Last year the hard-Left “journalist” Zack Beauchamp wrote a windy and mendacious piece attacking various foes of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others (including me). Now he is joining the Left’s gleeful vultures’ chorus over Milo Yiannopoulos’ financial woes, from which he happily concludes that “the controversial no-platforming tactics — which range from activists noisily disrupting speeches to big tech corporations banning provocateurs from their platforms — really can work.”
As I’ve noted many times, neither Leftists nor Islamic supremacists want to engage in discussion or debate with their opponents. They just want to shut them down. The freedom of speech is the foundation of any free society, but fascists such as Zack Beauchamp are working toward an authoritarian state in which those who dare to dissent from the Leftist agenda will be ruthlessly suppressed. And they’re not even bothering to hide their totalitarian aspirations anymore.
“Milo Yiannopoulos’s collapse shows that no-platforming can work,” by Zack Beauchamp, Vox, December 5, 2018:
…Yiannopoulos openly concedes that his desperate financial situation — and that’s what this is, braggadocio aside — is the result of the concerted campaign against him by his opponents. “I am pretty broke, relatively speaking,” he says. “Two years of being no-platformed, banned, blacklisted and censored…has taken its toll.”
What this episode shows is that under the right circumstances, the controversial no-platforming tactics — which range from activists noisily disrupting speeches to big tech corporations banning provocateurs from their platforms — really can work. There’s no evidence that Yiannopoulos’s no-platforming led to his ideas and personality gaining a kind of underground popularity, as some free speech advocates believe happens when speech is repressed. Instead, they simply went six feet under….

mortimer says
Godless totalitarians have no use for morality or freedom of expression.
Sobieski says
Can you imagine what our nation would be like now if Zack Beauchamp and his ideological kin were our founding fathers, in lieu of Jefferson and Madison and Henry?
Grizzly says
We wouldn’t have Western Civilization.
J D says
Probably would have became animals by now.
Charles Lutz says
Grizzly: the moment you banned Jesus and his gift to mankind -Christianity- you lost your “Western civilization”. so, stop whining.
Victoria says
The left would not exist without their demonstration against freedom of expression. The courage of the coward lives in a mob and the suppression, by the mob, of free ideas and thoughtful discussion.
Emilie Green says
“What this episode shows is that under the right circumstances, the controversial no-platforming tactics — which range from activists noisily disrupting speeches to big tech corporations banning provocateurs from their platforms — really can work.”
This is a revelation? Hitler proved it. Stalin proved it. Mao proved. Islam proved it 1400 years ago, and continuing. Long before this clown was born. Eliminate anyone who might oppose you and you prove the totalitarian definition of peace – no dissent from an enforced order of society.
mortimer says
The godless totalitarians have no use for critical thought or the Golden Rule. They want political power.
Benedict says
EG, ZB also wrote:
“But before Milo’s critics celebrate too much, they should be aware of the flip side to all this: The same tactics that can be used to repress awful speech can be used against speech that’s just unpopular or threatening to people in power. Today, no-platforming may shut down speech you don’t like. Tomorrow, it might threaten speech you do.” ….
Sure! Because those who no-platform and shot down speech will sooner or later realize the identity of relative opposites. But it has been seen before that someone who interferes to stop a fight will unite the two who fight against each other and himself become the target of these two – and that might be the subtle aim of the fight. So this someone has better be on his guard.
WPM says
Like the stock photo you have of him did he comb his hair with a firecracker?
Mark Swan says
You bet WPM, really cool guys need really cool hair dryers.
Someone could bump him under the chin—prune that
lying tongue he has sticking out between those teeth.
That is one cocky looking excuse for a man.
gravenimage says
Vox’s Zack Beauchamp goes full fascist, celebrates censorship of dissenters from Leftist agenda
………………
Gleeful crushing of freedom of speech. *Ugh*.
mortimer says
Message to Zack Beauchamp: If you celebrate taking away my freedom of expression today, they will celebrate taking away YOURS TOMORROW.
