As many probably know, Milo Yiannopoulos came to Pitt to give a presentation about how free speech is under attack. He used misogyny and racism to illustrate that people should not be offended by his words. Yiannopoulos did not offer statistics or any form of evidence to support his claims either. Instead he went on anti-feminist and anti Black Lives Matter rants and insulted anyone who did not agree with him. He used potentially triggering language when speaking about survivors of sexual assault and acted without compassion every time he opened his mouth.

This behavior is part of a larger problem. Campaigning for "free speech" in the US has become nothing more than an excuse to spread bigoted ideas in public. The most troubling part of all this is that those who participate in this harmful free speech rhetoric do not just want to speak freely, but they also want to remove the possibility of safe spaces from their harmful words. Those who share Yiannoploulos's views often take stances against trigger warnings as well. For example, a person who attended the presentation asked Yiannopoulos if he thinks a person who just experienced sexual assault the previous night should be notified beforehand if the class was going to cover related subjects. Yiannopoulos claimed that no victim of sexual assault would be in class the following day and that a place of education should have no sensitivity. I am unsure why exactly he believes he has the right to speak on behalf of how a survivor should navigate their experience.

The thing about this rhetoric and similar rhetoric is that proponents are unable to see how the micro affects the macro. They fail to see that they are a part of a larger picture. They fail to see that their words have real world effects. They focus on the individual. They call the person they are offending "too sensitive." When someone tells you that your words contribute to systemic and institutional oppression, you cannot just invalidate that by calling them too sensitive.

The ironic part of all of this is that proponents of this rhetoric are so concerned with free speech and freedom in general, but then they try to police how people should feel and emotionally respond to their harmful words. Why should they get to decide how people should respond to their hurtful perspectives? They do not get to determine whether or not a person's experience or emotions are valid and acceptable.

The bottom line is that while I think free speech is an important right and I think we should work to uphold that right, I also think the fight for free speech in the US has become nothing more than an outlet for bigotry. It is not as simple as people fighting for the right not to be persecuted for their words, it has become a fight for people to be able to use slurs and hurt others without any consequences. A world where anyone can go around targeting the oppressed and calling anyone whose feelings they hurt "too sensitive" is not a world I want to live in.

I think we should be able to speak against the government, I think we should be able to speak against corrupt authority figures, but I do not think the free speech battle should be based on attacking those who are just trying to get through their day. That's an insult to anyone who has ever fought a meaningful fight against censorship. When you consider activist groups across the world risking imprisonment in order to try to go against corrupt dictatorships, or people being persecuted for gay propaganda, it really puts in perspective how pathetic this rhetoric has come. Instead of working towards the rights and freedom of the people, free speech advocates here are fighting against safe spaces and trigger warnings that just aim to make people a little more comfortable. They are attacking the powerless. They are missing the point. Compassion is the most important thing in the world, and they do not have even a shred of it.