POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Criticism
- Thread starter the_mother_thing
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
I suggest you reread this thread and show me where I supported the message of this person. I said he is a provocateur. The point is free speech. Check your own hypocrisy.
katharath|1487620122|4131247 said:
I suggest you reread this thread and show me where I supported the message of this person. I said he is a provocateur. The point is free speech. Check your own hypocrisy.
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Hypocrisy?
What can't you understand - Red and I think he is a vile human being.
But he has the first amendment right to speak his mind without being physically attacked.
If people would simply ignore him, he would fade away. All this attention from the liberals has just given him a bigger platform.
katharath|1487620122|4131247 said:
Hypocrisy?
What can't you understand - Red and I think he is a vile human being.
But he has the first amendment right to speak his mind without being physically attacked.
If people would simply ignore him, he would fade away. All this attention from the liberals has just given him a bigger platform.
E B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2005
- Messages
- 9,491
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Attention from the liberals? He was to be the keynote speaker at this year's CPAC.
I'm glad we've found a red line for them, though. Pederasty - unacceptable (well, when enough people find out about these public views of his). The xenophobia, the misogyny, the transphobia...that they're happy to elevate, apparently.
ruby59|1487620361|4131252 said:
Attention from the liberals? He was to be the keynote speaker at this year's CPAC.
I'm glad we've found a red line for them, though. Pederasty - unacceptable (well, when enough people find out about these public views of his). The xenophobia, the misogyny, the transphobia...that they're happy to elevate, apparently.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Yes attention from liberals. Because there have been demonstrations and riots to specifically shut down his freedom of speech he has become much more in the news. Had he just been left to do his shows at colleges and rant on youtube he would only be another voice on Breitbart.
As far as CPAC it was a mistake to invite him. His antics and message are inappropriate for that forum. I much prefer Ben Shapiro.
E B|1487620900|4131254 said:
Yes attention from liberals. Because there have been demonstrations and riots to specifically shut down his freedom of speech he has become much more in the news. Had he just been left to do his shows at colleges and rant on youtube he would only be another voice on Breitbart.
As far as CPAC it was a mistake to invite him. His antics and message are inappropriate for that forum. I much prefer Ben Shapiro.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 18,271
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
And yes, loooove how pederasty crosses the line...But the rest of his hate speech?? Hilarious! Totally fine!
Yup. Obviously it's my fault for paying attention to him. Totally not his fault for being a horrible excuse for a person. How silly of me.E B|1487620900|4131254 said:
And yes, loooove how pederasty crosses the line...But the rest of his hate speech?? Hilarious! Totally fine!
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
I can do nothing about this person.
I can do nothing about those who want to hear him speak.
But I can choose to stay as far away as possible and not hear anything he has to say.
As far as what is contained in his hate speech I would not lower myself to even listen to it.
lovedogs|1487624031|4131286 said:
I can do nothing about this person.
I can do nothing about those who want to hear him speak.
But I can choose to stay as far away as possible and not hear anything he has to say.
As far as what is contained in his hate speech I would not lower myself to even listen to it.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 11,213
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
*SIGH*
CPAP would not have booked Yiannopoulos in reaction to students at UC Davis and UC Berkeley having shut him down - in other words, to make a point about what they perceived as a liberal infringement of free speech.
It backfired on them, hugely.
Can we agree on that?
I understand that some of us will find humor in that, others won't.
I'll go one further BTW. I seriously doubt that anyone here would willingly go to listen to him speak - even before this latest revelation, and not even to make a point about free speech. Total speculation on my part, but I trust it would prove to be accurate.
*SIGH*
CPAP would not have booked Yiannopoulos in reaction to students at UC Davis and UC Berkeley having shut him down - in other words, to make a point about what they perceived as a liberal infringement of free speech.
It backfired on them, hugely.
Can we agree on that?
I understand that some of us will find humor in that, others won't.
