“I’ve used this quote before, but hey, I think this vaguely applies here too.”
As a quotation that is fraught with misconception and false pretence, it is likely as inapplicable in your previous reference as it is now. Let’s have a look at it…
“Hear”, There and Everywhere
“Free speech as a legal concept only guarantees you the right to speak. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to be heard, it doesn’t guarantee you the right to be agreed with, it certainly doesn’t guarantee you the right for your speech to not be challenged by someone else’s speech, and most importantly of all, it doesn’t mean you can’t suffer consequences if and when your free speech is used to cause harm to someone. Which is exactly what sexual harassment, racial slurs, and verbal bigotry are. That’s not censorship. That’s fairness.”
Firstly, on the “right to be heard”…
As it was criticized a few days ago, the context of “right to be heard” in this discussion is really no different than the “right to speak”.
While the audience maintains the right to not listen (in the arena of the Internet, that would be equivalent of surfing right past anything that one deems not worthy), it is not what this “right to speak” is addressing. As you referred to it as a “right”, the intent of “right to be heard” is that of demanding audience. ROK has never “demanded” an audience. If anything, by it’s recent move to ban anyone they deem as trolling or feeding said trolls, ROK is demanding that no one has the “right to troll” on their site.
On to “right to be challenged”…
With it’s new ruling to actively remove trolling, ROK also effectively removes opposing views. By so doing, Roosh V is exercising his right to remove anything he deems as a challenge to his views. While no one can remove this challenge from the public space, he definitely has, and maintains his privilege to do so within his own domain.
On the “consequences if and when your free speech is used to cause harm”…
There’s a vast chasm between “inciting acts of hatred” and “voicing opinion”. Consider that practically everything that ROK broadcasts is based on voluntary and deliberate action of the subject. Consider too that some of these voluntary actions are intentionally hostile (e.g. physically violent radical protests), or at the very least in contempt of others.
To admonish such behavior cannot be surreptitiously grouped together with irrational intolerance. Examples of the latter include ethnic intolerance, ageism, or heightism. Most of what ROK billboards are essays on how lenient society has become on the prejudice and entitlement of the Western Society female, while being increasing punitive on their counterpart.
Censorship is exactly what sites like Jezebel apply in order to create a false sense of morality and inflated consensus in their agenda. Up till recently, ROK allowed the freedom of counterpoint on their positions. With that license, they stood out and above the rest. However Roosh V, the site owner, has decided to address the excessive amount of trolling and general harassment by disallowing any opposition. While some may see having ROK operate no differently than any other propaganda site as a victory, it is really destroying what was originally an avenue for free speech.
This “free speech” was a way to educate the masses.
In truth, trolls do not want the masses to be enlightened. They live in denial and wish that others remained in the darkness of ignorance. That is why they press their nuisance raids until either the site closes down comments or moves to censorship. The agenda of the troll is not “fairness”. It is about shutting down any speech that they don’t want ANYONE to hear. Turning a site into a one-sided soapbox is not as good as shutting it down, but it’s better than the true “free speech” that trolls fear.
Making an “Ask” of Yourself
“And what was the point of my little quote, you may ask? Well, it’s that although RoK may be free to hold whatever little hateful opinion they want, that doesn’t mean they’re free from any sort of consequence or backlash. Just as RoK used their Free Speech, anyone can use theirs against you.”
No. As mentioned, no one is saying people do not reserve the right to be free of criticism. You, regardless of what “hat” you wear at the moment, are misrepresenting a position in order to create a false refutation (which was the “point” of introducing your “little quote”).
It is doubtful that ROK doesn’t recognize that there will be resistance to its views. After all, their views are generally against the grain of political correctness. By Roosh’s latest move (to ban what is essentially any opposition from their comment sections) it should be obvious that he doesn’t really care what others think at all. It is unfortunate that the collateral damage is that of the loss of true free speech on his site.
While you might think that ROK is pretending they have to “right” to ban the universe from speaking their mind, that isn’t the case. ROK is only exercising it’s right to limit their own site to their agenda. It is wishful thinking in believing that ROK is failing in some attempt to have this special privilege of the right to no opposition.
They don’t care what the opposition thinks.
Hence, the ill-constructed and misconstrued quotation you refer to is really inconsequential to ROK. All those who attempted to troll ROK into silence have accomplished is to turn ROK into a potentially biased site that, unless one is motivated and adept enough to discover the truth, will create a greater division between the sexes than when it allowed opposing views.
Just what have the “fairness trolls” won?