The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Conserative Morality]

It's usually taken seriously, especially if it was motivated by a characteristic of the person, ie race, gender, sexuality, etc.

The only time I can think of it not being taken seriously is if the individual was piss drunk and the beater escapes without leaving a means of identification. Than it's more of a matter of charges not being possible in the first place.

It's very different in various regions across the country. Not all of us are hooked into the modern world. Force of law only goes so far as its enforcers are willing to take it.

[Liriena]

But the claim that he was going to release illegal immigrants names was made up on twitter, no one bothered to fact check the claim.

And even assuming he did plan to do so... what is he guilty of? Whistleblowing?

Doxxing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And even assuming he did plan to do so... what is he guilty of? Whistleblowing?

Doxxing.

Doxing criminals, no? Aka whistleblowing.

[Liriena]

a 1/2 million dollar vandalism tantrum to shut down an idiot? how effective that must be, probably drove clicks to the 100s of thousands on his website...

UC Berkley admins should all be fired for allowing the riot, proves their incompetence.

That feels like overkill.

[Conserative Morality]

Doxing criminals, no? Aka whistleblowing.

Ah, another day, another person confused about the difference between criminal and civil offenses.

[Noraika]

No rights are absolute. Not freedom of speech. Not freedom of religion. None. Absolutism is something that leaves far more open than necessary. There's no reason for rights to not be reasonably regulated by laws governing things like hate speech or defamation for example, or, in the later example, religious discrimination of different people groups.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your source literally cites Milo saying that's not true...

I don't consider him to have much credibility.

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

[Conserative Morality]

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

If you considered someone a known liar, wouldn't you trust someone observing the liar more than what the liar themselves say?

[Liriena]

The claim was made by a professor at Drexel University based on what he claimed to be reliable sources.

He made the claim on twitter with an anonymous source.

Yes. And? Credible journalists do so. It's not the best way of reporting things (I for one have a personal dislike for Twitter, and news outlets tend to be very adamant about handling stories based on a single anonymous source with great care), but it's not inherently nonsense.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

If you considered someone a known liar, wouldn't you trust someone observing the liar more than what the liar themselves say?

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn't assume guilt.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

If you considered someone a known liar, wouldn't you trust someone observing the liar more than what the liar themselves say?

You'd have to prove him a liar and you'd have to prove what he said is a lie. You've done nothing but provide tabloid level evidence to support your particular brand of paranoia

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Doxing criminals, no? Aka whistleblowing.

Ah, another day, another person confused about the difference between criminal and civil offenses.

Illegal immigration is a crime, not a civil offense. Try again.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn't assume guilt.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral one. Else you'd have to excuse all the rioters in the Berkeley incident until they've been tried in a court of law.

[Liriena]

Doxxing.

Doxing criminals, no? Aka whistleblowing.

Being an undocumented immigrant is not a crime. It's a civil violation. And no, revealing the identities of private individuals so as to make them vulnerable to harassment by your dickhead followers is not "whistleblowing". It's doxxing.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

He made the claim on twitter with an anonymous source.

Yes. And? Credible journalists do so. It's not the best way of reporting things (I for one have a personal dislike for Twitter, and news outlets tend to be very adamant about handling stories based on a single anonymous source with great care), but it's not inherently nonsense.

I have reliable sources that the Drexel University Professor made it up for political gain. I of course won't show you these sources because I want to protect them, but I assure you they are in every way real and reliable .

[Conserative Morality]

You'd have to prove him a liar and you'd have to prove what he said is a lie. You've done nothing but provide tabloid level evidence to support your particular brand of paranoia

TIL the Independent is a tabloid.

Illegal immigration is a crime, not a civil offense. Try again.

Visa overstay is a civil offense. This is like people who rail against government programs that don't exist.

[Liriena]

I don't consider him to have much credibility.

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

Given that he is a notorious fraud? Yes.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. We shouldn't assume guilt.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal principle, not a moral one. Else you'd have to excuse all the rioters in the Berkeley incident until they've been tried in a court of law.

For journalism it is, you can't go around slandering people you dislike with no evidence. Milo could hold them liable and probably win.

[Conserative Morality]

I have reliable sources that the Drexel University Professor made it up for political gain. I of course won't show you these sources because I want to protect them, but I assure you they are in every way real and reliable .

If I had to choose, right now, who to believe, a respected academic not hiding his own identity or some anon on the internet, I'd go with the academic.

[Patridam]

5-4, actually, but I understand alternate facts are all the rage right now.

If we're looking at the same page, its 7-2. One of the articles just calls for empathy, not siding with one or the other.

"Berkeley students should organize protest against Milo Yiannopoulos" is pretty obvious.

"Check your privilege when speaking of protests" seems to be condemning those who condemn the violence.

"Violence helped ensure safety of students" is easy.

"Black bloc did what campus should have" is more of the same.

"Condemning protesters same as condoning hate speech" makes me cringe.

"Plurality of tactics contributed to cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos event" essentially says "fuck you campus Republicans and you're events".

"Campus needs to empathize after tumultuous protests" is something that doesn't go one way or the other.

"Students should take responsibility for violence" makes the score 6-1.

"Milo Yiannopoulos and Free Speech on the Berkeley campus" makes it 6-2.

"The counterargument to Milo Yiannopoulos at UC Berkeley" is pro-"fuck everyone who doesn't agree with me", i.e. Milo and the ilk.

Final tally is 7-2.

I judged Milo Yiannopoulous and Free Speech on the Berkely as anti-Milo, because it seemed like the majority of the article was just lambasting him as a hate spewer. But the eventual conclusion was a grudging "let him speak, even if we have to protest it" so you're right.

Even so, 7 to 2 with one ditherer preaching unity isn't ideal, but not quite as strong of an echo chamber as I would have expected. Probably because it's a state paper instead of something isolated to the campus itself.

[Liriena]

Ah, another day, another person confused about the difference between criminal and civil offenses.

Illegal immigration is a crime, not a civil offense. Try again.

That's the exact opposite of the actual truth.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

So other sources are more authoritative on what Milo plans to do, than Milo?

Given that he is a notorious fraud? Yes.

Are you talking about the Privilege Grant incident?

[Conserative Morality]

For journalism it is, you can't go around slandering people you dislike with no evidence. Milo could hold them liable and probably win.

If that were true, then people who peddled birther conspiracies would've been sued long ago. That's not how freedom of speech works in the US. Libel is held to a very high standard.

[Liriena]

Yes. And? Credible journalists do so. It's not the best way of reporting things (I for one have a personal dislike for Twitter, and news outlets tend to be very adamant about handling stories based on a single anonymous source with great care), but it's not inherently nonsense.

I have reliable sources that the Drexel University Professor made it up for political gain. I of course won't show you these sources because I want to protect them, but I assure you they are in every way real and reliable .

See, I'd be willing to take you seriously if you had any journalistic or academic credibility to fall back on... but you don't. So I can only interpret your claim as what it blatantly is: a sad attempt to undermine somebody else's credibility, rather than honest reporting.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

For journalism it is, you can't go around slandering people you dislike with no evidence. Milo could hold them liable and probably win.

If that were true, then people who peddled birther conspiracies would've been sued long ago. That's not how freedom of speech works in the US. Libel is held to a very high standard.

Obama could have sued, but that would have looked really bad.