I'll go one further BTW. I seriously doubt that anyone here would willingly go to listen to him speak - even before this latest revelation, and not even to make a point about free speech. Total speculation on my part, but I trust it would prove to be accurate.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,139
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Free speech and the first amendment mean the government can't prosecute you for your speech unless it is inciting violence. They mean nothing about anyone allowing it socially. Technically the first amendment doesn't even protect you from being violently assaulted for your speech - it's laws against assaulting people that prevent that.
Free speech and the first amendment mean the government can't prosecute you for your speech unless it is inciting violence. They mean nothing about anyone allowing it socially. Technically the first amendment doesn't even protect you from being violently assaulted for your speech - it's laws against assaulting people that prevent that.
ruby59
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 3,553
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/20/cpac-rescinds-invitation-milo-yiannopoulos-audio-surfaces-pedophilia/21717907/
They disinvited him.
Smart move.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/20/cpac-rescinds-invitation-milo-yiannopoulos-audio-surfaces-pedophilia/21717907/
They disinvited him.
Smart move.
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 6,139
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
... The government allows speech in that you are free from repercussions like being harassed by the police or charged with crimes having to do with or because of your speech (unless you are inciting or threatening violence). In countries without freedom of speech, people are often jailed for speaking out in ways the government doesn't like. That's literally why freedom of speech is important. It has NOTHING to do with social consequences for speech or institutions needing to give everyone a platform. You can speak your mind, but I don't have to invite you anywhere to do so, nor allow you to speak if you arrive, and it is totally fine if I try to shut you down by any not-otherwise-illegal means when you do, because I am not the government and ME not allowing you to speak has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." You are still legally free to speak, you are just not socially able to speak to me. Those are two totally different things - legal free speech is necessary for a free society, but social freedom of speech is not. No one is contesting that Milo has the LEGAL right to say whatever crazy stuff he wants to say.
redwood66|1487630405|4131365 said:
... The government allows speech in that you are free from repercussions like being harassed by the police or charged with crimes having to do with or because of your speech (unless you are inciting or threatening violence). In countries without freedom of speech, people are often jailed for speaking out in ways the government doesn't like. That's literally why freedom of speech is important. It has NOTHING to do with social consequences for speech or institutions needing to give everyone a platform. You can speak your mind, but I don't have to invite you anywhere to do so, nor allow you to speak if you arrive, and it is totally fine if I try to shut you down by any not-otherwise-illegal means when you do, because I am not the government and ME not allowing you to speak has nothing to do with "freedom of speech." You are still legally free to speak, you are just not socially able to speak to me. Those are two totally different things - legal free speech is necessary for a free society, but social freedom of speech is not. No one is contesting that Milo has the LEGAL right to say whatever crazy stuff he wants to say.
phancynan
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2016
- Messages
- 18
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
The fact is that he is now un-invited to speak, and his book has been canceled, because he crossed the line into pedophilia, and this goes to show that it is NOT about "free" speech. If it were about "free" speech, and the stance that anyone has the right to say anything, then he would still be speaking. But he crossed a line into what is no longer ok. Which goes to show that hate speech on women, minorities, gays, etc, all of that WAS acceptable.
At the end of the say, it is still about drawing a line for what speech is and isn't acceptable. The lines are in verrrrrrry different places for people. My line was at gamer gate, to what is and isn't acceptable. For many of his supporters, that line wasn't reached until pedophilia. It's about the line and where is is, not about speech being free.
(Note, I also hate that this is characterized as "free speech". Free speech does not apply to anyone but the government, and only applied to the federal government until the 1920s when it was also applied to state government. And it does not in any way protect you from the consequences of your speech. It is my free speech to say !*(@*&^*$@^ and (&@(#**&@ but if I said that to my boss, you can bet I'd be out the door fired.)
