Milo Yiannopoulos speech canceled at UC Berkeley amidst protests and violence

According to the New York Times and SFGateMilo Yiannopoulos’s scheduled appearance at the University of California at Berkeley last night, sponsored by the College Republicans, was canceled after initially peaceful protests turned violent. The situation isn’t completely clear, but it looks as if “outside agitators” (i.e., non-students) attacked police barricades, threw paint, and then went on a rampage. As I reported earlier, the Berkeley Chancellor had refused to cancel the event, calling for freedom of speech at the same time that he deplored Milo’s views.

SFGate reports:

A protest at UC Berkeley over a scheduled appearance by right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos turned fiery and violent Wednesday night, prompting police to cancel the event and hustle the Breitbart News editor off campus.

But even after the event’s cancellation, hundreds of protesters spilled off campus into the city streets, where the violence continued as they confronted drivers, engaged in fights, smashed storefront windows and set fires.

The trouble began around 6 p.m., two hours before Yiannopoulos was to begin his speech inside the student union building on Sproul Plaza. Protesters outside the building began throwing fireworks and pulling down the metal barricades police set up to keep protesters from rushing inside. Windows were smashed and fires were set outside the building as masked protesters stormed it. Police quickly evacuated Yiannopoulos for his own safety.

Berkeley police said five people were injured and some people, including a man who said he had hoped to see Yiannopoulos speak, were seen with their faces bloodied. There were no arrests.

Police said protesters threw bricks and fireworks at police officers. University police locked down all buildings and told people inside them to shelter in place, and later fired pepper balls and paint balls into the crowd of protesters who defied orders to leave the area. Police called in support from nine of the 10 UC campuses and the Oakland Police Department and Alameda County sheriffs department.

On Berkeley’s city streets, protesters took their rage against construction sites and businesses, smashing windows at banks and stores. They also confronted motorists, and at one point a driver sped off with a protester on the car hood.

What the hell? Here’s a video of some of the protests, which, ironically, took place in Sproul Plaza, where the Free Speech Movement was born in the mid-Sixties.

And here’s a report I got last night from a reader who lived close by:

I live about a mile from the UC Berkeley campus, and beginning several hours ago, I’ve heard the sound of helicopters circling down that way.  Had no idea why, could be anything.  But just a few minutes ago, there was a radio report stating that Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech was canceled and there has been some violence, throwing smoke bombs and fireworks, a fire, a few people with blood on their faces.  The report stated that at first the protest was peaceful, but some ‘black clad’ folks wearing masks arrived, crashed the party so to speak, and of a suddenly things got violent.  (Surely these are the floating group of anarchist agitators who call themselves “Black Bloc” and violently co-op peaceful demonstrations here in the Bay Area and elsewhere).  I’m not certain just what is happening but I now hear sirens.  I don’t have a TV, so just found a live feed on the Internet.  Reports that there are thousands of people and the entire campus is on lockdown.  However, I’m also hearing on the radio that some of the protestors are trying to de-escalate the situation by playing music.  The situation is fluid and lots of things going on.

Well, it’s all over now; move along folks, nothing to see here. Need I add that this violence by either anarchists or the Left, but certainly by opponents of Milo and Trump, is unconscionable? We’re supposed to be better than that, and yet here we are acting like thugs and goons. As one reader emailed me, “This is what happens when people start to believe that they are so morally superior that they can literally do anything and still be right. Ironically, they’re not a million miles away from fascism themselves anymore.”  That’s exactly what Nick Cohen warned about in his book What’s Left? And, predictably, Trump has threatened to cut UC Berkeley’s funding.

What pains me as much as this violence is the excuse that the protestors had: they were exercising free speech, not suppressing it! Such is the Doublespeak of the Regressive Left. Here are two excerpts from the report above (my emphases):

Protesters argued that what Yiannopoulos specializes in is hate speech, and that it didn’t deserve to be protected.

“It’s not a question of free speech,” a protester said via megaphone, riling up the hundreds of protesters. “It’s about real human beings.”

Seriously? If speech is about real human beings, it’s not free speech? That’s something new to me.

Those who attend his appearances, [Yiannopoulos] said, include people who “don’t necessarily agree with me but just want to hear the other side. They were prevented from doing so this evening by violence from the left — the left that is terrified of anyone who they think might be persuasive or might be interesting or might take people with them.”

But UC Berkeley sophomore Jonathan Gow, 19, rejected Yiannopoulos’ insistence that free speech took a hit.

“The whole reason we’re here is for free speech,” Gow said. “Milo’s hate speech is not allowed here. When it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down.”

Black is white! Clearly, whatever speech you don’t like isn’t free speech, but hate speech, which deserves to be censored. The problem, as always, is “who gets to define ‘hate speech'”? Some of what Milo says deserves discussion, and none of what Milo says contravenes “free speech” as interpreted by the courts.

What these protestors is doing is cutting the very heart out of the First Amendment.  Hate speech is now seen as violence, although the only thing hurt are some people’s feelings. But that’s enough, for many, to justify censorship. It’s sad that even some Berkeley students are on board with this.

I’ll close with an excerpt from the report, quoting yet another UCB student:

UC Berkeley junior Fatima Ibrahim, 20, who clutched a “resist fear” sign with a red fist, said the timing of Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance stung.

“As a black Muslim woman, all three of those identities have been targeted throughout (Trump’s) campaign,” Ibrahim said. “To have someone like (Yiannopoulos) come into my campus and affirm those people’s beliefs, it’s very, very hurtful.”

Hours after the event was canceled, the College Republicans issued a statement declaring the Free Speech Movement dead. “It is tragic that the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement is also its final resting place,” the statement said.

I hate to agree with the College Republicans on this, but I do.

