The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Alvecia]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

Apparently President Trump has decided that Berkeley should be punished for not allowing one of his sympathisers to speak.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump wrote on Twitter at 6:13 a.m. EST (1113 GMT).

As to whether or not he can do this without backing from his lapdogs in Congress or without breaking the law, it is apparently not clear. But still - a sitting President threatening to withdraw federal funds from a college over a single incident? Surely this has to be unprecedented in recent history?

Particularly odd given the university itself had pretty much nothing to do with the whole thing.

[The East Marches]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

Apparently President Trump has decided that Berkeley should be punished for not allowing one of his sympathisers to speak.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump wrote on Twitter at 6:13 a.m. EST (1113 GMT).

As to whether or not he can do this without backing from his lapdogs in Congress or without breaking the law, it is apparently not clear. But still - a sitting President threatening to withdraw federal funds from a college over a single incident? Surely this has to be unprecedented in recent history?

Apparently this is going to be a thing for the next four years. Any person or institution that doesn't toe the party line gets bullied back into lockstep.

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

[Vassenor]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

Apparently President Trump has decided that Berkeley should be punished for not allowing one of his sympathisers to speak.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump wrote on Twitter at 6:13 a.m. EST (1113 GMT).

As to whether or not he can do this without backing from his lapdogs in Congress or without breaking the law, it is apparently not clear. But still - a sitting President threatening to withdraw federal funds from a college over a single incident? Surely this has to be unprecedented in recent history?

Particularly odd given the university itself had pretty much nothing to do with the whole thing.

Trump and logic are mutually exclusive things.

[Hyggemata]

Apparently this is going to be a thing for the next four years. Any person or institution that doesn't toe the party line gets bullied back into lockstep.

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

What does make it outrageous is that Trump is doing this as a punitive measure, which somehow, to me, resembles a form of administrative prejudice, while what Obama did was to push through a public policy that actually has some use.

[The East Marches]

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

What does make it outrageous is that Trump is doing this as a punitive measure, which somehow, to me, resembles a form of administrative prejudice, while what Obama did was to push through a public policy that actually has some use.

That depends on your opinion on whether or not lowering the standards of evidence, which will undoubtedly affect poor and minority students the most actually has any value. I could believe that ensuring free speech on a campus has value too and we'd both be in the right or wrong.

[The Lone Alliance]

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

Sad.

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

What does make it outrageous is that Trump is doing this as a punitive measure, which somehow, to me, resembles a form of administrative prejudice, while what Obama did was to push through a public policy that actually has some use.

You really believe that more women were getting raped in college then they were in the most worst parts of the third world?

[Hyggemata]

What does make it outrageous is that Trump is doing this as a punitive measure, which somehow, to me, resembles a form of administrative prejudice, while what Obama did was to push through a public policy that actually has some use.

That depends on your opinion on whether or not lowering the standards of evidence, which will undoubtedly affect poor and minority students the most actually has any value. I could believe that ensuring free speech on a campus has value too and we'd both be in the right or wrong.

If the university was routinely prohibiting people with distinctive viewpoints from speaking on their campus, then perhaps this does qualify as a matter of public policy. As far as I can tell, this is just one instance that may or may not be repeated in the future. Correcting a single instance of something that has already happened isn't a matter of public policy, but a matter of punitive action. The judicial branch, according to the constitution of the USA and California, does not contain Trump.

[Hyggemata]

You really believe that more women were getting raped in college then they were in the most worst parts of the third world?

That is quite irrelevant to this thread.

[Imperializt Russia]

Thats what happened under Obama. Universities that didn't change their standards of evidence for rape things had their funding threatened to get pulled. Its not new or uncommon.

Sad.

What does make it outrageous is that Trump is doing this as a punitive measure, which somehow, to me, resembles a form of administrative prejudice, while what Obama did was to push through a public policy that actually has some use.

You really believe that more women were getting raped in college then they were in the most worst parts of the third world?

The magic word is "reported rapes". 80% of campus rapes (or 90?) would go unreported.

[The East Marches]

That depends on your opinion on whether or not lowering the standards of evidence, which will undoubtedly affect poor and minority students the most actually has any value. I could believe that ensuring free speech on a campus has value too and we'd both be in the right or wrong.

If the university was routinely prohibiting people with distinctive viewpoints from speaking on their campus, then perhaps this does qualify as a matter of public policy. As far as I can tell, this is just one instance that may or may not be repeated in the future. Correcting a single instance of something isn't a matter of public policy.

I don't think either is public policy but alas, we've already opened up that front. Oh well.

[The undominated]

The US state explicitly grants itself the obligation to protect private property and to a lesser extent it's citizens on several occasions, in varying civil sectors. From founding documents to cop cars. The idea that the state will guarantee security in exchange for compliance and obedience from it's citizens is the social contract that the US state has relied on since 1945. It's roots in the civil war and segregation, it's epitome in McCarthyism and the "wars" on drugs and terror. Of course the state failed on all fronts in Berkeley.
I support Milos right to speak. I support the students right to protest. I support the university's right to hold the seminar. I support the students right to riot. I don't support the states right to claim sole legitimate use of violence, or that of campus security. I don't support the right of the state to interfere with university policy.
I think the students were stupid to prevent to talk from taking place. They should of used more creative forms of protest. Why not instigate a debate during or after Milos speech? Or hand out flyers? Or crowd the hall? Then, when the talking is over, then start smashing shit up.
If what Milo has to say is not heard how can it be shown to be backward? If you shut down the far-rights public forum they will not go away or shut-up, they will cast themselves as martyrs and form talking shops where they will just confirm their ideas and become more isolated in their subjective realities.
Let them speak. Give them enough rope to hang themselves with.

[The Lone Alliance]

You really believe that more women were getting raped in college then they were in the most worst parts of the third world?

That is quite irrelevant to this thread.

So you actually believe that myth then? Wow and I thought that was political hyperbole.

[Hyggemata]

That is quite irrelevant to this thread.

So you actually believe that myth then? Wow and I thought that was political hyperbole.

This is still quite irrelevant to this thread.

[Luminesa]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

Apparently President Trump has decided that Berkeley should be punished for not allowing one of his sympathisers to speak.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump wrote on Twitter at 6:13 a.m. EST (1113 GMT).

As to whether or not he can do this without backing from his lapdogs in Congress or without breaking the law, it is apparently not clear. But still - a sitting President threatening to withdraw federal funds from a college over a single incident? Surely this has to be unprecedented in recent history?

Apparently this is going to be a thing for the next four years. Any person or institution that doesn't toe the party line gets bullied back into lockstep.

Both sides do this to each other, and have done this to each other since the country's foundation.

[Salandriagado]

I would say that had a right to peacefully shut it down if they wanted to, but of course it wasn't exactly peaceful.

Technically they dont have the right to shut down his event, peaceful or not, because he is protected by the right to, well, have it.

How do I put it, it's like a pair of tangled earbuds...........

While the protestors do have the right to protest him, and technically the right to be loud enough to stop his event, his right to hold the event surpasses their right to suppress it.

There is no right to hold any event. He has the right to stand there shouting all he likes, but not the right for anybody else to be able to hear him.

[Alvecia]

Apparently this is going to be a thing for the next four years. Any person or institution that doesn't toe the party line gets bullied back into lockstep.

Both sides do this to each other, and have done this to each other since the country's foundation.

This does seem more like Trump throwing a temper tantrum though.

[Imperializt Russia]

That is quite irrelevant to this thread.

So you actually believe that myth then? Wow and I thought that was political hyperbole.

Who ever made the claim as you described it?

[The Lone Alliance]

So you actually believe that myth then? Wow and I thought that was political hyperbole.

This is still quite irrelevant to this thread.

And I'm going to keep bringing it up as long as you use that emoticon.

Considering the topic has now turned to Presidents trying to punish colleges into supporting their political views it does make it relevant to the thread. If Trump is wrong to try and force Berkeley... which he is, was Obama also wrong?

So you actually believe that myth then? Wow and I thought that was political hyperbole.

Who ever made the claim as you described it?

I remember looking at the statistics of sexual assault in some third world country, and apparently according to the very idea, a woman is more likely to get sexually assaulted in a western college campus than she is in a wartorn third world country.

Which I find to be highly illogical.

[Hyggemata]

This is still quite irrelevant to this thread.

And I'm going to keep bringing it up as long as you use that emoticon.

[The Lone Alliance]

And I'm going to keep bringing it up as long as you use that emoticon.

Good that's much better...

[Greed and Death]

Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?

Violence and property destruction is not protected speech

[United States of Conner]

Just based on what I've heard about the event, the "peaceful protests" involved:

A female Trump supporter got pepper sprayed - this is assault, right?

Múltiple banks got looted and vandalized - destruction of property/vandalism.

Multiple individuals bested unconscious in the street - this is also assault.

Lots of fires set deliberately - this is called arson.

Traffic blocked, people run over, pulled out of their cars - that's just bad.

Starbucks (ironic, right?) got every one of its windows broken, and the store was looted - robbery, (felony?) vandalism.

I'm all for people's right to protest, but this isn't a protest, its a riot. What makes it even worse is I've heard 100+ SWAT officers and riot cops were sitting inside a building on campus while people rioted. Anyone who commits a crime should be arrested, it doesn't matter if they were "protesting".

[Alvecia]

Why are people only ever concerned with the right of individuals to preach hate? Is the protest not itself an example of people exercising their own freedom of speech?

Violence and property destruction is not protected speech

The violence and property destruction was not perpetrated by the protestors.

[Greed and Death]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-ucberkeley-protests-idUSKBN15H1R5

Apparently President Trump has decided that Berkeley should be punished for not allowing one of his sympathisers to speak.

"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump wrote on Twitter at 6:13 a.m. EST (1113 GMT).

As to whether or not he can do this without backing from his lapdogs in Congress or without breaking the law, it is apparently not clear. But still - a sitting President threatening to withdraw federal funds from a college over a single incident? Surely this has to be unprecedented in recent history?

He likely has about as much authority to do this as President Obama did in regards to sexual assault.

[The Lone Alliance]

Violence and property destruction is not protected speech

The violence and property destruction was not perpetrated by the protestors.

So

Just based on what I've heard about the event, the "peaceful protests" involved:

A female Trump supporter got pepper sprayed - this is assault, right?

Múltiple banks got looted and vandalized - destruction of property/vandalism.

Multiple individuals bested unconscious in the street - this is also assault.

Lots of fires set deliberately - this is called arson.

Traffic blocked, people run over, pulled out of their cars - that's just bad.

Starbucks (ironic, right?) got every one of its windows broken, and the store was looted - robbery, (felony?) vandalism.

I'm all for people's right to protest, but this isn't a protest, its a riot. What makes it even worse is I've heard 100+ SWAT officers and riot cops were sitting inside a building on campus while people rioted. Anyone who commits a crime should be arrested, it doesn't matter if they were "protesting".

All this didn't happen? That's a relief then.