The fact is that he is now un-invited to speak, and his book has been canceled, because he crossed the line into pedophilia, and this goes to show that it is NOT about "free" speech. If it were about "free" speech, and the stance that anyone has the right to say anything, then he would still be speaking. But he crossed a line into what is no longer ok. Which goes to show that hate speech on women, minorities, gays, etc, all of that WAS acceptable.
At the end of the say, it is still about drawing a line for what speech is and isn't acceptable. The lines are in verrrrrrry different places for people. My line was at gamer gate, to what is and isn't acceptable. For many of his supporters, that line wasn't reached until pedophilia. It's about the line and where is is, not about speech being free.
(Note, I also hate that this is characterized as "free speech". Free speech does not apply to anyone but the government, and only applied to the federal government until the 1920s when it was also applied to state government. And it does not in any way protect you from the consequences of your speech. It is my free speech to say !*(@*&^*$@^ and (&@(#**&@ but if I said that to my boss, you can bet I'd be out the door fired.)
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Attention from liberals??? he works for the vile site Breitbart, first in fake news and lies.. He is close to being Alt right, but they don't want him from what I read.
Basically I think he's a shyster, looking to make lotsa money on being racist, misogynist and out there... so in one way, paying attention to him is wrong, but then Breitbart should fire him (not that I think they will).. hits are money!
ruby59|1487620361|4131252 said:
Attention from liberals??? he works for the vile site Breitbart, first in fake news and lies.. He is close to being Alt right, but they don't want him from what I read.
Basically I think he's a shyster, looking to make lotsa money on being racist, misogynist and out there... so in one way, paying attention to him is wrong, but then Breitbart should fire him (not that I think they will).. hits are money!
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
What difference does that make in the context of free speech? I can dislike speech because I think it is offensive. That does not mean that the speaker does not have the right to speak. The recent revelations of things Milo has said are disgusting and he is deserving of the current backlash he is receiving. Anyone can say anything they disagree with is hate speech. You and I have a different view on free speech obviously.
Tekate|1487691917|4131694 said:
What difference does that make in the context of free speech? I can dislike speech because I think it is offensive. That does not mean that the speaker does not have the right to speak. The recent revelations of things Milo has said are disgusting and he is deserving of the current backlash he is receiving. Anyone can say anything they disagree with is hate speech. You and I have a different view on free speech obviously.
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
JoCoJenn|1486402086|4124884 said:Are you saying my grammatical explanation is a 'stretch', or the way people perceived his comment was a 'stretch'?AnnaH|1486400101|4124868 said:I'll just have pie.
Jenn, the Douglas comment criticism is really a stretch. Trump makes actual mistakes, but I guess that's just not enough to keep the haters busy.
I agree Chump is no stranger to mistakes; who is?
False equivalence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
redwood66 said:
'Booby Trump' ... Love it!
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,602
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Free speech does not cover hate speech. It is not a matter of "opinion." This is simply not something that is allowed by our constitution.
The seven things The First Amendment doesn't cover:
https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/
Red,redwood66|1487692421|4131696 said:
Free speech does not cover hate speech. It is not a matter of "opinion." This is simply not something that is allowed by our constitution.
The seven things The First Amendment doesn't cover:
https://debmcalister.com/2011/06/03/7-things-you-cant-claim-first-amendment-rights-to-say/
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
And I disagree with you respectfully. My view is that if one does not protect free speech of all kinds, even if he/she does not agree with it, then you might as well not have it. I also realize there must be consequences for what one says. I think some of the things said here about certain people are offensive but I will stand up for your right to say them. JCJ was much more eloquent about saying the same thing earlier in this thread.
Here is the link to the US Embassy website I provided earlier explaining freedom of expression. Please see the section on Hate Speech.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2013/04/20130416145829.html
House Cat|1487694060|4131706 said:
And I disagree with you respectfully. My view is that if one does not protect free speech of all kinds, even if he/she does not agree with it, then you might as well not have it. I also realize there must be consequences for what one says. I think some of the things said here about certain people are offensive but I will stand up for your right to say them. JCJ was much more eloquent about saying the same thing earlier in this thread.
