It was a formula Milo Yiannopoulos, former editor at Breitbart news and star of the white nationalist alt-right, had used many times. Say something incendiary and offensive in a public platform, provoke liberal outrage, argue this is another attack on free speech by the left who is obsessed with political correctness and reap the reward of the notoriety the episode generates. Except this time, another group inserted itself into this well-oiled formula. Yiannopoulos went too far, and angered the right as well as the left.

America is learning just how much conservatives will tolerate when faced with unsavory facts about a successful bedfellow. A candidates boast he can molest women with impunity? Not disqualifying. Yiannopoulos claim the tragic shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was an expression of mainstream Muslim values? Give him a book deal. But Yiannopoulos apparent defense of pedophilia and assertion that sex with a sexually mature 13-year-old boy is not abuse? Now we have crossed the elusive line in the sand. And mysteriously, the right has stopped insisting Yiannopoulos is entitled to say whatever he wants.

In a series of videos posted on Twitter by the conservative blog Reagan Battalion, Yiannopoulos appears to condone or even encourage relationships between older men and boys as young as 13.

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, Yiannopoulos argues, claiming this sort of arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent fails to recognize the subtleties and complicated nature of many relationships.

When another man on the podcast points out this enriching relationship sounds like molestation by Catholic priests to him, Yiannopoulos is flippant.

And you know what, Im grateful for Father Michael. I wouldnt give nearly such good [oral sex] if it wasnt for him, he says.

Of course this is wrong. The idea sex between adults and young teens cannot only be consensual but actually a positive experience for the younger party is dangerous and damaging to victims of childhood abuse, particularly when the argument comes from a gay man who seems to be drawing on his own experiences. Such assertions are horrifying.

But the backlash these revelations incited, costing Yiannopoulos his book deal, keynote speech at the CPAC American Conservative Union conference and position at Breitbart news, reveals the hypocrisy of the free speech defense Yiannopoulos employed so regularly. Apparently, free speech is only unassailable when the right agrees with the content.

Yiannopoulos has been allowed to get away with appalling verbal attacks in the past. At a December 2016 speech at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Yiannopoulos projected a picture of Adelaide Kramer, a transgender woman and student in the audience, on the screen behind him, called her a tranny and accused her of forc[ing] his way into the womens locker rooms.

Kramer was, understandably, terrified and traumatized. In an email to UW-Milwaukees chancellor, obtained by the student publication Media Milwaukee, she asked, Do you know what its like to be in a room full of people who are laughing at you as if youre some sort of perverted freak? She has since left the school.

To be clear, Yiannopoulos was not simply airing a controversial opinion in this case; he intentionally targeted a student for public ridicule, causing that student to fear for her safety. Nevertheless, conservatives rushed to his defense in the name of free speech. CPAC invited him to speak three months later.

Here is the problem: When the left insists normal speech has become hate speech, they are considered triggered snowflakes. But when the right finds a transgression they will not tolerate, whether it is sympathy for abusive priests or gay people daring to patronize their businesses, they are the noble moral arbiters of society. Anger at Yiannopoulos now, while indisputably justified, tacitly condones every bigoted comment he made before this moment.

This backlash reveals what we knew all along about the free speech defense of Yiannopoulos. There is no debate between free speech crusaders and gleeful censors. The debate is about the platform speakers are entitled to.

The same people distancing themselves from Yiannopoulos now decried the violent protests at University of California, Berkeley, his impending visit incited just last month. Thats the pesky thing about free speech: Everyone is entitled to it, not just far-right provocateurs.

Freedom of expression as it is constitutionally understood encompasses freedom of assembly, of the press, to petition the government and yes, of speech. In other words, protesting a free speech fundamentalist is exercising your right to freedom of speech.

Gonzaga professor of womens and gender studies Sara Diaz concurs: When students or faculty say they dont want a speaker on campus that is not a violation of freedom of speech, she clarifies. In fact, it is an exercise of free speech.

GU found itself in a similar situation to the one faced by Berkeley with Dinesh DSouzas invitation to speak on campus last year. In both cases, the universities were faced with the presence of controversial figures invited by their schools College Republicans club and had to balance their legal and philosophical impetus to ensure all views can be expressed on their campuses with a desire to ensure an inclusive academic environment free of bigotry. Both schools got it right by supporting their students invitations; as academic freedom is an essential right of universities with a clear legal trail all the way to the Supreme Court.

And the student bodies of both Berkeley and GU got it right by protesting in response.

As Diaz puts it, Freedom of speech does not protect us from the consequences of violating the norms of speech, such as rudeness, spreading misinformation [and] academic dishonesty.

Yiannopoulos is free to spew his hateful diatribe at whoever will listen. He is owed that right by the Constitution. But he is not owed a megaphone.

My recommendation for dealing with the Yiannopouloses of the world? If its free speech they want, its free speech theyll get. Robust debate and protest, not censorship, is the proper way to deal with bigots. And when they claim, as Yiannopoulos did, to be the victim of a cynical media witch hunt, can we please call them snowflakes?

Eleanor Lyon is a staff writer. Follow her on Twitter: @eleanorroselyon.

See the rest here:

Free speech is not freedom from consequence - Bulletin