The Berkeley Incident and Free Speech

[Valrifell]

I do also have to wonder. If this was an Islamist preaching hate against America, would everyone still be defending their right to free speech so slavishly?

Yes

Maybe not as "slavishly", but I'd hope the vast majority of Americans would still support their right to speak

Another question would be would the Left protest them on this scale?

The Right wing probably would.

[Chestaan]

Sometimes I don't wonder if there's just an apolitical org somewhere that goes to any and all protests just to start violence.

Antifa and anarchists. They probably have their own online forums.

Revleft

[Uiiop]

Ignoring the fact the all peaceful with not one arrest Women's March that was also the largest protest in US history at the same time, of course.

In what kind of cave do you live?
I literally see, time and again, people being beaten bloody by anti-Trump rioters, or otherwise phyiscially molested. Not to forget the burning of property and so on.

That only proves that assholes exist not that they make up the majority protesting.

[Wansul]

I think that you should be allowed to voice any opinion you want. Opinions are just for that person, they should have the right to say that. Facts are facts, meaning that if you prove them wrong, you can say that. You should be able to say whatever you want, no laws stopping you.
In Universities and Campuses, I'd also agree. It the best place for discussion on many topics, whether academically or political.

[Corrian]

Ignoring the fact the all peaceful with not one arrest Women's March that was also the largest protest in US history at the same time, of course.

In what kind of cave do you live?
I literally see, time and again, people being beaten bloody by anti-Trump rioters, or otherwise phyiscially molested. Not to forget the burning of property and so on.

Reality, where the Women's March was entirely peaceful.

I'm not referring to other protests here. But the biggest protest of them all was 100% peaceful.

[Uiiop]

I think that you should be allowed to voice any opinion you want. Opinions are just for that person, they should have the right to say that. Facts are facts, meaning that if you prove them wrong, you can say that. You should be able to say whatever you want, no laws stopping you.
In Universities and Campuses, I'd also agree. It the best place for discussion on many topics, whether academically or political.

Including harassing a person and advocating Harassment of people like them?

[Liriena]

I just knew this would become a thread eventually.

My two Argie cents? I still strongly support no-platforming as a legitimate course of action, specially in the case of people who, regardless of their ideology, have a history of dangerous behavior when they are given a platform. Yiannopoulos is one such person.

[Hexgard]

In what kind of cave do you live?
I literally see, time and again, people being beaten bloody by anti-Trump rioters, or otherwise phyiscially molested. Not to forget the burning of property and so on.

That only proves that assholes exist not that they make up the majority protesting.

No one said that, nor claimed that. The claim was that these protest recently brought these criminals out, and gave them a platform to do acts of violence.
The nature of any political platform is that people are joined while having different reasons to be there.

All I am saying is that these protests keep bringing up these criminals. I think it is the obligation of the legitimate protesters is to clean up, get rid of these maniacs, if they want their legitimacy to be unsoiled. Same goes for the Women (Against Trump) March which have many illegitimate and hypocritical elements.

[Liriena]

I think that you should be allowed to voice any opinion you want. Opinions are just for that person, they should have the right to say that. Facts are facts, meaning that if you prove them wrong, you can say that. You should be able to say whatever you want, no laws stopping you.
In Universities and Campuses, I'd also agree. It the best place for discussion on many topics, whether academically or political.

That's a nice sentiment, but harassment is not an "opinion". Also, your right to freedom of speech does not entitle you to any and every platform you want, nor does it shield you from other people's criticism and/or refusal to provide you with a platform. And the right to freedom of speech does not protect defamation, harassment or intimidation.

[Alvecia]

I dunno. Even just "rebelling against the system" seem like an inherently political stance of anti-government.

I could go into a supermarket and make a bonfire out of teddy bears and chocolates and claim to be rebelling against the concept of Valentine's Day. Does that make it a political stance?

A fair point I suppose if Antifa ever rebel gainst anything n other than the system. Do they? I don't know.
If it's exclusively regulatory stuff or laws or shit, then It would be political. If they as an organisation actually rebel against stuff like "Please wipe your feet" mats, then you'd be onto something.

[Liriena]

It's remarkable how similar these so-called "anti-fascists" are to the SA...

Ah, the good old "if you don't tolerate fascists, you're a fascist too" cliché.

