No matter the source of news, an incident happened last night on the University of California campus at Berkeley. In response to a scheduled talk by Milo Yiannopoulos, crowds assembled to shut down the talk. Not to listen to what Milo was going to say, not to ask him questions after the talk, and certainly not to make sure that people interested in listening to an opinion had a chance to consider other points of view.
As Milo himself has said in the past, if somebody is wrong talk about it. Shine the light on it. But apparently those outside the venue couldn't afford to have any lights shown on opinions they disagree with.
On the other side, the protesting side, they apparently take the Noam Chomsky position; "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....” If an opinion is unacceptable, you apparently have license to limit it.
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?
Is the modern University not the last place where free speech should knuckle under to the rule of the brick? Or is that a dreadfully 20th-century opinion?
