Big win for Free Speech: UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit for $70,000

Oct 9, 2013
2,580
1,392
430
#1
The anti free speech brats at Berkeley get taken down a notch: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...lawsuit-will-pay-70-000-to-conservative-group

After more than a year of litigation, the University of California, Berkeley, has settled a lawsuit with the Young Americas Foundation and the UC Berkeley College Republicans.

Campus conservatives accused the university of bias in the process of bringing high-profile speakers to campus. The original lawsuit revolved around the cancellation of an event with Ann Coulter. An amended version of the lawsuit included road blocks initiated by the university for an event with Ben Shapiro.

The Department of Justice filed a statement of interest backing the campus conservatives. The crux of their argument revolved around two campus policies that they claim violate students’ First and 14th Amendment rights: an unspoken “High-Profile Speaker Policy” and an on-the-books “ Major Events Policy.”

Department of Justice will not stand by idly while public universities violate students’ constitutional rights,” Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand said at the time.

In the settlement, UC Berkeley agreed to the following terms set by YAF:
  1. Pay YAF $70,000.
  2. Rescind the unconstitutional “High-Profile Speaker Policy.”
  3. Rescind the viewpoint-discriminatory security fee policy.
  4. Abolish its heckler’s veto — protesters will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression.
Under these terms, UC Berkeley will no longer be allowed to place a 3 p.m. curfew on conservative events or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving left-leaning speakers access to preferred parts of campus.

YAF and UC Berkeley also agreed to a “fee schedule” that treats all students, student groups, and speakers equally. Unless students are handling money or serving alcohol at an event, there will not be a need for security fees.

“The policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro — an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor — is gone,” says a press release from YAF.

"This settlement is a huge win for the Berkeley College Republicans and really all student groups on campus," Matt Ronnau, President of the Berkeley College Republicans, told the Washington Examiner. "This is a huge win for the 1st Amendment, and I am proud of the work that the men and women of the Berkeley College Republicans have put in to achieve this victory."
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#2
"UC Berkeley will no longer be allowed to place a 3 p.m. curfew on conservative events or relegate conservative speakers to remote or inconvenient lecture halls on campus while giving left-leaning speakers access to preferred parts of campus."
“The policy that allowed Berkeley administrators to charge conservative students $20,000 for security to host Ben Shapiro — an amount three times greater than the fee charged to leftist students to host liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor — is gone,” says a press release from YAF."

Holy crap for so called places of higher education the people on top are pretty stupid, didnt even bother to dress up the obvious bullshit.
Glad the students won this one.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
#5
The reason they charged more for Shapino is he needed way more security.

The university estimated it spent $600,000 on security for Mr. Shapiro’s visit, not a pittance for an institution that has struggled financially in recent years.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#6
The reason they charged more for Shapino is he needed way more security.
So your defense is "leftists are more violent" so charge the violent leftists and throw them out of the school/expel them, i am sure this will have a corrective influence on the remaining leftists that think about using violence to censor speakers.
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2018
217
91
180
#7
You know people who aren't students attend these events right? And that's where majority of the violent clashes come from. Stop foaming at the mouth just because I contextualized things further, the amount of tax payer money wasted on needlessly provocative conservative speakers is absurd.
 
Likes: dragonfart28
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#8
You know people who aren't students attend these events right? And that's where majority of the violent clashes come from. Stop foaming at the mouth just because I contextualized things further, the amount of tax payer money wasted on needlessly provocative conservative speakers is absurd.
Yes i know that some are external paid loudmouths organized to be violent and with it shut down and censor speakers, but they still can expel the violent ones from their own school and the external ones are usually organized by leftist groups from the school so yes they can definitely expel some of them and put the fear into them to stop it, also your "needlessly provocative" is just undefined bullshit by design so anyone can be banned and it IS bullshit when talking about for example ben shapiro.
To the far left anyone not repeating their shit is "needlessly provocative" or this entire ruling would not even exist, also the fact that you think anyone would fall for crap like "needlessly provocative which is of course defined by us leftists hurr durr" is insane to me.
 
Last edited:
Jul 20, 2018
270
240
190
#9
I don’t see how the school is under any obligation to pay for security for any speaker. But if they feel they should then obviously they should be charging a flat fee to all speakers and not different amounts depending on who it is.
 
Feb 21, 2018
1,952
1,195
270
#10
I don’t see how the school is under any obligation to pay for security for any speaker. But if they feel they should then obviously they should be charging a flat fee to all speakers and not different amounts depending on who it is.

One would think the school was trying to make it so expensive and so difficult that these speakers just wouldn't speak anymore. :pie_thinking::pie_thinking::pie_thinking:
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,478
1,877
1,080
#12
You know people who aren't students attend these events right? And that's where majority of the violent clashes come from. Stop foaming at the mouth just because I contextualized things further, the amount of tax payer money wasted on needlessly provocative conservative speakers is absurd.
It's a pittance next to the gender studies funding.
 
May 17, 2012
4,958
672
445
Canada
#13
Conservatives rarely protest so of course this was always going to be predominantly a one way street. A vast majority of the people who are protesting don't even know anything about the speakers, they are hilariously uninformed about the subject of their protests. They have just been told to protest or are trying to get in with protesters so they show up and cause a need for security. Go watch any Fleccas Talks videos on YouTube for hundreds of examples of this. Canadian Universities have also started making event organizers foot the bill for security and falling trap to the hecklers veto. I wish our lawmakers would put a stop to these obvious ploys as well.
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#16
A vast majority of the people who are protesting don't even know anything about the speakers, they are hilariously uninformed about the subject of their protests.
Do you have proof of this? Even cursory Google searches of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo unveil a bounty of links showing them to be racist agitators who offer nothing else of note. I doubt the people protesting their appearances on these campuses are there for the fun of it. Far more likely, they're an engaged resistance that is informed and rightfully angry that college campuses, which should be domains of critical learning hospitable to protected classes, are hosting far right provocateurs whose sole purpose is to spread a message of hate and inflame hostility towards minorities.
 
Likes: Neon Noire
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#17
Probably hard to get billing addresses for Black Bloc and Proud Boys.
Not really it just isnt done because "they are the good guys lol" they just let them get away with in the same way a literal mayor recently let antifa get away with regulating traffic lol its because they see them as their foot soldiers in a ideological battle and again most of the clowns dont even have any clue half of them are craigslist paid losers and the other half was literally organized from leftist groups in the universities.
So again just expel the leftist organizers but this isnt done for the already mention reasons "good guy, muh ideological foot soldiers".
Also its not a equal thing like some claim not at all, this issue of censorship on schools under threat of violence is a exclusive left issue, hell if you have conservatives using violence to shut down a school you would probably never hear the end of it in the media and it would be sold as a new civil war.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#18
Do you have proof of this? Even cursory Google searches of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo unveil a bounty of links showing them to be racist agitators who offer nothing else of note. I doubt the people protesting their appearances on these campuses are there for the fun of it. Far more likely, they're an engaged resistance that is informed and rightfully angry that college campuses, which should be domains of critical learning hospitable to protected classes, are hosting far right provocateurs whose sole purpose is to spread a message of hate and inflame hostility towards minorities.
Nope. Most of them are grown up children who jump at the chance to join in the temper tantrums they have scaled back on after leaving Mom and Dad's houses. Watch some of the video's of them explaining why they are upset. The majority are walking memes when they start speaking.
 
Apr 9, 2009
26,698
1,042
815
#19
Even cursory Google searches of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo unveil a bounty of links showing them to be racist agitators who offer nothing else of note..
Milo and Ann Coulter yea. Ben Shapiro is pretty mild tho. He's not exactly loved by all conservative circles despite his prominence as a conservative speaker.
 