Here is the link to the US Embassy website I provided earlier explaining freedom of expression. Please see the section on Hate Speech.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/pamphlet/2013/04/20130416145829.html
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
redwood66|1487694495|4131708 said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
bunnycat
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
I think the confusion here seems to relate to what is actually worded in the 1st Amendment, versus practice.
here's an excerpt from Cornell law school:
"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place."
from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
The 1st states this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So in regard to Milo, the 1st protects his right from GOVERNMENT interference by prohibiting Congress from making laws to infringe on it. It has nothing to do with people protesesting. So when people get annoyed with each other and say something like "I can say what I want, you can't stop me...free speech..." I'm not sure what it is, but it is not an application of the 1st amendment as written, which is in regard to government law limiting speech.
In practice, however, court cases have already been upheld that yes, in fact, sometimes they can prohibit speech if it would cause violence.
I think the confusion here seems to relate to what is actually worded in the 1st Amendment, versus practice.
here's an excerpt from Cornell law school:
"The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place."
from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
The 1st states this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So in regard to Milo, the 1st protects his right from GOVERNMENT interference by prohibiting Congress from making laws to infringe on it. It has nothing to do with people protesesting. So when people get annoyed with each other and say something like "I can say what I want, you can't stop me...free speech..." I'm not sure what it is, but it is not an application of the 1st amendment as written, which is in regard to government law limiting speech.
In practice, however, court cases have already been upheld that yes, in fact, sometimes they can prohibit speech if it would cause violence.
- Joined
- May 11, 2013
- Messages
- 7,570
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
I've never EVER felt as though differences were not good, it keeps our government in check. So abso Red!! if we were all alike then ugh what a world. Peace!
redwood66|1487695860|4131718 said:Tekate|1487695194|4131715 said:
Kate you know that I like you very much and we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
I've never EVER felt as though differences were not good, it keeps our government in check. So abso Red!! if we were all alike then ugh what a world. Peace!
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,223
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Milo resigned from Breitbart. From his fb page:
Milo Yiannopoulos
19 mins ·
..
STATEMENT DELIVERED AT PRESS CONFERENCE 2/21/07
I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.
My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.
Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.
A few years ago I realised it was time to do something good with my life. I started focusing on work. But the black comedy, gallows humor and love of shock value I developed in my 20s did not go away.
I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I do say some things on the tapes that I do not mean and which do not reflect my views.
My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I am horrified by that impression.
I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics.
And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. I was also the first journalist in the UK to ask after Jimmy Savile’s death whether the real story of his rampant child abuse would ever be told. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that the videos you have seen, even though some of them were deceptively edited, paint a different picture. I am partly to blame.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is "about right." I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.
I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly. To repeat: I do not support pedophilia. It is a disgusting crime of which I have personally been a victim.
The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences. I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions.
But I am sorry to other abuse victims if my own personal way of dealing with what happened to me has hurt you.
I will never stop making jokes about taboo subjects. Go into any drag bar or gay club and you will see performers cracking jokes about clerical sexual abuse. I am not afforded that same freedom, because the media chooses to selectively define me as a political figure in some circumstances, and a comedian in others.
But I said some things on those internet live streams that were simply wrong.
My employer Breitbart News has stood by me when others caved. They have allowed me to carry conservative and libertarian ideas to communities that would otherwise never have heard them. They have been a significant factor in my success. I’m grateful for that freedom and for the friendships I forged there.
I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting, which is why today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.
When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them. For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.
My book, Dangerous, has received interest from publishers after my previous publisher Simon and Schuster informed me they no longer wished to release it. The book will come out this year as planned. I will be donating 10 per cent of my royalties to child sex abuse charities.
I haven’t ever apologized before. Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But to be a victim of child abuse and for the media to call me an apologist for child abuse is absurd.
