What do you do when someone actually changes their mind on abortion during a dialogue? Do you try to get them involved in the pro-life movement or otherwise help them process the change?
Thank you so much for this article. I've seen very few civil conversations about abortion online, and it's disheartening when pro-lifers act as obnoxious as pro-choice people. I've pretty much given up having conversations on social media, and focus instead on face-to-face conversations because it's so frustrating.
You're welcome! I am so glad to hear you're focusing your energy on face-to-face conversations instead of social media! We certainly encourage advocates to do so.
Love the article Rachel, totally gets a bunch of thumbs up from me and I very much share your viewpoint here (and would always be civil and reasonable even if it made no difference to effectiveness of dialogue). Can I ask though, what are your thoughts on the best way to respond to people that are only after a (metaphorical) fight and that intend to debate in bad faith? I don't have any online commentaters in mind here and purely ask in the abstract; argualy more with regards how to respond to someone during an in person debate trying to put on a show to an audiance listening in on the conversation. Posing a variation of the question that's a bit less abstract, extreme abortion activists in the student's union at my UK university thought it a good idea to shout down the speaker at one of our society's talks last year for 40 minutes straight, and then blatantly lied about not attacking our freedom of speech later while at the same time saying that "access to healthcare is not up for debate". How do you think our pro-life group ought to have responded when our opponents themselves openly admit to not thinking there should even be any debate about the issue? (Incidentally, this makes them more extreme than the head of the UK's largest private provider who's actually very pro-free speech, aside from supporting buffer zones.)
Thanks for your question, Dane! Apologies for the late reply. First, I will respond to the abstract version. If you are in a one-on-one dialogue with someone in person and it seems like they aren’t actually interested in productive conversation, it is both appropriate and wise to end the conversation. It depends on your personal boundaries how much grace you want to give the other person before you exit the conversation. When I suspect the other person is wasting my time or too close-minded to hear my arguments, I usually prefer to politely call out this behavior with something like, “I am trying to have a productive dialogue with you right now, but it seems like you’re not actually open to listening to what I have to say. Do you want to explore ideas with me here or are you just looking for a senseless debate?” Sometimes people will self-correct their behavior after you call them out on something like this and sometimes they will continue to engage in bad faith. If the latter happens, I usually say, “I wish we could have an open-minded dialogue, but I don’t feel like that is what is happening here. Thanks for your time.” If the exchange is happening in front of an audience, then the dynamics and rules of decorum are completely different. That would be considered a debate setting rather than a dialogue. The goals in that setting are not to change the other person’s mind, but to win the crowd over to your side. My expectations are not that the other person will engage in good faith, rather make the best case they can for their side. To respond to your specific example, unfortunately I do not know the details about UK free speech and culture. However, in a setting where the other side is trying to shut down a speaker or event I think your focus should be turned on calling out the cowardice of the protesters who do not want your ideas to be heard. Intellectual diversity is critical in a university setting and the silencing of ideas you disagree with is intellectually dishonest. Always try to get a video recording of what is happening and pressure the university to protect your event. My response to activists who would openly admit they think there shouldn’t be a debate about the issue is to call them out as cowards for not wanting ideas they disagree with to be heard.
You are on pretty thin ice calling counterspeech cowardice. Certainly, it would appear to violate any number of principles regularly stated on this blog. I would advise you to be cognizant of the historical precedent the kind of suppression and marginalization you are encouraging has, and the negative associations you are likely to encourage. The pro life movement has historically relied on counterspeech to gain much of its political and social traction, so it doesn't come across well when you use your power to deny this right to your opposition, feed into some pretty negative tribalism, and unfairly privilege yourself and your ideas against criticism. That's not how intellectual diversity works.
Yes, stopping strangers from being able to hear a speech you disagree with is cowardice. It's not criticism of an idea or intellectual diversity. The pro-life movement does not rely on silencing abortion advocates, nor is that the reason for its incredible political success.