_________

UPDATE: A PuffHo article that reports the riots (and, predictably, has a distinctly anti-Milo slant) is followed by a number of comments, many of which show that people just don’t understand what freedom of speech entails. Here’s a screenshot of some of the discussion:

screen-shot-2017-02-02-at-12-07-07-pm

117 Comments

  1. Posted February 2, 2017 at 11:38 am | Permalink

    “Resist fear”? She gave into it.

  2. Posted February 2, 2017 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    In the spirit of multiple working hypotheses, one must be on guard for the possibility that violence at peaceful progressive protests might be instigated by right-wing operatives. Fascism 101.

    • Martin X
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

      That gets into “George Soros paid the women to march” conspiracy theory territory. It’s not uncommon for protests to devolve into violence by people all along the political spectrum.

    • Kevin
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

      If I was at the protest I would not have been instigated to do any violence. In fact, I would have tried to stop it.

      If there are right-wing operatives then these students really are easily subdued by their own emotions and the operatives benefit from their weakness.

      The regressive-left buries their agenda under insecurity and the fear of hurt feelings.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

      Even if ‘right wing operatives’ were behind it, left wing operatives’ are defending it. Are they all stooges too?

    • allison
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

      I agree completely, particularly since the optics of such violent protests are so advantageous to the likes of Trump and Bannon and Yiannopolous.

      • Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:15 am | Permalink

        People’s actions often have undesired consequences. This does not necessarily justify conspiracy theories. E.g. I have read statements of people that Black Lives Matter contributed to their decision to vote for Trump, but I do not suspect Trump to be behind the BLM activists.
        The leftist grassroots activists have to choose their strategy: to act by persuation or by bullying. But whatever strategy they choose, it will include both pros and cons.

    • Posted February 3, 2017 at 11:37 am | Permalink

      There have been provocateurs at student protests here in Canada from time to time. (And also “anarchist” thugs, too.)

  3. Cindy
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 11:59 am | Permalink

    Speech I disagree with = violence

    Beating up those who say things I don’t like = free speech

  4. Gary Allan
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Let’s face it: the divide in society is between those who support more liberty and those who would oppose that. The opponents can be of any political ideal, but the key element is that they are utterly convinced of their rectitude and righteousness. So we can have so-called progressives and so-called alt-right saying much different things, but acting in the same manner, while the rest of us, who rather like free speech, although it means hearing some awful things at times, and respect for others, wonder what is coming.

  5. Billy Bl.
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Lots of room in Canada. Bring your coats.

    • Denise
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      I thought you had hate speech laws in Canada, no?

      • Billy Bl.
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

        Yes, but I wasn’t suggesting refuge from laws.

        • mordacious1
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

          Too much gun violence in Canada.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

      Snowflakes don’t need coats.

  6. Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:09 pm | Permalink

    Whatever the peaceful protestor’s opinion regarding free-speech, as long as they were exercising that anti-free-speech peacefully, then that’s their right. However, another element enters the fray with only destruction and chaos in mind. The tragedy is that the peaceful protestors did not immediately condemn or explain the violence and deflect association, instead they went on blathering about hate-speech isn’t free-speech blah blah blah. So now, regardless of describing the group responsible for the violence, now the two are immediately connected, allowing for a right-wing “liberals are intolerant and violent” narrative that is easily spun into a “remove the right to protest”. Since Trump likes signing things, and a 30 second signature from Trump sends the entire country into a tailspin and disarray, and he doesn’t seem to care if his signatures are on legal documents because who cares about the courts, we should be seeing an executive order banning protests in some form or another any day now.

    I don’t even know if the “Black Bloc” is anti-Trump, or on the Trump payroll but they seem to get away with the violence and nobody tries to figure out the motives behind the organization (150 people marching out with masks to cause mayhem is organized, so how is it being planned? Is there a Meetup group or something?) The so-called “liberal” media isn’t doing much for the cause by muddying up peaceful protests with sexy violence and Hollywood-esque “They also confronted motorists, and at one point a driver sped off with a protester on the car hood.” scenes from a bad action film.

    That they are wrong about free-speech is less important that that their wrongness is being plastered all over the reports in seeming solidarity with rioting.

    Roughly 150 people in masks (Possibly not even students) caused the violence out of ~1500 protestors (also possibly not entirely made up of students) out of an enrollment of 38,204 students. But as far as the red half of the country is concerned, Berkley students are out of control liberals creating havoc and mayhem and therefore Berkley should lose funding (Trump said it, I support it, that settles it!)

    Nothing good can come of any of this!

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

      I’ll respond to my own question: Salon actually has an article on the “Black Bloc” but so does Breitbart, which I won’t read because the snark and darkness are evident even in the Google excerpt:

      http://www.salon.com/2013/01/29/we_dont_talk_to_media_but_we_are_black_bloc/

    • eric
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      The tragedy is that the peaceful protestors did not immediately condemn or explain the violence and deflect association…

      I’m sure many students did immediately condemn it. Unfortunately, left/right agreement that the violence was bad doesn’t make for as juicy coverage as ‘alt-left vs. alt-right battle royale’, so it goes largely unreported. But for example, CNN interviewed a student that seems to have a reasonable head on his shoulders, and I’m sure he wasn’t the only one.

      I’m not a paranoid “media is evil” kind of conspiracy nut. I think most of the time they basically get it right. But in cases like this where you get a number of interviews, IMO we do have consider the possibility that they may be sensationalizing things; airing the student interviews that were most inflammatory or eye-popping, rather than airing the ones most representative of the group interviewed.

  7. Carl
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    Thanks once again Prof. Coyne for an unequivocal defense of free speech.

    • wendell read
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      I absolutely and totally agree!

