The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Hyggemata]

-snip-

What are you saying? Stopping people from exercising their freedom of speech is not a crime in any jurisdiction. It may be cause for some kind of civil action, but not a crime.

As for the disorderly conduct, it's a completely separate matter. If they did violate the law, then the state is at liberty to prosecute.

[Alvecia]

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

So

I've heard nothing but universal condemnation for the rioters.

[United States of Conner]

Violence and property destruction is not protected speech

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

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/speech-b ... s-45216075

https://mobile.twitter.com/JxhnBinder/s ... wsrc%5Etfw

https://mobile.twitter.com/GoldsteinStr ... wsrc%5Etfw

https://mobile.twitter.com/NanetteAsimo ... wsrc%5Etfw

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9BZvhYkB4xo

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y3z_jqbLCz0

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p3fT6pnhjJA

https://mobile.twitter.com/janeygak/sta ... 6144697344

So glad this wasn't the protestors. Wouldn't want the message getting muddled.

[Greed and Death]

Violence and property destruction is not protected speech

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

Of course people just showed up at your protest and started destroying stuff but they weren't true protesters.

Y'all obviously have no gotten the message. The 10 years we sent those people away for at the inauguration was not enough. Obviously we need to bring federal charges on all present.

[Alvecia]

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

-snip-
So glad this wasn't the protestors. Wouldn't want the message getting muddled.

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

Of course people just showed up at your protest and started destroying stuff but they weren't true protesters.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yia ... -canceled/

The violence was instigated by a group of about 150 masked agitators who came onto campus and interrupted an otherwise non-violent protest.

[Lady Scylla]

Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.

This. Though I dont agree with the rioting. They should have shut it down with peaceful demonstration.

[Gauthier]

Black Bloc now suddenly part of the left. Ookay...

[Hyggemata]

Your right to free speech protects you from the government. Just because you want to spew crap, nobody has to listen, or let you have a place to say it.

This. Though I dont agree with the rioting. They should have shut it down with peaceful demonstration.

The analogy I have in mind is this. If I occupy a bench in a park, should Yiannopoulos have the right to ask me to leave the bench so that he can talk on it or walk above it so he can reach wherever he's talking?

[Elwher]

I find it a study in irony that the home of the Free Speech movement shuts down free speech in the same square where the movement started, oh so long ago.

Protest his speech, fine. Argue with him over his opinions, fine. Riot until his speech is canceled, looks fascist to me (either that, or fear that he may be right and convince others that he is).

I'm not sure anarchists and antifa folk are "Home of the free speech movement", but okay.

If you look at history, you will find that the Free Speech movement itself started at UC Berkley in 1964 led my Mario Savio. It was in response to the administration not allowing certain left-wing radicals to speak. The irony, to me at least, is amusing.

[Jamzmania]

This. Though I dont agree with the rioting. They should have shut it down with peaceful demonstration.

The analogy I have in mind is this. If I occupy a bench in a park, should Yiannopoulos have the right to ask me to leave the bench so that he can talk on it or walk above it so he can reach wherever he's talking?

Unless you believe you have the sole right to speak on campus, and if anyone else were to speak you would lose your right, this is a terrible analogy.

[Elwher]

That's exactly what happened. That speech was cancelled.

He has a right to speak but not a right to speak where ever he wants.

But he received an invitation from a student group, who had every right to issue said invitation.

[Hyggemata]

He has a right to speak but not a right to speak where ever he wants.

But he received an invitation from a student group, who had every right to issue said invitation.

And the rest of the university has every right not to honour it. There wasn't a university-wide binding referendum or something.

[Lady Scylla]

This. Though I dont agree with the rioting. They should have shut it down with peaceful demonstration.

The analogy I have in mind is this. If I occupy a bench in a park, should Yiannopoulos have the right to ask me to leave the bench so that he can talk on it or walk above it so he can reach wherever he's talking?

He can surely ask.

[Elwher]

But he received an invitation from a student group, who had every right to issue said invitation.

And the rest of the university has every right not to honour it. There wasn't a university-wide binding referendum or something.

And if groups from the right were to riot to prevent a speaker from BLM from speaking, would the reaction be as forgiving?

[Vlamistaatti]

Acceptable new norm then, using mob violence to silence a speaker whom isn't convenient to your political agenda.

[Greed and Death]

And the rest of the university has every right not to honour it. There wasn't a university-wide binding referendum or something.

And if groups from the right were to riot to prevent a speaker from BLM from speaking, would the reaction be as forgiving?

Only those viewpoints that are correct are entitled to protection *nod*

[Italios]

Acceptable new norm then, using mob violence to silence a speaker whom isn't convenient to your political agenda.

Remember the 50s when the government literally blacklisted regular citizens because they were suspected of being communists? This isn't new.

[Hyggemata]

And the rest of the university has every right not to honour it. There wasn't a university-wide binding referendum or something.

And if groups from the right were to riot to prevent a speaker from BLM from speaking, would the reaction be as forgiving?

I am not accustomed to see this matter as one of right vs. left. Groups will object when you stage their opponents.

My entire objective here has been to explain that Yiannopoulos had no right to speak, but he had the freedom to speak. Also, I can't consider metaphysical speculations, since your post seems to imply that only Yiannopoulos is targeted and no other speakers.

[Hyggemata]

And if groups from the right were to riot to prevent a speaker from BLM from speaking, would the reaction be as forgiving?

Only those viewpoints that are correct are entitled to protection *nod*

They are not "entitled" to protection. The government enacts a policy to protect them, but they are not "entitled" to it. If you have an issue with this, take it up with the government, which you elected. If you can't live with the government that you elected for a single second, you should consider emigration.

[Vlamistaatti]

Acceptable new norm then, using mob violence to silence a speaker whom isn't convenient to your political agenda.

Remember the 50s when the government literally blacklisted regular citizens because they were suspected of being communists? This isn't new.

Acceptable by the masses, rather then by the government. Well, by masses its the one political side, of course its not like citizens will collectively agree on this, no way.

I wonder what will follow from this now that the new rule set is laid out.

[Hyggemata]

Acceptable new norm then, using mob violence to silence a speaker whom isn't convenient to your political agenda.

This statement suggests that there's a confederation of some sort that's using the mob as a puppet to further their political agenda. Pray tell who.

[Maccav]

Hate speech is not and should not be treated as free speech. The interference in Berkeley was justified.

[Greed and Death]

Only those viewpoints that are correct are entitled to protection *nod*

They are not "entitled" to protection. The government enacts a policy to protect them, but they are not "entitled" to it. If you have an issue with this, take it up with the government, which you elected. If you can't live with the government that you elected for a single second, you should consider emigration.

While the govnerment does not have a duty protect people generally when the govnerment does offer protection to some events it must do so in a manner that is viewpoint neutral. For instance refusing to provide police protection to those who fail to file a permit is acceptable, while refusing to provide police protection to people you disagree with is unacceptable.

Likewise when the University of California allows people to speak if invited by a recognized student group then they can not decline to do so because they dislike what that person says.

[Gauthier]

Protests were absolutely fine. It was when Black Bloc came along to do their usual shit that things went south.

[Vlamistaatti]

Acceptable new norm then, using mob violence to silence a speaker whom isn't convenient to your political agenda.

This statement suggests that there's a confederation of some sort that's using the mob as a puppet to further their political agenda. Pray tell who.

What suggests what? All I'm pointing out is what happened at the location, and how folks are choosing to react on it.