Richard Dawkins’s response to his de-platforming in Berkeley

[Curious George]

Speech should be curtailed when it serves to organize violence. Otherwise, it should be protected. The radio station serves no one by exhibiting moral cowardness.

What precisely do you mean when you say "organize violence" I can think of several times where the freedom of speech was not found unfettered wherein the speech did not "organize violence" as i would define the term.

 

[SomeRandom]

Dawkins has advocated aborting Down syndrome babies on Twitter and, in his Times magazine interview, excused pedopholia as "harmless." Though a biologist, he has used his popular lay-audience following to establish a platform from which he now waxes both eloquent and insensitive on everything from politics to philosophy to religion, often with dizzying logic, earning him a myriad of epithets such as "caustic" even among fellow atheists. He is an entertaining character, but the public can only take so much.

He's kind of a huge douchenozzle, I'll give you that. But to be fair, he did not excuse pedophilia as "harmless." He said, rather insensitively, that some instances are worse than others. Which is technically true, I guess. Not the best phrasing in the world, but whatever. He does seem under the impression that since he "got over it" other people can as well. Which is actually an occurrence among victims. Not all victims, but I have seen that mindset pop up quite often. Coping mechanism maybe, I dunno.

As for the Downs Syndrome comment, again, insensitive as all hell. But I kind of get what he meant. If you have a fetus that you know will have a painful life, for whatever reason, some people do legitimately see abortion in that circumstance as something almost akin to a mercy "killing" (for lack of a better phrase.) One can easily conclude that Dawkins would see a person carrying a disabled fetus to term by choice as selfish to an extent and therefore immoral. I mean I disagree, but again, I can see why he would probably think that way.
Dawkins can be rather insensitive, sure. Most likely a consequence of his training as a scientist. But he's also rather blunt and without much of a filter, a dangerous combination if you're a public speaker. And the news loves to sensationalize whatever he says to make him out to be an even bigger *******.

Still prefer Hitchens, though.

 

[Sunstone]

Really? So anyone should be able to march into any public station and simply demand airtime?

How did you arrive at that straw man?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hate speech is hate speech, why does every atheist want to justify hate speech as long as its not directed at them, and then when it is, they throw tolerance out the window.

Every atheist what now????

 

[Lyndon]

Well maybe not every atheist, but a lot of atheists seem to be directing a lot of hatred towards religion if not religious people, I think that classifies as hate speech

 

[Curious George]

Well maybe not every atheist, but a lot of atheists seem to be directing a lot of hatred towards religion if not religious people, I think that classifies as hate speech

Can you define hate speech please.

Thank you for the qualifying statement "maybe not every atheist."

 

[Lyndon]

i think the definition of hate is pretty well know, though some haters don't seem to be aware of it.

 

[sayak83]

i think the definition of hate is pretty well know, though some haters don't seem to be aware of it.

Please quote an example of hate speech by Dawkins as an example.

 

[YmirGF]

Please quote an example of hate speech by Dawkins as an example.

Exactly.

In regards to the OP, I rather doubt that Dawkins is at a loss for speaking engagements. That a mere radio station decided not to have him on is pretty small potatoes but is indicative of the intolerance that is raging nowadays.

His comments about Islam are pretty much right on the money.

 

[Curious George]

i think the definition of hate is pretty well know, though some haters don't seem to be aware of it.

I don't think that defines hate speech at all. Could you be more specific?

 

[Notanumber]

I would rather people were allowed to make “hate speeches” so that we know who they are than conceal their hatred.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't think that defines hate speech at all. Could you be more specific?

Here in LotusLand, "hate speech" is defined as any form of communication that incites violence against ANY identifiable group. People are welcome to say whatever they like as long as they are careful not to encourage violent action against any group/individual.

 

[Lyndon]

Hate speech is speech that express hatred for another group or individual, not just inciting violence.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Kind of like what Christianity expresses towards many?

 

[Lyndon]

Hatred is an equal opportunity sickness.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Indeed. So before you start throwing mud at others for "hate speech," perhaps inspect your signature just a little bit closer.

 

[Lyndon]

Yeah, there's no hatred in my signature, and I don't hate atheists, atheists on the other hand may hate me, I don't know??

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can think of several times where the freedom of speech was not found unfettered wherein the speech did not "organize violence" as i would define the term.

I'm sorry: it is way too early for me to attempt decoding this sentence.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sorry: it is way too early for me to attempt decoding this sentence.

You said that speech should be protected if it does bot organize violence. I can think of several instances where this is not the case. So, i am asking for your interpretation of "organize violence"

 

[Curious George]

Hate speech is speech that express hatred for another group or individual, not just inciting violence.

I think i would defend an individuals right to express hatred toward me.