Sunsara Taylor and free expression

Unlike some bloggers, PZ Myers, Pharyngula, does not censor people who disagree with him.

He recently wrote of a Sunsara Taylor, a self-proclaimed "revolutionary voice of a new generation". It turns out that Ms Taylor got herself into a spot of bother at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago.

In a nutshell, the society invited her to speak, and some members then managed to get her disinvited. (Rude, yes, but absolutely within their rights.) They held their meeting, which is open and free (as in no charge, not Speakers' Corner) to the public. Ms Taylor attended, with a cameraman. She was summarily thrown out, and her cameraman ended up arrested. Mr Myers' covers the story here and here.

Apparently Ms Taylor is well known; I can't say I've ever heard of her. Anyway, I decided - as my comment on Mr Myers' story remain mine - to republish them, here. Any clarifying or additional comment I have added in square brackets [ ].

Personally, I don't see much of a story in all of this. What I do see is someone, Ms Taylor, seeking to impose her fictional right to speak within a private venue. One, I should note, that she does not own.

So, without further ado, here's my comment to Mr Myers:

I don't see the story, here. I've never heard of Sunsara Taylor until now; I'm quite sure my life will be fine without hearing of her ever again.

Here's I read it, anyway: The Ethical Society invites someone to speak. Some of the members object, and start an effort, ultimately successful, to disinvite her. The meeting is open to the public (the fact it was free as in "no charge" is neither here nor there; they clearly do not a local Speakers' Corner), so Ms Taylor is free to attend. She brought a cameraman, and started to speak. Fearing something would happen, the Society had a cop on the premises, who did his job. His job, by the way, is not to ensure that Ms Taylor gets a chance to speak; his job to prevent a disruption. In the end, what Ms Taylor's views are are as irrelevant as they are impenetrable, incoherent and inconsistent.

Ms Taylor was disruptive. It was a private meeting. She had no ethical right to stage her "performance" or to her cameraman, and his filming of her. On private property there is no implied right to film something; I haven't read anything saying the cameraman or Ms Taylor sought permission to film anything. On private property there is no implied right to absolute free speech! She had been disinvited, which is not the same as being barred: she could attend as a member of the public. She chose to attend and disrupt, and film herself doing so. Is that ethical behavior? Is that the behavior of an adult? No: it's the action of a recalcitrant teenager who wants her own way and throws a temper tantrum when she doesn't get it. And tries to do it, anyway.

(Just to be clear, she can be as childish as she wants. When she is so in front of others, she has no say in how they perceive her behavior.)

Who knows what transpired between the cops and the cameraman? Ms Conrad's statement merely tells us what she saw and heard. What is perfectly clear is that something did happen between the cameraman and the cops. Ms Conrad, the lawyer posting her statement earlier, [Ms Conrad wrote a statement detailing what she saw and heard at the meeting] should know that unless she is the cameraman's lawyer, the cops are perfectly within their rights to deny her access to the man, while he's in jail. I suspect that something happened and the cops probably did overreact. But one thing about cops any activist should know: they don't take challenges to their authority lightly. It's not right, it's not wrong, it is what is. If Ms Conrad wants to help the cameraman, I can only suggest she represent him (pro-bono?) in court. He is in need of competent counsel. Bear in mind that what "you" might deem as over-reacting, the cops might deem as "reasonable force".

Overall, Ms Taylor does come across as a bully, as well as recalcitrant and arrogant [I forgot "belligerent", sorry]. Even. perhaps especially, in her own account. The Ethical Society comes across as a bit inept and out of their depth; they do not come across as abusive. Ms Taylor does not possess the right to disrupt a private meeting; no private citizen does. She has the capability, but not the right. The Ethical Society can determine what they do not want to hear at their meetings; whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant.

(While I think it irrelevant how Ms Taylor handles comments on her blog, isn't it inconsistent, and hypocritical, to censor comments and then insist that in a different venue, such censorship is immoral? Such a selfish attitude is consistent with other activists who are equally inconsiderate.)

I tell Bible-Thumpers to "get off my property" with regularity. There's no essential difference between what I tell them and what the Ethical Society ultimately told Ms Taylor. How they told her might have been done better , but that they finally did so is the crux of the issue. Ms Taylor is clearly on the losing side of this.

PZ, your criticism of the Ethical Society is inconsiderate. Shame on Ms Taylor for putting the cameraman in a position where his arrest was possible, and for imposing herself onto a group that clearly did not want her there. You seem to think the Ethical Society is the bully, and yet you fail to consider the actions of Ms Taylor in the same light.

[This is similar to that debate I had BattyBattyBats, all that while ago (March of this year? Surely not! It seems more distant than that). BBB (I don't know the correct title/pronoun, sorry) asserted a highly complex and terribly inconsistent view of the right to express yourself in private venues. It basically amounted to "if I agree, you can say it; if I don't, you can't". Ms Taylor seems to hold the same view. But with bells on.

Anyway, the Ethical Society was rude, but they can't be prosecuted for that. Ms Taylor was, unquestionably, bullying. That the Ethical Society even considered hiring a cop, as a security guard, leads me to wonder what Ms Taylor is considered to be capable of! That they chose to hire the cop is even more alarming. Ms Taylor deserves criticism for her actions; she also deserves criticism for assuming she was within her rights. She might not like the Constitution of the United States (her actions and words indicate she's not terribly fond of it), but she does have to respect it. If only because it is the only thing that allows her to believe, without official sanction, as she does! Ms Taylor seems to think, as so many seem to, that she has an absolute, inviolate right to speak, regardless of venue. And that she can impose her speech upon others. But she does not extend to others the same right to speak (even in stating that they do not want to hear her words!), and judging by the criticism of her blog comment policy, she also imposes the condition of venue on others' words. By her actions, Ms Taylor proves herself a hypocrite, and a bully.]

Carolyn Ann