The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Knask]

"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.

And that, Kids, is why the Allies during WWII were no better than those who carried out the Holocaust...

[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.

And that, Kids, is why the Allies during WWII were no better than those who carried out the Holocaust...

Did the Allies launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a nonviolent Germany?

[Internationalist Bastard]

"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.

And that, Kids, is why the Allies during WWII were no better than those who carried out the Holocaust...

Well no, the Nazis started a war of Imperialism, shattering the fragile peace of the world, and launched a genocide killing at a minimum of 6 million people, while the Allies....fought a war. With surprisingly few warcrimes, I'll add

[Vassenor]

So Milo is demanding an apology from the Berkeley mayor for daring to call him a White Nationalist and thus hurt his feelings.

Because apparently demanding political correctness is OK when he does it.

[Proctopeo]

So Milo is demanding an apology from the Berkeley mayor for daring to call him a White Nationalist and thus hurt his feelings.

Because apparently demanding political correctness accuracy is OK when he does it.

FTFY

[Patridam]

So Milo is demanding an apology from the Berkeley mayor for daring to call him a White Nationalist and thus hurt his feelings.

Because apparently demanding political correctness is OK when he does it.

Milo is many things - I believe he's even described himself as a troll - but politicans and other public figures should not incorrectly call him a white nationalist or alt-right or a neo nazi et cetera. That is quite literally libel. Milo is merely being generous in allowing the mayor to take back his /her statements, that's his prerogative, but he could just as easily instigate a civil tort regarding defamation of character.

[Calladan]

So this has left me curious about two things :-

1. If someone who the press had dubbed as "a preacher of radical Islamic rhetoric" had wanted to speak at Berkeley, and had been prevented from doing so by a peaceful protest that had turned into a riot, would we have a similar thread to this? Would people be up in arms condemning the clear subjugation of free speech? Or would the protesters be hailed as champions of true American values for preventing this hatemonger from spewing his tide of filth out onto the streets?

2. If someone who is clearly more liberal in their politics than neutral or right wing (say former President Obama, or someone along those lines) comes to speak at a University, and a protest turns violent, disrupting the planned talk, will we hear from President Trump again, bemoaning the lack of protection for freedom of speech in the university and threatening to defund the entire institution over the acts of a few of its members? Or will he ignore the entire thing and let it go unnoted, unremarked and uncommented?

[Patridam]

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.

Show me exactly where I admitted he was a nazi? All I said was that leftist were defending violence against people they believe are Nazis, which is starting to include relatively moderate conservatives like myself.

Even IF he is one, it doesn't matter. I will still defend him. It is never ethical to punch anyone in the face unless it is in self defense, it's not that tough of a concept to grasp. Just ask an ethicist about it.

[The Texan Union]

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.

Then they can sue him.

They don't have to keep him from speaking and others from listening.

[The Texan Union]

"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.

And that, Kids, is why the Allies during WWII were no better than those who carried out the Holocaust...

Seeing as the Allies effectively caused the Holocaust by being total dicks after WWI, I guess they're really not much better.

[Herskerstad]

Funny how Berkeley, the originator of the Free Speech movement has turned out.

While they are not directly responsible for this incident a great deal of the people involved are likely to be students. Hopefully they will investigate and hand out automatic expulsions and vipe the records of the students found to be violent amongst it.

[The Texan Union]

Let me put it this way:

I'd let Hitler publish Mein Kampf.

Why? Because if I tried to silence him, or treat people like children and give them a "replacement" Nazi, they'd get pissed and think "Well, this Hitler dude must have something important to say if these guys want to shut 'em up!".

Also, this is America and even Hitler has the right to free speech. I'm not sure citizens should be allowed to take that right from other citizens. Just uh, you know, that seems a tad un-American to me.

Not that is disproves but this means most online forums are un-american.
Cause all i'm saying is that some places have good reasons not allowing some people to use them as a soapbox.

Who the hell decides what is and isn't a "good reason"???

That's the dangerous part. Once you allow anyone to be censored, you allow everyone to be censored. And no one should be censored.

The university scheduled the event, so he had every right to use that platform.

"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "

That's not inciting harassment, unless you view people preaching as inciting harassment.

If I was Christian, and my pastor said:

"I will close with this advice: Never feel bad for mocking an atheist person. It is our job to point out their absurdity; To not make the problem worse by pretending they're good. Much like the Catholics, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their souls."

Fucked up? Sure.

Inciting harassment? Certainly not.

[Vassenor]

Not that is disproves but this means most online forums are un-american.
Cause all i'm saying is that some places have good reasons not allowing some people to use them as a soapbox.

Who the hell decides what is and isn't a "good reason"???

That's the dangerous part. Once you allow anyone to be censored, you allow everyone to be censored. And no one should be censored.

The university scheduled the event, so he had every right to use that platform.

"I will close with this advice. Never feel bad for mocking a transgender person. It is our job to point out their absurdity, to not make the problem worse by pretending they are normal. Much like fat-shaming, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their life. "

That's not inciting harassment, unless you view people preaching as inciting harassment.

If I was Christian, and my pastor said:

"I will close with this advice: Never feel bad for mocking an atheist person. It is our job to point out their absurdity; To not make the problem worse by pretending they're good. Much like the Catholics, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their souls."

Fucked up? Sure.

Inciting harassment? Certainly not.

No, the inciting harassment was when he singled out a single member of the crowd and started abusing them from the lectern.

[Aelex]

Seeing as the Allies effectively caused the Holocaust by being total dicks after WWI, I guess they're really not much better.

>Tfw when people actually buy into Versailles being a "mean" treaty
Fucking pls.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I have no idea what's going on here but someone said something I think we can all agree on.

"Free speech is a two-way street. If he has the right to spew his bullshit, then everyone else has the right to call him out on his bullshit."

[The Texan Union]

OH!

This? http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/milo-yi ... aukee.html

No such thing as a "nonbinary" trans person. Also, that's not harassment. The student can up and leave. Milo didn't follow him, or anything like that. Being made fun of and ridiculed is not dangerous in the slightest. That's ridiculous.

It's like saying "Look at this faggot!" in the middle of Iraq. You *do* realize that trans* individuals already suffer violence for being trans with alarming regularity, right?

I've never witnessed nor heard of violence against transgender people for being transgender. Excluding one trans-woman who hadn't undergone the surgery and was working as a prostitute. Totally looked like a chick, but one of her clients was rather disturbed to find out they had been the victim of false advertising, so he stabbed her and ran.

Other than that, none.

[The Texan Union]

Who the hell decides what is and isn't a "good reason"???

That's the dangerous part. Once you allow anyone to be censored, you allow everyone to be censored. And no one should be censored.

The university scheduled the event, so he had every right to use that platform.

That's not inciting harassment, unless you view people preaching as inciting harassment.

If I was Christian, and my pastor said:

"I will close with this advice: Never feel bad for mocking an atheist person. It is our job to point out their absurdity; To not make the problem worse by pretending they're good. Much like the Catholics, if our mockery drives them to get the help they need, we may save their souls."

Fucked up? Sure.

Inciting harassment? Certainly not.

No, the inciting harassment was when he singled out a single member of the crowd and started abusing them from the lectern.

He said mean things. That's neither harassment not inciting of it.

[Herskerstad]

I have no idea what's going on here but someone said something I think we can all agree on.

"Free speech is a two-way street. If he has the right to spew his bullshit, then everyone else has the right to call him out on his bullshit."

Agreed, as long as it does not extend into rioting or blocking.

[The Texan Union]

Seeing as the Allies effectively caused the Holocaust by being total dicks after WWI, I guess they're really not much better.

>Tfw when people actually buy into Versailles being a "mean" treaty
Fucking pls.

I certainly don't see how it was fair. And you can't deny that Germans were fairly pissed about it.

[Knask]

And that, Kids, is why the Allies during WWII were no better than those who carried out the Holocaust...

Did the Allies launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a nonviolent Germany?

No? The Nazis were violent, so the Allies had to be violent... and then no better than Nazi Germany.

[Aelex]

I certainly don't see how it was fair. And you can't deny that Germans were fairly pissed about it.

Germany literally only had to hand back core provinces of other nations as well as the few colonies they had and repay less than the damages they caused on the western front alone.
I fail to see how it was unfair in any way.

[Jamzmania]

So this has left me curious about two things :-

1. If someone who the press had dubbed as "a preacher of radical Islamic rhetoric" had wanted to speak at Berkeley, and had been prevented from doing so by a peaceful protest that had turned into a riot, would we have a similar thread to this? Would people be up in arms condemning the clear subjugation of free speech? Or would the protesters be hailed as champions of true American values for preventing this hatemonger from spewing his tide of filth out onto the streets?

2. If someone who is clearly more liberal in their politics than neutral or right wing (say former President Obama, or someone along those lines) comes to speak at a University, and a protest turns violent, disrupting the planned talk, will we hear from President Trump again, bemoaning the lack of protection for freedom of speech in the university and threatening to defund the entire institution over the acts of a few of its members? Or will he ignore the entire thing and let it go unnoted, unremarked and uncommented?

I don't know about others but I would still feel the same.

[The Texan Union]

I certainly don't see how it was fair. And you can't deny that Germans were fairly pissed about it.

Germany literally only had to hand back core provinces of other nations as well as the few colonies they had and repay less than the damages they caused on the western front alone.
I fail to see how it was unfair in any way.

The Germans also had to revoke control of their colonies, their military was restricted to 100,000 men, they lost 25,000 square-miles of land, 7 million citizens, as well as the gains made in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, AND they had to grant independence to multiple protectorates.

All because they honoured their alliance with Austria, which is basically what everyone had done. Germany, who was forced to take full responsibility of the war, was really no different than any of the Allies.

That's just not fair.

[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.

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.

The problem is, these Nazis don't believe they are wrong, and only a tiny fraction will ever admit to being wrong, either on confronting something or many years later.

They can't be reasoned with. It's too polarised. This issue is pervasive in more mainstream politics as well, as both sides seem to have pandered to the extremes of their base, for some reason.

[The Texan Union]

So this has left me curious about two things :-

1. If someone who the press had dubbed as "a preacher of radical Islamic rhetoric" had wanted to speak at Berkeley, and had been prevented from doing so by a peaceful protest that had turned into a riot, would we have a similar thread to this? Would people be up in arms condemning the clear subjugation of free speech? Or would the protesters be hailed as champions of true American values for preventing this hatemonger from spewing his tide of filth out onto the streets?

2. If someone who is clearly more liberal in their politics than neutral or right wing (say former President Obama, or someone along those lines) comes to speak at a University, and a protest turns violent, disrupting the planned talk, will we hear from President Trump again, bemoaning the lack of protection for freedom of speech in the university and threatening to defund the entire institution over the acts of a few of its members? Or will he ignore the entire thing and let it go unnoted, unremarked and uncommented?

I don't know about others but I would still feel the same.

1. I'd condemn the protesters as un-American for prohibiting the extremist to speak.

2. I'd be pretty pissed about it. Also, Trump would have nothing to lose by threatening to defund Berkeley and plenty to gain, so I'm sure he would act the same as well.