You can't make an argument against a type of protected speech that you deem unmeritorious, by attacking said speaker with similarly unmeritorious speech. Well...I mean, you can...it just doesn't do much to advance the legitimacy of your argument. Ad hominem attacks against someone's character directly violate the principles encouraged on this blog. If you want to make an argument that this type of counter speech is unpersuasive and unmeritorious, go right ahead, its not like the protesters haven't given you plenty of ammunition. Unfortunately, that is not the type of discussion occurring within this comment section. The discussion here is directly and explicitly about silencing pro choice advocates and denying them their constitutionally protected right to counter speech specifically because some pro life advocates appear to desire an uncontested platform from which to disseminate their argument. You and I have previously discussed this issue and I would redirect you to the XKCD comic you referenced at the time.
An ad hominem attack is claiming that someone’s arguments or position are not legitimate based on their personal characteristics or conduct (not the substance of the argument). Calling out idiotic behaviour as such is not an ad hominem attack. I would direct you to the article on this site about knowing what a logical fallacy actually is. Calling mob rule, heckler’s veto, Brownshirt tactics and general thuggery (there’s that word again, it’s not a racial slur no matter how badly you want it to be) “counterspeech” is Orwellian gaslighting. Pro-life students get to invite speakers to campus, pro-choice students get to ask challenging questions at the Q&A, co-host a debate between the two sides, and/or invite their own speakers. It’s up to the university to ensure that people who choose to attend these events are able to hear the speaker. If they don’t wish to do that, they should not take money from the taxpayers.
Perhaps you should re-read the article on logical fallacies. You have a personal insult (coward) meant to antagonize, delegitimize, and undermine based on specific conduct of the accused. No one here has made an argument that the type of speech in question is unproductive or unpersuasive. The arguments here have either been that pro choice protesters shouldn't be allowed to do this or that they were cowards for doing it. Frankly, all three arguments are weak, but the argument against the persuasive merit of this type of counter speech is the only legitimate one. You aren't making an argument here against counterspeech, you are making a contradiction. I suggest you refer to Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy that Josh included in his post: "You Should Know How to Disagree Well." If you have an actual argument, I'd be interested to hear it, but so far, you have not offered anything remotely persuasive. I have the writings of Supreme Court Justices on my side...what do you have? Let's stay on topic and keep the"thuggery" debate in the thread it currently exists in. I'm happy to debate you there if you ever think of a response...Federal funding for Universities comes through Pell Grants, loans, financial aid, and research grants. None of those things is remotely related to the diversity of speakers offered on college campuses.
FYI, that's not an assault on your freedom of speech, much like the US, the laws in the UK are intended to protect your right to speak, not your right to be heard. It may however be a violation of your Uni's code of conduct. If someone has a very strong negative reaction to pro life advocacy (and let's be honest there are some pretty legitimate reasons to feel this way), perhaps you would be better served by listening to why your opponents feel so threatened rather than focusing on how unfair it is to you that they feel this way.
I agree with you that there is very much a distinction between being allowed to speak and being heard. That said, I don't think it follows that the protesters having a right not have to listen to a talk that they disagree with implies that they have a right to try and stop it from happening by shouting over the speaker for 40 minutes straight (which is far from harmless minor heckling), not least when the organisers explicitly said at the start of the talk (on abortion in Ireland) that there would be a 40 minute Q&A session at the end to challenge the speakers, almost all of which had to be cut thanks to us losing loads of time due to the disruption (I'd much rather the protesters had given the speakers a good grilling in the Q&A, not least as I think that if my position is true, it can stand up to the toughest questions the protesters could have dished out). In regards why they responded so strongly, my understanding from reading the Facebook post they made beforehand about the protest (there was no indication beforehand it would be disruptive) is that they objected to the fact that Irish law does directly criminalise women seeking abortions (fair enough, both I and the current pro-head of the pro-life society agree that's something that needs to change and we amended the pro-choice policy in the SU to reflect this) and to the fact that one of the speakers was quite vocal in opposing the same-sex marriage referendum back in 2015. I also agree with the criticism of her views there, though it doesn't in my view help convince the 10-15% of the student body opposed it to change their views on the issue, and at least in my case I would have been seriously tempted to have doubled down on my previous position of opposition had I been met with a response like that, at least if LBGTIQA+ issues had been the focus of the protest although they were and the protest was just about the abortion debate). In regards the second paragraph though, I'm not sure that's necessarily an argument you would want abortion opponents to make (and not least as it would likely be misconstrued in some contexts as victim blaming). Let me ask how you might respond to someone making a near identical argument after the following scenario occured: Suppose that pro-lifers decided to disrupt a talk by UK students for Choice calling for the removal of Ireland's 8th amendment and aimed to try and stop the talk going ahead, arguing that the talk legitimised eugenics, ableism and dehumanisation (with one protester getting accused of assault by the security guard trying to drag them out against the wishes of the organisers). The pro-life group then later said through an official statement by the student union that they weren't "trying to protest the UK students for Choice or their freedom of speech" (despite the Facebook event beforehand being called "protest against UK students for Choice"), while at the same time claiming that "the right to life is a basic human right and is not up for debate". Curiously enough, the protest was in violation of the student union's own policy on harassment after leaving some of the organisers in tears in addition to potentially violating the university code of conduct. How you might respond to someone who in response argued that "If someone has a very strong negative reaction to pro-choice advocacy, they would be better served by listening to why their pro-lifers feel so threatened rather than focusing on how unfair it is that they feel that way."? P.s By the way, the scenario above is more or less exactly what happened to our pro-life group last year, with one or two very small details omitted/changed.
