“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Beerina]

Really noble of Coulter to pour some more fuel on the fire in the interests of her free speech, which naturally trumps public safety. Like Milo, she has so much to offer. Hope all goes well at the friendly get-together.

Free speech does indeed trump public safety. It is up to the government to guarantee free speech and knock down those who would deny it...regardless of how many there are.

I want people with attitudes like yours no where near the reigns of power.


You want to call the speakers Nazis? Please realize that the Nazis relied on their thug armies to shut down their opposition. That is your side. That is the heckler's veto writ large. That is the Nazi side. The side that believes itself so right, so god damned right, that it has the duty to physically silence opposition.

Shame on skeptics who think this.

 

[Beerina]

By the way I would put in a disclaimer that I don't listen to their drivel and support protesting them, but I shouldn't have to. This isn't about what they say, but about people saying anything at all.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't think it's an issue at all. It is her choice, not some other groups'. A public speaker should consider the effect of their speech on an audience. If it is likely to incite violence, a speaker with a social conscience might give that weight. She doesn't.



The police are dramatically outnumbered, and at night the bad guys (from both sides) will be harder to catch. Allowing a likely riot to take place and hoping to clean up the mess and arrest a couple after damage is done is hardly in the interests of public safety. Keeping the peace sometimes means not letting unpeaceful events take place.



Preach. Both sides start with talking, then shouting, then throwing down. They are irreconcilable now. So give them a new round at Berkeley again?

Because that is what the first amendment requires.

I am blown away by the palpable contempt anti fa and black bloc types have for free speech.

 

[Thermal]

Not to give Ann too much credit, but wouldn't it also be reasonable to put the importance of free speech ahead of the possibility of violence? Should the threat of violence take precedence over it in every situation? That emboldens the actions of those trying to restrict the free speech of individuals of different opinions.

And they are emboldened, at least in regards to UC Berkley. Their actions are being normalized and rationalized, just a means to an end. It is a scary thought that use of violence to silence free speech will become something people consider in the best interest of public safety. That is not an argument I can get on board with, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

Free speech has no truer friend than yours truly, but I do not consider this an issue of free speech. It is closer to inciting a mob (two actually) to violence, obviously not protected free speech. But more to the point, it really has nothing to do with speech at all. Look at the participants on both sides at these rallys now: masks and battle gear. They are coming because, as the imported bikers and militia commented, the look forward to enjoying busting some heads. They are coming because, as the antifa advertisements said, come punch your favorite nazi. It has nothing to do with Milo, Coulter, or any of the mindless drivel they spew, and certainly nothing to do with free speech. That would require someone in attendance giving a fat rat's ass about what she says.

 

[The Big Dog]

Free speech has no truer friend than yours truly, but I do not consider this an issue of free speech. It is closer to inciting a mob (two actually) to violence, obviously not protected free speech. But more to the point, it really has nothing to do with speech at all. Look at the participants on both sides at these rallys now: masks and battle gear. They are coming because, as the imported bikers and militia commented, the look forward to enjoying busting some heads. They are coming because, as the antifa advertisements said, come punch your favorite nazi. It has nothing to do with Milo, Coulter, or any of the mindless drivel they spew, and certainly nothing to do with free speech. That would require someone in attendance giving a fat rat's ass about what she says.

Of course it has to do with free speech. The black bloc scum want to shut down free speech, which has already explained is a hecklers veto.

 

[Thermal]

People are riled up and angry right now. It's a very touchy situation. Sometimes just because something is legal doesn't mean it's wise. Exercising your rights sounds all well and good until the violence starts. Are riots really worth it? Shouldn't saftey be an overriding concern?

So in the interest of public calm and safety I agree that them negroes oughtta just stay in their own part of the bus and not try to sit up with whites, just like Bull Connor says. I mean, it'll just angry up the population and get people hurt. Amirite?

It's got nothing to do with the potential for violence or it's threat being an influencing factor. It has to do with there likely being a violent clash provided by but completely unrelated to her speech. She is just providing a public ring for round three. And come on, she's a professional troll, not someone with poignant thoughts. Trolls want to provoke a reaction. The predictable reaction in this case is violence between the camps. That borders incitement.

 

[Thermal]

Free speech does indeed trump public safety. It is up to the government to guarantee free speech and knock down those who would deny it...regardless of how many there are.

Disagreed. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater? Can you incite mobs to violence? The principle of free speech can and should come first, but the potential for violence has to be at least a factor in the interests of the peace and public safety. The trade-off here is for what? A troll hustling publicity? That's why it tips closer to incitement IMO.

I want people with attitudes like yours no where near the reigns of power.

You got that right, but not remotely for the reasons you think. If 'twere up to me, free speech/expression would be championed far more. I opine that someone with a social conscience should be prudent in considering the effects of their public speaking. That is an individual choice, not what persons in power would enable, so it would have nothing whatsoever do do with 'people with attitudes like mine'. Is it so unthinkable to you that Coulter should maybe consider that she has nothing of consequence to say, so maybe hang back a little and allow the reschedule? She still gets to say...well, nothing really... but at a safer time for all involved.

You want to call the speakers Nazis? Please realize that the Nazis relied on their thug armies to shut down their opposition. That is your side. That is the heckler's veto writ large. That is the Nazi side. The side that believes itself so right, so god damned right, that it has the duty to physically silence opposition.

You..uh...are aware that the speakers kind of openly identify with the white supremacist/neo nazi ideology, right? And 'relied on thug armies'? You're kidding, right? The Trump supporters brought in out-of-state militia groups and bikers specifically to fight. But you're going to ignore that to one-sidedly condemn the antifa?

Shame on skeptics who think this.

Shame on skeptics who don't read or try to understand other posts and reply with generic canned responses.

 

[Thermal]

Of course it has to do with free speech. The black bloc scum want to shut down free speech, which has already explained is a hecklers veto.

It's funny how you repeat this every post, even though it is not true. Trying to make it believed through repetition?

The antifa love free speech/expression, but they extend its bounds farther than you do.

 

[Ziggurat]

The antifa love free speech/expression

That's demonstrably not true.

 

[Ziggurat]

Disagreed. Can you yell fire in a crowded theater?

You can indeed, when the theater is on fire.

Can you incite mobs to violence?

Neither Milo nor Coulter have incited violence.

The principle of free speech can and should come first, but the potential for violence has to be at least a factor in the interests of the peace and public safety. The trade-off here is for what? A troll hustling publicity? That's why it tips closer to incitement IMO.

That's not the way it works. When someone else commits violence in response to your speech because they don't like it, that's not incitement. We don't blame the person who spoke, because (get this) it's not their fault. And we don't shut down their speech because of it. Why? Because doing so creates perverse incentives, exactly the opposite sort of incentive that's created when you stop speech which actually incites violence.

Is it so unthinkable to you that Coulter should maybe consider that she has nothing of consequence to say, so maybe hang back a little and allow the reschedule? She still gets to say...well, nothing really... but at a safer time for all involved.

That is exactly wrong. Her speech should continue as scheduled in order to send a message that violence will not silence anyone. Regardless of the content of her planned speech, that message is sufficiently important to justify maintaining the original schedule.

 

[Thermal]

That's demonstrably not true.

That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm. That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways. However, the neos are demonstrably fully on board with violence, so the camps are peas in a pod nowadays.

 

[caveman1917]

Antifa aren't the real fascists. We are.

And we're going to win.

Yeah because that's exactly what happened last time

 

[Barber Shop]

This thread is 52.75 pages too long.

Very simple concept...people and groups (even those you disagree with) have a right to freedom of expression.

Those who engage in violence, property destruction, and intimidation to shut down those they disagree with are wrong.

We could have handled this whole subject in two posts (with the second post being "well..duh") and moved on to discussing more controversial subjects like the existence of sasquatch.

Very depressing to see some 'skeptics' posting what they have here.

 

[Thermal]

You can indeed, when the theater is on fire.

If this is serious, you are trolling. And I don't see a smiley.

Neither Milo nor Coulter have incited violence.

Obviously. And repeatedly now, it is not about their speech. Antifa are not wearing Coulter face shirts with buster signs superimposed. The groups are fighting because that's when it is agreed that they will be together. But y'all keep trying to whitewash it as a free speech issue.

That's not the way it works. When someone else commits violence in response to your speech because they don't like it, that's not incitement. We don't blame the person who spoke, because (get this) it's not their fault. And we don't shut down their speech because of it. Why? Because doing so creates perverse incentives, exactly the opposite sort of incentive that's created when you stop speech which actually incites violence.

You are really not getting this. It is not about Coulter or Milo speaking. It is about declaring a street brawl at a convenient venue.

That is exactly wrong. Her speech should continue as scheduled in order to send a message that violence will not silence anyone. Regardless of the content of her planned speech, that message is sufficiently important to justify maintaining the original schedule.

If only there was someone who cared what Coulter had to say. Why she is even speaking at a college is a little baffling, as her delivery is geared towards those with a no-further-than-grade-school education. Justify it as a free speech matter all you please, I'm not buying it.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's demonstrably true. What you have trouble understanding is that they are exercising free speech themselves, with enthusiasm. That they consider violence an appropriate form of expression is where you part ways. However, the neos are demonstrably fully on board with violence, so the camps are peas in a pod nowadays.

Black bloc scum consider violence an appropriate form of expression. Sure they do it cowardly with their mugs masked and while running away

They love free expression! Whether it be a bike lock to the head, and m80 in a bottle, throwing stones, you name it, they express it.

Cripes it is like reading 1984 in here. Violence is expression.

Typically one would see arguments that terrible and assume we are dealing with a Poe. But that does not seem to be the case.

Fortunately social media will help them to spread their free expression by doxxing the violent.

 

[The Big Dog]

If this is serious, you are trolling. And I don't see a smiley.



Obviously. And repeatedly now, it is not about their speech. Antifa are not wearing Coulter face shirts with buster signs superimposed. The groups are fighting because that's when it is agreed that they will be together. But y'all keep trying to whitewash it as a free speech issue.



You are really not getting this. It is not about Coulter or Milo speaking. It is about declaring a street brawl at a convenient venue.



If only there was someone who cared what Coulter had to say. Why she is even speaking at a college is a little baffling, as her delivery is geared towards those with a no-further-than-grade-school education. Justify it as a free speech matter all you please, I'm not buying it.

If any of that was true, why exactly are the black bloc scum showing up?

 

[The Big Dog]

Famous groups who wear masks and think violence is "expression"

ISIS
Ku Klux Klan
Black Bloc
Anti-Fa.

Congratulations

 

[Thermal]

If any of that was true, why exactly are the black bloc scum showing up?

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, how many times does this have to be repeated?

Neo-Nazis tend to show up at conservative rallys. The antifa show up to protest them. This has nothing to do with Coulter, Milo, or free speech.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Black bloc scum consider violence an appropriate form of expression. Sure they do it cowardly with their mugs masked and while running away

They love free expression! Whether it be a bike lock to the head, and m80 in a bottle, throwing stones, you name it, they express it.

Cripes it is like reading 1984 in here. Violence is expression.

Typically one would see arguments that terrible and assume we are dealing with a Poe. But that does not seem to be the case.

Fortunately social media will help them to spread their free expression by doxxing the violent.

Black blocks violence is speech.
Milo's and Coulter's speech is violence.

It's Orwellian beyond belief.

 

[Joe Random]

It's funny how you repeat this every post, even though it is not true. Trying to make it believed through repetition?

The antifa love free speech/expression, but they extend its bounds farther than you do.

#alternatefacts

Edit to add : whacking people with a U-lock because you love free expression is like analy raping a woman because you support 'no means no'.