Speech which does blatantly incite violence, and without any reasonable ambiguity, encourage harm, violent or murderous acts, in particular from influential and powerful figures, is dangerous and reckless. Where exactly to draw the line and curtail certain speech will be interpreted by others and lawmakers who, one would hope, are unbiased, fair and ethical. Curtailing the speech of animal rights activists who, very obviously, are fighting for justice , ethical standards and the abolition of barbaric practices should not be censored or curtailed.. Any reasonable, ethically minded person who believes in fairness and the exposure and rectification of wrongdoing, should surely agree that it is right and proper that animal rights activists speak up for animals brutalised as in this case. Animal rights speech should be allowed as a distinct and unique category because these activists are representing a group, animals, who are totally and utterly voiceless and dependent, uniquely so compared to other groups, on the speech from activists and others advocating for their rights.
Thank you so much for this insightful and important story, Wayne! 🙏
Very well said:
"To truly challenge the efforts by Smithfield to crush those who criticize their abuses, in turn, we have to challenge the instinct within each of us to punish those we disagree with."
I agree for the most part, BUT, at the same time I do not believe hate groups like the KKK should be able to have free speech and march their opinions because thats just stating that its ok to call black ppl subhuman and racism is acceptable which could influence future generations to bring back slavery. This country is already racist and honestly I feel we could go back to those times so in conclusion.........its what a society deems moral, but for some ppl they think theres nothing wrong with it, but IDK I think any culture that thinks degrading a whole race isn't moral. I think we should stop evil, but its all in a way perception too.........IDK its all a slippery slope.
It's most certainly not moral. And I think we should challenge speech from hate groups like the KKK, 100%. But the question is whether we can do that without setting precedents that can be used against nonviolent and non-hateful groups. I don't know if we can. As you say, it's a slippery slope.
If you were the head of Twitter, would you have censored Trump's speech?
From the context you posted nah....but as another commenter posted this guy had been riling up his minions for months. At that point we already knew what Trump stood for. He supports racism, sexism, etc. I have been banned and blocked IDK how many times on social media 4 calling out shit hence why I quit all social media. They are all hypocrites. Take YouTube right now has a lawsuit against them for allowing sick videos of fake rescues, a whole community of monkey freaks who abhor these animals and all trade subtle torture videos right there on YT and are monetized, but when I used to comment shit calling them out they banned me lol! Also free speech allows a lot of MISINFORMATION. The media control what we see and hear so in the end no such thing as freedom or free speech. If I say I want to shoot the President. I am sure I am on Big Brother's list and sooner or later they'd come for me. Again racist, sexists see the world in their own eyes. To them minorities are destroying their world just like abortion ppl say were killing babies VS the other side don't consider a zygote a human. Just like I strongly believe in my beliefs, I am assuming some of them truly believe what they stand for is right. It makes my brain explode thinkng lol. I could not relate to a racist, but I have never given them the chance to explain that belief.
While I whole heartedly agree that for free speech to thrive we need to stand up for the rights of people whose speech we disagree with, your analysis regarding Trump is not only entirely misleading it is legally wrong. Twitter makes it clear that Trump was banned for these tweets "[i]n the context of horrific events this week," i.e., Trump just tried to steal an election and incited an insurrection with those same people he referred to as "patriots" in his tweet. Regardless, legally speaking Trump, and no one else, is entitled to free speech rights on Twitter. Our free speech rights are a constitutional guarantee from the First Amendment, which only restrains government restrictions not private restrictions. Although I believe this needs to change in our current tech heavy speech world until it does Trump had no free speech rights on Twitter that could be violated. Moreover, even if he did Twitter would have been well within the parameters of regulating free speech as speech that incites violence and/or criminal conduct is not protected speech, and Trump just incited an insurrection and criminal conduct with similar language. None of this is applicable to what happened to DxE supporters on the street in Utah which was a blatant violation of constitutional free speech rights.
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.
