Someone gave Trump the power to consider them as violent rioters.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Milo Yiannopoulos's UC Berkeley speech cancelled due to protests, campus on lockdown
- Thread starter ezekial45
- Start date
- Status
Someone gave Trump the power to consider them as violent rioters.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Right? lol..Folks really trying to act like this fuck is a nobody. Just don't look, people!
Them who? The entire university? So, you think he's right to threaten that way? Hmm..surprising..
I feel like I should roll my eyes here. Milo is an inflammatory demagogue whose star has been on the rise for 3 years. His hate speech is connecting with disaffected youth on the internet and across the country and it was inevitable that large outlets being to give him airtime, especially so since Bannon and Breitbart have been given an air of legitimacy by the President. There is an entire segment of the news media empire that actively seeks out soft-nationalist ideals to present in sanitized dogwhistle form as further propaganda for their racist audience. You think a gay jewish white-nationalist would somehow NOT end up on Fox?
This idea that in order to counter Milo we have to ignore Milo is so fundamentally ridiculous. "Well if you stop protesting him he'll stop getting gigs", that's simply not true unfortunately.
Of course, there's a difference between protesting his speaking engagements and complaining about his book being published. People writing withering articles about his book being published were absolutely playing right into his hands.
Frozenprince
Banned
Swear to god I'm more tuned in to what these white supremacist fucks are doing just by having the internet open for what I do than anything else.
It's kinda depressing lol.
legacyzero
Banned
Oh ok apologies
I agree that nothing is lost, at least on the short term. But look at who we have in office now, and who put them there. I would worry that in the country that we have, we would see a similar snap back that Van jones talked about.
God, people are fucking losing their minds in this world.
Stone Ocean
Member
Doesn't mean they are forced to give him a platform
My country has a thing called racial injury, 1 to 3 years.
Hate speech has no place in modern society.
NoLongerALurker
Banned
As someone who just learned who Milo is a couple of days ago, I had no idea he had appeared in the major media networks before. Tucker draws a good crowd though so he's going to get another night of wide coverage.
The rioting and violence that got the event cancelled is not going to be sustainable. Purposely putting students saftey in danger is a reprehensible way to protest his speech.
It does.
So, I'm wondering (because no way I'm watching this), does Tucker just nod along as Milo goes full white supremacist and/or spouts misogyny?
Frozenprince
Banned
He already has wide coverage. This is not some nobody with no power. This is the principle writer for a website that now has a direct 1:1 line to the President of the United States.
Maybe the university should take a positive step then and tell Milo to hold his speaking engagement elsewhere.
What? I am saying that the people who felt inclined to attack people, loot and destroy property gave trump the ability to consider them beyond protesters and into the margin of violent rioters...
Gordon Shumway
Banned
No no no..you're wrong. Stop arguing..😐
Frozenprince
Banned
And that is utterly fucking irrelevant to him threatening to cut federal funding for the entire school.
No no, much like we were talking about earlier, he will use the recent violence to play for sympathy and greatly tone down his rhetoric for Prime Time. He can sound intelligent and sympathetic when he wants too.
They can't legally.
That's what I figured.
Frozenprince
Banned
He'll probably pull the "I'm gay" (though he isn't really) card to get sympathy like always as well.
Messofanego
Banned
Oh no, Nephtes gonna have to explain Milo again to his Fox News loving mom out of his busy Overwatch schedule. Thanks, liberals.
Luschient
Member
The fact that Milo was set to speak at a venue named after MLK just tops this whole thing off.
Snowybreak
Member
Oh for fucks sake, a publicly funded university is allowed to have restrictions on venue usage by student groups.
And Trump vowing to cut funding is actually overstepping his office. There is no legal avenue for him to do so.
This is all hypothetical given it will never happen, but the POTUS has no say in amending the Constitution. Theoretically if the 1st amendment was to be revised, it would require bi-partisan support, which would require moderates, not extremists.
Hes not?
