Sorry, but you are flat wrong here.
woody14619
1

I still maintain free speech is under attack. My reply:

..at the same time, I do not want to be forced to see, hear, or pay for dissemination of, his poorly thought out opinion.

I agree with you on this, you should not be forced to see, hear or pay for anything you don’t want to hear. So stay home. Why did you take it upon yourself to physically locate to where he was speaking? Even worse why did you and your ilk find in necessary to violently protest? Because you didn’t want anyone else to hear opinions that differ from your own. People incidentally, who were willing to see, hear and pay to do so. That is oppression. Your freedom ends where mine begins and to imply that you paid to support the university also implies that others paid equally. If it was your personal university you could do as you like, but this still is a democracy. You can choose to pay or not pay; if you don’t like the university’s policy for embracing free speech, stop paying. Wave a flag. Send a strongly worded email. March if you like. It’s all good. Peaceful protest is enshrined in law.

It does not give you a free pass to lie, or incite violence, or panic a crowd.

What happened at UC Berkeley was not peaceful. It was not ‘technically’ illegal. It was not a rally. Video footage reveals an orchestrated, incendiary combination of aggression and militia tactics that sparked a deliberate riot. Link. Milo’s opponents purposefully created unsafe conditions to silence him in the process.

You reduce civil discourse to the base level of aggression only — if you accept violence to be a valid way to display disaffection. Despite the public displays of virtue, going high when they go low, of a pretense to occupy the moral high ground, when it comes to defending the first amendment, naked violence is well within the playbook. Way to go.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States clearly gives the legal precedent for anyone to exercise this form of free speech.

I was precise in my statement. Among other things, Milo speaks about feminism, black lives matter and the disenfranchisement of males in society. The speech at Berkeley was supposed to be about Halloween costumes! (Link). I happen to agree with some of what he has said. At the time of the riot, Milo was known as a provocateur, troll, and entertainer; his followers had (and still have) every right to hear his opinion. Obviously you missed that, but I understand. Living in echo chambers can affect both hearing and vision. Liberals could not hear, did not see and missed out on an entire election. All of which came about because you didn’t want to see, hear or understand concerns within the American populace.

Until footage of Milo’s defense of child molestation aired, most had no clue of Milo’s unstated beliefs. By allowing him to speak, only now, we can get the measure of the man. Only now we can speak to the irrationality and indefensible nature of his beliefs about pedophilia. Yet his statements on feminism, single motherhood, the black lives matter movement and the continued attack on white males are valid.

The only way we can know the beliefs that underpin the construct of a man, is to let him speak. Your approach denies platform, it denies open airing of any and all controversial speech that does not align with your tender sensibilities. Other conservative speakers report fire alarms being pulled and/or fake bomb threats during their speaking tours (link). I have seen urine poured into people’s hair (link) and liberal use of pepper spray. I have experienced attacks by SJWs designed to demean and dismiss and ultimately silence. No friend, the tactics of the left are intended to suppress any speech they deem objectionable.

And as for “rambling disjointed demands”… I point you to the current POTUS.

I will give you that one. I’m not a Trumpkin. But you are making my argument for me. This demonstrates what happens when you silence dissent. When you abrogate free speech. It pushes dissent down, deep into the human psyche where it metastizes and erupts in unprecedented ways. It’s your own fault you have a president you don’t like. Democrats have been routed and beaten almost into submission by their own hands. If Trump manages to do a half way decent job, there will be 4 more years of him. He won the election.

Fact of the matter is, there is a huge anti-intellectual movement in the US.

Agreed. An examination of the roots of this inevitably lead to an educational approach geared towards educating females with the unpardonable exclusion of boys. A system given to rote memorization instead of a synthesis of critical thinking and raw data. Marry this to an R selected reproductive strategy (link) and a nation given to distraction instead of mindfulness and you end up with an idiocracy. This is us. Attacking the HB-1 visa only shoots America in the foot. The best of the world’s intellect helps keep America competitive.

To be clear, none of this is acceptable, on either side of the isle. But to call it out for one group, with no acknowledgement that it happens on all sides, is equally wrong.

Agreed. The demonization of minorities by our current administration is implicated in killings of Indians legally resident in America. Violence is visible on both sides of the political divide. What’s hypocritical is the nauseating and simpering pretense of virtue on the left whilst surreptitiously rigging the election of Bernie Sanders, maintaining secret servers, paying agitators to foment dissent, Benghazi, and an agenda of cultural Marxism played out to feminists at large. I could go on but you get the point.

The unprecedented trouncing the liberal left is experiencing after the last election cycle should have taught one thing: the pubic is weary of this type of liberal politics. We are tired of Political Correctness. Tired of the marginalization of white males as it undoes the family structure. We are exhausted by a welfare state that penalizes the working class even as it creates a leisure class clinging like bloodsucking bats to the lapels of the taxpayer. And all of this cemented by overwrought emotional politics, victim culture, cultural Marxism, coloring books and therapy dogs.

The time for silliness is past. Surely you can see this. Free speech, when it falls within the confines of law is allowed to be objectionable, even outright disgusting because it allows a contest of ideas instead of a conflict with weapons. Meet ideas with ideas instead of pepper spray and shaming language. Make an argument instead of a war. Objectionable ideas fall away, defeated in the public marketplace of discourse. Even Milo could not defend pedophilia. His words undid his platform by themselves. You actually want this in a democracy.

And for goodness sake, defend free speech even if you dislike what is said, especially if you don’t agree with what is said. That way you get to engage with the other side of the argument first to understand and then to decide whether you agree or not. It’s the civilized thing to do.

J.