Pat, and here in lies one of the main problems of suppressing free speech. You say Trump incited an “insurrection” on January 6th. You totally ignore the fact that he asked for a peaceful protest at “The Peoples House”, and you ignore the fact that the capital police opened the doors for the protestors, and that BLM members were also in the crowd. One protester actually sat in Pelosi’s chair and I think he still sits in solitary confinement for this “violent” crime against the government. Where is your rage about the real violence from Antifa and BLM? Where cities were completely destroyed and people died! Ashli Babbitt, an “Unarmed” Air Force veteran was killed by capital police on January 6th.
In your mind, I should have no right to express my feelings, but you should. This is exactly what Wayne was trying to convey in this podcast.
I am a Monthly supporter of DxE, and I’m also a Trump supporter. I have been to many protests for animals, and have had guns pointed at me (and hell yes, it’s terrifying). You have no right to cancel me anymore than I have a right to cancel you. But the difference is, I’m Not trying to cancel you because you don’t share all my beliefs. When you cancel me, you cancel an animal rights activist. This podcast was well thought out and beautifully written, but it seems what he was trying to convey was canceled by your hatred of me.
A comment springing from deep fears, it seems to me.
I'd say no one can be safe if a group of us take upon the job to declare what is fascism (a term that has moved from its historical roots to strange new worlds) and to censure those who express opinions fitting such definition of fascism.
Wayne is not only a brave man in matters of justice, but indeed he has the courage of true intelligence.
Aug 25, 2022·edited Aug 25, 2022Liked by Wayne Hsiung
Agreed. It seems that the problem of curbing this obvious growing fascist movement could best be served by the enforcement of existing laws. I mean the vigorous and aggressive enforcement of laws that prevent slander, libel, incitement to violence, harassment, threats, assault, battery, intimidation, abuse, vandalism, etc. Of course, the greater problem lies with the collusion of policing and judicial members refusing to enforce said laws. THAT creates a serious crisis for a civil society. When existing laws are not enforced the "law of the jungle" takes over. Censuring speech, that is not in violation of existing laws, only fuels the agendas of those wanting to falsely claim that they are the victims.
Fascism is often in the eyes of the beholder. Russia and Putin believe Ukraine is a fascist state. Does that justify their invasion? For a similar reason, we have to be careful about saying "fascist ideas" are a grounds for banning speech.
First let me say, I absolutely loved this issue of the Simple Heart. Having been an animal rights activist since the 80’s, I have been to many protests and even had guns pointed at me. Anything involving animals is near and dear to my heart.
Having said that, I am “The Enemy”. I am a Donald Trump supporter and have been since he was sworn in as President. Yes, one of his sons is a hunter, The Donald does not hunt. My daughter is an alcoholic, I don’t even drink. We are not our grown children.
It is so inspiring to have someone who does not agree with my political views, not start screaming that I must be canceled. You have been able to reach past the political divide to the main shared goal of saving animals. Because, even though I am a Trump Deplorable, the most important thing in my life is helping animals. I have three children and all three (including the one with the drinking problem) are in rescue, and all three are conservatives. Actually, all my close friends are both in animal rescue/activism, and are Trump supporters. Being a liberal certainly doesn’t mean that you care one bit about animals, anymore than being a conservative means you don’t care.
So every time an animal activist liberal tries to cancel someone that doesn’t think exactly like them, they may be canceling one of their strongest allies regarding animals.
I do really enjoy ready the Simple Heart and look forward to each one.
Thought provoking and a good nudge for all of us to look in the mirror. Really excellent points Wayne.
Thanks Sarah!
Speech which does blatantly incite violence, and without any reasonable ambiguity, encourage harm, violent or murderous acts, in particular from influential and powerful figures, is dangerous and reckless. Where exactly to draw the line and curtail certain speech will be interpreted by others and lawmakers who, one would hope, are unbiased, fair and ethical. Curtailing the speech of animal rights activists who, very obviously, are fighting for justice , ethical standards and the abolition of barbaric practices should not be censored or curtailed.. Any reasonable, ethically minded person who believes in fairness and the exposure and rectification of wrongdoing, should surely agree that it is right and proper that animal rights activists speak up for animals brutalised as in this case. Animal rights speech should be allowed as a distinct and unique category because these activists are representing a group, animals, who are totally and utterly voiceless and dependent, uniquely so compared to other groups, on the speech from activists and others advocating for their rights.
These are some useful and reasonable distinctions, Chris. Thanks for sharing.
What is your take on what Twitter did with Trump?
Thank you so much for this insightful and important story, Wayne! 🙏
Very well said:
"To truly challenge the efforts by Smithfield to crush those who criticize their abuses, in turn, we have to challenge the instinct within each of us to punish those we disagree with."
100%!
I agree for the most part, BUT, at the same time I do not believe hate groups like the KKK should be able to have free speech and march their opinions because thats just stating that its ok to call black ppl subhuman and racism is acceptable which could influence future generations to bring back slavery. This country is already racist and honestly I feel we could go back to those times so in conclusion.........its what a society deems moral, but for some ppl they think theres nothing wrong with it, but IDK I think any culture that thinks degrading a whole race isn't moral. I think we should stop evil, but its all in a way perception too.........IDK its all a slippery slope.
It's most certainly not moral. And I think we should challenge speech from hate groups like the KKK, 100%. But the question is whether we can do that without setting precedents that can be used against nonviolent and non-hateful groups. I don't know if we can. As you say, it's a slippery slope.
If you were the head of Twitter, would you have censored Trump's speech?
From the context you posted nah....but as another commenter posted this guy had been riling up his minions for months. At that point we already knew what Trump stood for. He supports racism, sexism, etc. I have been banned and blocked IDK how many times on social media 4 calling out shit hence why I quit all social media. They are all hypocrites. Take YouTube right now has a lawsuit against them for allowing sick videos of fake rescues, a whole community of monkey freaks who abhor these animals and all trade subtle torture videos right there on YT and are monetized, but when I used to comment shit calling them out they banned me lol! Also free speech allows a lot of MISINFORMATION. The media control what we see and hear so in the end no such thing as freedom or free speech. If I say I want to shoot the President. I am sure I am on Big Brother's list and sooner or later they'd come for me. Again racist, sexists see the world in their own eyes. To them minorities are destroying their world just like abortion ppl say were killing babies VS the other side don't consider a zygote a human. Just like I strongly believe in my beliefs, I am assuming some of them truly believe what they stand for is right. It makes my brain explode thinkng lol. I could not relate to a racist, but I have never given them the chance to explain that belief.
While I whole heartedly agree that for free speech to thrive we need to stand up for the rights of people whose speech we disagree with, your analysis regarding Trump is not only entirely misleading it is legally wrong. Twitter makes it clear that Trump was banned for these tweets "[i]n the context of horrific events this week," i.e., Trump just tried to steal an election and incited an insurrection with those same people he referred to as "patriots" in his tweet. Regardless, legally speaking Trump, and no one else, is entitled to free speech rights on Twitter. Our free speech rights are a constitutional guarantee from the First Amendment, which only restrains government restrictions not private restrictions. Although I believe this needs to change in our current tech heavy speech world until it does Trump had no free speech rights on Twitter that could be violated. Moreover, even if he did Twitter would have been well within the parameters of regulating free speech as speech that incites violence and/or criminal conduct is not protected speech, and Trump just incited an insurrection and criminal conduct with similar language. None of this is applicable to what happened to DxE supporters on the street in Utah which was a blatant violation of constitutional free speech rights.
These are all very sound and reasonable points, Pat. And I very much do agree that there are important distinctions between Trump's "glorification of violence" and our alleged words doing the same. Not the least of which, of course, is that Trump's words actually did play a role in causing violence, in all likelihood. In contrast, the only violence caused by AR activists' words is "violence" against corporate profits. That's not violence, in any meaningful sense of the word.
My main concern, however, is about precedent. Even if we think these cases are very different, is the cost of creating a precedent, where merely suggestive words, that can be interpreted in various ways, can be censored as violent... is that precedent likely to be used to. make the world a better place? I suspect not, esp in a world as polarized as the one we live in today.
All valid concerns Wayne, that deserve consideration. It is my belief, though, that concern about precedents should never be a deterrent for filing a free speech lawsuit or for prosecuting people who are accused of acting outside the parameters of Free Speech Rights, as these cases are how we establish the parameters of our right, and just about every case has the potential to set bad/good precedent. Two very important non-free speech cases- Brown v. Board Of Education & Obergefell v. Hodges - were won despite people who opposed filing them for fear of setting bad precedent. It is my understanding, based on experience, that our courts are required to consider the different circumstances surrounding different free speech cases, such as the circumstances regarding Trump's speech versus DxE's speech in Utah. I may be an anomaly but I trust our system, even though I recognize its flaws and think there have been, and continue to be, some bad precedents being set. However, precedents can always be challenged and overturned, e.g., Plessey v. Ferguson and more recently Roe v. Wade.
Pat, and here in lies one of the main problems of suppressing free speech. You say Trump incited an “insurrection” on January 6th. You totally ignore the fact that he asked for a peaceful protest at “The Peoples House”, and you ignore the fact that the capital police opened the doors for the protestors, and that BLM members were also in the crowd. One protester actually sat in Pelosi’s chair and I think he still sits in solitary confinement for this “violent” crime against the government. Where is your rage about the real violence from Antifa and BLM? Where cities were completely destroyed and people died! Ashli Babbitt, an “Unarmed” Air Force veteran was killed by capital police on January 6th.
In your mind, I should have no right to express my feelings, but you should. This is exactly what Wayne was trying to convey in this podcast.
I am a Monthly supporter of DxE, and I’m also a Trump supporter. I have been to many protests for animals, and have had guns pointed at me (and hell yes, it’s terrifying). You have no right to cancel me anymore than I have a right to cancel you. But the difference is, I’m Not trying to cancel you because you don’t share all my beliefs. When you cancel me, you cancel an animal rights activist. This podcast was well thought out and beautifully written, but it seems what he was trying to convey was canceled by your hatred of me.
I agree, Wayne.
Tolerating fascism means no one is safe 😞
A comment springing from deep fears, it seems to me.
I'd say no one can be safe if a group of us take upon the job to declare what is fascism (a term that has moved from its historical roots to strange new worlds) and to censure those who express opinions fitting such definition of fascism.
Wayne is not only a brave man in matters of justice, but indeed he has the courage of true intelligence.
Agreed. It seems that the problem of curbing this obvious growing fascist movement could best be served by the enforcement of existing laws. I mean the vigorous and aggressive enforcement of laws that prevent slander, libel, incitement to violence, harassment, threats, assault, battery, intimidation, abuse, vandalism, etc. Of course, the greater problem lies with the collusion of policing and judicial members refusing to enforce said laws. THAT creates a serious crisis for a civil society. When existing laws are not enforced the "law of the jungle" takes over. Censuring speech, that is not in violation of existing laws, only fuels the agendas of those wanting to falsely claim that they are the victims.
Very good points all around.
But I'd especially focus on this:
Fascism is often in the eyes of the beholder. Russia and Putin believe Ukraine is a fascist state. Does that justify their invasion? For a similar reason, we have to be careful about saying "fascist ideas" are a grounds for banning speech.
Apologies, my initial comment may have been phrased in an overly broad way.
Tolerating hate speech means no marginalized community is safe. Make nazis unacceptable again
Paid speech goes everywhere. Free speech is restricted to "proper" forums.
First let me say, I absolutely loved this issue of the Simple Heart. Having been an animal rights activist since the 80’s, I have been to many protests and even had guns pointed at me. Anything involving animals is near and dear to my heart.
Having said that, I am “The Enemy”. I am a Donald Trump supporter and have been since he was sworn in as President. Yes, one of his sons is a hunter, The Donald does not hunt. My daughter is an alcoholic, I don’t even drink. We are not our grown children.
It is so inspiring to have someone who does not agree with my political views, not start screaming that I must be canceled. You have been able to reach past the political divide to the main shared goal of saving animals. Because, even though I am a Trump Deplorable, the most important thing in my life is helping animals. I have three children and all three (including the one with the drinking problem) are in rescue, and all three are conservatives. Actually, all my close friends are both in animal rescue/activism, and are Trump supporters. Being a liberal certainly doesn’t mean that you care one bit about animals, anymore than being a conservative means you don’t care.
So every time an animal activist liberal tries to cancel someone that doesn’t think exactly like them, they may be canceling one of their strongest allies regarding animals.
I do really enjoy ready the Simple Heart and look forward to each one.