I regret the things I said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything in my whole life. This isn't how I wanted my parents to find out about this.
But let's be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.
I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.
I started my career as a technology reporter who wrote about politics but I have since become something else. I am a performer with millions of fans in America and beyond. I’m grateful for the tens of thousands of messages of support I’ve received and I look forward to making you all laugh, cry and think for many decades to come.
My full focus is now going to be on entertaining and educating everyone, left, right and otherwise. If you want to brand or stereotype me, good luck with that.
Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want. America has a colossal free speech problem. The land of the First Amendment has some of the most oppressive social restrictions on free expression anywhere in the western world. I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression.
I want everyone in America, the greatest country in the history of human civilisation, to be able to be, do, read and say anything. I will never stop fighting for your right to do that.
Thank you. I will take 5 questions.
Milo resigned from Breitbart. From his fb page:
Milo Yiannopoulos
19 mins ·
..
STATEMENT DELIVERED AT PRESS CONFERENCE 2/21/07
I am a gay man, and a child abuse victim.
Between the ages of 13 and 16, two men touched me in ways they should not have. One of those men was a priest.
My relationship with my abusers is complicated by the fact that, at the time, I did not perceive what was happening to me as abusive. I can look back now and see that it was. I still don’t view myself as a victim. But I am one.
Looking back, I can see the effects it had on me. In the years after what happened, I fell into alcohol and nihilistic partying that lasted well into my late 20s.
A few years ago I realised it was time to do something good with my life. I started focusing on work. But the black comedy, gallows humor and love of shock value I developed in my 20s did not go away.
I've reviewed the tapes that appeared last night in their proper full context and I don't believe they say what is being reported. Nonetheless I do say some things on the tapes that I do not mean and which do not reflect my views.
My experiences as a victim led me to believe I could say anything I wanted to on this subject, no matter how outrageous. But I understand that my usual blend of British sarcasm, provocation and gallows humor might have come across as flippancy, a lack of care for other victims or, worse, "advocacy." I am horrified by that impression.
I would like to restate my disgust at adults who sexually abuse minors. I am horrified by pedophilia and I have devoted large portions of my career as a journalist to exposing child abusers. I've outed three of them, in fact -- three more than most of my critics.
And I've repeatedly expressed disgust at pedophilia in my feature and opinion writing. I was also the first journalist in the UK to ask after Jimmy Savile’s death whether the real story of his rampant child abuse would ever be told. My professional record is very clear.
But I do understand that the videos you have seen, even though some of them were deceptively edited, paint a different picture. I am partly to blame.
I do not advocate for illegal behavior. I explicitly say on the tapes, in a section that was cut from the footage you have seen, that I think the current age of consent is "about right." I do not believe any change in the the legal age of consent is justifiable or desirable.
I do not believe sex with 13-year-olds is okay. When I mentioned the number 13, I was talking about myself, and the age I lost my own virginity.
I shouldn't have used the word "boy" -- which gay men often do to describe young men of consenting age -- instead of "young man." That was an error. I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16.
I did say that there are relationships between younger men and older men that can help a young gay man escape from a lack of support or understanding at home. That's perfectly true and every gay man knows it.
I am certainly guilty of imprecise language, which I regret.
Anyone who suggests I turn a blind eye to illegal activity or to the abuse of minors is unequivocally wrong. I am implacably opposed to the normalization of pedophilia and I will continue to report and speak accordingly. To repeat: I do not support pedophilia. It is a disgusting crime of which I have personally been a victim.
The remarks I made on podcasts and interviews more than a year ago were about my personal life experiences. I will not apologize for dealing with my life experiences in the best way that I can, which is humor. No one can tell me or anyone else who has lived through sexual abuse how to deal with those emotions.
But I am sorry to other abuse victims if my own personal way of dealing with what happened to me has hurt you.