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        Me too! Free speech does not include violence to people and property, especially those who have nothing to do with the issue. These are people who just want to rampage and “let loose the dogs of war”.

    • Posted February 3, 2017 at 3:18 am | Permalink

      + 1

  8. Zach
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

    Lesson of the story: if you don’t want someone to speak, engage in violence outside their event, and it will be cancelled.

    Perfect.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

      I think the Left has learned this tactic from extremist Muslims, whose threats (and acts) of violence have caused many to censor themselves. Yale University, for instance, published an entire book on the Danish anti-Muhammad cartoons without showing them.

    • DiscoveredJoys
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 4:45 am | Permalink

      +1

  9. Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    While the comparison of Der Drumpfenfurher and his T-Party with Hitler and the Nazis is obvious and holds overwhelming merit, far too many have leapt to the conclusion that what comes next is Muslim / Mexican / whatever concentration camps and gas chambers — and, therefore, now is the time for a violent uprising. We are warned that, if we don’t “do something” now, history will condemn us for failing to prevent another Holocaust.

    This reaction, and the manifestations of it we’re now starting to witness, is as insanely idiotic as throwing Molotov cocktails at every moving shadow in order to protect your farmstand from the howling pack of wolves crossing the fence.

    It is important to recognize that things are bad, yes. And there will be bad things that will happen in the future, quite probably sooner rather than later.

    But it is even more important to be calm and measured in any response.

    First, of course, is the tactical importance. If everybody in opposition to Drumpf simply goes out rioting and starts smashing windows and what-not, he’ll ruefully-but-gleefully declare martial law with the full sympathy and support of everybody victimized by the rioters. And then we’re all stuck with a permanent and somewhat-morally-justified state of emergency, one in which life becomes miserable for everybody and which is really, really hard to work ourselves of. Gee, thanks, everybody.

    That directs us to the moral imperative of an intelligent response. Smash windows in the name of a Resistance, and you’re no better than a jackbooted thug who breaks down a door in the name of Order. I’d prefer none of the above, if you please.

    …which now brings us to strategy. I think we can all agree that Señor Smallinpants is a first-grade idiot. It shouldn’t be all that difficult to outthink him and come up with a way to non-violently counteract whatever he comes up with. Let him use his strengths against himself. Dr. King and Ghandi and plenty others have shown us how; is it too much to ask that we take them seriously, even as we’re supposed to take Mr. Tinyhands seriously?

    That, in turn, brings us to the question of what each of us can do to fix this mess…and it shouldn’t be all that surprising that, for the most part, what you should do now to make the world a better place is the same thing you’d do in any other circumstance to make the world a better place. Build things, don’t tear them down. Help people, don’t hurt them. Make beautiful things, not ugly things. Join hands, don’t throw fists. Be brave and steadfast in the face of danger and destruction, don’t be fearful or resort to vengeance.

    “But bad things are happening, and other bad things are going to happen!” Yes, they are and they will. But doing more bad things yourself is just going to make things worse, and maturity comes in no small part from recognizing that the world is imperfect; you are limited in your ability to make the world perfect; and making things worse is much worse than failing to make them perfect.

    “This is intolerable, so something must be done.” If “something” is more harmful than “nothing,” the wise person does “nothing.”

    Again, this isn’t a call to inaction — quite the opposite!

    This is a call to construction. You don’t have to solve the whole world’s problems. You don’t even have to solve your own problems. You just have to do what you can to make the world a better place than it would otherwise be.

    Cheers,

    b&

    • Merilee
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

      Excellent, Ben!

    • Kevin
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

      Adversity 101. That’s a class all UC students should take. Learning how to deal with things that make them uncomfortable.

      Maybe they need to unlearn to be unoffended?? My kids would not be violent, they would not even know why to be violent.

      • eric
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

        Be offended. There’s nothing wrong with finding Milo’s position offensive. Just learn to handle it like an adult (or, um, better than your average adult…)

        • darrelle
          Posted February 3, 2017 at 7:25 am | Permalink

          I was watching a reality show last night with my wife, Project Runway Junior. It is a show where fashion designers compete, design and make cloths. Like all reality shows there is drama. The thing that struck me about this one is how much better behaved the kids on this show were compared to what is typically on display on the adult version of the show. The kids range from about 12 to 16 years old. They exhibit compassion, sincerity, humility and thoughtfulness that is sorely lacking from the adults on the adult show in my experience.

  10. Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    I said it last time, and I’ll say it again with a bit more nuance. This was Milo’s plan A. Plan B is to actually speak. But this? This plays directly into his hand, and he’s laughing his ass off, all the way to the bank.

    And I’m not normally one to claim a false flag, and I’m not dismissing student involvement, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if Milo, via his supporters, had a role in instigating the protest itself.

    Tucker Max

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, I should have described my link. It’s a story from Dan Ariely’s (Dis)Honesty Project about an ad campaign that did exactly what I’m accusing Milo of. Subversively encouraging his detractors to try to ban him.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:32 pm | Permalink

      Whenever I used to argue against pro lifers, they always said that anyone on their side who made them look bad was a pro choicer in disguise since pro lifers would never ever ever engage in violence. All of those clinic shootings are really the fault of lefties trying to make innocent pro lifers look bad.

      • mordacious1
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 3:38 pm | Permalink

        That was me I’m afraid. I used to have a great job touring the world burying dinosaur fossils to prove evolution, but times are tough. The only job I can get now, is beating up random people at Planned Parenthood in order to make christians look bad. A fella’s gotta do what a fella’s gotta do.

    • jpchgo
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

      Yes, it makes sense that Milo would participate, getting people riled up is good for him.

      But what do the College Republicans have to gain by hosting him?

