Post a response:
|
The saga of Milo Yiannopoulos that I wrote about yesterday is continuing today. Milo has now been uninvited to speak at CPAC as a result of this controversy. Many people who were outraged initially and have read his Facebook response have said that it's not good enough. Even for ones who acknowledge that what he was said to have said was not what he actually said, it was still so outrageous and unacceptable to not merit any response other than loud, unambiguous denunciation. To those people the one question I would ask, if I could, is this: What view on sex between adults and minors that you strongly disagree with is the most extreme view that is acceptable for someone to hold and advocate?" In political discussions we are used to the idea that lots of people disagree with us and have sometimes strong and significant disagreements with us, but the expression of their views is still acceptable and engaging their views with counter-arguments considered legitimate political discussion. But sometimes views fall outside that range. So what I want to know is where the line is for people outraged, offended and refusing to even consider what Milo said? The age of consent in many US states and in Canada and the UK is 16, so that cannot be beyond the pale to support, even for someone who thinks it should be set at 18. In France, Iceland, Sweden, and Denmark the age of consent is 15. While that might make the person who thinks it should be 18 uncomfortable, surely they cannot maintain that these countries are so backward that what they actually have as current law cannot be supported in any public discussion of the issue. What about age 14? Is that going too far? Well, fifteen different European countries have an age of consent set at 14, including Germany, Italy, Austria, and Portugal. Do critics of Milo think that this is a position no decent person can publicly support despite being the law of the land in many countries that we regard as modern, western democracies? That brings us to the age of 13. There are some countries with an age of consent of 13 and I can see how people who think it should be set at 18 might say that these countries are, for the most part, not examples to emulate and so would dismiss them as reasons to allow for any political discussion of consent being set at such a low age, but South Korea is one of the countries that has an age of consent of 13, and they are not a country typically counted as being somehow backward and depraved. So maybe, even for those who violently disagree, talking about whether or not the age of consent should be set at 13 is something that can be discussed in public political debates. If those who want to raise the age of consent to 18 anywhere and everywhere are ever going to achieve that goal it would seem that the first step would be engaging in public debates in the places where it is lower, which means taking seriously a conversation with South Koreans about the law they have. But the funny thing is that Milo says he never endorsed changing the law and does not question the current age of consent law in the United States. He says he merely pointed out that at least some 13 year olds are capable of consenting to sex, a position that the government and people of South Korea endorse. Disagree with the man, if you must, but to say that his view should not even be heard by decent people is to go too far. It is extremely ironic that the basis for his invitation to speak at the CPAC conference in the first place was because of how politically correct opposition to him expressing his views has resulted in him being banned by Twitter and led to riots in Berkeley that cancelled his speech there. Conservatives running CPAC wanted him there to show their rejection of the political left trying to limit free speech. But the result has been a powerful outcry from the political right. They now are demanding that he not be allowed to speak because they now, too, find his views unacceptable. By rescinding his invitation to speak, CPAC is joining that group of conservatives speaking out against free speech. Milo has done the impossible. He has united both the radical left Berkeley students and the radical right at CPAC to come together to with one voice say that free speech is overrated and Milo should not be heard by anyone anywhere. Because of this, we should be glad that the Internet still allows sites like BoyChat to exist, sites that still allow discussion about the age of consent (including even more "radical" and "extreme" views than merely setting it at age 13) to be heard. Let there be no doubt. The radical left and the radical right both are dominated by censors. They just disagree about what views should be censored. Most of the time, that is. When it comes to sex with minors, they come together and find common cause. |