Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
I think I may be the one who derailed the original discussion a bit as I veered off to complain about the false equivalencies I see regarding recent protests from some of my more angry conservative friends. Sorry about that.Anonymous Bosch wrote:The point has largely been missed here.
Right, he and his pals deserve to be violently attacked by masked totalitarian thugs -- as long as the masks worn aren't pointy and white -- for his uppity mileage.Unagi wrote:the speaker who got more mileage out of it for not speaking?
Violently attacking peaceful political opponents is never a legitimate form of protest regardless of news splash, and given their preference for wearing masks, you're merely speculating as to their identity; they could just as plausibly be professors as students. As Nancy Pelosi herself put it:Zarathud wrote:College students have protested stuff since the 60s. Comes from having lots of time and energy, few responsibilities, and less perspective.
If the speakers weren't trying to make a splash in the news, they would be hitting every college and not just the ones most likely to give push back. If the Berkeley students don't want to hear you, there's still Pepperdine and Concordia.
WashingtonPost.com wrote:“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts,” Pelosi said in a statement released late Tuesday. “The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”
Ah, gotcha. Thanks.Zarathud wrote:College students have protested stuff since the 60s. Comes from having lots of time and energy, few responsibilities, and less perspective.
If the speakers weren't trying to make a splash in the news, they would be hitting every college and not just the ones most likely to give push back. If the Berkeley students don't want to hear you, there's still Pepperdine and Concordia.
Thanks for the effort and the answer.El Guapo wrote:The choices get worse as authoritarian / fascists gain legal power and authority. Mainly, you do mass protests (and legal challenges), with the demand that the dictator step down. Once an authoritarian has military / police institutions that are loyal to him (not the country / state), and are willing to shoot / arbitrarily arrest civilians, at that point you're probably screwed at least for awhile. Extralegal methods (riots, assassinations, revolution, etc.) are increasingly morally justified, but they generally don't work as a practical matter - disorder and chaos tends to strengthen the authoritarian's hands, giving some apparent justification to their claims that 'extraordinary measures' (martial law and the like) are necessary to maintain order, which motivates fewer people to protest and motivates those who are in a position to slow / stop the authoritarian from doing so. And even if assassination / revolution and the like succeed, they almost always only result in a different dictator, not democracy.GreenGoo wrote:A more interesting scenario imo is what do you do if ilb's made up faction gains traction and makes political headway? Setting aside the unconstitutional aspect (if, say, the judicial branches fails to support the Constitution either through incompetence, bias or being undermined), what would you consider appropriate behaviour from the tolerant?
TL;Dr what do you do if hypothetical Nazi party begins to gain legal, political power?
For the most part all you can do is mass movements when you can. Eventually (though it can take decades) the authoritarian structure collapses.
I think Zarathud is saying that some speakers may be cynically exploiting kneejerk liberal outrage by actively choosing the more controversial venues to generate publicity, not that they deserve violence for it.Anonymous Bosch wrote:Right, he and his pals deserve to be violently attacked by masked totalitarian thugs -- as long as the masks worn aren't pointy and white -- for his uppity mileage.Unagi wrote:the speaker who got more mileage out of it for not speaking?
So what? That still doesn't justify violently attacking a peaceful political rally, and should rightfully be unequivocally condemned.GreenGoo wrote:I think Zarathud is saying that some speakers may be cynically exploiting kneejerk liberal outrage by actively choosing the more controversial venues to generate publicity, not that they deserve violence for it.Anonymous Bosch wrote:Right, he and his pals deserve to be violently attacked by masked totalitarian thugs -- as long as the masks worn aren't pointy and white -- for his uppity mileage.Unagi wrote:the speaker who got more mileage out of it for not speaking?
You could make a similar rationalisation to the family of the woman brutally murdered while protesting against hate in Charlottesville (a much more loathsome and extreme act of totalitarian violence), who was also in a controversial venue seeking to generate publicity; the point being, it's still no excuse.GreenGoo wrote:That said, if you're gonna put your head in the lion's mouth, don't be surprised if he bites it. Deserve has got nothing to do with it.
From the moment we hit the square, the “Nazi” catcalls start. Whatever’s happening on the stage seems to cease to exist, and the energy around us turns very dark, very fast. Joey, Tiny, and Pete start walking with greater purpose, on the balls of their feet, almost like fighters entering a ring or Christians entering the Coliseum, except instead of facing one lion, they’re facing thousands. As the chants rain down (“Nazis are here! . . . F— you! . . . F—ing fascists!”), we near the stage thinking we might find some kind of buffer zone, since the police knew that some of Joey’s original rally-goers would show up. But there isn’t one. Our progress is halted when we run up into a small clearing snug up against a barrier. And behind that barrier, near the park’s “Peace Wall,” is a wall of human blackness.
A hundred or so masked-up antifa ninjas and affiliated protesters seem to simultaneously turn. It looks like we’ve interrupted al Qaeda tryouts. Joey, Tiny, and Pete all raise their hands high in the air, and flash peace signs, a conciliatory gesture. But nobody here wants peace. Not with fascists on the scene. As Joey nears the barrier, one of the ninjas swings and misses. Then the barrier topples, and they pour over, chanting, “Fascists go home!”
