Milo Yiannopoulos is a Douche

The former Breitbart editor and self-proclaimed "Dangerous Faggot” made his name as the poster child of a sort of in-your-face, punk-rock style of alt-right conservatism that has made him one of the most hated and divisive figures in political media.  The CNN article, covering author Roxane Gay pulling out of a book deal with the publisher in protest of their deal with Yiannopoulos, is obviously, at this point old news; Simon & Schuster dropped Yiannopoulos in response to the considerable backlash and Yiannopoulos ultimately self-published the book.  During this setback for Mr. Yiannopoulos, I admit that I did not feel in the least for him; the fact is that I disagree vehemently with the man in nearly every way possible.  In my opinion, his articles are a hate-filled spew of vitriol, catering to the cynicism and baser impulses of a misguided cross-section of humanity.  In spite of this—and in spite of the enormous respect that I have for Roxane Gay as an author--from the perspective of a librarian, I am forced to question whether or not Simon & Schuster’s abandon of Yiannopoulos was truly a good thing.

For fans of Milo Yiannopoulos, self-publishing his book after being dropped by Simon & Schuster was just another incident of Yiannopoulos thumbing his nose at his detractors—essentially a middle finger thrust at the spineless  cuckolds of the left and the gatekeepers of the establishment  right.  He wasn’t going to be kept down, boxed in, or fucked with.  As stated  earlier, I believe that Milo Yiannopoulos is, well, kind of a douche.  He has publicly stated that transgendered people suffer from mental illness, decried feminism as a cancer, and branded those who disagree with his particular flavor of conservatism as “retards” and “pussies”—all while declaring himself the target of hatred, lies, and mischaracterization.  Taken altogether, this sort of behavior basically meets the legal definition of asshole.

n

Hail, Satan!

There are some, I sure, that would question whether this is the proper forum in which to air my personal distaste for Mr. Yiannopoulos’ beliefs, and whether the language that I’ve used is entirely appropriate.  To those, I would simply say, of course it is.  This is, after all, my blog and thus serves as a platform on which I can exercise my right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  And this is the crux of the matter at hand.  Milo Yiannopoulos engages in speech that is offensive at best and, at worst, contributes to the degeneration of the public discourse.  But, for better or worse, it is as much his right to do so as it is mine to criticize him in this forum.  And, perhaps more importantly from a librarian’s perspective, it is the right of the public to read and engage with his ideas.

As a general rule, most libraries do not regularly stock self-published books, among several reasons, because they are not professionally reviewed.  This means that an author who decides to self-publish their work will be far less likely to have their work acquired by a library collection, effectively reducing their potential audience.  The pressure campaign to have Simon & Schuster drop Yiannopoulos’ manuscript thus amounted to an act of censorship.  We could spend considerable time debating the effectiveness and range of this censorship; his financial position, name recognition, and publicity (to say nothing of the notoriety) virtually guaranteed a level of success to which most self-published authors could never aspire.  This argument would be, of course, entirely beside the point.  As librarians, we have a professional obligation to challenge all forms of censorship and to promote the free transmission of information.  If we hold true to the Ranganathanian principles that inform our profession, we must accept that even in attempting to limit the potential library circulation of Mr. Yiannopoulos’s work, it is the library user who is harmed.  For patrons who lack means or motive to obtain Mr. Yiannopoulos ‘ work through other channels, the library is potentially the only portal through which they could access, and engage with his ideas.  The obstruction of the publication of Mr. Yiannopoulos’ work by Ms. Gay (I love her so much) and others, though well-meaning, constitutes an exclusionary act based on opinions regarding the work’s creator.  This is antithetical to the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and, professionally, indefensible.

There are other courses of action in rebuking persons like Mr. Yiannopoulos, much preferable to censoring his ideas.  We can repudiate his arguments with reason, challenge his assertions, and convince others of the worthiness of an opposing view through persuasive dialogue.  Even better, we can refuse to debase ourselves to a level of deportment inconsistent with the oppositional debate necessary for sustaining a healthy democracy. Or, as some wise net denizen once said, don’t feed the trolls.  If we don’t like the guy, we don't have to listen.

Seriously, fuck that guy.