Milo Yiannopoulos speech at UC Berkeley canceled after campus protests


#24

Because the protest won’t be(wasn’t) peaceful. The damage caused to the campus will also have to paid with the tuition fees. Mal_Tosevite is correct, the best thing to do is nothing.


The best thing to do is nothing
The best thing to do is nothing
#25

You’re making assumptions.


#26

No. The protests were violent. The building was damaged, things were burnt and people were beat.


#27

You made the assumption that it’s always going to be like that. There’s times it’s the other way around.

It’s possible to non-violently protest, and I say that’s better than doing nothing.


#28

Good luck with that. Every time you guys have a protest the dudes in black and covered faces use you for cover.

It becomes national news of violence. That’s what the old folks watching the nightly news see. It doesn’t help your cause. But, by all means, continue. It’s working well so far.


#29

Why don’t we ever hear more about all the brave civil rights heroes and activists who just stood by and ignored evil instead of doing something about it?


#30

How on Earth is he getting invited to college camp… oh, college republicans. Say no more.

In my experience, and apparently, given how many college republicans are inviting him to speak, college republican groups tend to be juvenile shit-stains who think it’s funny to attack “politically correct college culture” by being “edgy.” In this case, “edgy” being, “inviting white supremacists to talk.”

College republicans weren’t all that different before the web though, I have to say. Back then they were more interested in figuring out what they could do to piss off “the lesbians and the blacks” (at least at my university), but it was the same spirit.


#31

In mine too.

They invited a racist troll to a “historically liberal” institution on the first of day Black History Month, because they were trolling.

It is known that UCB will protest at the drop of a hat, so basically they did it to be button-pushing dicks.


#32

It’s Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). Forsyth County charged a security fee for anyone who wanted a parade permit, and the security fee was allowed to vary depending on how much security the County thought would be needed. The KKK asked for a parade permit, and the County basically said, “well, you’re going to be quite controversial and potentially cause a bad reaction, so we’re going to charge you a high security fee,” then discounted the fee radically to simply bill the “hourly rate” of the official who reviewed the permit application, saying it took 10 hours. The KKK said that allowing the government to vary a security fee based on how bad the reaction to speech might be (including the “10 hour review”) would violate the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, agreed with the KKK. Blackmun wrote for the majority (himself, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter). Rehnquist dissented on behalf of himself, White, Scalia, and Thomas.

Forsyth County is why public colleges charge generic “security fees” for any student group that invites whomever to speak, and the reason those fees are flat.


#33

Thank you for the reference. I’ll be reading it. And maybe sending it in to the Opening Arguments Podcast where a real lawyer can explain.


#34

I edited some details about exactly how the county accounted for the fee, FWIW. In the end, their proposed charge was only like $100 or $150 or something instead of the regular (lower) “parade fee,” because the county’s lawyer said “well of course you can’t charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars for a permit,” but that ruse was seen through.


#35

Also, an interesting note on Forsyth County is that the KKK’s lawyer was an actual unabashed white supremacist. The classic example of free speech advocacy is the ACLU fighting for Nazis to march in Skokie, but here, it was…well…not that.


#36

Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment are two different things. Freedom of Speech means everybody has the right to speak and to listen to others speak. The First Amendment says the government can’t interfere with those rights. Just because there is no law that prohibits a person from interfering with with an other’s freedom of speech does not make that interference correct or acceptable. Everybody should respect each other’s rights because they are important. Those that don’t should be called out.

Because the speaker is not the security concern. The security concern is a group of violent students using arson and vandalism to prevent a person from speaking and fellow students from listening because they disagree with them. It does not seem unreasonable to me to say a school should bear the costs of policing their own students.


#37

Your first block of text makes up rights that don’t exist and aren’t born-out by jurisprudence.


#38

Which? The right to produce speech or the right to consume it? I’m not sure how you can have one without the other.


#39

You are saying that because the government can’t punish you for your speech, then nobody can.

That’s not a right. That’s your assertion. An assertion that is false according to jurisprudence.


#40

I’m not saying people are unable punish other people for their speech. I’m saying that those that do are assholes who are disrespecting one of our most important freedoms.


#41

I say that not punishing people who say I shouldn’t exist, leads to my extermination.


#42

That doesn’t sound like a correct statement to me but without specifics I am unable to argue against it.


#43

I am reminded of the “strokes” theory of interaction. People want strokes, want contact. If they cant get petted with praise, then they want to be whipped with scorn. As long as you’re paying attention.

I personally can no longer ignore or hold in my scorn. It might be a flounce, but if someone is being an ass I will say so. So fuck Milo, let him nurse his grudge, I don’t give a shit if the special little snowflake believes the delusion of viel Feind, viel Ehr’.