Free speech is messy. Protesters do in fact have the right to shout down speakers they don't like in the US and the UK. That's a feature, not a bug. It seems you are pretty caught up in how these protests affected you and your group. Let me state for the record that I don't condone violence, harassment, or threats of any kind. As to your question: Take the missionary that was recently killed on North Sentinel Island. Would you consider it victim blaming to place the responsibility on him for the tribe's hostile reaction? You are on campus campaigning on a pretty controversial issue that many people (rightly or wrongly) feel represents a threat to their rights and their lives. It's not unreasonable to expect that people who feel under threat will be hostile to you. It's your job in these situations to be as open and non-threatening as possible to de-escalate (to the extent possible) any tension. Part of de-escalation may be acknowledging and addressing the fears of people who are hostile to you or finding common ground and ways to work past them. You are after all, trying to change minds. There's no benefit in dismissing people as unreachable.
As to your question: Take the missionary that was recently killed on North Sentinel Island. Would you consider it victim blaming to place the responsibility on him for the tribe's hostile reaction? Yes. That's the very definition of victim-blaming. The same way it would be victim-blaming to place the responsibility on a woman that was correctively raped for taking off her hijab. It's your job in these situations to be as open and non-threatening as possible to de-escalate (to the extent possible) any tension. Part of de-escalation may be acknowledging and addressing the fears of people who are hostile to you or finding common ground and ways to work past them. You are after all, trying to change minds. There's no benefit in dismissing people as unreachable. No, it's the university's job to maintain orderly conduct so they can ensure a tiny minority of hecklers don't have veto power over a speaking event. If they decide not to do their job, or to do it selectively based on the viewpoint of the speaker, they should give the taxpayers their money back.
Well, no actually. Victim blaming involves the implication that the individual deserved to be harmed and usually shields or reinforces some kind of structural inequality or underlying prejudice. There's a big difference between saying a woman deserved to be raped for removing her hijab and saying it was the responsibility of John Chau to take precautions to ensure his own safety and encourage peaceful contact with the North Sentinelese. One is dismissive and reactionary, the other is instructive. There is much to be gained with respect to prevention and understanding by analyzing a victim's actions prior to the incident in question. From this perspective, John was dangerously unprepared to safely contact the North Sentinelese...he didn't even speak the same language! I would refer you to ERI's Dialogue Principle #28:
My attitude in any conversation is that clarity is completely my responsibility -Timothy Brahm Clarity was John's responsibility. He new the North Sentinelese were hostile to outsiders, yet within hours of first contact, he had stepped on the beach with no indication that he was welcome to do so, and no means of de-escalation if he wasn't. It is not the University's job to guarantee a platform to outside speakers. It is the University's job to provide an accredited educational curriculum and (to a limited extent) a safe environment to learn and study. Guest speakers represent a complimentary form of exposure to new ideas, not the primary one offered by the University. No one chooses a University based on the previous years roster of guest speakers.
What's the purpose of shouting down a speaker, if not to stifle public debate? If we can't engage in a free exchange of ideas, no matter how "threatening" some people might find some ideas, then we've essentially lost freedom of speech, along with the ability and opportunity to participate in reasoned discourse.
