Yes, apparently free speech rights are inferior to "marriage rights".My head spins! From free speech to gay marriage. These are interesting times my friends.
Yes, apparently free speech rights are inferior to "marriage rights".My head spins! From free speech to gay marriage. These are interesting times my friends.
I think he's just pointing out a logical inconsistency. They are rampart, left and right.My head spins! From free speech to gay marriage. These are interesting times my friends.
You're pretty desperate with this one, particularly given that the Supreme Court had just ruled that she DID, in fact, have an obligation to provide qualified couples with marriage licenses.So maybe Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples wasn't an infringement of a constitutional right. The couples could have simply gone somewhere else. Just because couples have a right to marriage does not mean that any other organization, public or private, has an obligation to provide them with a license.
That's what he thinks he's doing, at least.I think he's just pointing out a logical inconsistency. They are rampart, left and right.
I suppose you are aware of SCOTUS rulings regarding campus free speech issues?That's what he thinks he's doing, at least.
Yes. I suppose you are aware that universities have to balance free speech issues with issues of public safety?I suppose you are aware of SCOTUS rulings regarding campus free speech issues?
You mean they have to offer equal protection to all, including those you or they or even I may disagree with? Yes. If you can't see how ripe for abuse throwing their hands up in the air as if they can do nothing to make the venue safe is then I don't know what else to say.Yes. I suppose you are aware that universities have to balance free speech issues with issues of public safety?
Is there potential for abuse? Absolutely. But it cuts both ways--they can't just ignore public safety and then shrug their hands and say "free speech" if something bad happens.You mean they have to offer equal protection to all, including those you or they or even I may disagree with? Yes. If you can't see how ripe for abuse throwing their hands up in the air as if they can do nothing to make the venue safe is then I don't know what else to say.
So you support mob rule in this case?Is there potential for abuse? Absolutely. But it cuts both ways--they can't just ignore public safety and then shrug their hands and say "free speech" if something bad happens.
Please stop putting words in my mouth.So you support mob rule in this case?
I'm not trying to do that, but it is the natural outcome of your stance. I asked it as a question purposefully, not as an attempt at evading saying directly that was what you meant but rather to question your line of thinking and point to that natural outcome.Please stop putting words in my mouth.
The hits kept coming for DePaul students as the spring quarter rolled on. As a response to the university’s reaction to the chalkings, the DePaul College Republicans invited controversial activist and journalist Milo Yiannopoulos to speak on campus, drawing strong opposition from many on campus who alleged that the event would perpetuate “both hate speech and systemic oppression on campus.”The event organizers believed they were in the clear after they reserved two adjoining rooms and agreed to pay for eight security officers—contracted by DePaul—to staff the event. But less than two weeks before the event, DePaul informed the College Republicans that it was cancelling one of the room reservations—more than halving the event’s maximum capacity—and drastically curtailing Yiannopoulos’ speaking time. DePaul also demanded that the College Republicans hire 12 additional security officers. The new maximum capacity for the event would bring the ratio to approximately one security officer for every 13 attendees. For reference, DePaul’s guidelines for event security establish a range of one officer for every 50-75 attendees. After pushback from the College Republicans, DePaul restored the reservation for the second room and dropped its security demands to “only” eight additional officers (at a cost of nearly $1,000 to the College Republicans)—a ratio of one officer for every 34 attendees, for those keeping count, which is still well above the university’s own guidelines.
FIRE’s letter explains that imposing an onerous price tag on speech because it might offend others who would cause a disruption is antithetical to the principles of free speech that DePaul so proudly extols. As the Supreme Court stated more than two decades ago: “Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.”
Nevertheless, with no other choice, the College Republicans acceded to the university’s demands. One might think that with these substantial last-minute burdens met, the College Republicans would finally be able to hold their event despite the university’s best efforts to derail it. One would be wrong.
Shortly after Yiannopoulos began to speak on May 24, student protesters began to disrupt the event by blowing whistles, screaming, and taking over the stage. One even took a swing at Yiannopoulos. The security officers that DePaul had forced the College Republicans to pay nearly $2,000 for sat idly by and did not intervene. With no recourse, the event organizers called the police to address the disruption. But upon arriving, DePaul administrators reportedly instructed the Chicago police officers not to intervene. With the disruption continuing unabated, the event ended prematurely with Yiannopoulos leading a march to DePaul President Dennis Holtschneider’s office to protest what had just occurred.
Because their event had been curtailed, the College Republicans re-invited Yiannopoulos to speak on campus on September 20. This time, DePaul was more transparent. In a July 7 email to the student organizers, Zdziarski wrote, point-blank:By this message, please be advised that the University is denying the request for the room and for Mr. Yiannopoulos to speak on our campus. Having consulted with Public Safety and having reviewed last Spring’s events, it is clear that it would not be possible for DePaul to provide the security that would be required for such an event.Let’s take a closer look at these untoward justifications.
Further, having reviewed a full-length video of the event, it is our opinion that Mr. Yiannopoulos’ words and behavior contained inflammatory-speech, contributed to a hostile environment, and incited similar behavior from the crowd in attendance.
First, Zdziarski says that Yiannopoulos cannot speak on campus due to security concerns raised by the event in May. That’s right: DePaul says that Yiannopoulos cannot be invited to speak because the 16 security officers that the university forced the College Republicans to pay for did not do their job, and the police officers who were called to the scene were instructed not to intervene. If DePaul has security concerns, they are of DePaul’s own making. After all, the students had no choice in who to hire to provide the security. The College Republicans complied with the university’s demands, and DePaul cannot be allowed to use its own failure to independently provide security (and its alleged deliberate interference with the police effort to restore order) as an excuse to deny them the ability to invite a speaker of their choosing.
What’s more, DePaul wielded the security justification against a separate student group as well. In July, when the DePaul Young Americans for Freedom sought to invite conservative journalist Ben Shapiro to speak at an October event, DePaul Vice President for Facilities Operations Bob Janis told the group that because of security concerns raised by Shapiro’s speeches at other universities (presumably referring to the disruptions caused by protesters during Shapiro’s lecture at California State University, Los Angeles), he too is banned from speaking on campus. DePaul’s actions here need little explaining.
DePaul has capitulated to the same hostile mob that the Supreme Court warned could not be used to justify burdens or bans on speech. In doing so, it has sent a message to its students that all it takes to prevent someone you disagree with from speaking on campus is to cause, or threaten to cause, disruption. Those disrupting will escape without penalty, and any controversial speakers—even those who have not yet generated any controversy at DePaul itself—will be swiftly banned at the expense of ideological diversity on campus. For shame.
I agree with your opinion of the speaker, FWIW. Surely the situation at Berkeley spiraled out of control. It makes one wonder just how vested they were in providing security. They certainly tipped their hand by indicating they anticipated substantial protests. Yet they seemed ill prepared.I'll be brief, as I have to get up early. The DePaul and Berkley incidents do raise some interesting issues. As for your contention that my stance is an endorsement of mob rule--I understand you're point, but details matter. The university is juggling competing interests--free speech versus serious financial liability. If you were a university administrator, would you advocate permitting a controversial speaker in a venue in which you could not be reasonable sure that you could provide a safe environment?
It's a tightrope act, to be sure. Berkeley, to their credit, tried to handle this in an appropriate fashion. But when events started spiraling out of control--after over $100,000 of damage and after people were injured, they canceled the event due to safety concerns. It's hard to fault them for their actions at that time. Now, you can argue that they should have rescheduled--and in hindsight, they probably should have.
I'll admit that part of my lack of concern is due to Milo Y being a fairly contemptible human being; every time I have heard him speak, he was interested only in saying something outrageous, not in starting any sort of discourse.
All for now. May try to expand on this tomorrow afternoon.
well, there is the old saying about getting caught with a dead girl or live boyHe's "resigned" (they fired his butt) from Breitbart. Nice to know there's a moral line they will not cross.
It's interesting how the pedophilia comments are what finally did him in.well, there is the old saying about getting caught with a dead girl or live boy
I totally agree, the original post is just bating people to respond which is now the norm.I could care less if CPAC invites or disinvites him. It is their decision to make and it does snot infringe on his rights. The Berkley situation was entirely different all around. That was more an issue of mob violence and the mob being guilty of infringement (private parties can infringe - see housing).
Man, you hit it all, didn't you?Since someone brought up his "resignation", from TrumpBart.......................
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/21/milo-condemns-cynical-media-witch-hunt/
Forget how you feel about Milo, whether his comments were taken out of context, selectively edited, his penchant for saying really outrageous things, and whether (as he put it.........something to the effect of "imprecise language"), it seems the ugly head of Egg McMuffin is involved in this.
Yes, the useless weasel "never Trump" CIA stooge is apparently behind making this video "going viral". What I have always found sickening is how this tool (and his ilk) try to pretend they are "Reaganites", when they have NOTHING in common with him. (They are all Bushies. Remember, King Shrub I was head honcho of the CIA. And if you think Bush liked Reagan...................)
That, and the irony they are so afraid Drumpf is going to ruin this country that they are willing to risk ruining the country by using any method to get rid of Drumpf.
And his dangerous..................uh, buddy, Milo.
(Not to mention Gen. Flynn. Yes, pretty much the same tools are bragging how they leaked sensitive information about him. Even their official mouthpiece, Bill Kristol, approves of these methods.) (If you don't believe me, there's a story about that on........yeah, you guessed it: TrumpBart. And others. But, you have to dig it out on your own.)
And the other irony..................
What the fascist left couldn't do (iow, take down a gay dude, who has Jewish blood, and dates black dudes, by calling him a notzy, alt-right, white supremacist), is taken down by the so-called "deep-state". Fascists of a feather flock together. Or, poly-ticks makes for strange bed fellows.
I agree with this. OTOH, I really think it is a provocative issue and one which was going to surface, one way or the other, however originally framed. Underlying the whole discussion seems to be the assumption by both sides that it is the business of institutes of higher learning to provide forums for fringe speakers both on the far left and the far right. Is it really?I totally agree, the original post is just bating people to respond which is now the norm.