When your TOTALITARIAN FRIENDS take everything away from YOU and many others, ZACK, there will be NO ONE LEFT TO DEFEND YOUR HUMAN RIGHTS.
eduardo odraude says
Can’t conservatives turn this no-platforming tactic against the Left?
eduardo odraude says
Well, significant parts of the Left have often been cynical about freedom and democracy. Those parts of the left tell us that here in the US there’s no real freedom of speech or democracy — it’s all a sham entirely controlled by big corporations. And that skewed and cynical outlook creates a leftist atmosphere too often permissive toward the use of leftist force and violence, since after all, the election was stolen, they say, and the US so-called democracy isn’t really democratic, according to them.
I’d like to see aspects of the US system change in some ways, but not by violence, lawlessness, or coups.
gravenimage says
Here’s Zack Beauchamp, claiming that our apparel is more dangerous than Jihad terrorists:
https://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12901950/terrorism-immigrants-clothes
He bizarrely claims that the chances of being killed by a Jihad terrorist are one in 3.6 billion–which would only be true if Jihadists had only ever murdered two people…
TrueFreeThinker says
I wish the right would protest and shut down leftists events. I think we need to do some of the exact same things they do, show them that it sucks and see if they like it themselves.
gravenimage says
I don’t think you have to shut down the speech of others when you have truth on your side.
Mark Swan says
Winston S. Churchill — ‘Men occasionally stumble over the truth,
but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing
ever happened.’
It may sound cynical, but it certainly fit’s the politically correct shtick
that all too many try to follow blindly.
Troublemakers do not mind deliberately ignoring truth—it suites their
careless ways.
gravenimage says
All too often the case, Mark.
JayT says
Many of you seem to express support for Milo, and none of you mention that just maybe Milo put the fishing hook into his own mouth when he made his public declaration that he’s okay with sexual relations between boys (minors) and men (his example I believe cited double the ages or more of the boys in his example).
I’m very glad there is someone like Robert Spencer to do what he can to stop the hoodwinking of America by Islamic incursion, but I don’t consider Milo in the same respectable vein as Spencer after that. Milo’s free speech is protected on this matter, but so is my disgust of him.
Zack and Vox are both a lost cause, so it goes without saying. In regards to Milo, his book deal crashed, he resigned from Breitbart, he lost speaking engagements, and much of this was of his own doing from that remark. I think if Milo hadn’t said that his opposition would have failed to bring him down or at the very least would’ve had to surmount much more difficult odds of doing so.
As philosophers have said in the past: Reason comes from passion. You’ll have to decide if your passion to support someone with conservative views is worth overlooking the pedophilia support while at the same time speaking out against Muhammed’s known pedophilia.
“Hey, this cannibal I know favors many of the same viewpoints I do, but he’s got a penchant for wanting to eat our neighborhood children. Should I overlook that in light of his other merits?”
Indiana Tom says
Milo has his ups and downs, that is for sure.
JD says
His words were twisted and the guy was abused as a child, you long-winded dolt.
gravenimage says
+1
JayT says
Oh, here comes JD the decider of who had their words “twisted” and who responds with insults over facts. Isn’t that what Robert Spencer, Ben Shapiro, etc. all say that real dolts respond with insults over debating actual content, well, like you and Mrs. +1 behind you —
Another man said, “You are advocating for cross generational relationships here, can we be honest about that?”
Milo: “Yeah, I don’t mind admitting that. I think particularly in the gay world and outside the Catholic church, if that’s where some of you want to go with this, I think in the gay world, some of the most important, enriching and incredibly life affirming, important shaping relationships very often between younger boys and older men, they can be hugely positive experiences for those young boys. They can even save those young boys, from desolation, from suicide (people talk over each other)… providing they’re consensual.”
Clearly, in his own words Mr. Denier of reality – JD – he ascribes to this concept. Milo argued over what the definition of pedophilia was, but admitted he supported consensual sexual relations between older men and young boys, of which he specifically mentioned 13-years-old.
That was probably too “long-winded” a response for trash like you and Mrs. +1 behind you, but I’ll have to call it the way it is. So, it’s okay to call out Muhammed for taking a liking to children, but not Milo?
I don’t call you trash because you disagree with me (stooping to your level), but because you just name call and use no supporting evidence of refute. CPAC dropped Milo and even Milo himself resigned from BreitBart on his own volition, so are you going to say everyone schemed against him and he really is blameless?
Indiana Tom says
He is not alone. Democraps heraus!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-dem-ted-lieu-say-he-would-love-to-regulate-speech-bemoans-us-constitution-that-prohibits-him