Come Hell or High Water: You go, Milo!

[skepticalbip]

Milo spoke to that. He claims they got the invite list instead of confirmed list because they demanded the list giving too little time to provide it. He claims the school made them jump through many hoops that others are not asked to etc. Milo saying it so can't say if that is true or not.

Yeah - how many four-day straight events do Universities get, that expect people not related to the University, require any Large space, and occur during the school year, does a school get? My guess is things in dedicated spaces like Hillel House, career fairs that are planned far in advance, possibly exams (also planned far in advance), a couple of other annual events...

These fools were still trying to set everything up ten days in advance? WHAT!?

"Oh, they're trying to block conservatives." Ben Shapiro was there on the 15th to give a lecture, so no.

Shapiro's earlier scheduled speech was cancelled by UC after antifa rioted. This resulted in a lawsuit being filed against UC... the result of this filing - Shapiro spoke on the 15th.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.mediaite.com/online/mil...tely-fallen-apart-and-he-refuses-to-admit-it/

This report from Mediate shows how this whole fiasco fell through due to utter failure of its organizer to organize this thing. Milo it seems could not organize a two car funeral. Now that it has all fallen apart due to his utter incompetence, the alt-right has taken to unfairly blaming Berkeley UC for their own incompetence.

"On Monday, UC-Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof wrote a statement calling on the organizers to meet their obligations and provide the university with required information on the event. “The University cannot defend spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide security arrangements for events based on a schedule built on a long list of unconfirmed speakers and/or a news release issued by an external commercial enterprise,” he wrote."

Berkeley UC is not obligated to spend large sums of money because some organization claims they will hold an event, that is so poorly planned it might not occur at all.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why is the school paying for so much security anyway? Should the police department not be involved and eating up much of the security costs?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look up Social Justice Warrior in the dictionary, and you'll see Milo's picture as the definition.

It is incredible that some right-wingers cling to this self-promoting fool.

Milo could say "I'm going to take a shit on the lawn at Berkeley" and then the University would stop it, and people would still be screaming 'first amendment!'. Milo has no constitutional right to be heard. He is trying to hijack a University to promote himself. Not ideas, ideals, philosophy, brand awareness. Just himself.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Milo, Howard Stern, Larry Flynt, the church of Satan, Harry Potter, Donald duck's lack of pants...

... I don't care who the lightning rod is. This is about the storm against free speech.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Milo, Howard Stern, Larry Flynt, the church of Satan, Harry Potter, Donald duck's lack of pants...

... I don't care who the lightning rod is. This is about the storm against free speech.

No it isn't. You don't have a constitutional right to get an auditorium and security to speak to minions. You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

 

[laughing dog]

You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

And the usual useful idiots are falling for his bs.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Milo, Howard Stern, Larry Flynt, the church of Satan, Harry Potter, Donald duck's lack of pants...

... I don't care who the lightning rod is. This is about the storm against free speech.

Berkeley isn't going to let me speak there. Not because I'm controversial, but because I lack intrigue and standing. Milo is nothing. Why should any school allow him to speak in their halls?

 

[skepticalbip]

Milo, Howard Stern, Larry Flynt, the church of Satan, Harry Potter, Donald duck's lack of pants...

... I don't care who the lightning rod is. This is about the storm against free speech.

No it isn't. You don't have a constitutional right to get an auditorium and security to speak to minions. You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

 

[dismal]

No it isn't. You don't have a constitutional right to get an auditorium and security to speak to minions. You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

A private auditorium could choose to rent to only one side. A public institution is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination -- and universities that take public money are generally held to this standard -- so what you say would apply,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No it isn't. You don't have a constitutional right to get an auditorium and security to speak to minions. You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Milo isn't of any political persuasion. He is a self-promoting con artist.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

A private auditorium could choose to rent to only one side. A public institution is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination -- and universities that take public money are generally held to this standard -- so what you say would apply,

I agree... government funding for the university makes all the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Milo isn't of any political persuasion. He is a self-promoting con artist.

He is certainly a troll but a troll that spouts political nonsense and the students did invite him.

 

[laughing dog]

No it isn't. You don't have a constitutional right to get an auditorium and security to speak to minions. You do, however, have the constitutional right to go to the university and speak as a private citizen which the university says Milo has the right to do. Milo is clearly using his incompetence as a political agenda.

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Of course. No one stopped any student from inviting anyone. . So what point are you trying to make?

There is no evidence that UC Berkeley is making a decision based on the expected content of the speech.

 

[TSwizzle]

I cannot stand the guy, so I simply do not listen to a thing he says.

I've only ever seen Milo on Real Time and although he doesn't have anything of substance to say he does manage to push the buttons of the snowflakes and that is quite entertaining in a sort of pantomime villain way. People seem to lose their minds so easily these days. I think most normal people just shrug their shoulders and go "meh" and move on.

 

[laughing dog]

I cannot stand the guy, so I simply do not listen to a thing he says.

I've only ever seen Milo on Real Time and although he doesn't have anything of substance to say he does manage to push the buttons of the snowflakes and that is quite entertaining in a sort of pantomime villain way. People seem to lose their minds so easily these days. I think most normal people just shrug their shoulders and go "meh" and move on.

Well, he is certainly pushing the buttons of conservative and alt-right snowflakes on this issue.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A private auditorium could choose to rent to only one side. A public institution is not allowed to engage in viewpoint discrimination -- and universities that take public money are generally held to this standard -- so what you say would apply,

I agree... government funding for the university makes all the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Milo isn't of any political persuasion. He is a self-promoting con artist.

He is certainly a troll but...

No. Not but's. You admit he is a troll. Why in the hell should a University be required to give a troll a podium?!

 

[dismal]

I agree... government funding for the university makes all the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Milo isn't of any political persuasion. He is a self-promoting con artist.

He is certainly a troll but...

No. Not but's. You admit he is a troll. Why in the hell should a University be required to give a troll a podium?!

A university that takes public funds is required to have a content neutral process to allocate podium access.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree... government funding for the university makes all the difference.

- - - Updated - - -

You are right that no one has the constitutional right to get an auditorium to speak. The university can decide to not allow any speakers and the "problem" will be solved. However, if they allow students to invite speakers of one political persuasion then they are required to allow students to invite speakers of the opposite political persuasion.

Milo isn't of any political persuasion. He is a self-promoting con artist.

He is certainly a troll but...

No. Not but's. You admit he is a troll. Why in the hell should a University be required to give a troll a podium?!

Because the students did invite him. Yes, I see him as a troll but that is my opinion while the students apparently see him as a political pundit. I also see some of America's leading politicians as imbeciles but they are still elected by people who swallow their nonsense.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As was noted above, he was invited by a student group to speak at a school that takes public money and that allows speakers from the opposite side of the political spectrum when they are invited by student groups.

The real question is why should the school discriminate and stand against diversity of thought?

As others have said above, if he was met by the left with a collective "meh" rather than my screaming and/or violence, his star would fade and this wouldn't be a news item.

This experience is actually a good lesson to psychology and sociology students in authoritarianism, group think, outrage culture, etc. I wonder if any classes there have used this in their studies.

 

[laughing dog]

As was noted above, he was invited by a student group to speak at a school that takes public money and that allows speakers from the opposite side of the political spectrum when they are invited by student groups.

The real question is why should the school discriminate and stand against diversity of thought?

There is no evidence that UC Berkeley discriminated against anyone. The student group who withdrew their invitation claims the UC Berkeley was discriminating against them, but no evidence has been brought to light to support their claim. UC Berkeley claims that the student group did not follow the university protocols required of any group bringing anyone on campus. UC Berkeley has not produced evidence to support their claim.

So why are you and others parroting the unsubstantiated claims of one group over another? The answer to that question would be a good case study for any class in the role of ideology in public discourse.