I get what you are saying here. If the point of free speech is to facilitate open debate, and counterspeech can have a chilling effect on unpopular or controversial opinions...isn't that a problem? The thing is, the entire point of debate and argument is to so thoroughly debunk, rebut, or disprove and opinion or idea, that it's proponents feel less comfortable expressing it in the public sphere. The intent then of both free speech and counterspeech is the same, to so discredit an opposing view that it is effectively, if not officially, silenced. That is, in fact, exactly how the marketplace of ideas is meant to work, not quietly and respectfully in some sanitized version of public discourse, but loud, messy, and often uncivilly in the real world. In point of fact, far from being the enemy of free speech, counterspeech is considered one of its central pillars in First Amendment Law.
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." -Justice Louis D. Brandeis
It’s not my definition, it’s the Supreme Court’s. Let me counter with an example. Aren’t white nationalist rallies intimidating? Isn’t it chilling when friends and neighbors march down your street shouting “Jews go home” and “you will not replace us”? These protesters were met with counter protesters that didn’t want the white nationalist message to go unchallenged. Both had legitimate free speech protection although one might argue the government had compelling interest in keeping the groups separate to prevent violence. This is the nature of free speech and the marketplace of ideas. No one has a right to spread their message unchallenged. How come your ideas deserve special protection and advantage over everyone else’s? Why do your ideas deserve to be less contested in the public sphere?
No, First Amendment rights do not give protesters the right to bring the operation of government to a halt. See D.C. code § 10–503.16. The debate in this regard would be 'what level of inconvenience or disruption would compel the government to restrict freedom of speech.' The Supreme Court has a tripartite categorization of public spaces where expressive activities take place. The type of public space would determine the First Amendment Issue at play. The consideration is very different if the entity restricting speech is the government.
I remember seeing a theater production at a university auditorium when I was a student. Would I have the right to constantly disrupt it if I found it offensive? In any case, if such outbursts are protected speech, can we at least agree that they are utterly juvenile?
You have a constitutionally protected right to heckle a speaker to the point of drowning him/her out. The First Amendment does not require anyone to give opposing ideas a polite hearing. That being said, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean there won't be consequences. It is entirely fair game to discredit counterspeech by criticizing the merit of speech that is caustic, rude, uncivil, or dehumanizing. Personally, I am vehemently opposed to dehumanizing speech. While, I can't necessarily agree that every example of uncivil counterspeech is juvenile, I will completely agree that there is a social price to counterspeech that can often undermine the message behind it. Counter protesters can easily end up being the ones that get drowned out, discredited, embarrassed, or shunned. I get that it just feels wrong that one group could effectively silence another by being louder or more uncivil. However, these are incredibly complex and nuanced issues that are nowhere near as black and white as may appear at first blush.
Can I ask though, what are your thoughts on the best way to respond to people that are only after a (metaphorical) fight and that intend to debate in bad faith? I don't have any online commentaters in mind here and purely ask in the abstract; argualy more with regards how to respond to someone during an in person debate trying to put on a show to an audiance listening in on the conversation.
Posing a variation of the question that's a bit less abstract, extreme abortion activists in the student's union at my UK university thought it a good idea to shout down the speaker at one of our society's talks last year for 40 minutes straight, and then blatantly lied about not attacking our freedom of speech later while at the same time saying that "access to healthcare is not up for debate". How do you think our pro-life group ought to have responded when our opponents themselves openly admit to not thinking there should even be any debate about the issue? (Incidentally, this makes them more extreme than the head of the UK's largest private provider who's actually very pro-free speech, aside from supporting buffer zones.)
First, I will respond to the abstract version. If you are in a one-on-one dialogue with someone in person and it seems like they aren’t actually interested in productive conversation, it is both appropriate and wise to end the conversation. It depends on your personal boundaries how much grace you want to give the other person before you exit the conversation. When I suspect the other person is wasting my time or too close-minded to hear my arguments, I usually prefer to politely call out this behavior with something like, “I am trying to have a productive dialogue with you right now, but it seems like you’re not actually open to listening to what I have to say. Do you want to explore ideas with me here or are you just looking for a senseless debate?” Sometimes people will self-correct their behavior after you call them out on something like this and sometimes they will continue to engage in bad faith. If the latter happens, I usually say, “I wish we could have an open-minded dialogue, but I don’t feel like that is what is happening here. Thanks for your time.”