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

        I wouldn’t go so far as to say they’re complicit, but if they’re on board with Milo’s messages that White Men are discriminated against, and the playing field needs to be leveled, and in fact there should be a cap on women enrolled in STEM because they can’t hack it, and we should shame women who are overweight out of love because we don’t want them healthy….

        If a group is on board with that then Milo speaking or not helps the message.

        I also saw this unconfirmed comment on Facebook:

        More thoughts on the protest last night from someone who was *actually there*. There were definitely fascists roaming around the crowd trying to pick fights. I’ve heard reports of this from friends and comrades, and there is one interesting case study I saw myself. One dude was wandering around the crowd for pretty much the entire time I was there trying to pick a fight by insulting every protester he saw and getting in their faces. The multiple occasions I saw him interact with protesters, they either ignored him or told him to fuck off. Lo and behold, later that night he is on right wing media with a bloodied face and a shit-eating grin talking about the violent nature of the left. What they don’t report is that it took him HOURS to find someone to punch him in the face. The greasy troll-ball deserved that punch, do not get me wrong, but the fact that the vast majority of us had better things to do than give it to him doesn’t square with the narrative in the right wing and centrist media.

    • imnotno
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, sure, it was totally a false flag. This never would have happened if Milo & Gang didn’t trick these poor, peace-loving hippies into participating in a violent riot. Just like the nonstop false flags through all of 2016… Duh! Evil Adolf Drumpfler and his supporters just want us to look like the bad guys!

      Some “liberals” punching a Trump supporter in the back of the head and then chasing him down? OBVIOUSLY just a false flag.

      When “liberals” started smashing people and property here, it was actually an elaborate false flag… orchestrated by none other than Adolf Drumpfler himself! Why else would lovely, tolerant, peace-loving “liberals” resort to smashing property? It’s not like left-wingnut marxists have a long, storied history of violence and destruction or anything.

      These “liberals” beating each other up because they thought one might be a Trump supporter? Relax guys, just a false flag!

      Now we see a “liberal” punch a middle-aged man in the back of the head! Guess that LITERAL NAZI shouldn’t have dared to wear a MAGA hat! Errr, I mean, that was a false flag! Just a false flag!

      Now, sure, undercover agents literally caught Democrat operatives on camera admitting their involvement in starting this massive riot in Chicago, but I don’t buy it for a second. This was also undoubtedly a false flag!

      There are LOADS of other “false flags”, especially from the past few months, but I haven’t archived and organized them, so let’s just move on!

      *****Purely in the interest of being intellectionally honest, I want to point out what “right wingers” have done!*****

      A black female student at Bowling Green State University was assaulted by Trump supporters, who pelted her with rocks and called a racial slur! Disgusting behavio–Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      A student at North Park University kept getting theatening and hateful notes and emails which told her to go “back to hell”, signed “#trump”! Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      Florida Man received hateful notes with “KKK” and “Trump” on them, AND his girlfriend’s car was set ablaze, AND THEN was then he was KIDNAPPED BY THE KKK! HOLY SHI–Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax… Florida Man style.

      In a viral Facebook post, an Asian-American woman said she was put in handcuffs after attempting to fight off a Trump supporter who assaulted her and shouted racial slurs. Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      A black man was accosted by two Trump-supporting white men, who threatened to lynch him (!!), saying the USA is now “Trump country!” Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      In Louisiana, a Muslim student had her hijab ripped off, and was then robbed by Trump supporters! Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      In NYC, Trump supporters assaulted ANOTHER Muslim woman on a subway and tried to pull off her hijab. Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      Here, a Trump supporter burned down a black church, and defaced it with “Vote Trump” graffiti. Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      A black woman was threatened with MURDER by a group of Trump-supporting white men! Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      Another black woman’s vehicle had “Trump Rules” and “Black B***h” spraypainted on it. Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      Yet another black woman was attacked by a group of white men shouting “Trump! Trump! Trump!” Oh wait, that was a Hate Crime Hoax.

      I omitted a large number of stories that are pretty obviously supposed to smear Trump supporters, but (to my knowledge) don’t explicitly mention him. (For example, various post-election false flag mosque burnings where Trump wasn’t actually mentioned, just implied.)

      squeakysoapbox: “But this? This plays directly into his [Milo’s] hand, and he’s laughing his ass off, all the way to the bank.”

      So you’re saying that THE TRUTH plays directly into his hand. The truth being that leftists resort to violence and destruction to prevent debate or discussion on wrongthink. “We must keep up the violence and deceit to PROVE how wrong those Evil Nazi Trump Supporters are! WE’RE the good guys, and by god, we’re gonna beat and burn everyone and everything to MAKE them believe us!”

      I guess we’re all lucky that the Literal Nazi Conservatives don’t go around beating people bloody and burning everything in sight when a liberal wants to give a speech at a university!

      Hmm… The good guys are so violent and destructive… but the bad guys aren’t… How can we make sense of this?!

      Hans… are we the baddies?

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

        Please try to keep your comments much shorter than this. (Read “Da Roolz” to the left). Thank you.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

        Needs moar CAPS and bold and links — lots and lots moar links. ‘Cause how else we gonna know what’s ****IMPORTANT****?!

        • imnotno
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

          Excellent rebuttal. You dodged literally everything noteworthy in that post.

          Citations to support one’s claims are bad. On a scientist’s blog, no less!

          Gotcha.

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 9:26 pm | Permalink

        Your anecdotes are well-taken, but we just had 6 people gunned down in a mosque in Quebec City by an alt-right-empowered “whites are an oppressed people” Trumpian. I don’t think the left even has a body count.

  11. Denise
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I’m continually amazed at the things people get out of high school without knowing. Is the Bill of Rights not covered in high school Social Studies anymore? Or is it that’s it’s covered but still not absorbed?

