The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Patridam]

I don't particularly feel like traversing through 850 op eds, but if the first page is anything to go by, they are 9 to 1 against the freedom of speech.

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

Where'd you pull that proportion from? Did you search the 85 pages to find the most pro-Milo group of 10? Or, more likely, just pull the numbers out of your behind?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Not to be the contrarian asshole but: of course they are. Just look at everyone around you and tell me they wouldn't kick anyone's ass who got too verbal with them. If you are in a conservative town, call a cop, see what they tell you.

Just because in your opinion they are not justified, that doesn't mean people find it inexcusable. I've mostly avoided fights by knowing how to talk to people unless I was looking for a fight. So, no, they are justifiable depending on who you're talking to. We just like to pretend we would never get violent against someone talking shit.

By all means be contrarion. It's a favorite past time of mine, Id be hypocritical to deny it to others.

However, no. Just because seeing violence done to those with opinions we find deplorable might make be a cathartic experience, it doesn't make it right or practical. Asserting so creates a might makes right fallacy, in which one justifies the use of force against dissenting opinion, and thus equivocates and advocates such use of force. The standard of nonviolent discourse doesn't just protect dissidents, it protects ourselves. There's no telling when we might find ourselves on the dissedent side, and thus opening ourselves up to political violence. By tacitly approving violence, we abandoning reason for tyranny. And no longer does one'a argument stand on its own merits, but rather on the amount of violence one can commit in defense of said position.

It might make it a might makes right fallacy of sorts, but might makes right has always been part as to why there's leading opinions and many opinions have been set aside as "losing opinions".

Infanticide used to be a thing at one time. We stopped infanticide with a powerful state apparatus that people who believed infanticide was wrong used against those who thought infanticide was justified, and sometimes even right. We might not think as laws as a form of violence, but they actually are because they are backed by a state's law enforcement who are authorized in using force.

So, there is a solid argument for using the power of the sword to silence individuals. In the United States though, it is more often the case than not that people point to "free speech" while ignoring that speech carries consequences. You can say anything you want to, that doesn't necessarily mean your speech doesn't carry consequences. Some of which may be illegal, and some of which might be perfectly legal consequences against your speech. This whole "free speech means I can say anything I want to and it musn't have consequences towards my person" is patently absurd, because not even the law lets you get away with an absolute right to free speech.

[Liriena]

Given that he is a notorious fraud? Yes.

Are you talking about the Privilege Grant incident?

That and the fact that much of his content is actually ghost-written by other people.

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

Are you talking about the Privilege Grant incident?

That and the fact that much of his content is actually ghost-written by other people.

But he's already opened the grant.

https://privilegegrant.com/

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Illegal trespassing of the U.S. border is a felony, and only at the second or third attempt.

Being in the U.S. without documentation is not a crime, is a civil offense.

[Patridam]

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

That's the exact opposite of the actual truth.

The entry of the country illegally is a crime, sensibly called Improper Entry. The mere act of being an illegal immigrant within the country is a civil offense. Thus people who came here with proper visas are civil offenders, but people who entered illegally are by definition criminals.

[Conserative Morality]

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

And it would've crashed and burned in court. Have you checked decisions regarding libel law in the US?

Where'd you pull that proportion from? Did you search the 85 pages to find the most pro-Milo group of 10? Or, more likely, just pull the numbers out of your behind?

First page. Bottom four.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

You don't actually know me though do you. You don't know my position, credentials, ethics, etc. This is an anonymous forum. So you dismisss it on nothing more than your own cognitive bias.

[Conserative Morality]

You don't actually know me though do you. You don't know my position, credentials, ethics, etc. This is an anonymous forum. So you dismisss it on nothing more than your own cognitive bias.

The claim literally did not exist in your history before the argument about anon sources came up. I'm going to file this one under 'disingenuous and pathetic'.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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

That's the exact opposite of the actual truth.

Actually it's not. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime under the US Legal Code. Unlawful presence is however admittedly a civil violation.

[Liriena]

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.

You don't actually know me though do you. You don't know my position, credentials, ethics, etc. This is an anonymous forum. So you dismisss it on nothing more than your own cognitive bias.

Or rather, I dismiss it on you not providing me with anything that would give your claims any credibility. As you said, I don't know your position, credentials, ethics, etc., so how can I take your claims at face value?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

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

Illegal trespassing of the U.S. border is a felony, and only at the second or third attempt.

Being in the U.S. without documentation is not a crime, is a civil offense.

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

[Liriena]

That and the fact that much of his content is actually ghost-written by other people.

But he's already opened the grant.

https://privilegegrant.com/

Took him long enough.

[Conserative Morality]

Or rather, I dismiss it on you not providing me with anything that would give your claims any credibility. As you said, I don't know your position, credentials, ethics, etc., so how can I take your claims at face value?

B-b-because you gave the Independent, a well-established newspaper citing a professor not hiding his identity the benefit of the doubt! Why don't you believe anon?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Illegal trespassing of the U.S. border is a felony, and only at the second or third attempt.

Being in the U.S. without documentation is not a crime, is a civil offense.

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

Yes, and like I said, the second or third time (can't remember which) is upgraded to a felony.

The first time, as Tarsonis said, is a misdemeanor.

[Patridam]

First page. Bottom four.

The fourth from the bottom is the dithering one about empathy that takes no firm stance. If that's not the one you aren't counting out of the 10, which one is?

The next two, okay; the latter is extemely begrudging in allowing Milo the privilege of having constitutional rights, but for right now lets count it.

But the one at the bottom? In what possible way is "The counterargument to Milo Yiannopolous at UC Berkely" pro-Milo?

[Patridam]

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

Yes, and like I said, the second or third time (can't remember which) is upgraded to a felony.

The first time, as Tarsonis said, is a misdemeanor.

A misdemeanor is still very firmly a criminal offense.

[Conserative Morality]

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

A civil offense is not a misdemeanor.

[Liriena]

That's the exact opposite of the actual truth.

Actually it's not. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime under the US Legal Code. Unlawful presence is however admittedly a civil violation.

You just undermined your first sentence with the third, but alright. I'll take the admission, which puts your claim that Yiannopoulos' alleged plans for doxxing would have constituted "whistleblowing" in a tough spot, since the claim would necessarily be based on the assumption that any undocumented student he would have targeted would have been guilty of illegal entry, on top of unlawful presence.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes, and like I said, the second or third time (can't remember which) is upgraded to a felony.

The first time, as Tarsonis said, is a misdemeanor.

A misdemeanor is still very firmly a criminal offense.

Never said it wasn't. So I don't see the point in arguing with me about what a misdemeanor is or isn't.

[Patridam]

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

A civil offense is not a misdemeanor.

Immigrating illegally into the US is a criminal offense - a misdemeanor the first time, a felony thereafter. What aren't you understanding here?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

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.

A. Making a fantastical assertion without varifiable evidence, is yes tabloid level journalism. Blame the independent for stooping so low.

B. Admitted error on my part, illegal entry is the criminal offense. Unlawful presence is a civil offense. So yes, you are correct. However, whistle blowers aren't limited to criminal offenses, so again I must postulate, even if he did plan to dox, what is he really guilty of beyond whistleblowing?

[Republic of the Roman Nations]

misdemeanor - a minor crime, typically punished by a fee or less than 1 year in jail.

felony (or high crime) - a major crime, typically punished by 1 year or longer in prison.

Yes, and like I said, the second or third time (can't remember which) is upgraded to a felony.

The first time, as Tarsonis said, is a misdemeanor.

A misdemeanor is still considered a crime.

[Patridam]

Actually it's not. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime under the US Legal Code. Unlawful presence is however admittedly a civil violation.

You just undermined your first sentence with the third, but alright. I'll take the admission, which puts your claim that Yiannopoulos' alleged plans for doxxing would have constituted "whistleblowing" in a tough spot, since the claim would necessarily be based on the assumption that any undocumented student he would have targeted would have been guilty of illegal entry, on top of unlawful presence.

At least 60% of illegal immigrants are guilty of illegal entry.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Actually it's not. Illegal entry is a misdemeanor crime under the US Legal Code. Unlawful presence is however admittedly a civil violation.

You just undermined your first sentence with the third, but alright. I'll take the admission, which puts your claim that Yiannopoulos' alleged plans for doxxing would have constituted "whistleblowing" in a tough spot, since the claim would necessarily be based on the assumption that any undocumented student he would have targeted would have been guilty of illegal entry, on top of unlawful presence.

USCIS and ICE usually use unlawful presence as a case in court against illegal immigrants in the country, since it is easier to win than unlawful entry.