Berkeley "liberals" contra free speech

[DrZoidberg]

Anarchists, NOT Cal students, responsible for violence in UC Berkeley protests

Anarchists are contra free speech?

Perhaps it was organised anarchists?

 

[Elixir]

Anarchists, NOT Cal students, responsible for violence in UC Berkeley protests

Anarchists are contra free speech?

Perhaps it was organised anarchists?

My head hurts.

 

[untermensche]

There is no right to speak in all places. People have the right to say to any speaker, "You are no longer welcome".

If he can publish his speech and freely circulate it then there is no censorship.

Way back when this guy was speaking, I would bet that some left wing, gay or otherwise "morally decadent" speakers would not be allowed to speak in many places. But it would be cool, because it would not be real censorship.

That is not a rebuttal.

Are you claiming that people should be forced to let people speak within the space they control?

So this guy in the video will have your government forcing universities to let him appear?

There are more rights that the rights of the speaker in this. There are the rights of other people to not have their University polluted.

 

[repoman]

Way back when this guy was speaking, I would bet that some left wing, gay or otherwise "morally decadent" speakers would not be allowed to speak in many places. But it would be cool, because it would not be real censorship.

That is not a rebuttal.

Are you claiming that people should be forced to let people speak within the space they control?

So this guy in the video will have your government forcing universities to let him appear?

There are more rights that the rights of the speaker in this. There are the rights of other people to not have their University polluted.

What I meant was that the type of guy in the video, if he had his way, would not allow gay and transgender advocates speak at his university if he was in a position of power.

 

[LordKiran]

That is not a rebuttal.

Are you claiming that people should be forced to let people speak within the space they control?

So this guy in the video will have your government forcing universities to let him appear?

There are more rights that the rights of the speaker in this. There are the rights of other people to not have their University polluted.

What I meant was that the type of guy in the video, if he had his way, would not allow gay and transgender advocates speak at his university if he was in a position of power.

Which brings us back to my question. Are any of the institutions Milo was denied permission to speak at funded by the public?

 

[untermensche]

That is not a rebuttal.

Are you claiming that people should be forced to let people speak within the space they control?

So this guy in the video will have your government forcing universities to let him appear?

There are more rights that the rights of the speaker in this. There are the rights of other people to not have their University polluted.

What I meant was that the type of guy in the video, if he had his way, would not allow gay and transgender advocates speak at his university if he was in a position of power.

So your solution is to force other Universities to have people on their campus they do not want?

There is no censorship here.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Milo was a guest of a student group of the university. Approved by the university administration.

It was the rioters who prevented his speech.

 

[untermensche]

Milo was a guest of a student group of the university. Approved by the university administration.

It was the rioters who prevented his speech.

He was not prevented by rioters.

That is a Trump alt-truth fantasy.

His invitation was taken back.

Something any University has the right to do.

And it is not censorship.

That is hysterical nonsense.

You are advocating for a law that forces Universities to allow people to come on and speak, no matter what they learn about them.

You are against the freedom of Universities to decide who can come and speak on their campuses.

You are the one imposing authoritarian solutions.

 

[Cycad]

Amazing how many people on this forum are in favor of limiting free speech.

 

[untermensche]

Amazing how many people on this forum are in favor of limiting free speech.

So you are in favor of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak on their campus?

I can't believe the number of people who want to limit the rights of Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their campus.

Censorship is the prevention of the transmission of ideas in all forms. It is the prevention of the publication of some idea.

No University has that power.

Limiting who you allow on your campus is not censorship.

Not close.

 

[Cycad]

So you are in favor of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak on their campus?

I can't believe the number of people who want to limit the rights of Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their campus.

Censorship is the prevention of the transmission of ideas in all forms. It is the prevention of the publication of some idea.

No University has that power.

Limiting who you allow on your campus is not censorship.

Not close.

Thank you for illustrating so eloquently my point.

 

[blastula]

He was invited. Berkley wasn't forced to have him speak.

 

[untermensche]

He was invited. Berkley wasn't forced to have him speak.

Invited then uninvited.

- - - Updated - - -

So you are in favor of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak on their campus?

I can't believe the number of people who want to limit the rights of Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their campus.

Censorship is the prevention of the transmission of ideas in all forms. It is the prevention of the publication of some idea.

No University has that power.

Limiting who you allow on your campus is not censorship.

Not close.

Thank you for illustrating so eloquently my point.

What point is that? You can't read?

 

[blastula]

Nothing wrong with uninviting him, except that it was done in response to violence. It was the actions of the violence perpetrators that were anti free speech, not the school.

 

[Arctish]

Rolling Stone has a pretty good article on the riot and the issue of Free Speech at Berkeley.

 

[untermensche]

Nothing wrong with uninviting him, except that it was done in response to violence. It was the actions of the violence perpetrators that were anti free speech, not the school.

It was done in response to learning how people felt.

If any crimes were committed, and there is evidence, people should have to face the consequences.

 

[repoman]

Hopefully Trump's FBI can come in and investigate and then Sessions will prosecute.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Amazing how many people on this forum are in favor of limiting free speech.

So you are in favor of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak on their campus?

I can't believe the number of people who want to limit the rights of Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their campus.

Censorship is the prevention of the transmission of ideas in all forms. It is the prevention of the publication of some idea.

No University has that power.

Limiting who you allow on your campus is not censorship.

Not close.

It wasn't a case of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak.

It was a case of rioters censoring a speaker invited by the university. The speaker was uninvited due to the assaults and property destruction of the rioters.

Would you feel the same if this had been a representative of BLM instead of Milo? Probably not. You'd be raising hell about the censorship.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nothing wrong with uninviting him, except that it was done in response to violence. It was the actions of the violence perpetrators that were anti free speech, not the school.

It was done in response to learning how people felt.

.

It's a university. The whole point is to expose the students to new ways of thinking. Drag them out of their mental comfort zones.

Everything is wrong about your sentence. If people felt bad about him speaking they should have not attended the talk. Not riot about it.

Democracies are built on tolerance and respect for dissenting views. We are rapidly losing that ethos. It truly terrifies me.

Liberalism is built on protecting free expression. What will happens when it's biggest enemy is liberals. Conservatives, by tradition, have been against free speech. In the west they're often the only defenders of free expression.

 

[untermensche]

So you are in favor of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak on their campus?

I can't believe the number of people who want to limit the rights of Universities to decide who they allow to speak on their campus.

Censorship is the prevention of the transmission of ideas in all forms. It is the prevention of the publication of some idea.

No University has that power.

Limiting who you allow on your campus is not censorship.

Not close.

It wasn't a case of the government forcing Universities to allow people to speak.

It was a case of rioters censoring a speaker invited by the university. The speaker was uninvited due to the assaults and property destruction of the rioters.

Would you feel the same if this had been a representative of BLM instead of Milo? Probably not. You'd be raising hell about the censorship.

You have no argument.

The man was uninvited. People are uninvited to speak all the time.

It is as simple as that.

To call it censorship is insanity. Serious insanity.