I think you need to read up more on what happened before you try to assert statements like this.
The institution said it had safety concerns (which seem very valid based on recent experiences) and didn’t think they could ensure protection for everyone against violence. They are literally protecting your free speech rights if they’re preventing you from being beaten up for expressing your opinion, either while protesting or counter-protesting. They didn’t say she couldn’t speak, just that the timing was bad. It’s like canceling a concert because a tornado is in the area on the night that it was scheduled, except this tornado happens to be man-made.
You’re basically arguing that they should allow people to come to harm by violence because they said they couldn’t protect everyone (and possibly opening them up to liability) just to show the people who threaten violence that they won’t allow for a heckler’s veto.
Hoe about the for-profit propaganda that leads to equating the 1500 students protesting peacefully with a couple dozen violent protesters?
Also bears mentioning multiple times: one arrest that night for failure to comply and no arrests over violent action or arson/vandalism.
Oh, and a Trump supporter shot a Trump protester in Seattle at Milo’s speech immediately before Berkeley after pepper spraying the protesters along side her husband.
She absolutely has the right to say the things she was hired to say, and students have the right to protest it. Nobody was interfering with either of those rights.
After specific threats reached the University, they offered to move the event a week later to minimize the on-campus student population to make it safer. She refused that offer. Now she’s choosing to cancel her event when the people hiring her aren’t paying her for it.
I would suggest that if Ms Coulter is a champion of freedom of speech, she should arrive of her own free will and give her speech in the middle of campus.
There’s a difference between acquiescing to a terrorist’s demands and trying to avoid future terrorist attacks, but they do blur together a bit here. A university should avoid doing the former (though it isn’t exactly in charge of anti-terrorism) but has an obligation to it’s students to do the latter, and has to make reasonable decisions when the two conflict. So I’ll agree that it’s bad on it’s face to choose not to do something because other people might be violent if you do, but you’d have to be pretty insane to turn that into an absolute principle of “I will do everything I legally can to provoke violence in order to show up people who would be violent.”
Bearing in mind, of course, that this is hypothetical, since Coulter cancelled the event after her sponsors backed out. No one is saying she can’t talk. She doesn’t want to talk because she won’t get paid. Turning that into a free speech issue is nuts.
But what is the likelihood of Scalzi or Wheaton getting people so hot under the collar to cause violence? I seriously doubt that. You have to look at who the individuals involved are (her and Milo have both said some pretty heinous things that can be construed as advocating violence against others).
But the university is also likely concerned about press. From my experience on campus, public image is increasingly important to the administration of universities. It’s not just about the possibility of violence, but the possibility of violence against a backdrop of media scrutiny.
What were those recent experiences? Left wing protesters committing violence because a right-wing trolley was invited to speak.
“Real nice opinion there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.”
Translation: “Our left wing students are brittle little snowflakes who will go to pieces and commit grievous violence if they’re exposed to opinions they disagree with, so please hold your talk when no one is around to hear it.”
I’m actually arguing that liberal idiots who want to play at being anti-fa shouldn’t get violent in response to pure speech. I think the university’s response is understandable, but runs the risk of undermining the principle of free speech in the long run and that they should hold the protesters responsible for being violent instead of holding speakers to a standard of not discussing anything that would inspire those brittle little snowflakes to be violent.
Guys, I understand that arguments are soldiers and we’re supposed to be on the side of the lefties, but the lefties are in the wrong this time. Just admit that and stick to defending the principle of free speech instead of engaging in special pleading on behalf of your political allies.
THIS! THIS! THIS is the real problem, here, people! It doesn’t happen if we stop making excuses for bad behavior by our political allies and start holding ourselves to the same standards we’d like to hold our political opponents to.
This is fighting the hypothesis. You know what I’m driving at, please don’t play dumb. I can find some more incendiary left wing figures if you absolutely insist on it, though.
Oh they can be construed that way, huh?
To be the good guys you have to live up to higher standards. You don’t get to drop your standards and then excuse yourself by saying you were the good guy all along. You have to prove it by holding yourself to the higher standard.
I understand, but I don’t think this is a good thing.
How do we tell the difference between a speaker wanting to be heard, evaluated and judged and a public audience of enquiring minds doing just that, and a rabble-rousing hate-peddler talking to a bunch of close-minded haters of anything ‘other’? Indeed, IS there a difference?
Maybe we should not try to / ought not to need to discern a difference, but there seems to be one between JS Mill’s laudable sentiments and the echo chambers of many modern political rallies. Does anyone go to an echo chamber to evaluate and judge for themselves?
Sure. Please do. It would make more sense in what you’re trying to advocate. We all know only real trollies would threaten violence over Wheaton or Scalzi. As far as I know, not a single person was pissed when GSU invited George Takai. [quote=“wysinwyg, post:48, topic:99881”]
Oh they can be construed that way, huh?
[/quote]
Well, off the top of my head, Milo doxxed someone who was transgendered and Coulter called for the Middle East to be invaded, their leaders killed, and the population there being forcibly converted. [quote=“wysinwyg, post:48, topic:99881”]
To be the good guys you have to live up to higher standards.
[/quote]
Cause I’m not a good guy, then, eh. Sorry you feel that way about me.
Did I say it was? There are a whole host of problems with universities thinking lately, but that’s an entire different topic.
I don’t think it’s “nuts” so much as “a calculated power play.” Berkeley gave her an opening and she took it. Technically, yes, you’re right, but you have to put together a long “well, actually…” to defend the administrators and protestors while Coulter can just say “liberal thugs preventin’ ma’ SPEECH!” and get applause. Better not to give her the opening.
I can’t believe Coulter is still a thing. Her shtick was old 10 years ago already. For cryin’ out loud, I made this little cartoon back in October 2007 after she had kinda disappeared for a while and then said something stupid:
No, black bloc anarchists committing violence. The protests were quite peaceful before the smashy kids showed up to make a mess.[quote=“wysinwyg, post:47, topic:99881”]
Our left wing students are brittle little snowflakes who will go to pieces
[/quote]
No, specific threats of violence against any protesters (i.e., “left wing” people protesting Coulter’s hate-speech) were cited.
Your blanket statements are ignoring a lot of the context of the time in favor of repeating misleading talking points. Any rational talk of violence begins with the inciting actions that cause it. The Berkeley protests over Millo were:
Not nearly as violent as other protests between the same folks before or after it.
Committed by the vast minority of the crowd representing either side.
Were on the back (10 days) of intense violence erupting between protesters.
After the alt-right successfully had people convinced anti-fa shot a protester in Seattle.
Goaded by the same inciting speech that is the root of much of the violence in these protests, and by the same person.
I agree with you that there shouldn’t be violence at a protest, but you are misconstruing the entire matter to press your points on free speech without context or merit. Your goal and your approach don’t jive with each other.
Given how many deranged speakers have been rejected by the student body, it makes me think that maybe there’s some sort of ham-handed push to brainwash said students going on at this school?
OK, imagine Howard Zinn and Malcolm X were still alive.
I’m not saying they’re not shitty people – they are shitty people. That’s why I’m saying we shouldn’t cede the moral high ground to them.
I agree with most of your politics, but if you’re going to be one of the good guys then you can’t cede the moral high ground to shitty people.
I would argue that it’s only morally superior in the most vague, half-assed, incremental sense to provide cover for people committing violence on behalf of your cause instead of committing the violence your own damned self. We can talk about black blocs and false flags all day long, but the unfortunate reality is that if protesters don’t take action to prevent their protests from being used as cover for violence, then the protesters are culpable.
Even if you can construct some ethical argument to the contrary, it will still be perceived that way by most USians. If you’re trying to convince people you’re in the right, then being right in principle isn’t enough.
A well respected academic shouldn’t have a problem at all. Zinn isn’t all that controversial, unless you think that the entire academy is a hot bed of marxists, which, I assure you it’s not - Coulter and Milo, though, yes, they think that we are all to a man, bad actors at best, or outright traitors to America at worst. They would indeed make sure that people who they disagree with don’t get jobs or any sort of safety or security in this world.
As for Malcolm X, he was regularly invited to any number of respectable places during his life (including Oxford and many American campuses, including Berkeley, if I’m remembering correctly. If he were still alive today, I don’t see how that would be different. Unless of course, part of your argument is that the framework for this kind of stuff is different than it was in the 1960s, but are we really more divided now than we were in the 60s? I don’t know.
Would you advocate the same for David Duke or Richard Spencer? [quote=“wysinwyg, post:56, topic:99881”]
if you’re going to be one of the good guys then you can’t cede the moral high ground to shitty people.
[/quote]
I don’t think I am. They do, however, want to “do away” with me and those like me, in addition to lots of other people. It’s not about them being shitty humans, it’s about them being dangerous to public safety because of what they often advocate.
Who was more violent, and what was the context for that violence? Also note that the fact that this protest was less violent doesn’t justify the actual level of violence.
I addressed this after @nungesser pointed out the black bloc thing. Yeah, it’s shitty, but if people are using your protest as cover to commit violence, then you are culpable.
This doesn’t justify anything.
This seems like a reason to be less rather than more violent to me…
I don’t agree that “inciting speech” justifies violence. It justifies moral condemnation, but you can’t engage in that moral condemnation without some degree of hypocrisy if your own side has committed violence in response.
You guys seem to be missing the point that I’m on your side, I just think your tactics are bad. Disavow violence, affirm free speech, and put in place real measures to prevent black blocs from hijacking your protest and you can start to look like the adults in the room again. Making excuses for why it’s OK makes you look like you’re hypocritically justifying left wing violence.
Ugh, you’re still fighting the hypothesis. You’re going out of your way not to empathize with how someone with different politics would view the situation. I give up. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
(I picked them because they’ve both made statements that could be construed as advocating violence. That’s not what they were doing, but they can be construed that way.)
Yes! Yes! A thousand times yes! Let them incriminate themselves with their terrible words! Don’t make them look like the victims!
Yes, good guys always fight at a disadvantage. That’s a big part of what makes them good guys!
I’m unclear as to how peaceful protesters are culpable for the actions of assholes who show up to large gatherings for an excuse to destroy things and hurt people. Are you saying that protesters should stop protesting, because anything that happens is entirely their fault, even if they’re trying to stop it?
No, I’m saying they need to take active measures to prevent their protests from being hijacked by either overzealous left wing radicals or right wing double agents.
I’ll walk back the claim that peaceful protesters are actually culpable for violence committed at their protests. That’s arguable depending on the system of ethics you subscribe to, and there’s no real fact of the matter when it comes to which system of ethics is correct.
However, I can assure you that peaceful left wing protesters are perceived as culpable for violence committed at their protests. If you’re trying to convince people that you’re in the right, it’s counterproductive to allow the violence to happen and then cry foul after the fact. This sucks, but as far as I can tell it’s an unfortunate fact about reality.