  12. Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Freedom is speech does not mean that one must be given a platform on which to speak, nor that one must be listened to. That being said, any protester is well within their own freedom of speech to non-violently protest such an event. I agree with one of the above posters that the non-violent protesters should have immediately and unequivocally denounced the violence.

    My freedom of speech means that I can stand on the street across from you screaming at the top of my lungs to try to down out what you are sceaming at the top of yours and the government can not stop either of us from doing so. You could argue whether nor not that is productive or not, but it certainly isn’t any infringement of freedom of speech.

    In this case, the issue is not of Milo’s freedom of speech, but of the College Republicans. At the college, Milo has no standing to be given a platform from which to speak and the college is under no obligation to provide him a platform. As students, however, the College Republicans should be able to express their views, provided those views or that speech does not violate the codes of conduct that all students must abide on campus.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

      Sorry, but you’re not reading again. If Milo is invited by the College Republicans, then, yes, he has freedom of speech to say what he wants at that talk. That is his “standing”. That in fact is what the UC Berkeley chancellor said.

      You’ve said enough on this thread, I think.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      Under circumstances such as these, the First Amendment free-speech clause guarantees listeners the right to hear speech, as the courts have recognized. While Milo may have no abstract right to speak on campus, where the University authorizes student groups to invite speakers to campus, the University may not discriminate on the basis of the invited speaker’s viewpoint.

      You say that students should be able to express themselves “provided … that speech does not violate the codes of conduct” applicable to students. But only conduct should be construed to violate a “code of conduct.” Where a code of conduct purports to prohibit pure speech, it is unconstitutional on its face.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 9:32 pm | Permalink

      There is of course a difference between the letter of the law and the intent of the law, or more generally, the intent of an idea. If the idea of “freedom of speech” means that we are allowed to drown out other’s speech by yelling louder, then I think we have lost the intent behind the whole idea.

  13. Brian Juung
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

    What part of Milo’s message, Professor Coyne, do you think is worthy of serious discussion?

    I would really like to know. Perhaps I don’t follow him closely enough, but what I’ve seen is simply trolling. Yes, he has a right to troll, and no I don’t condone the violence AT ALL, but serious discussion? Of what?

    • Dave
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

      It doesn’t matter one whit whether anything in his message is “worthy of discussion” or not. Provided he doesn’t incite or advocate violence in his talk he should have the right to speak if invited to do so by a private organisation. These student rioters would throw a tantrum even if he planned to stand up and read out pages from the Berkeley telephone directory.

      • Brian Juung
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

        I did not say it mattered. He has a right to say whatever nonsense he wants that isn’t specifically prohibited by law.

        However, Professor Coyne said:

        “Some of what Milo says deserves discussion”

        I just really want to know what. Seriously. This is not a rhetorical question. What does Milo say that deserves discussion?

    • Carl
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

      I haven’t seen or read Milo for some time, but the last time he was talking about the illiberality of some feminist and Muslim groups, in much the same way they are discussed on this site.

      • Brian Juung
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:14 pm | Permalink

        Thank you. That helps clarify things.

        Not entirely to the point, but if that’s his position he’s a terrible spokesperson for those ideas given how he has compromised himself with racist trolling.

        • Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

          Can you point me at the racist stuff from him?

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

        Yes, those are two issues, as well as the use of statistics (i.e. the bellicosity of Muslims or their adherence to sharia law).

    • eric
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

      His comment after the fact that ‘the left is terrified of free speech and will do anything to shut it down’ is, IMO, worth discussion. Its hyperbolic but certainly some on the left advocate some illegal and unethical things to shut down right-wing speech, partly because they may be afraid he could convince people of his position, and they don’t want that. Its an attempt at social engineering/control through censorship, the concept of ‘if nobody speaks that way, maybe fewer people will think that way.’ And its been going on in the left for decades (and the right too). Diane Ravitch’s book The Language Police is 13 years old now, and its probably more relevant today than it was when it was written.

  14. Cindy
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    The black bloc has been around for a long time. They are basically anarchists and they come in many flavours. Anarcho-commie, anarcho-feminist, anarcho-capitalist etc

    These are the people who riot outside G20 meetings etc.

    Here is an older article from the Toronto Star

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/gta/g20/2010/06/26/behind_the_black_bloc_mob.html

    The guy who punched Richard Spencer was a black bloc-er

    • Kiwi Dave
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:06 pm | Permalink

      Perhaps in another context they would be football hooligans.

    • ploubere
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, I remember them showing up for the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. Although peaceful protesters tried to control them, they did a lot of property damage. They are anarchists, which is how they justify violence.

  15. Ken Kukec
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    … the excuse that the protestors had: they were exercising free speech, not suppressing it!

    They were exercising free speech … right until the first act of vandalism or violence — until the first brick was thrown, the first barricade torn down, the first speech-goer punched. Then they became common criminals.

  16. jpchgo
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:42 pm | Permalink

    Woody Allen had a thought about this in Manhattan:

  17. Petrushka
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

    Really, it’s like the protestors are working for the Trump reelection campaign.

    Or more seriously, working to oust more democrats from congress in 2018.

    Violent protests by democrats got Richard Nixon elected, and contributed to Trump’s election.

    Meanwhile, Trump is talking about meeting directly with Chicago gang leaders about improving black communities.

    Someone needs to smarten up and offer a positive alternative.

    • Craw
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      Yes. America is not France. In France rioters win, in America they lose.
      And it’s not just the riots. The democrats walked out ofhearings.if Mnuchin is so bad a hearing is where you make your case, where you can question him under oath. Walking out expresses contempt for voters and for the process. And the talk about secession or nullification. Democrats are starting to position themselves as the anti constitution party. That is a catastrophic blunder.

      • Petrushka
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:14 pm | Permalink

        I just posted on another forum:

        In a resistance movement, the guy on the ground being beaten wins. If he’s photographed, he wins big. Maybe even bigly.

    • FiveGreenLeafs
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 5:34 pm | Permalink

      I concur.

      At the moment I think he is winning, big time. I just ran past a tw**t, that supposedly contained a sentenced from an email by Noam Chomsky. I have no evidence to prove it is genuine, but, it is, (either way) I think, spot on…

      “Wrong in principle, in my opinion, and tactically self-destructive. When we move to the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – and that’s not us.”

      Link to the tw**t

      • Cindy
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 6:04 pm | Permalink

        So I read the comments in reply to that tw*t

        I have learned that:

        1) Trump voters are the problem

        2) we need to beat them up because they only understand violence

        Well, that strategy is sure to change hearts and minds. Worked for MLK didn’t it….

        Oh. Wait…

        • FiveGreenLeafs
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

          That is one thing. For all the use of historic persons, movements and events in their argumentation and rationalizing, they seem curiously ignorant.

          One thing with violence (and war) is, that if your opponent is ready (or capable) to escalate one step further than you are, you will loose.

          That is (for example) what (to my mind) happened in Syria, where Russia showed that for every step the US took, they were ready to escalate one step further, and in the end, US bowed out.

          So, if you are not ready to go all the way (down), don’t even take the first step. Find another way, and another “battlefield”, which suits your strengths better…

  18. Randall Schenck
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:51 pm | Permalink

    Trump’s statement about cutting off funding is rather stupid. No wonder he has so many lawyers employed and they must love him. If a hundred rioters showed up in your town, who is responsible for the damage or the riot – the city which happened to be there? Why not just cut funding to the whole state of Ca.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      Don’t give him ideas.

    • eric
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      Stupid, yes. And ignorant of how UC Berkeley acted as an institution, which was to support Milo’s right to speak. His post seems to indicate he thinks the school itself was involved in preventing Milo from speaking.

      With Trump, however, it’s entirely possible that he badly misreads the situation, someone on his staff fills him in on what actually happened, and then he pulls funding anyway.

  19. Merilee
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    😖

  20. Jay
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

    I’m not sure what frightens these people so much, except perhaps that Milo is articulate and pretty much can hold his own in a debate. He can be pretty good with statistics. And from videos I’ve seen, he can mange himself pretty well on stage.

    Anyhow, people have largely forgotten the violence that the left did during the height of the ‘peace movement’ days… 2500 bombings in the US during an 18 month period around 1972. ISIS could only dream of accomplishing that much damage.

    Here’s quite a discussion of the problem (from the very left leaning Nation)

    https://www.thenation.com/article/remembering-left-wing-terrorism-1970s/

    The article ends, however, in a bit of confusion (‘why would the left do this’ and ‘could it happen again’), but I think that’s partly because of their own ideological blinders. For the past 36 years (Clinton, Bush, Obama) the left got a lot of their way. Bush was a timid conservative who, like many in Congress, was afraid of being labelled by the left, so he too pretty much played their game. New game, likely in Europe too.

    I suspect part of the problem is the belief that they are the absolute arbiters of what is right, and will tolerate NO disagreement with that, kind of like some religions. When you are right, and your opponents are wrong, most anything is permissible, even justifiable.

    Hang on to your hats.

    • Petrushka
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:17 pm | Permalink

      I run into a lot of conservatives in the creation debates. They are no longer afraid of labels. Nazi and racist are badges of honor.

      They have no meaning anymore. When you make Jew=Nazi, you lose all credibility.

      The media are being played by Trump. At one point in the campaign they noticed this and complained about it, but since the election, they have lost it. They are now completely Jiu Jitsued.

      • FiveGreenLeafs
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 6:01 pm | Permalink

        “The media are being played by Trump. At one point in the campaign they noticed this and complained about it, but since the election, they have lost it. They are now completely Jiu Jitsued.”

        It is a completely mind boggling spectacle to behold.

        There does seem to exist some (within the business) who appears (in my eyes) to possess a cooler head Covering Trump the Reuters Way

        Do,

        *Cover what matters in people’s lives and provide them the facts they need to make better decisions.
        *Get out into the country and learn more about how people live, what they think, what helps and hurts them, and how the government and its actions appear to them, not to us.

        Don’t

        *Don’t pick unnecessary fights or make the story about us.
        * Don’t vent publicly about what might be understandable day-to-day frustration. In countless other countries, we keep our own counsel so we can do our reporting without being suspected of personal animus. We need to do that in the U.S., too.
        *Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world and to lead by example – and therefore to provide the freshest, most useful, and most illuminating information and insight of any news organization anywhere.

        How long it might take to rebuild what is squandered now, if they ever can, is anybody’s guess.

    • DiscoveredJoys
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 5:21 am | Permalink

      I read the article you linked to with interest. One of the bits that stood out for me was:

       But Burrough’s story is also annoying, because it does so little to explain what drove these people to such self-destructive extremes.

      I wonder if fundamentally the nature of the ‘Cause’ isn’t so important as the opportunity for violence is.

      As we have seen the rioters/violent people throughout history have many causes – leftism, rightism, religionism, football clubism, anarchism, antimonarchism, racism, antiracism, anticapitalism, anticommunism and so on (and on and on). The common factor appears to be a few younger people becoming disaffected enough to be careless of others’ lives or property. Older people tend to be more restrained.

      I’m not proposing a young/old ‘fight’, I’m wondering what it is about the younger people that escalates disaffection of a few into protest and/or violence. My tentative conclusion is that the people involved are primarily seeking peer-group status. The cause is largely immaterial (see history) although it seems overwhelmingly meaningful to those involved at the time.