[Costa Fierro]

I think that you should be allowed to voice any opinion you want. Opinions are just for that person, they should have the right to say that. Facts are facts, meaning that if you prove them wrong, you can say that. You should be able to say whatever you want, no laws stopping you.
In Universities and Campuses, I'd also agree. It the best place for discussion on many topics, whether academically or political.

That's a nice sentiment, but harassment is not an "opinion". Also, your right to freedom of speech does not entitle you to any and every platform you want, nor does it shield you from other people's criticism and/or refusal to provide you with a platform. And the right to freedom of speech does not protect defamation, harassment or intimidation.

Or in this case, vandalism directed at the university.

[Liriena]

And if people get to protest against what the president says, they should here too.

Except this was a riot, not a protest.

Actually, it was a bit of both. Some antifa people "rioted", while the rest peacefully protested.

[Alvecia]

Except this was a riot, not a protest.

Actually, it was a bit of both. Some antifa people "rioted", while the rest peacefully protested.

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.

[Liriena]

That's a nice sentiment, but harassment is not an "opinion". Also, your right to freedom of speech does not entitle you to any and every platform you want, nor does it shield you from other people's criticism and/or refusal to provide you with a platform. And the right to freedom of speech does not protect defamation, harassment or intimidation.

Or in this case, vandalism directed at the university.

Sure. Besides, why attack inanimate objects when there's nazis to punch?

[Liriena]

Actually, it was a bit of both. Some antifa people "rioted", while the rest peacefully protested.

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.

Well, would you look at that? Facts!

[Corrian]

My god, the anarchists are trying to pretend like they're riot police now.

[Shen Tao]

I only care about speech if the words have utility.

[Skyviolia]

No, the Berkeley students shutting down Milo is not an example of a violation of free speech.


Free speech is a constitutional protection that comes from the government, so public schools have to observe it to a certain point. Anyway, this is not an example of a free speech violation. Berkeley is not suppressing Milo's right, they are just refusing to service him. If a government venue allows to speak at a gathering, and then they refuse to allow you, that would not be a violation of free speech because you are not entitled to go receive an audience when you exercise free speech.

[Alvecia]

I only care about speech if the words have utility.

Not exactly an objective metric.

[Liriena]

Apart from his hatred of gay people.

You do get that he is openly gay, right? Do go on and fetch proof of him, a gay man, being hateful to gay people.

Ask and ye shall receive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azC1nm85btY&t=23m15s
https://web.archive.org/web/20160616225049/http://yiannopoulos.net/2011/07/11/why-ill-probably-never-be-a-parent/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04/14/im-sooo-bored-of-being-gay/

He also loves to mock trans people (generally and individually), and explicitly encourages his cultists to do the same.

[Shen Tao]

I only care about speech if the words have utility.

Not exactly an objective metric.

why not? If two people say two different things, try both, and observe the results.

[Alvecia]

Not exactly an objective metric.

why not? If two people say two different things, try both, and observe the results.

What one person considers useful, profitable, or beneficial, another may not.
Useful and beneficial in particular are context and perspective dependant

[Costa Fierro]

A fair point I suppose if Antifa ever rebel gainst anything n other than the system. Do they? I don't know.

I don't think anyone really knows what Antifa or the Black Bloc stand for outside of their apparent pyromania.

If it's exclusively regulatory stuff or laws or shit, then It would be political. If they as an organisation actually rebel against stuff like "Please wipe your feet" mats, then you'd be onto something.

Anyone can dress up violence and vandalism as a political statement. Anyone could smash a window or set fire to a rubbish bin and claim it as an act of rebellion against capitalism or Donald Trump or whatever these people seem to dislike and people will believe them. Take my teddy bear and chocolate bonfire. On its own it'd be an act of vandalism (and possibly public endangerment). If I claimed that it was a statement against the commercialization of romance and people's emotional feelings by multinational corporations using wage slaves in Vietnam to stitch the teddy bears together, then it'd be political because it opposes a system of laws and regulations which allow certain things to exist.

Sure. Besides, why attack inanimate objects when there's nazis to punch?

And why punch Nazis when attacking inanimate objects can discredit the movement even faster?

[Shen Tao]

What one person considers useful, profitable, or beneficial, another may not.
Useful and beneficial in particular are context and perspective dependant

I can agree with that to a point, but there are still more objective measures, relatively speaking of course.

The ability to attract talent, for instance. If you can't attract talent, you can't run a state.