Criticizing speech with more speech (denouncements) and exercising your right to freedom of association (banishment) are two of the key ideas of free speech itself. You seem confused.
I don't think banishment and freedom of association are linked in the way you are implying. I'm not free to associate with someone if they are removed from my professional circle for reasons that I don't agree with.
Criticizing speech is most definitely part of free speech, but it's the consequences of that speech that is worrying. In the east your professional opportunities dry up when people start accusing you of being an enemy of the state. In the west the same happens when you are declared an enemy of the minority.
Inclusion is fantastic, but not if it means excluding people for trivial examples of speech that people have to work hard to be offended by.
I'm just going to keep posting this until I see some recognition of this, but none of the details here or in the "In Defense of Douglas Crockford"[1] post from yesterday are actually called out in the Nodevember statement[2]. Furthermore, the only detail corroborated by either of these posts, in what is ostensibly their source (a blog post from Kas Perch[3]), is the alleged slut shaming incident, which is a very minor note in a blog post otherwise criticizing his negative and dismissive attitude.
There's a mountain of tweets discussing this in replies to Nodevember's announcement, but nothing directly affirmed by Nodevember as the basis for their decision. Seems like a lot of outrage being stirred up over bullshit no one can substantiate.
Granted, it still isn't official, but even one of the conference's founders said to look to twitter for more context for the disinvitation of Crockford, so it isn't too off base.
William Golden and Jason Orendorff seem to be the only organizers in this discussion, and neither of them says anything more than "he was uninvited because other attendees and speakers did not feel comfortable attending/speaking with him there". There's some speculation and links to a video where he references genitalia, but none of that appears to be acknowledged by the organizers.
I don't see anything in this chat log that changes anything.
18th line, "there is more context around it on twitter but that’s the basic gist".
So, again, referencing the tweets & subjects preceding their announcement as context aren't unreasonable as Golden says there's more context on Twitter. Emily Rose, notably, unleashed a series of tweets at them until they capitulated. It's still not the official word you're seeking, but to ignore it seems willfully dismissive.
Moreover, in what manner would a direct affirmation or counterpoint by the Nodevember organizers be advantageous to them? I'm not trying to be conspiratorial about it; being quiet and vague is the far more diplomatic path. It's not in Nodevember's interests to be precise with the particularities of the disinvitation, nor are we, as outsiders, owed any sort of particular explaination. But neither were any details provided to Crockford for him to ameliorate. "It is a mystery to me too." per https://paulstraw.svbtle.com/crockford
I agree with you here. I think a lot of the discussion is around the general topic raised by this situation. But good call that this is not the best example to get upset about.
Are you kidding? Of course it is. We have a guy who was booted out of a conference for completely opaque reasons, based on alleged complaints with absolutely no details by completely anonymous people. That doesn't bother you?
It does, but it sounds more like the organisers were just poorly equipped to deal with negative feedback. I don't think they wanted to do much more than avoid trouble. It was not handled well but I think that's about all there is to this one.
I'm not going to touch what happens in the east, wherever that is, because that's irrelevant to the American concept of free speech.
But your basic point is you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?
And people shouldn't be excluded (freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate) if they produce speech xupybd doesn't find offensive (trivial examples blah blah blah)?
> you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?
I can't tell if you're talking about the inclusivity crowd, or the people who are standing up against it.
The nodevember crew seems (I don't know all the facts and I don't really care) to be silly. But it's their right to so be.
I'm criticizing overgard, etc, for claiming that public criticism / not associating with Crockford is somehow anti-free speech on the basis that overgard etc disagree with it.
What does libel have to do with banishment, public criticism of Crockford, or freedom of association?
I'll help: Nothing.
ps -- you are exactly free to associate with someone if they are removed from your professional circle for reasons you don't agree with. Doing so is itself free speech. Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. Still free speech. You're free to never go to Nodevember or any conferences the Nodevember principles are involved with. You're free to go to the next conference that invites Crockford just because he's there, and to brag about that on twitter and hn. You're even free to attempt to create your own conference featuring 8 hours of Crockford making bad biceps jokes. More free speech!
For what it's worth, I've seen no one claiming conferences doesn't have the right to exclude whomever they want.
> Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so.
I believe that is what is happening here. A portion of the tech community (of which I am a part) have begun to see this movement[1] as toxic, and are speaking out against it. The desired result is to either come to an equitable compromise, or eject the members of the movement from the community.
[1]: "this movement", meaning what others here have referred to as "SJW". I'm unaware of a term for it that is not implicitly biased, and while I oppose the movement as a whole I recognize that there are underlying issues that must be addressed and am loath to group everyone who would describe themselves as passionate about "social justice" into a single group. It's far more nuanced than that.
If I disagree with someone, I will state it, but I won't try to get them banned from a speaking engagement and I won't track down their employer, or go out of the way to label them publicly. There are ways to have a discourse without going to extremes. What's happening now looks more like a witch hunt then it does a public debate.
1 - support free speech, which includes criticism, even public (maybe even virulent! or unhinged, as long as you don't incite violence!) criticism (free speech!). And the freedom to associate (or not!) Also free speech! Including this thread, which is criticism of the criticism.
or
2 - your idea of "free speech", where you certainly can't criticize someone in public, or not invite them / disinvite to your privately run privately owned conference speaking to individuals who have voluntarily chosen to associate with each other.
I have no problem with you and others criticizing nodevember; they seem incompetent. But you don't understand free speech if you think public criticism is anti free speech.
You've invented a strawman. I am aware free speech has consequences. I am not against criticizing a person publicly, if the argument lies in that realm.
My point is that the SJW's often escalate a discussion from the realm of words to the realm of actions. It's an extremely passive aggressive style where the implicit threat is "if you don't tow the party line, we will go out of our way to create bad consequences for you". As an example of that happening, well, look right here. Douglas Crockford did not apparently do anything, but his views were deemed "problematic" by someone, and because of this he is now suffering in the actual real world.
Personally, I think that's fucked up and I don't abide by that behavior. I view people that act in such a way as hypocritical cowards.
If that's as far as it goes. However, they are going far past that. They are using coercion and bullying. They are trying to get people fired. They are taking their children away.
The phrase "you seem confused" appears to be almost derogatory in nature, or do you believe the parent poster was in a state of confusion ? I fail to understand how it could be relevant to the argument in either case, or was it intended to silence someone elses voice?
The legal concept of free speech is not a hammer to solve every problem, and neither is it an instruction manual for how to act in any situation. Free speach is a framework within which communication is implicitly encouraged and explicitly guaranteed, except in certain cases when it causes damage to others, defamation per se being one example.
Your right to say something does not always make it the right thing to say, this is not in any way nullified by the existence of legal protection for the speach in question.
Within two sentences, the parent said "public denouncements [speech], banishment [freedom of association/speech]" are anti-free speech. Rather, they are a core part of the right to free speech, and something that is being countered with more speech. Hence confusion. I'm not sure how you think "you seem confused" will silence gp; it's a comment on the transition in the two sentences above. That free speech includes speech you don't care for is an implicit part of the deal.
