Not even close to the same as the Berkeley incident. The rioters silenced him like the rioters silenced Trump. It was a matter of public safety. This is an organization disinviting him on their own accord, and not forced to by rabid lunatics setting the town on fire.
yes but everyone on the right was bashing Berkley and calling them a bunch of Snowflakes for backing down to the protesters and canceling Milo's talk. The were specifically calling Cal Berkley out for violating Milo the Pedo's first amendment rights. Did CPAC do the same?
To me personally I have an issue with Berkeley in one regard, and that is allowing the riot to grow into the scale it was. I have no problem with them going the public safety route, but they should make it clear of what is a PROTEST and what is a RIOT. But Milo has 1st amendment rights like Farrakhan, Spencer, Sean King, Bannon, and anyone else you want to lump into the hateful deplorables.
For that matter, Berkley canceling his speech did not violate his first amendment rights. Just because he has a right to free speech does not mean that any other organization, public or private, has an obligation to provide him with a forum.
This is less about Berkeley's decision to cancel a speech than policies (some governmental) which excuse and/or promote a culture of lawlessness and violence.
Hmmm...interesting argument.
I count it breath-taking. However, I'm becoming accustomed to having my breath taken...
True, but that has little to do with my post, which was that canceling Milo Breitbart (sorry, not even gonna try to spell his last name) did not infringe his right to free speech.
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.