I will never stop making jokes about taboo subjects. Go into any drag bar or gay club and you will see performers cracking jokes about clerical sexual abuse. I am not afforded that same freedom, because the media chooses to selectively define me as a political figure in some circumstances, and a comedian in others.
But I said some things on those internet live streams that were simply wrong.
My employer Breitbart News has stood by me when others caved. They have allowed me to carry conservative and libertarian ideas to communities that would otherwise never have heard them. They have been a significant factor in my success. I’m grateful for that freedom and for the friendships I forged there.
I would be wrong to allow my poor choice of words to detract from my colleagues’ important reporting, which is why today I am resigning from Breitbart, effective immediately. This decision is mine alone.
When your friends have done right by you, you do right by them. For me, now, that means stepping aside so my colleagues at Breitbart can get back to the great work they do.
My book, Dangerous, has received interest from publishers after my previous publisher Simon and Schuster informed me they no longer wished to release it. The book will come out this year as planned. I will be donating 10 per cent of my royalties to child sex abuse charities.
I haven’t ever apologized before. Name-calling doesn’t bother me. But to be a victim of child abuse and for the media to call me an apologist for child abuse is absurd.
I regret the things I said. I don't think I've been as sorry about anything in my whole life. This isn't how I wanted my parents to find out about this.
But let's be clear what is happening here. This is a cynical media witch hunt from people who don't care about children. They care about destroying me and my career, and by extension my allies. They know that although I made some outrageous statements, I've never actually done anything wrong. These videos have been out there for more than a year. The media held this story back because they don't care about victims, they only care about bringing me down. They will fail.
I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks.
I started my career as a technology reporter who wrote about politics but I have since become something else. I am a performer with millions of fans in America and beyond. I’m grateful for the tens of thousands of messages of support I’ve received and I look forward to making you all laugh, cry and think for many decades to come.
My full focus is now going to be on entertaining and educating everyone, left, right and otherwise. If you want to brand or stereotype me, good luck with that.
Don’t think for a moment that this will stop me being as offensive, provocative and outrageously funny as I want on any subject I want. America has a colossal free speech problem. The land of the First Amendment has some of the most oppressive social restrictions on free expression anywhere in the western world. I’m proud to be a warrior for free speech and creative expression.
I want everyone in America, the greatest country in the history of human civilisation, to be able to be, do, read and say anything. I will never stop fighting for your right to do that.
Thank you. I will take 5 questions.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 18,271
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
YESSSS!!!! He is horrible, he is trash, he is offensive, and he deserves every criticism coming his way 100%. He is a troll, and says horrible and offensive things on purpose for attention. I'm thrilled that he's losing things like book deals, speaking engagements, and is now resigning. Good riddance, and I won't spend one second feeling sorry for him.
telephone89|1487708761|4131816 said:
YESSSS!!!! He is horrible, he is trash, he is offensive, and he deserves every criticism coming his way 100%. He is a troll, and says horrible and offensive things on purpose for attention. I'm thrilled that he's losing things like book deals, speaking engagements, and is now resigning. Good riddance, and I won't spend one second feeling sorry for him.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2012
- Messages
- 7,329
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Thanks for posting this. I would not have seen it otherwise.
I hope he is truthful with contrition in this that he writes. As several people have posted here - Hurt people hurt people.
Thanks for posting this. I would not have seen it otherwise.
I hope he is truthful with contrition in this that he writes. As several people have posted here - Hurt people hurt people.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,223
Re: POLITICAL: Milo Speaks Out re: Liberals' Labels & Critic
Red - I'm sure it will be making the media rounds shortly. I just happened to be on FB when it came out.
I don't think hes going anywhere though.
"I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks."
Red - I'm sure it will be making the media rounds shortly. I just happened to be on FB when it came out.
I don't think hes going anywhere though.
"I will be announcing a new, independently-funded media venture of my own and a live tour in the coming weeks."
300x240.png)