If the exchange is happening in front of an audience, then the dynamics and rules of decorum are completely different. That would be considered a debate setting rather than a dialogue. The goals in that setting are not to change the other person’s mind, but to win the crowd over to your side. My expectations are not that the other person will engage in good faith, rather make the best case they can for their side. To respond to your specific example, unfortunately I do not know the details about UK free speech and culture. However, in a setting where the other side is trying to shut down a speaker or event I think your focus should be turned on calling out the cowardice of the protesters who do not want your ideas to be heard. Intellectual diversity is critical in a university setting and the silencing of ideas you disagree with is intellectually dishonest. Always try to get a video recording of what is happening and pressure the university to protect your event. My response to activists who would openly admit they think there shouldn’t be a debate about the issue is to call them out as cowards for not wanting ideas they disagree with to be heard.
That's not how intellectual diversity works.
If you want to make an argument that this type of counter speech is unpersuasive and unmeritorious, go right ahead, its not like the protesters haven't given you plenty of ammunition. Unfortunately, that is not the type of discussion occurring within this comment section. The discussion here is directly and explicitly about silencing pro choice advocates and denying them their constitutionally protected right to counter speech specifically because some pro life advocates appear to desire an uncontested platform from which to disseminate their argument. You and I have previously discussed this issue and I would redirect you to the XKCD comic you referenced at the time.
Calling mob rule, heckler’s veto, Brownshirt tactics and general thuggery (there’s that word again, it’s not a racial slur no matter how badly you want it to be) “counterspeech” is Orwellian gaslighting. Pro-life students get to invite speakers to campus, pro-choice students get to ask challenging questions at the Q&A, co-host a debate between the two sides, and/or invite their own speakers. It’s up to the university to ensure that people who choose to attend these events are able to hear the speaker. If they don’t wish to do that, they should not take money from the taxpayers.
You aren't making an argument here against counterspeech, you are making a contradiction. I suggest you refer to Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy that Josh included in his post: "You Should Know How to Disagree Well." If you have an actual argument, I'd be interested to hear it, but so far, you have not offered anything remotely persuasive. I have the writings of Supreme Court Justices on my side...what do you have?
Let's stay on topic and keep the"thuggery" debate in the thread it currently exists in. I'm happy to debate you there if you ever think of a response...Federal funding for Universities comes through Pell Grants, loans, financial aid, and research grants. None of those things is remotely related to the diversity of speakers offered on college campuses.
If someone has a very strong negative reaction to pro life advocacy (and let's be honest there are some pretty legitimate reasons to feel this way), perhaps you would be better served by listening to why your opponents feel so threatened rather than focusing on how unfair it is to you that they feel this way.
In regards why they responded so strongly, my understanding from reading the Facebook post they made beforehand about the protest (there was no indication beforehand it would be disruptive) is that they objected to the fact that Irish law does directly criminalise women seeking abortions (fair enough, both I and the current pro-head of the pro-life society agree that's something that needs to change and we amended the pro-choice policy in the SU to reflect this) and to the fact that one of the speakers was quite vocal in opposing the same-sex marriage referendum back in 2015. I also agree with the criticism of her views there, though it doesn't in my view help convince the 10-15% of the student body opposed it to change their views on the issue, and at least in my case I would have been seriously tempted to have doubled down on my previous position of opposition had I been met with a response like that, at least if LBGTIQA+ issues had been the focus of the protest although they were and the protest was just about the abortion debate).
In regards the second paragraph though, I'm not sure that's necessarily an argument you would want abortion opponents to make (and not least as it would likely be misconstrued in some contexts as victim blaming). Let me ask how you might respond to someone making a near identical argument after the following scenario occured:
Suppose that pro-lifers decided to disrupt a talk by UK students for Choice calling for the removal of Ireland's 8th amendment and aimed to try and stop the talk going ahead, arguing that the talk legitimised eugenics, ableism and dehumanisation (with one protester getting accused of assault by the security guard trying to drag them out against the wishes of the organisers). The pro-life group then later said through an official statement by the student union that they weren't "trying to protest the UK students for Choice or their freedom of speech" (despite the Facebook event beforehand being called "protest against UK students for Choice"), while at the same time claiming that "the right to life is a basic human right and is not up for debate". Curiously enough, the protest was in violation of the student union's own policy on harassment after leaving some of the organisers in tears in addition to potentially violating the university code of conduct.