You think if it were a peaceful protest he would of said the same thing? In my opinion the violence is what he can use to leverage this issue. I don't agree with it and still think it is absurd, but to say he is punishing protesters, when he is clearly referring to rioters, is a little disingenuous.
Any restrictions on public or limited public forums have to be viewpoint neutral.
Yes. He was already talking about criminalizing protesting a week ago. We had a thread on it.
Snowybreak
Member
Yes, in this case you can ban hateful rhetoric. Very simple.
Although I'm guessing your next response will be something along the lines of "well what qualifies hateful rhetoric? And why should [blank] qualify as hate speech? Everyone deserves a platform."
No, everyone does not deserve a platform. Especially when that platform is shaky at best and can be torn down easily when it's used to provoke people and then act the fucking victim.
That is true, jesus the fuck is going on in the country.
Frozenprince
Banned
Hateful rhetoric isn't a free speech exeption. The simple fact of the matter is the courts would force thier hand regardless.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
So..everyone rioted? No. In which case, YES, he would be punishing the peaceful protesters. How does one blame the entire university for the actions of the few? If your response is just gonna be more "He's wrong, but what did you expect?" rather than the actual question, don't bother..
It's like people are just ignoring these things..
Frozenprince
Banned
Man I'm straight shocked that people are ignoring all the shit he's saying to justify to themselves that he ain't that bad and that it ain't their fault.
Snowybreak
Member
Know what? Why the fuck are you shifting so much blame to the protesters and away from the provocateur? The whole reason that he was being protested and violence happened is because of the fucked up things that come out of the mouth of this motherfucker.
I mean, there's no evidence of this. He's been out of gay for the better part of a decade, even back when he was just a tabloid editor in England. No need to start questioning his professed sexuality.
Richard Spencer's scared to make more public appearances right now. I don't see mainstream society rallying around him...
fox already has a white supremacist audience so it's not like this will sway anyone in one direction or another
Poor GRIMES
Banned
Think outside of the box here for a minute.
"In the United States, the only two types of hate speech laws likely to survive are those that are likely to elicit an imminent fight and those that are truly threatening," he said. Cuomo said.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...hris-cuomo-first-amendment-doesnt-cover-hate/
Do Milo's views threaten sexual, racial, and gender minority students? Yes.
Did this hate speech incite violence? Yes.
Illegal and nasty.
I have no problem with the vast majority who where peacefully protesting Milo. And nothing I have said has excused Milo for his actions. I'm simply stating the fact that he had the right under the first amendment to speak at the university if invited.
Audioboxer
Member
Bingo, so many people get that wrong. Especially when trying to play the free speech card on Twitter and FB. However, many Universities do stand fairly in line with how the government treats it hence they allow speakers on campus even if they're hated individuals. Universities have long stuck to the beat bad ideas by better ideas and allow people to be offended by other viewpoints, even if said viewpoints are terrible. Just the way education has typically been founded, and it might not always stay this way, but it's the line many Uni's still tow to this day. Therefore on campus citizens have the legal rights to protest, but citizens aren't legally protected to instigate violence or destruction unprovoked. Self-defence has some pretty clear boundaries in a court of law. So while you can attack a Uni via protest and speech, you cannot legally instigate violence because you don't agree with the Uni/a speaker. Or, you can, you can do whatever you want, but you're facing consequences yourself.
While I won't lose any sleep when assholes get clocked, I won't pretend the world's people are now protected to do as they please in society. I'm not going to be violent because I accept legally I'd lose my rights, probably my job and might even face jail time. I'm pretty certain no matter what some GAF posters try to convey with all the apparent punches they're going to throw, what they really mean is they'll support 'someone else' doing it because they too don't want to lose their job, their rights and possibly face jail time. Does that make you a coward? No... It means you still have a grasp on what you can legally do in society without tossing yourself to the sharks and ending up living a miserable life behind bars or possibly facing fines/court cases or loss of your employment. If you do want to risk chucking your life away, then yes, you can go and do that, but don't act like a bad ass calling others cowards for stating they'll do what they can legally, but not cross boundaries into breaking laws.
In other words, I don't think we really need to worry about any actual widespread political violence because some are threatening or supporting it on a forum. That isn't to downplay passion in here, but I think if moderation actually thought tens of GAF posters were going to make the news at night from violently assaulting people they'd be more worried than to just let some people speak their mind, even if there is some aggression and pro-violence remarks on show. I'll say it once more though before this post gets challenged, legally self-defense is not you smacking someone with a metal pole because you don't like what they stand for. While I don't particularly care what you do yourself, it's your life, there's no point in trying to muddy waters to say that our societies allow anyone to go around assaulting people because they're assholes. They don't, and that's different than saying you won't lose sleep over it or offering your praise of someone else doing it. You can fantasise in your sleep you're the one going around beating on people, but that's far different than you actually being the one assaulting anyone and possibly getting arrested.
It's also a bit sad to see anyone who is honest about the fact they don't go around being violent instantly called names. Yes, it can be morally challenging to state you're not going to be a violent person even in the face of seeing a shite person walk around and spew verbal hate, but I'd say it's because most people don't want to go to jail themselves. Imagine that. People trying to live their lives without facing criminal charges against themselves. Again for the last time, self-defense is massively different than you attacking someone physically unprovoked. If you punched someone and/or seriously hurt them and got taken to court you'd lose if you stated a defence of "they say horrible things". Especially in America where speech laws are arguably the most open on the globe. As this post started with, no, that does not mean you can say what you want and not get banned/kicked from FB/Twitter or other private institutes. However, said institutes ban you, they don't physically assault you. Biiiiig difference. An important difference, if a debate is allowed to actually state there is nuance to tackling some of these assholes that isn't just "everyone and anyone now resort to violence". Keep in mind at these protests now, one protestor against Milo has been shot, and in the case of video footage from this event some women were beaten with poles who appeared to be in support of Milo. That is actual violence, not just protest.
edit: I should also add Trump is 100% in the wrong going after the Uni. They actually stood up for freedom of speech and were allowing Milo on campus in the first place.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
And a large portion of people didn't give two shits about his "right" and I feel as if they have a "right" to suppress Right Wing Fanatics by any means necessary.
So what now?
Fighting words and threats are limited exeptions that would allow the authorities to charge him if he ran afoul of actual legal statutes with criminal intent, but it doesn't allow the university to exersise prior restraint to stop his speech.
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
Head of Vengarl
Banned
Milo is a gigantic piece of shit and I feel zero sympathy anytime something bad happens to him.
That said, I am strongly opposed to anyone who would riot/violently suppress someone from giving a speech, no matter how appalling the content is. You're just handing them a moral victory, and not only in the eyes of their supporters. Not a good look.
That said, I am strongly opposed to anyone who would riot/violently suppress someone from giving a speech, no matter how appalling the content is. You're just handing them a moral victory, and not only in the eyes of their supporters. Not a good look.
Here's the truth, something most modern liberals, progressives, and leftists forgotten; the left's entire existence was and continues to be paid in blood and destruction. Worker's rights, LGBT rights, freedom of speech, basic human rights, civil rights, democracy is general, all of this was paid for with blood, with violence. The right, not the center right, but the right wing and far right, fight against this and only want complete control and power over humanity.
Here's another truth; the right has been using the whole "compassionate and considerate" angle to weaken the left to the point they care more about their moral high ground than actual justice. Dr. King and Gandhi are commonly used to make us feel that non-violence is functional and the only true way to rebel, despite the fact that both movements they had were just as violent as any riot at times. Yet the right and moderates have white washed it so much that most modern liberals think non-violence and compassion is the only solution.
Be violent when need be, non-violence can work yes, but don't forget the roots of the left in the first place was paved in with violence, death, blood, and destruction. Always leave that option on the table and take it when it's clear that the opposition is oppressing us into silence.
Trump has little to no control over who enforces local criminal statutes.
Great response from the Chancellor in my opinion. I don't see how either side can disagree with this.
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/
http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/
Chancellor said:
Hello? This is Hailun!
Member
The police and Trump are literally the Executive Branch of the government.
why?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked