Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 04:07 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 03:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:45 PM)BryanS Wrote:  As long as the actions are legal, protests and counter-demonstrations are A-OK. But blocking access to public services or shutting down a major transportation artery of a city in an unplanned way infringes on the public's rights.

And the people who participate do so as a form of civil disobedience, with all of the risk that implies. Remember too that at one time it was illegal for colored folk to sit at the dinner counter or at the front of the bus, but they did so anyways as a form of protest, and they too were arrested for it. Indeed, being arrested for civil disobedience is something of a proud American tradition, no?

Non-violent civil disobedience--sure. But public safety has to be taken into account. I would hate to need emergency medical services if a major highway were shut down without planning due to protestors. Public safety is the reason governments require protest permits, and courts have never had a problem with reasonable permit requirements for protests for just that reason. The demonstrations against Milo were not non-violent civil disobedience.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:08 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:06 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:00 PM)BryanS Wrote:  That's just a fatuous, nonsensical argument. The government is charged with protecting the public, and if a private entity breaks the law in order to stop your ability to exercise that right, that private entity has violated your rights (in this case the right to free speech).

The 15th amendment guarantees the right of African Americans to vote--if private citizens organized violent protests in front of a polling place in order to intimidate potential voters in predominantly minority neighborhoods, those private citizens would be infringing on the right to vote. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise.

You put speech in a special category that precludes any actor other than the government from being able to infringe on it.



Would it be better to say it was the "liberal left"? That would only be accurate if liberals have the position that violent actions are OK if it means shutting down speech they don't like. Posters put up by the organizers (presumably the peaceful ones) argued for "Shutting down" Milo's speech. That is what ended up happening.



note:edited to update the correct amendment to 15th Smile


Because ther is a difference between voting in a government election, and voting for the head of your neighborhood housing association. Someone who interferes with your ability to vote for President violates your constitutional rights, someone who interferes with your ability to vote for the head of the Neighborhood Association is not violating your constitutional rights. The Constitution grants you a right to speech (mostly) free from government interference, but not free from all interference, nor free from consequences.

This x100

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-02-2017, 04:09 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:07 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And the people who participate do so as a form of civil disobedience, with all of the risk that implies. Remember too that at one time it was illegal for colored folk to sit at the dinner counter or at the front of the bus, but they did so anyways as a form of protest, and they too were arrested for it. Indeed, being arrested for civil disobedience is something of a proud American tradition, no?

Non-violent civil disobedience--sure. But public safety has to be taken into account. I would hate to need emergency medical services if a major highway were shut down without planning due to protestors. Public safety is the reason governments require protest permits, and courts have never had a problem with reasonable permit requirements for protests for just that reason. The demonstrations against Milo were not non-violent civil disobedience.

And the people who acted illegally and violently can and should be prosecuted for violating the law. But they didn't violate Milo's freedom of speech.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-02-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:07 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  And the people who participate do so as a form of civil disobedience, with all of the risk that implies. Remember too that at one time it was illegal for colored folk to sit at the dinner counter or at the front of the bus, but they did so anyways as a form of protest, and they too were arrested for it. Indeed, being arrested for civil disobedience is something of a proud American tradition, no?

Non-violent civil disobedience--sure. But public safety has to be taken into account. I would hate to need emergency medical services if a major highway were shut down without planning due to protestors. Public safety is the reason governments require protest permits, and courts have never had a problem with reasonable permit requirements for protests for just that reason. The demonstrations against Milo were not non-violent civil disobedience.

Just be careful of those who'd use 'public safety' as a means to silence or discredit dissent. It's already terribly easy to justify excessive use of force against peaceful protesters as is.

Any violence against Milo crossed the line, but Milo also should never have been there in the first place. He'd already crossed the line with his prior actions, and as a consequence of his proud and hateful targeted harassment of individual students, should have never even been considered as a potential speaker at any campus ever again; and that banishment would be nothing more than the sound and rational consequence of his prior actions.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
02-02-2017, 04:22 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:00 PM)BryanS Wrote:  That's just a fatuous, nonsensical argument. The government is charged with protecting the public, and if a private entity breaks the law in order to stop your ability to exercise that right, that private entity has violated your rights (in this case the right to free speech).

The 15th amendment guarantees the right of African Americans to vote--if private citizens organized violent protests in front of a polling place in order to intimidate potential voters in predominantly minority neighborhoods, those private citizens would be infringing on the right to vote. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise.

You put speech in a special category that precludes any actor other than the government from being able to infringe on it.



Would it be better to say it was the "liberal left"? That would only be accurate if liberals have the position that violent actions are OK if it means shutting down speech they don't like. Posters put up by the organizers (presumably the peaceful ones) argued for "Shutting down" Milo's speech. That is what ended up happening.



note:edited to update the correct amendment to 15th Smile

"The government is charged with protecting the public, and if a private entity breaks the law in order to stop your ability to exercise that right, that private entity has violated your rights (in this case the right to free speech). "

You need to rethink what you think you are saying here. This means that no company, or entity, or forum, or whatever, can legally have a code of conduct or its own internal rules. So you think it is illegal for a company to fire someone for saying racial slurs around the office?

(Hint: free speech is a special circumstance)


Not at all. Companies have code of conduct and such because it is legal for them to have those--typically employment and/or compensation is tied to that policy, and often times there is a contract to be executed for such requirements. Companies have the right to control speech within their environment, and to some extent outside so long as it bears on the employment relationship with the employer (anything more than that, and it would not be an enforceable contract).

If the code of conduct stated that you would not be allowed to vote if you violated the code that would not be legal. If the code of conduct states that after termination, you can never express a political point of view in the media ever again, that would not be legal (though such an agreement could forbid commenting on your employment in the media). Private parties can agree to such things as limiting public disclosure about their interaction, but in no way can a code of conduct control actions outside of your business relationship. Public figures may have morals clauses due to the public nature of a business relationship, but a low level non-public employee would never be held to an employment policy that controls their speech outside of the workplace.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:32 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 05:01 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 10:57 AM)Dom Wrote:  The whole premise of this thread is screwed.

It makes a whole lot more sense to assume that the hooded crooks were alt right than to assume they were liberals.

I'd say it makes just as much sense. This is the same claim I heard being made by the Frumpy side for the rabble-rousers at their rallies. I suspect there's some truth to both. I mean if my kids generation got any spit in them at all. It's not like it's some new tactic somebody just thought of.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 04:22 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 04:05 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "The government is charged with protecting the public, and if a private entity breaks the law in order to stop your ability to exercise that right, that private entity has violated your rights (in this case the right to free speech). "

You need to rethink what you think you are saying here. This means that no company, or entity, or forum, or whatever, can legally have a code of conduct or its own internal rules. So you think it is illegal for a company to fire someone for saying racial slurs around the office?

(Hint: free speech is a special circumstance)


Not at all. Companies have code of conduct and such because it is legal for them to have those--typically employment and/or compensation is tied to that policy, and often times there is a contract to be executed for such requirements. Companies have the right to control speech within their environment, and to some extent outside so long as it bears on the employment relationship with the employer (anything more than that, and it would not be an enforceable contract).

If the code of conduct stated that you would not be allowed to vote if you violated the code that would not be legal. If the code of conduct states that after termination, you can never express a political point of view in the media ever again, that would not be legal (though such an agreement could forbid commenting on your employment in the media). Private parties can agree to such things as limiting public disclosure about their interaction, but in no way can a code of conduct control actions outside of your business relationship. Public figures may have morals clauses due to the public nature of a business relationship, but a low level non-public employee would never be held to an employment policy that controls their speech outside of the workplace.

Right, so you don't have the freedom from repercussions for exercising your freedom of speech. Your freedom of speech guarantees that the government can't jail you or limit your speech or opinions. It does not mean that private entities or individuals on their private property have to allow you to exercise your right to free speech.

So, Milo's freedom of speech was not violated because he was not restricted from speaking by the government. Other people breaking other laws and inciting violence resulted in his speech being canceled. That is NOT a violation of his freedom of speech.

Edit to add: Milo's freedom of speech wasn't violated by people protesting in public either. The fact that a minority took to rioting, does not mean that his right to freedom of speech was violated. That is a non sequitur and a common misunderstanding about what it means to have the freedom of speech.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
02-02-2017, 04:46 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 03:16 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  the difference between Hitler and a gay Jew...

If Hitler was a closeted gay Jew that would explain a lot.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
02-02-2017, 04:56 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 03:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 03:55 PM)yakherder Wrote:  We could also use the "Michael Jackson eating popcorn" button.

I vote we replace the demon with an emoji with a bad combover Laugh out load

Somebody somewhere's gotta already made one. Earmuffs this is your shot at fame and fortune, get to work.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
02-02-2017, 05:29 PM
RE: Illiberal Left Shuts Down Free Speech with Violence (Again)
(02-02-2017 03:15 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "That said, I still don't personally on any level condone *violence of any kind regardless of what the rhetoric is. "

I haven't seen anyone here condone it.

Where did I say directly anyone did and or how did I imply anyone did? I was just making a statement that is true for me 100% of the time.

Quote:"I also understand this person is divisive and generally a dick, but then why ask or allow him to speak in the first place?"

That is what some of us are arguing is the ultimate mistake, letting him speak there. Stupid move. Stupid move to invite him. Stupid move to let him. Stupid move to listen him.

"Why do you think they "expect and want violence"?"

Because they can point to the violence that pops up to try and paint themselves as the victims. As Emma put it, it gives them a convenient excuse to play martyr. "Oh woe is us! We just wanted to express our bigoted and hateful opinions and look at how we were treated! Those angry mean liberals just don't want free speech for anyone but themselves."

Thanks for your replies.

You and a few others in this thread have suggested because of Milo's position on lots of issues, he shouldn't be allowed to speak at a university, in the first place. How does that not end up being the same thing? 'Mean liberal run university wants to silence our freedom of speech'. A good friend once taught me that there are excuses and reasons. The university used the violence as an excuse to uninvited him to speak and he used the protests and violence as a reason to silence him. Both aren't entirely wrong, but they're not entirely right either.

I struggle with this myself. My liberal sensibility agrees they shouldn't be allowed to speak. But then a rational part of me says that they already have a venue to speak mostly unfettered to their websites, blogs, Facebook groups, followers and the like, who knows if they erase comments from rational people and leave the whackadoo comments which further their cause...Let them speak and let others speak after them, refuting the claims they make and describing how divisive their rhetoric is.

Im not saying I have an answer to my personal quandary I'm just saying this where my head it -- and Safari on my laptop just sucks.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: