Eric Miles Said:
1.) The quote never mentions anything about prevention, so I don’t know where the heck you’re getting that bit from. Think of it this way….I could go out in the middle of the street, and just belch the alphabet as loudly as I could. Now under free speech, there’s nothing legally obligating me to stop. At the same time however, nobody is forced to actually listen to me make an ass of myself. They’re free to go about their day if they like, and just pretend I’m not even there.
It is disingenuous to deflect by purposely misrepresenting the premise of Smith’s rebuttal as implying that the quotation mentions prevention. In fact, you effectively mentioned it.
While the quote does not explicitly address prevention, the context of your employment of it was that the freedom to speak is not a guarantee of, “a right to be heard” (the words you introduced). It is this implication of the barring of “a right to be heard” that is reasonably interpreted as effectively preventing the speaker from having an audience.
Furthermore, your analogy is largely inapplicable.
Even without exploring the pointless nature of any given act, displays in public areas, where people would have to consciously make a detour to avoid the display is not the same as witnessing things that are publicly accessible, but by default, avoidable.
Displaying “artwork” on your front lawn or on a public street is the former. Displaying it in a gallery that one voluntarily enters is the latter. Contrary to your assertion, out on the street, people passing by would be “forced” to listen to your “speech” while passing, or, go out of their way to avoid it. In contrast, you do it all day in your “Belch Works Studio” where admission is free, but entry is voluntary.
If they have to “pretend it is not there”, you are already encroaching on the freedom of others.
Freedom of Speech does have caveats that address hatemongering. However, you will have to provide some evidence that ROK promotes hatred or even intolerance for innate, innocuous or immutable traits. Most of what is mentioned there is in reaction to seriously warped political movements that attempt to force acceptance for clearly unacceptable behaviour (or consequences of such behaviour).
Eric Miles Said:
2.) Right, and legally, if a large enough group of people voice their opinions, to lets just say a service provider, then It’d be within their right to do so. And likewise, the service provider or whatever entity they complain to, also has the right to decide whether or not the site should actually be shut down. If it comes down to it, I’m sure they’ll let RoK speak their case, but I highly doubt they’ll have a case.
It’s a bit of wishful thinking to believe that if enough people petition the service provider that said service provider would likely remove a site.
The truth is that most providers, like any business, cater to he or she that pays them. Unless that site is involved in illicit activity, or, is actually actively promoting real hatred, the probability of the service provider refusing the income is remote. As far as a “case”, ROK has one, but it doesn’t even need it. The only case that matters between provider and customer is “I pay for service”. That pretty much ends the discussion.
Monarchies of Mars and Venus
Eric Miles Said:
3.) Yeah, except the big difference is that Martian Luther King never used his free speech to actually harm another group of people. He never advocated that someone should just “stop breathing, they’re a waste of space”. So please spare me the idiotic comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement. The MRA and anything involving the “Manosphere” and its ilk; are nowhere near comparable, and you know it.
Again, in the context of what was being criticized, Smith illustrates how the provocative nature of information, even when the intent is peaceful, can and will result in more extreme actions. He never said or implied that MLK Jr. purposely set forth to stir up riots.
As far as wishing physical harm, disfigurement or even death upon the object of one’s denigration, most of that comes from women critics on ROK. Not only there, go have a look at any discussion on “short men” on any given dating site (if such conversations even survive on those deliberately woman-friendly sites. There you will find all sorts of untimely fates being wished upon men that women label as “undesirable”. If anything, you are projecting the hatred that these charming individuals hold as a distraction to their own self-esteem issues.
In reality, the call to redress the misguidance of the neo-feminist movement is not as far off from the civil rights movement of the 1960’s. It is fundamentally the same. Neo-feminism is deliberately sexist, advocates bullying, and is rife with close-minded individuals who will resort to any method at their disposal to deter exposure of their sham (much less opposition). All ROK is pointing out is the inequity that neo-feminism surreptitiously promotes. For that, neo-feminists attempt to shout them down with calls of “misogynist” and “rape apologists”. Neo-feminism is the actual intolerant culture, and you know it. Spare all of us the feigned moral indignation.
Leftism, Rights and In Between
Eric Miles Said:
As I said, Free Speech guarantees that you may speak. That doesn’t mean anyone outside of the government has to listen to you. And it certainly doesn’t mean that people have to agree with you, or that you’re free the consequences of your own speech.
No one is claiming that anyone “has” to listen. This is the same old retreat to straw man arguments that practically every defender of neo-feminism uses. If anything, it is those who support the sexist views of neo-feminism that demand people agree with their dogma, or, say nothing at all. It is they who effective apply censorship for all because they personally do not agree. Why else who people attempt to petition the closure of a site that doesn’t promote hate? (And no, it doesn’t.)