  21. Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

    sub

  22. alexandra Moffat
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    Ceetainly not making excuses for the crazy left – but we should keep in mind that sooner or later, trumpists will use agents provocateurs to stir up violence and then blame all who disagree with him for it.

    • Petrushka
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

      That meme would have worked until Hillary campaigner Creamer was filmed talking about how he had done just that.

  23. David
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I have read some of his transcripts from his speeches and watched him on You tube and in my opinion he is a troll doing this for the money and attention. What he says in his speeches about lesbians and abortion are easily disproven, they are basically the same types of rhetoric that has been around for a long time. People need to calm down and let this person say whatever he wants then use logic and real facts to combat his ridiculous rants. People are wasting their energy with this individual and should save it for people that really matter. This type of violence only gives him more attention and validation to those that already think like him. He is making a career out of making people react.

    • Carl
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

      I think this is mostly right, except I think he really does hold the positions he claims. I have seen him a couple times. He can be amusing. He is intelligent. But he isn’t particularly interesting to me and I just don’t bother with him any more. He is only famous because so many people take his bait. Stop being suckered and he will fade away.

      • David
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

        I think he holds some of those views too, but it seems he goes overboard to draw a crowd. Now, his book will be a bestseller. I find it hard to believe he really cares much about anything or anyone. His passion seems more show than sincere.

    • eric
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

      Or just not show up. With someone like Milo, I bet an auditorium crowd of 20 College Republicans would be far more upsetting and embarrassing than seeing a thousand protestors show up on Sproul Plaza to say they disagree with him.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:15 pm | Permalink

        Yeah, better to give him the ho-hum than the heave-ho.

        • DiscoveredJoys
          Posted February 3, 2017 at 5:24 am | Permalink

          +1.

          Praise or criticism are rewarding. Nothing as cutting as indifference.

  24. Petrushka
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    What seems to be missing from the discussion is the fact that Trump is a populist. Perhaps it is tautological, but that means he supports popular causes.

    He is very good at it. If the tactics of the protestors doesn’t change, the democrats will continue to lose.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:58 pm | Permalink

      I keep seeing articles popping up about how Populism is really evil, that it is fascism out of 1984, that it is just a way to manipulate the “low information” voters into voting out of fear and hate etc.

      This is all news to me of course, because I remember learning about how FDR was a populist, and that things like workers rights were populist causes.

      Now I hear from The Guardian that Populism is basically fascism and/or Nazism, take your pick

      Perhaps only the educated amongst us should be able to vote, like those fine gender studies PHDs who write papers on Feminist Glaciology.

      • Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:23 pm | Permalink

        When people support you, you have a popular mandate.

        When they are against you, they are lead by a populist demagogue.

        • Cindy
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

          Well that explains how the Rust Belt went from Obama voters to Neo Nazis almost overnight.

          No way they could have legitimate economic concerns. No, they are just Nazis. How soothing it must be to live in a world so simplistic and without nuance where everyone and anyone who disagrees with you or who doesn’t do what you want is Hitler incarnate.

        • Petrushka
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

          There are two sides to this. One side says Trump IS the resistance.

          And so far, they are winning.

          I suggest the democrats need to stop burning down their own houses and come up with a positive alternative to Trump.

      • chris moffatt
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:55 pm | Permalink

        Now the thread has been Godwinned: I believe it was a certain austrian former corporal who observed that democracy is a system in which the votes of two morons count for more than the vote of the wisest person in the land.
        Just as who gets to decide what free speech rights we shold all have

        • chris moffatt
          Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

          forget that last uncompleted thought. it’s related to something further up….

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Trump is a populist in that he saw populism as a means to rabble-rouse his way to power — which is to say, he’s a “populist” in name only.

      Trump hasn’t appointed a single economic populist to a position in his administration. Indeed, it’s been precisely opposite: he’s larded his cabinet with billionaires (including five from Goldman Sachs, the bête noire he railed against during his campaign).

      In any event, populism is a tricky thing. “Economic populism,” I can get behind; the “cultural populism” that Trump often pushed, on the other hand, is simply yahooism in its most dangerous form.

      • DiscoveredJoys
        Posted February 3, 2017 at 5:32 am | Permalink

        I expect that when historians write about this period, in around 50 years time, they will propose that Donald Trump was exactly the most effective kind of candidate to stand against the kind of candidate that Hillary Clinton was.

        Dare I say that to many Americans (but not all obviously) Hillary Clinton was seen as the ‘unpopulist’ candidate?

  25. Pliny the in Between
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:43 pm | Permalink

    “This is what happens when people start to believe that they are so morally superior that they can literally do anything and still be right”

    Not necessarily. It may signify frustration, disillusionment and disenfranchisement. You can’t shame people out of those feelings.

    • Craw
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      Did you see the videos of violent anti-Trumpets during and since the campaign? Seek out the one of the homeless woman defending Trump’s star on the sidewalk. Her assailants were clearly, clearly, proud and righteous.

      And no-one is trying to shame anyone out of feelings. I’d like to shame them out of *being violent*.

      • Cindy
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

        I remember arguing alongside feminists and SJWs when that crazy person killed a bunch of people at the PP in Colorado. We rightly argued that 30+ years of “abortion is murder” “PP is literally Hitler” would have the effect of convincing some people that fighting abortion doctors aka Nazis is righteous and just. And that if your side is going to publish such hyperbolic rhetoric, dont be surprised when some nutjobs *really* *really* believe it.

        Well months and months of “Trump is literally Hitler” and “anyone who disagrees with us is literally a Nazi” will have the effect of convincing a percentage of the population that they are fighting absolute evil. This will justify all sorts of atrocities. After all, Hitler is ultimate evil, so what does it matter if some businesses are torches and innocent bystanders beaten up. This is a fight for the very future of civilization after all!

