When the university cancels an event because of that threat it is either credible or they looked for an opportunity to cancel that event. I’m more interested in understanding their reasoning for not investigating the threat and taking some form of action against the individual or group who made the threat. This goes beyond free-speech and is a valid criticism of an establishment who don’t take threats and the mental strain of students seriously.
What are you talking about? What threat was not investigated?
I didn’t see her credited anywhere in that piece.
You’re right, I apologize.
However, the paragraph you quoted is still editorializing, there is no evidence this is the case:
“Thus far, UC Berkeley has shown that it will use the cover of violence to suppress speech. For example, when leftist opponents to Milo Yiannopolous’ ideas engaged in violence, UC Berkeley did not protect freedom of expression, but rather tacitly endorsed the violence by giving the rioters what they wanted — Milo’s speech was cancelled.”
And you have consistently refused to consider the point I raised:
“It is worth having a conversation about what duty entities like universities have to maintaining a safe atmosphere when they are literally being invaded by hostile groups of people.”
Instead of addressing that point, you seem intent on stating that this was what the university wanted: you claim they wanted to have people breaking stuff on campus so they could cancel Milo’s speech.
Do you have any evidence of that or not?
I recently encountered a video featuring a Ben Shapiro talk, in which protestors shouted at him from within the lecture hall and even came onto the stage to disrupt his speech. Is that part of the protestors free speech, when they use theirs to deny someone else’s right to free-speech?
I want you to think about what you are asking: what would the university have to do in order to maintain that level of order?
How many guards would you need to make sure no one yelled?
It is fascinating to me that you keep arguing about free speech, but the picture you describe for “free speech” is of a tightly policed community.
What about the attendees of the lecture? What about liberals who value free-speech and don’t want it jeopardized? Are the concerns of the protestors the only metric we should follow. Are their right supersede everyone else’s?
Welcome to the problem of equal rights. This is the point where I must ask: how do you define “free speech” such that individual human beings are not allowed to speak?
Why should I prioritize the rights of the person on the stage instead of the person beside me? You keep saying the words “free speech”, but what you talk about is hierarchy.
Which brings us back to the comment John made:
“I think fundamentally the biggest problem is your assumption that Trump is “authoritarian” or that the country is somehow becoming authoritarian.”
Fundamentally, I do not think either of you recognize authoritarianism. Because I have now spent days talking about whether or not Berkeley has a duty to host antagonistic speakers, while Mitch McConnell has protesters removed by police from his office.
This is your example of protesters disrupting Shapiro’s appearance, and it’s fascinating.
The current political divisiveness playing out on the national stage reared its head on campus Wednesday when…badgerherald.com
You asked, “Is that part of the protestors free speech, when they use theirs to deny someone else’s right to free-speech?”
Why don’t you tell me? Anita Sarkeesian actually had to cancel her appearance in Utah because the university was threatened by someone who promised a school shooting, and the police refused to check firearms.
The feminist pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to cancel a talk at Utah State University, after a…www.theguardian.com
Would you like to stand up for her rights?
“The school confirmed Sarkeesian’s explanation in a statement. “During the discussion, Sarkeesian asked if weapons will be permitted at the speaking venue. Sarkeesian was informed that, in accordance with the State of Utah law regarding the carrying of firearms, if a person has a valid concealed firearm permit and is carrying a weapon, they are permitted to have it at the venue.”