The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Patridam]

No. Intimidation and threats are harassment, that's the actual definition. If mockery is harassment, hundreds of millions of people have harassed Donald Trump and should be arrested.

Mockery is grounds for civil litigation. Freedom of speech is not immunity from civil suit.

Mockery if provably false, yes, but that's libel, not mockery any more. Doesn't really matter, neither are harassment.

Remind me, did the rioters at Berkely launch civil suits against Milo, or did they assault/threaten/stalk people and destroy property?

[Arlenton]

Some far left radicals don't believe in free speech. Grass is green.

[Hyggemata]

No. Freedoms are good when people agree that they are good. We think there should not be a freedom to shout "fire" in crowded movie theatres when there is no fire, so there is not such a freedom.

No. The United States, and most other democracies, have freedoms guaranteed as inalienable rights to prevent what you are proposing; tyranny by majority. If 51% of the country up and greed[sic, agreed?] that expressing leftist opinions was not a good freedom for people to have, you would not approve.

Freedoms are not the same as rights. A dictionary will well cover the difference; please avail yourself of that resource.

The idea of tyranny by majority is quite preposterous, since majorities form and fracture regularly. There is never a permanent majority that can tyrannize.

[Patridam]

No. The United States, and most other democracies, have freedoms guaranteed as inalienable rights to prevent what you are proposing; tyranny by majority. If 51% of the country up and greed[sic, agreed?] that expressing leftist opinions was not a good freedom for people to have, you would not approve.

Freedoms are not the same as rights. A dictionary will well cover the difference; please avail yourself of that resource.

The idea of tyranny by majority is quite preposterous, since majorities form and fracture regularly. There is never a permanent majority that can tyrannize.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and is often referred to as the right to freedom of speech. In this case there is no functional difference, and even if there was, it does nothing to further your argument. The freedom is speech whether a right or freedom or both, is still inalienable and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

[Hyggemata]

Mockery is grounds for civil litigation. Freedom of speech is not immunity from civil suit.

Mockery if provably false, yes, but that's libel, not mockery any more. Doesn't really matter, neither are harassment.

Remind me, did the rioters at Berkely launch civil suits against Milo, or did they assault/threaten/stalk people and destroy property?

I thought we have already established that not every single person present actually "rioted"?

You can't use your freedoms to violate others' rights. In other words, freedom is not a defence against a violation of a right. I don't support the conduct of the rioters, nor do I support Yiannopoulos' pretensions in his "freedoms".

[Gauthier]

Some far left radicals don't believe in free speech. Grass is green.

Black Bloc are now far left radicals.

[Hyggemata]

Freedoms are not the same as rights. A dictionary will well cover the difference; please avail yourself of that resource.

The idea of tyranny by majority is quite preposterous, since majorities form and fracture regularly. There is never a permanent majority that can tyrannize.

The freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and is often referred to as the right to freedom of speech. In this case there is no functional difference, and even if there was, it does nothing to further your argument. The freedom is speech whether a right or freedom or both, is still inalienable and guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

There is a great difference. The reason why you can block off traffic for a public march is because that is deemed a "right" in the constitution. You can't block off traffic so that you can morris dance down the centre of main street as a form of expression. The freedom of speech is indeed inalienable, but the extent of this freedom is still limited.

[Hyggemata]

Some far left radicals don't believe in free speech. Grass is green.

This is misrepresentation at an almost recalcitrant level.

[Patridam]

I thought we have already established that not every single person present actually "rioted"?

Since you're so keen on definitions, where in the definition of riot say that every single person present had to be involved in the violence? Oh, it doesn't. Police are often present at riots without contributing to the violence, and yet they are still at a riot, yes?

Which still doesn't matter. Did any of the people in that large violent crowd that damaged property and assaulted people at Berkeley launch a civil lawsuit against Mr. Yiannopolous?

You can't use your freedoms to violate others' rights. In other words, freedom is not a defence defense against a violation of a right. I don't support the conduct of the rioters, nor do I support Yiannopoulos' pretensions in his "freedoms".

Exactly whose rights did Milo violate by speaking unpopular political opinions?

[Hyggemata]

I thought we have already established that not every single person present actually "rioted"?

Since you're so keen on definitions, where in the definition of riot say that every single person present had to be involved in the violence? Oh, it doesn't. Police are often present at riots without contributing to the violence, and yet they are still at a riot, yes?

Only individuals can be held responsible at law, if you insist on using a legal term.

Which still doesn't matter. Did any of the people in that large violent crowd that damaged property and assaulted people at Berkeley launch a civil lawsuit against Mr. Yiannopolous?

Oh, by this point, I'm reasonably certain that some have.

You can't use your freedoms to violate others' rights. In other words, freedom is not a defence defense against a violation of a right. I don't support the conduct of the rioters, nor do I support Yiannopoulos' pretensions in his "freedoms".

Exactly whose rights did Milo violate by speaking unpopular political opinions?

When have I ever said such a thing? I am not a custodian of the records of his speech. I was discussing the nature of freedom.

[United States of Conner]

Some far left radicals don't believe in free speech. Grass is green.

Black Bloc are now far left radicals.

Black Bloc is a tactic used by anarchist rioters to avoid identifications by police for arrest, allow anonymity while committing crimes, and to present a common front. It is most commonly used by anarchist groups such as antifa that could be considered far left.

Black Bloc are not far left radicals because Black Bloc is not a group.

[Sareva]

Whatever one's opinion of Milo is, does that opinion really validate the decision to shut down free speech? Especially on a campus meant for higher education?

People seem to get this wrong a lot. Free speech protects you from being imprisoned or fined or harmed in any way from the government. People not wanting to listen to your crap isn't "limiting free speech," it just means they don't want to hear somebody else's bullshit.

This comic explains why I think people like Milo should be able to say fucked shit. Same goes for everybody: if you're going to say terrible things, you should expect to be disliked and shunned for it. "Hatespeech"? You mean "freespeech".

Besides, these weren't rioters, they were Trump's reelection committee.

[Wallenburg]

By the common alt-right's logic, this riot was a conspiracy organized by Milo himself to make himself look like a victim.

Mockery is harrasment. That's like, the literal definition

No. Intimidation and threats are harassment, that's the actual definition. If mockery is harassment, hundreds of millions of people have harassed Donald Trump and should be arrested.

Don't give him any more ideas.

[Costa Fierro]

Some far left radicals don't believe in free speech. Grass is green.

Black Bloc are now far left radicals.

I thought they were pyromaniacs.

[Seangoli]

Besides, these weren't rioters, they were Trump's reelection committee.

It really makes you wonder if they were Agent Provocateurs. I personally would not put it beyond Milo and Alt-righters at this point. A riot really plays into their narrative.

As for Milo himself, he's allowed to say whatever he wants - so long as he doesn't single students out without their permission, as he did in Milwaukee. Free speech does not protect direct and targeted harassment.

And there in lies the catch 22. He's shown he will utilize public speaking platforms to actively harass specific individuals at the schools. If he does that, then there is an argument to disallow him from using the platform.

[Herskerstad]

No. Intimidation and threats are harassment, that's the actual definition. If mockery is harassment, hundreds of millions of people have harassed Donald Trump and should be arrested.

Mockery is grounds for civil litigation. Freedom of speech is not immunity from civil suit.

If such was the case stand up comedians would be incarcerated en masse.

Harassment and defamation however are, since the former involves a resistance to comply with a demand to cease in the private sphere and the latter one which maligns the reputation through falsehoods which encompasses the effect of enabling financial hurt.

[Blasted Craigs]

Destroying private property? Excellent argument to not take these "people" seriously past the riot shield.

So I take it you can prove that the majority involved in the protest participated in those actions?

OK,
It shouldn't matter if it one person or all the people, when violence is committed, one has a choice as a representative of that group.
Denounce and distance oneself from the violent action, or do not reject the violence and in doing so, passively endorse the violence through lack of rejection.

If Milo smiled and nodded as his supporters burned public property and attacked others, I am sure the outcry would be tremendous.

Actually, the rioters are not what bothers me the most. I am bothered by the fact Police were told to basically " stand down" by their superiors, and that not only did the school make Milo pay a " security" cost, but then failed to provide the security he had to pay for. The security detail that escorted him from the premises were not campus security, but independent security paid for by Breitbart.

Seems a concerted effort on the part of local authorities and campus administration to silence opposing views using the rioters to say, " nothing we can do if you get hurt or killed, free speech Hur Hur"

What this tells me is there is a reason to push for the right to be armed on campus to protect oneself, cause obviously if you have the wrong views on campus you cannot expect the authorities to keep you safe.

My two cents.

[Alvecia]

So I take it you can prove that the majority involved in the protest participated in those actions?

OK,
It shouldn't matter if it one person or all the people, when violence is committed, one has a choice as a representative of that group.
Denounce and distance oneself from the violent action, or do not reject the violence and in doing so, passively endorse the violence through lack of rejection.

If Milo smiled and nodded as his supporters burned public property and attacked others, I am sure the outcry would be tremendous.

Actually, the rioters are not what bothers me the most. I am bothered by the fact Police were told to basically " stand down" by their superiors, and that not only did the school make Milo pay a " security" cost, but then failed to provide the security he had to pay for. The security detail that escorted him from the premises were not campus security, but independent security paid for by Breitbart.

Seems a concerted effort on the part of local authorities and campus administration to silence opposing views using the rioters to say, " nothing we can do if you get hurt or killed, free speech Hur Hur"

What this tells me is there is a reason to push for the right to be armed on campus to protect oneself, cause obviously if you have the wrong views on campus you cannot expect the authorities to keep you safe.

My two cents.

Was the security detail that escorted him Breitbart's because the campus security couldn't or wouldn't, or was it that the uni campus security couldn't because the Breitbart security already was?
Your thinking seems pretty conspiracyish here. I don't buy it.

[Imperializt Russia]

I find it wise to listen to the words of your opponents. You understand their motives and reasoning, and can effectively counter them.

But alas, logic has no place among the overly emotional.

Essentially why LSU allows those awful street preachers on campus, once a semester. They say horrible things, but by listening to them one can understand how to counter their hypocrisy and their terribly-twisted version of Christianity.

If they get invited once a semester, I don't think that's exactly setting in.

[Patridam]

Clearly, these anarchistic ruffians are deathly allergic to free speech.

Pretty sure they're fine with free speech. They were exercising that right after all.

Only when it's their own opinion being expressed do they approve of free speech.

See also: that they agree with or entertain the idea that that punching a nonagressive nazi is ethical.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pretty sure they're fine with free speech. They were exercising that right after all.

Only when it's their own opinion being expressed do they approve of free speech.

See also: that they agree with or entertain the idea that that punching a nonagressive nazi is ethical.

I like the fact that you A, concede that Spencer is a Nazi and B, then proceed to defend the Nazi.

Espousing Nazi, that is, fascist and genocidal beliefs, is definitely ethical to oppose violently.
As was done once before, and will be done again as necessary - one can only hope.

[Xeng He]

I like the fact that you A, concede that Spencer is a Nazi and B, then proceed to defend the Nazi.

Espousing Nazi, that is, fascist and genocidal beliefs, is definitely ethical to oppose violently.
As was done once before, and will be done again as necessary - one can only hope.

We did not at any point oppose the espousing of Nazi beliefs with violence. What was defended against with violence was the spread of Nazi beliefs through violence. No more, no less.

[Imperializt Russia]

I like the fact that you A, concede that Spencer is a Nazi and B, then proceed to defend the Nazi.

Espousing Nazi, that is, fascist and genocidal beliefs, is definitely ethical to oppose violently.
As was done once before, and will be done again as necessary - one can only hope.

We did not at any point oppose the espousing of Nazi beliefs with violence. What was defended against with violence was the spread of Nazi beliefs through violence. No more, no less.

The Nazi high-ups killed precisely no-one. But they orchestrated and designed the Holocaust and ran the war.

Denazification had to be run as a programme for a reason.

[Proctopeo]

Only when it's their own opinion being expressed do they approve of free speech.

See also: that they agree with or entertain the idea that that punching a nonagressive nazi is ethical.

I like the fact that you A, concede that Spencer is a Nazi and B, then proceed to defend the Nazi.

Espousing Nazi, that is, fascist and genocidal beliefs, is definitely ethical to oppose violently.
As was done once before, and will be done again as necessary - one can only hope.

If you assault a Nazi who's not currently being violent, you lose the moral high ground to the Nazi. Something more effective - and more legal - is to explain to others why they are wrong. This helps just in case they do become violent, and limits the amount of future Nazis. Punching them just generates lots of schadenfreude, which, while good, can be generated in legal ways.

[Jamzmania]

"The Nazis are violent, so we have to be violent!" Congratulations, you are now no better than a Nazi. What's even funnier is that the supposed Nazis aren't actually being violent.