Milo Yiannopoulos book deal cancelled following outrage over child abuse comments

[Final-Fan]

Slimebeast said:

Puppyroach said:

Free speech is anyone's right to express themselves on any topic. It is also free speech for anyone to criticize what that persons says. Having a book deal cancelled or a booking to speak at CPAC revoked has absolutely nothing to do with free speech since that doesn't infringe on your right to express yourself. He can have his CPAC speech on any street anywhere and print his book for his own money, so his democratic rights arent I fringed in any way. It's just him playing the classic victim part just because he is a spoiled troll.

So you deny that there's such a thing called "witch hunt".

In the name of consequnce I hope that you also deny that hate speech is a problem then,  and all these accusations thrown around my media and politicians that the rhetorics by Sweden democrats are an "attack on our open and free society and our democracy".

Are you philosophically opposed to the idea of boycotts?  What happened with his book deal is people registering their displeasure with the publisher, the publisher deciding they would rather go along with public opinion, and canceling the book deal.  His book isn't being censored.  Even if he can't get another publisher and sell the book (which he likely will), he could still put it up on the Internet and get his message out.  His free speech is not being infringed on.  I would agree with you if he was blocked from hosting his own website and getting his message out that way.  But I don't have a problem with things like the Twitter ban and the publisher backing out of a book deal when he explicitly makes it a life goal to be an outrageous provocateur.  He WANTS reactions and nobody should be surprised or whine when he GETS reactions.  Sometimes they aren't going to be reactions he particularly enjoys, but he of all people ought to appreciate the irony of that. 

I've watched the video.  He is very clear about his opposition to pedophilia as defined as sexual attraction and predation on pre-pubescent children.  But as soon as you hit puberty all bets are off.  I think most of society would not be okay with 30 year olds going after boys as soon as they hit puberty.  I was inclined to believe what he said in the video about his defense of a relationship between a 28 year old and a 13-14 year old (himself) being a symptom of denial due to past abuse (by them, of him, in those relationships).  However, he then goes on in his "apology" to say that he was not serious and downplay how inappropriate such age discrepancies are.  He can't have it both ways.  That's my problem with this guy in general:  he says crazy stuff and any time someone calls him on something he blows it off as just hyperbole or just a joke, but then he still expects to be taken seriously.  He can't have it both ways, at least not from me.