How you might respond to someone who in response argued that "If someone has a very strong negative reaction to pro-choice advocacy, they would be better served by listening to why their pro-lifers feel so threatened rather than focusing on how unfair it is that they feel that way."?
P.s By the way, the scenario above is more or less exactly what happened to our pro-life group last year, with one or two very small details omitted/changed.
It seems you are pretty caught up in how these protests affected you and your group. Let me state for the record that I don't condone violence, harassment, or threats of any kind.
As to your question: Take the missionary that was recently killed on North Sentinel Island. Would you consider it victim blaming to place the responsibility on him for the tribe's hostile reaction?
You are on campus campaigning on a pretty controversial issue that many people (rightly or wrongly) feel represents a threat to their rights and their lives. It's not unreasonable to expect that people who feel under threat will be hostile to you. It's your job in these situations to be as open and non-threatening as possible to de-escalate (to the extent possible) any tension. Part of de-escalation may be acknowledging and addressing the fears of people who are hostile to you or finding common ground and ways to work past them. You are after all, trying to change minds. There's no benefit in dismissing people as unreachable.
North Sentinel Island. Would you consider it victim blaming to place
the responsibility on him for the tribe's hostile reaction?
Yes. That's the very definition of victim-blaming. The same way it would be victim-blaming to place the responsibility on a woman that was correctively raped for taking off her hijab.
It's your job in these situations to be as open and non-threatening as
possible to de-escalate (to the extent possible) any tension. Part of de-escalation may be acknowledging and addressing the fears of people who are hostile to you or finding common ground and ways to work past them. You are after all, trying to change minds. There's no benefit in dismissing people as unreachable.
No, it's the university's job to maintain orderly conduct so they can ensure a tiny minority of hecklers don't have veto power over a speaking event. If they decide not to do their job, or to do it selectively based on the viewpoint of the speaker, they should give the taxpayers their money back.
I would refer you to ERI's Dialogue Principle #28: My attitude in any conversation is that clarity is completely my responsibility
-Timothy Brahm
Clarity was John's responsibility. He new the North Sentinelese were hostile to outsiders, yet within hours of first contact, he had stepped on the beach with no indication that he was welcome to do so, and no means of de-escalation if he wasn't.
It is not the University's job to guarantee a platform to outside speakers. It is the University's job to provide an accredited educational curriculum and (to a limited extent) a safe environment to learn and study. Guest speakers represent a complimentary form of exposure to new ideas, not the primary one offered by the University. No one chooses a University based on the previous years roster of guest speakers.
In point of fact, far from being the enemy of free speech, counterspeech is considered one of its central pillars in First Amendment Law. "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."
-Justice Louis D. Brandeis
Let me counter with an example. Aren’t white nationalist rallies intimidating? Isn’t it chilling when friends and neighbors march down your street shouting “Jews go home” and “you will not replace us”?
These protesters were met with counter protesters that didn’t want the white nationalist message to go unchallenged. Both had legitimate free speech protection although one might argue the government had compelling interest in keeping the groups separate to prevent violence.
This is the nature of free speech and the marketplace of ideas. No one has a right to spread their message unchallenged. How come your ideas deserve special protection and advantage over everyone else’s? Why do your ideas deserve to be less contested in the public sphere?
The debate in this regard would be 'what level of inconvenience or disruption would compel the government to restrict freedom of speech.' The Supreme Court has a tripartite categorization of public spaces where expressive activities take place. The type of public space would determine the First Amendment Issue at play.
The consideration is very different if the entity restricting speech is the government.
It is entirely fair game to discredit counterspeech by criticizing the merit of speech that is caustic, rude, uncivil, or dehumanizing. Personally, I am vehemently opposed to dehumanizing speech. While, I can't necessarily agree that every example of uncivil counterspeech is juvenile, I will completely agree that there is a social price to counterspeech that can often undermine the message behind it. Counter protesters can easily end up being the ones that get drowned out, discredited, embarrassed, or shunned.
I get that it just feels wrong that one group could effectively silence another by being louder or more uncivil. However, these are incredibly complex and nuanced issues that are nowhere near as black and white as may appear at first blush.