Likes: Damage Inc
Apr 27, 2018
273
138
190
#20
You know people who aren't students attend these events right? And that's where majority of the violent clashes come from. Stop foaming at the mouth just because I contextualized things further, the amount of tax payer money wasted on needlessly provocative conservative speakers is absurd.
I'm sure that means liberals are well-mannered and rational? How about get rid of liberal propaganda and censorship of conservatism or even libertarianism on these campuses?
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,880
244
525
#22
The article makes it a point to say that other conservative speakers attend just fine with no problems but specific individuals are drawing in the ire. Regardless it's good they lifted those bullshit restrictions on the speakers. It's an excellent demonstration of how formalized definitions of "equality" can be met but the actualization is failing (think voting). Whoever originally put those policies in place needs to be fired.
 
Likes: CatLady
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#23
Milo and Ann Coulter yea. Ben Shapiro is pretty mild tho. He's not exactly loved by all conservative circles despite his prominence as a conservative speaker.
Ben Shapiro made a name for himself contributing weekly spiels about a non-existent "epidemic" of black crime to far-right propaganda outlet Breitbart. He may have toned down his rhetoric, in the wake of Trump and the alt-right, but he's still an awful human being.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#24
non-existent "epidemic" of black crime
Uhmmm... lol yeah about that... maybe you should look up some statistics...at least one time... just as a exercise... black on black crime for example is a literal epidemic you may deny it because leftwing idiology and the party count more to you than the weekly shootings in democrat controlled ghettos (it certainly is that case for the media who outright refuse to report on it most of the time) but that doesnt change the facts and people calling these facts out are not "propaganda" just because you dont like it, if anything you are the propaganda in this.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#25
Uhmmm... lol yeah about that... maybe you should look up some statistics...at least one time... just as a exercise... black on black crime for example is a literal epidemic you may deny it because leftwing idiology and the party count more to you but that doesnt change the facts and people calling these facts out are not "propaganda" just because you dont like the actual facts, if anything you are the propaganda in this.
You mean the fake "statistics" posted by Trump that were thoroughly debunked by a host of people, including law enforcement specialists? Or, do you mean the very real statistics that show the stark disparity between arrests of blacks and whites and conviction rates? Do you wish to discuss that? It's very easy, in a system of white supremacy, to charge black people with spurring an epidemic of black crime when the privilege of being white means you rarely go to jail or face any lasting consequences for your criminality.
 
May 17, 2012
4,958
672
445
Canada
#26
Do you have proof of this? Even cursory Google searches of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo unveil a bounty of links showing them to be racist agitators who offer nothing else of note. I doubt the people protesting their appearances on these campuses are there for the fun of it. Far more likely, they're an engaged resistance that is informed and rightfully angry that college campuses, which should be domains of critical learning hospitable to protected classes, are hosting far right provocateurs whose sole purpose is to spread a message of hate and inflame hostility towards minorities.
Watch some of those videos in the link I posted. He has been doing this for a while now and I saw him interviewed and he said it was a high percentage of people he interviewed that had no actual idea who the person they were protesting or had outright false information. He isn't just showing the clueless people, that is just the majority. Check out Nuance Bro as well, he does the same thing and the results are similar. This "engaged resistance that is informed" seem to have a problem discerning a guy wearing a yarmulke from a Nazi. To me they just seem angry.
 
Likes: TrainedRage
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#27
You mean the fake "statistics" posted by Trump that were thoroughly debunked by a host of people, including law enforcement specialists? Or, do you mean the very real statistics that show the stark disparity between arrests of blacks and whites and conviction rates?.
I dont know what trump posted i am talking about the literal fbi statistic you yourself can look up.. this is actually what i mean when i tell you to look it up, it means not looking up some mainstream media spin or celebrity spin but instead it means you should look up the statistics directly from the homepage.
Compared to 2015 the FBI now made that even easier https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/
Its also my last word on the subject because this thread isnt about that but you brought it up and you had it wrong so there you go.
 
Last edited:
Jan 26, 2018
698
712
190
#28
You mean the fake "statistics" posted by Trump that were thoroughly debunked by a host of people, including law enforcement specialists? Or, do you mean the very real statistics that show the stark disparity between arrests of blacks and whites and conviction rates? Do you wish to discuss that? It's very easy, in a system of white supremacy, to charge black people with spurring an epidemic of black crime when the privilege of being white means you rarely go to jail or face any lasting consequences for your criminality.
Its actual government statics btw.
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#29
Watch some of those videos in the link I posted. He has been doing this for a while now and I saw him interviewed and he said it was a high percentage of people he interviewed that had no actual idea who the person they were protesting or had outright false information. He isn't just showing the clueless people, that is just the majority. Check out Nuance Bro as well, he does the same thing and the results are similar. This "engaged resistance that is informed" seem to have a problem discerning a guy wearing a yarmulke from a Nazi. To me they just seem angry.
Jews can still be quite racist, as we see with Israel, so I'm not sure why wearing a "yarmulke" exempts one from suspicion of having an affinity for Nazism.
 
May 9, 2008
297
116
720
#32
Jews can still be quite racist, as we see with Israel, so I'm not sure why wearing a "yarmulke" exempts one from suspicion of having an affinity for Nazism.
I don’t think Nazism is the word you are going for. I think you need to find a different word. Nazi refers to something specific.

I’m glad Berkeley got hit with this settlement. Hopefully the school takes a more proactive stance on making their campus more open minded (not to mention safer). It’s crazy to think that these schools see the violence and destruction of the protests and just allow it. (By allow it I mean they do nothing to stop it and do nothing to bring the violators to justice.)
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#33
I don’t think Nazism is the word you are going for. I think you need to find a different word. Nazi refers to something specific.

I’m glad Berkeley got hit with this settlement. Hopefully the school takes a more proactive stance on making their campus more open minded (not to mention safer). It’s crazy to think that these schools see the violence and destruction of the protests and just allow it. (By allow it I mean they do nothing to stop it and do nothing to bring the violators to justice.)
I think the term 'Nazism' is a fitting label for the brand of eugenicist bile Shapiro and other Jewish "intellectuals" on the right, like Sam Harris or Dave Rubin, trade in. They don't wear swatstikas and pal around with the likes of Richard Spencer (yet), but their affinity for the racial purification that Nazism embodied is clear when you listen to them and observe who they include within their circles.
 
Aug 22, 2018
167
179
160
#37
You mean the fake "statistics" posted by Trump that were thoroughly debunked by a host of people, including law enforcement specialists? Or, do you mean the very real statistics that show the stark disparity between arrests of blacks and whites and conviction rates? Do you wish to discuss that? It's very easy, in a system of white supremacy, to charge black people with spurring an epidemic of black crime when the privilege of being white means you rarely go to jail or face any lasting consequences for your criminality.
Put the damn race card away, it is a fallacy of defense when you literally have nothing else to fall back on.
 
Last edited:
Mar 10, 2015
1,016
958
300
Austin, TX
#38
I think the term 'Nazism' is a fitting label for the brand of eugenicist bile Shapiro and other Jewish "intellectuals" on the right, like Sam Harris or Dave Rubin, trade in. They don't wear swatstikas and pal around with the likes of Richard Spencer (yet), but their affinity for the racial purification that Nazism embodied is clear when you listen to them and observe who they include within their circles.
WTF is wrong with you?
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#39
Putthe damn race card away, it is a fallacy of defense when you literally have nothing else to fall back on.
No race card is every pulled from the deck by me. I deal in facts. Unless you believe that our prisons are disproportionately crowded with blacks because they commit so much more crime than whites? If that's what you believe, it means you're not arguing in good faith.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,185
800
230
#40
Do you have proof of this? Even cursory Google searches of Ben Shapiro, Ann Coulter, and Milo unveil a bounty of links showing them to be racist agitators who offer nothing else of note. I doubt the people protesting their appearances on these campuses are there for the fun of it. Far more likely, they're an engaged resistance that is informed and rightfully angry that college campuses, which should be domains of critical learning hospitable to protected classes, are hosting far right provocateurs whose sole purpose is to spread a message of hate and inflame hostility towards minorities.
If you you think Ben Shapiro to be a racist then I really want off this planet. I’ve listened to him for years. I’ve never once heard him say something racist. I’ve actually seen him call out racists. Especially black racists who hide behind their identity politics to sell an ideology of division.

I’ve seen him tackle racism intellectual speaking. Are these things taboo? If we try to have discourse we’re racists now?
 
Apr 18, 2014
2,167
620
390
P-Town
#41
No race card is every pulled from the deck by me. I deal in facts. Unless you believe that our prisons are disproportionately crowded with blacks because they commit so much more crime than whites? If that's what you believe, it means you're not arguing in good faith.
Actually if that's what they believe than it would be the definition of a good faith argument. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Someone is going to have to tune up this NPC's code a little bit to get them back on the right track.
 
Aug 22, 2018
167
179
160
#42
No race card is every pulled from the deck by me. I deal in facts. Unless you believe that our prisons are disproportionately crowded with blacks because they commit so much more crime than whites? If that's what you believe, it means you're not arguing in good faith.
A. That has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

B. Per state population ratio to crime, yes in fact they do commit more crimes than white people.

Also, 94% of crimes carried out again a black person is done by another black person.
 
Last edited:
Likes: CatLady
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#44
Actually if that's what they believe than it would be the definition of a good faith argument. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Someone is going to have to tune up this NPC's code a little bit to get them back on the right track.
How can it be a good faith argument when the facts don't support it? Statistics, the kind pulled from the same sources that right wing sources skew to paint blacks as a monolith of criminality, show that accused who happen to be white are not prosecuted at nearly as high a rate for the same crimes black people are. Are you saying that's false?
 
Apr 18, 2014
2,167
620
390
P-Town
#45
How can it be a good faith argument when the facts don't support it? Statistics, the kind pulled from the same sources that right wing sources skew to paint blacks as a monolith of criminality, show that accused who happen to be white are not prosecuted at nearly as high a rate for the same crimes black people are. Are you saying that's false?
No, I am saying that a good faith argument relies on the person making the argument actually believing what they say. You would be correct in claiming it isn't a good faith argument if you had evidence that they didn't actually believe that statement. The term "Good Faith Argument" is based completely on whether or not the person making the argument believes it themselves. If they do than they are arguing in good faith even if they are wrong.

Now once you've shown evidence that they are wrong and they continue the argument, that would be arguing bad faith assuming they can actually understand the evidence shown.
 
Oct 1, 2006
2,478
1,877
1,080
#46
How can it be a good faith argument when the facts don't support it? Statistics, the kind pulled from the same sources that right wing sources skew to paint blacks as a monolith of criminality, show that accused who happen to be white are not prosecuted at nearly as high a rate for the same crimes black people are. Are you saying that's false?
Which crimes are you referring to?
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#48
How can it be a good faith argument when the facts don't support it? Statistics, the kind pulled from the same sources that right wing sources skew to paint blacks as a monolith of criminality, show that accused who happen to be white are not prosecuted at nearly as high a rate for the same crimes black people are. Are you saying that's false?
I dont get your warped perspective of making this a white vs black issue when the actual issue that drives the difference in crime rate is violent black on black crime/gangs/ghetto life style.
Also most crimes get solved because of victims speaking up meaning your delusion of the evil "whity racist cop" falls flat on its face unless you now want to accuse the victims of being racist too.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
928
892
230
Moore Park Beach
#49
I think the term 'Nazism' is a fitting label for the brand of eugenicist bile Shapiro and other Jewish "intellectuals" on the right, like Sam Harris or Dave Rubin, trade in. They don't wear swatstikas and pal around with the likes of Richard Spencer (yet), but their affinity for the racial purification that Nazism embodied is clear when you listen to them and observe who they include within their circles.
Jews that you disagree with are now Nazis?
Jesus Christ. Crazy alt-left in its purest form.
 
Likes: RedVIper