuart Mill were based a very specific focus on the importance of ideas being allowed to be aired in public (as an essential part of individual liberty and self-determination). This is what many people agree that the basis for free speech should be. But none of these arguments have any application to private property at all.

Having a clear theoretical basis for laws is important in a democracy. You need to teach the next generation WHY something is in law in the first place, or you're at risk of them dismantling it when their generation comes into power. Which is exactly what's currently happening with free speech. Millenials for the most part don't value it and are actively trying to tear it down and replace it with the tyranny of the majority. This is what happens when you present your laws as defacto lists of random assertions.