        I’m sure that ISIS feels the same way about their social justice causes.

      • Pliny the in Between
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

        Yes I saw. And that in no way alters the fact that not everyone who is frustrated and on a hair trigger is acting out of a self-righteous belief system.

    • Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

      Not necessarily. It may signify frustration, disillusionment and disenfranchisement. You can’t shame people out of those feelings.

      You could just as easily be talking about those who voted for Trump.

      • Pliny the in Between
        Posted February 2, 2017 at 3:26 pm | Permalink

        And for some of them you’d no doubt be right

  26. Craw
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Part of the problem frankly is how a thread about Left wing street violence devolved into Trump bashing. The responsible left has to take this kind of violence seriously and stand up to it, as Coyne does in the post, or be tarred with it. “Yeah but Trump” whataboutery is incriminating.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:47 pm | Permalink

      Yeah, you guys, what about whataboutery?

  27. kelskye
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Back in the 90s when I was growing up, I heard the same thing from right wingers about freedom of expression. It doesn’t count if it’s immoral (in their eyes).

    What strikes me as sad about all this is people think so little of their own ability to think through issues, and the abilities of others to think through issues, that they just can’t tolerate dissent. Whatever happened to countering speech with more speech? If what Milo is saying is really problematic (and I’d doubt many of the protesters could give a deep view on this – only a list of talking points they’ve heard from others), then surely they’ve have the ability to demonstrate it.

  28. Tom
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    Those resorting to violence for Political reasons are actually trying to remove power from the elected House and transfer that power to the streets.
    They will fail

  29. drew
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 2:49 pm | Permalink

    The point at which a previous bastion of free-speech and democracy falls to fascism.

    Sad.

  30. mordacious1
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

    Milo had to pay 10 grand for extra security (which I thought was unfair…since he’s not causing the problem, the protesters are). I’m wondering if he got that money refunded, since the cops were no where to be seen?

  31. Cindy
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    According to the Guardian, these anti-fa protestors are fighting the good fight. Because words are violence, see.

    But for a small but growing band of activists, any public appearance by a member of far-right, white-supremacist movements is an opportunity for a very different kind of response: resistance by any means, whether that means punching a neo-Nazi in the face or denying a member of the “alt-right” a platform.

    “The rulebook has been thrown out,” said one of the protesters at Berkeley on Wednesday, …. “It’s absolutely acceptable to use violence. They are 100% certain to use it against us.”

    “They are 100pct certain to use it (violence) against us”

    “We get a lot of heat for physical confrontation but that’s the sort of language that is spoken by neo-Nazis,” he said. “That’s the only thing they understand.”

    “Giving these people a platform is also giving them an opportunity for more violence. I don’t see what they’re doing as just speech. I see it as a violent act.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/02/facism-alt-right-activists-trump-milo-yiannopoulos

    Yes, ‘violence’ is all that neo-Nazis understand, and I find it utterly charming that people who think for themselves – such as Dave Rubin and PCC here, have been labeled as neo-Nazis.

    Though…to be fair:

    • George Millo
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 10:12 am | Permalink

      I find this condoning of violence far more disturbing than I find Milo or Trump (and I’m no fan of Milo or Trump.)

      With the way we’re going ,the only thing that will make the far-right “100% certain” to use violence against the radical left is if they’re left with no choice, because the left is already using violence against them. And the right will probably be better at it.

  32. Dan
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

    The heckler’s veto. Favorite of anti free-speech wingnuts and regressive leftists.

  33. Cindy
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

    Great new article by Jeffery Tayler at Quillette:

    One might by now suspect that Arel believes hearing dissent is harmful and, thus, that he supports the vile “de-platforming” phenomenon sweeping university campuses today, as well as trigger warnings and safe spaces. And one would be correct. Arel next sets his sights on an outspoken opponent of all such hysterical puerility, the eminent evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. Coyne runs a respected science and secularist web site, Why Evolution is True, and is the author of the canonical “New Atheist” tome, Faith vs. Fact.

    http://quillette.com/2017/02/03/free-speech-and-the-regressive-left-the-road-back-to-reason/

  34. dd
    Posted February 2, 2017 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

    A friend sent this from zerohedge.com :

    “Sales of Milo’s book have increased 12,740% overnight sending it rocketing from 642nd to 5th ranked best-seller on Amazon.”

    BTW, it’s odd to me that given what went on, almost no arrest took place…maybe none?

    • Cindy
      Posted February 3, 2017 at 8:36 am | Permalink

      The rumour is that the Mayor ordered the cops not to get involved. There is a photo of them standing in a room looking bored while people were getting beaten outside.

  35. Matt Bowman
    Posted February 3, 2017 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Rioting in response to Milo at other fine institutions will continue because (1) Milo did not speak and (2) no one was arrested. I think it is pathetic that they didn’t arrest a single person. I’m not convinced that the peaceful protesters were so peaceful either, they were carrying a large banner that read, “This is war.” (That is pictured in a New York Times article.) I think Milo calls the Left “snowflakes” and the name seems to fit.

  36. Posted February 10, 2017 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    I understand the concept of free speech. I also understand that if you shout “fuck you” into a person’s face enough times it might get you punched in the mouth.

    • Cindy
      Posted February 10, 2017 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Indeed.

      Whenever someone disagrees with me, no matter how minor the disagreement, I perceive it as ‘violence’, which then justifies punching them in the face.

      Good call.

    • GBJames
      Posted February 10, 2017 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      “I understand the concept of free speech.”

      It seems not.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] via Milo Yiannopoulos speech canceled at UC Berkeley amidst protests and violence — Why Evolution Is T… […]

Post a Comment

Required fields are marked *
*
*

%d bloggers like this: