I bet a lot more of these private events integrate more of this kind of technology for both good reasons (prevent stalkers) and bad reasons (prevent opposition) from attending an event. Let's say Hillary has a talk but she doesn't want hecklers. Or Cheney, same thing. That would be unfortunate use of this tech.
> Let's say Hillary has a talk but she doesn't want hecklers. Or Cheney, same thing. That would be unfortunate use of this tech.
Why? Your right to free speech is not a right to prevent others from exercising their right to free speech, and that's exactly what a heckler is doing. Your rights end where others' begin.
The purpose of free speech is to not stifle the free exchange of ideas and arguments, and "shut up," is not a particularly novel or valuable contribution to any conversation. and therefore does not deserve the same level of protection as an actual argument or idea.
For fuck's sake why would we want to start sucking the spontaneity and chance engagement out of everything?
Not all forms of engagement require spontaneous unplanned interaction to be considered interesting or useful by those partaking.
That's a ridiculous analogy. You go to a play to be entertained, because it's a live experience, it'a performance that will always be slightly different and unique from performance to performance depending on any number of variables. In fact a play is great example of why spontaneity is so important.
>"Not all forms of engagement require spontaneous unplanned interaction to be considered interesting or useful by those partaking."
Really? Name one live event that doesn't presume some level of unplanned interaction? You go to see someone speak - there might be laughter, groans, facial expressions - a feedback loop. You go to see a band - there will be between song banter, audience reaction, requests. It's a kinetic ritual. You go to a book signing and there will be an audience Q AND A with an author.
Please share some examples of which live events that are completely devoid of any unplanned human interaction are interesting?
It's not exactly spontaneous when an organized group of hecklers decides to attend an event with the specific purpose to disrupt it and interrupt or prevent the speaker's message from getting across.
As long as events actually stay spontaneous, I doubt speakers/performers will be motivated to become early adopters of the tech. When attendees with bad intent or repeated bad behavior become too frequent, then it's actually maintaining spontaneity to filter them out.
No but not allowing for any possibility of it is absurd.
>"It's not exactly spontaneous when an organized group of hecklers decides to attend an event with the specific purpose to disrupt it and interrupt or prevent the speaker's message from getting across"
Oh no not hecklers! How have we survived up until now? Yes we should definitely optimize for avoiding that at the expense of of normalcy i.e not having to be vetted to attend a public event. How serious of a problem to society is heckling really? I have never heard of "an organized group of hecklers" before. Pre-screening against potential hecklers sounds like ham-fisted to solution to a societal problem so small it doesn't even register.
So please take me down this slipper slope. What's the criteria for "heckling"? Is protest heckling? Is verbally voicing disagreement heckling? Is someone deemed a heckler entered into a database and prevented from attending other public events?
When a group of your sacred hecklers organizes to disrupt an event to the extent to the degree that it destroys the spontaneity of the rest of the audience.
Believe it or not, many people attend events to hear the speakers, and interested members of the audience, and not some randos that want to monopolize the attention on for themselves.
I suppose you're one of the people that is against ad-blockers, because they prevent those marketers from spontaneously changing everyone's internet experience?
No. That's your word. You introduced that.
You haven't bothered to answer any of the questions have you? No, you resorted to ad-hominem attacks about ad-blockers? Seriously? Grow up.
I can't even remember the last time I saw someone get heckled. And I live in city where I go to either a speaking engagement, a comedy show or a concert at least once a week. It happens with absolutely no regularity. The prospect is about as concerning as having a hang nail.
See [1], [2], & [3] for some examples, all of which involved organized groups doing premeditated actions to stop speech or disrupt a concert, in one case with mass murder. And of course TFA, about the serious premeditated security threats to a famous performer.
It's apparent that we're talking about two different things.
In your anecdata set, a heckler is apparently an over-drunk loud-ass in a comedy club. Sure, that's a "so what?" event.
I'm talking about the much larger issue of actual premeditated and/or organized disruption, which does exist, even though you "have never heard of it".
I'll agree that there are MANY good arguments to regulate and manage use of facial recognition tech, having to do with sound security (vs. security theater), individual rights & avoiding improper discrimination, general human rights privacy protections, and even maintaining normalcy as you noted in kind of an afterthought.
However, your "spontaneity" reasoning is especially weak and unconvincing, despite your apparent feeling that it should trump all others. The ad-blocker comment was specifically a rhetorical analogy and definitely not intended as ad hominem; it is interesting to see that you took it that way (if I wanted to make an ad hominem argument, I'd say that the 'spontaneity' arg sounds like someone from a sheltered background who doesn't get out of their bubble to read news, but I don't bother with ad hominem arguments).
For the "criteria for heckling?" question, I'd refer back to the previous answer, when a known person or group would disrupt an event to the extent that it destroys the spontaneity of the rest of the audience.
Slippery slope? Likely, but there are obviously degrees, and easily recognizable ends where it's appropriate to exclude or not. I think we'd agree that shooting the performer would be very exciting, but quite out of bounds. Wearing a funny hat, as long as it isn't too tall so as to obstruct the view of those behind is in bounds. Stopping the performance, out... Stalking? out...
I'm willing to recognize that there are both valid use cases, and arguments against, and that it needs to be tuned.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/05/22/manches....
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201....
[3] pretty much any event with Milo Yiannopoulos, some of which have nearly ended in riot. While I object to almost his entire attitude & view set & would likely agree with the protesters, when he's booked in and people want to come see him speak, they want to see him, not the protesters, and it seems to me that he ought to have the right to decide whether he wants them outside or in.