As I’m reading the action into my recorder, antifa slides around me on all sides, nearly carrying me off like a breaking wave. The boys are about 20 yards off and walk backwards. Pete catches a shot right on his stars’n’stripes dome from a two-by-four and goes down, blacking out for a second. Tiny, trying to protect everybody, pulls him up with his massive Samoan hand and pushes him out of the scrum. The mob ignores Pete, as he’s just an appetizer. Joey is the entree.
First he catches a slap in the head, then someone gashes him with something in his ribs. He keeps his hands up, as though that will save him, while he keeps getting dragged backwards by his shirt, Tiny trying to pull him away from the bloodthirsty ninjas. Someone crashes a flagpole smack on Joey’s head, which will leave a welt so big that Tiny later calls him “the Unicorn.” Not wishing to turn his back on the crowd, a half-speed backwards chase ensues, as Joey and Tiny are blasted with shots of bear spray and pepper spray. They hurdle a jersey barrier, crossing Martin Luther King Jr. Way while antifa continue throwing bottles at them. The mob stalks Joey and Tiny all the way to an Alameda County police line, which the two bull their way through, though the cops initially look like they’re going to play Red Rover and keep them out. No arrests are made. Except for Joey and Tiny, who are cuffed.
A crack reporter for the Los Angeles Times will later write that they were arrested for charging the police, which couldn’t be less true. A Berkeley cop tells me they were arrested for their own safety (and weren’t charged). When I catch up and reach the police line, the cops won’t let me past to follow my subjects. My reportorial dispassion has worn thin. I yell at the police for doing nothing, for standing by while two men could’ve been killed. One cop tells me there’s a thin line between solving one problem and being the cause of more, as though they’re afraid to offend antifa. I am sick at what I just witnessed. Angry, even. I wheel around on some protesters, asking them if they think it’s right to beat people down in the street. “Hell yeah,” says one. I ask them to cite anything Joey has said that offends them, as though being offended justifies this. A coward in a black mask says: “They’re f—ing Nazis. There’s nothing they have to say to offend us.”
All around me, good non-antifa liberals go about their business, pretending none of this has happened, carrying “Stand Against Hate” signs. There’s the sound truck with preachers in clerical garb, leading a “Whose streets/our streets” chant. There’s the gray-haired interdenominational “Choral Majority” singing peace songs: “There’s no hatred in my land / Where I’m bound.” I want to vomit on the Berkeley Peace Wall.
That's an eye-opening piece, worth reading in its entirety.
It comes from being born into a system that they had no hand in creating, it comes from being young and idealistic (because that's we taught them to be.) and it comes from seeing problems that they want to fix. Sure, some of them aren't problems when you have more perspective, but some are systemic.Zarathud wrote:College students have protested stuff since the 60s. Comes from having lots of time and energy, few responsibilities, and less perspective.
Lol. Wait...wait. No, lol.Anonymous Bosch wrote:You could make a similar rationalisation to the family of the woman brutally murdered while protesting against hate in Charlottesville (a much more loathsome and extreme act of totalitarian violence), who was also in a controversial venue seeking to generate publicity; the point being, it's still no excuse.GreenGoo wrote:That said, if you're gonna put your head in the lion's mouth, don't be surprised if he bites it. Deserve has got nothing to do with it.
Both are about putting your head in the Lion's mouth though....GreenGoo wrote:Lol. Wait...wait. No, lol.Anonymous Bosch wrote:You could make a similar rationalisation to the family of the woman brutally murdered while protesting against hate in Charlottesville (a much more loathsome and extreme act of totalitarian violence), who was also in a controversial venue seeking to generate publicity; the point being, it's still no excuse.GreenGoo wrote:That said, if you're gonna put your head in the lion's mouth, don't be surprised if he bites it. Deserve has got nothing to do with it.
You equate intentionally choosing your venue for the most conflict (assuming Zarathud is right here), embrace it, and generate wealth by doing so, with people who are protesting against hate?
Are you high?
One is about exploiting controversy for personal gain, the other is counter speech. One is some of the most cynical capitalism possible, the other free speech. One is there solely for personal profit, the other is there because someone has to tell intolerant assholes what America's ideals are.
If this is the equivalency you see, you see...poorly.
No. Putting yourself at risk for an ideal you believe in is not the same as purposely looking to maximize conflict because you're trying to exploit that risk. All this assumes Zarathud is right.Rip wrote:Both are about putting your head in the Lion's mouth though....
No, because we already went through that shit all around here and we had a dreadul time of it, so it's been illegal since they were ousted.ImLawBoy wrote: Putting aside security concerns for the moment, should the NaPUSA be permitted to hold their rally?
Actually they are owed a stage. At least at a public university.Nightwish wrote:No, because we already went through that shit all around here and we had a dreadul time of it, so it's been illegal since they were ousted.ImLawBoy wrote: Putting aside security concerns for the moment, should the NaPUSA be permitted to hold their rally?
As to the speech in the OP, there's nothing objectionable and it would actually be a good thing to have happened, it was probably just the wrong time and he isn't owed a stage.
Because public universities receive public funding, they are public forums, and therefore speakers like Spencer and Coulter have the unfettered right to speak. Right? Not quite.
Circuit courts have ruled that college campuses are – unlike, say, a public park or street – “limited public forums,” according to the First Amendment Center. That’s why universities can create rules and restrictions governing such speakers, like when and where they may speak. However, these rules must be applied fairly and have nothing to do with the speakers or their speech content.
The ACLU summed it up best.Schools have some latitude when it comes to whether to approve student groups’ requests for guest speakers, according to the Newseum’s First Amendment Center – they can establish regulations and can deny requests “if they have reason to believe that the speaker will advocate violent rebellion against the government or immediate, destructive, and disruptive action against the host institution.”
Otherwise, “courts have held that when an audience brings someone to campus to speak, the school bears a constitutional responsibility not to interfere.”
“How much we value the right of free speech is put to its severest test when the speaker is someone we disagree with most. Speech that deeply offends our morality or is hostile to our way of life warrants the same constitutional protection as other speech because the right of free speech is indivisible: When one of us is denied this right, all of us are denied.”
No, you're missing the point; the Weekly Standard write-up Rip posted above puts it plainly:GreenGoo wrote:You equate intentionally choosing your venue for the most conflict (assuming Zarathud is right here), embrace it, and generate wealth by doing so, with people who are protesting against hate?Anonymous Bosch wrote:You could make a similar rationalisation to the family of the woman brutally murdered while protesting against hate in Charlottesville (a much more loathsome and extreme act of totalitarian violence), who was also in a controversial venue seeking to generate publicity; the point being, it's still no excuse.GreenGoo wrote:That said, if you're gonna put your head in the lion's mouth, don't be surprised if he bites it. Deserve has got nothing to do with it.
In other words, your "head in the lion's mouth" premise follows a similarly-flawed logic as the notion that rape victims who dress provocatively are "asking for it."WeeklyStandard.com wrote:Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur. Though how provocative should it be, he wonders, to attend your own free-speech rallies in liberal enclaves in a free country without wishing to be physically attacked? Media types frequently charge that violence follows his rallies, and indeed it does. Precisely because antifa brings it. Blaming Patriot Prayer for provoking antifa into attacking them at their own events is a bit like blaming black marchers for provoking racist Alabama policemen into creasing their skulls with billy clubs for traversing the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It’s both a denial of basic human freedoms and victim-blaming of the highest order.
I didn't say they get to choose it. Students do, they are invited guests.GreenGoo wrote:I don't believe that it's settled law. How much money does a college have to accept before they are considered a government institute in terms of free speech? Is a dollar enough?
Maybe it is settled, but Popehat talks about this at times and I don't remember a definitive answer.
edit: as you noted. Sorry for the repeat. However that's counter to your comment that they are owed a forum and that they get to choose it.
Give me a break. By his own words he's stirring the pot. Which, for the third time, I admit is his legal right. And, for the third time, anyone who becomes violent deserves an arrest.Anonymous Bosch wrote: In other words, your "head in the lion's mouth" premise follows a similarly-flawed logic as the notion that rape victims who dress provocatively are "asking for it."
Why do people keep saying that. Yes people are owed a platform at a public university. The students and anyone they ask to speak to them are owed a platform.Zarathud wrote:The police don't arrest everyone when rioting is about to break out, and the arrests will escalate tension. Keeping civil order is more important than a few people knocked down and hurt. I'm sorry it happened, but the police are right -- their job is not to make every arrest or stop every injustice. Just like every crime isn't solved, or every speeding car ticketed. It's not right, but it's reality.
I'm not going to cry about the free speech rights of provocateurs. The modern world abounds with opportunities to speak and communicate. No one is owed a platform at any college or university, and there are many other platforms to speak from.
http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04/20/ ... versities/CAN UNIVERSITIES LEGALLY RESTRICT CAMPUS SPEAKERS?
In limited ways, yes, but mostly, no.
Schools have some latitude when it comes to whether to approve student groups’ requests for guest speakers, according to the Newseum’s First Amendment Center – they can establish regulations and can deny requests “if they have reason to believe that the speaker will advocate violent rebellion against the government or immediate, destructive, and disruptive action against the host institution.”
Otherwise, “courts have held that when an audience brings someone to campus to speak, the school bears a constitutional responsibility not to interfere.”
...hence the analogy of blaming rape victims who dress provocatively ("stirring the pot").GreenGoo wrote:Give me a break. By his own words he's stirring the pot.Anonymous Bosch wrote: In other words, your "head in the lion's mouth" premise follows a similarly-flawed logic as the notion that rape victims who dress provocatively are "asking for it."
He does have another goal, as the Weekly Standard article points out:GreenGoo wrote:For your analogy to be correct, he'd have to had another goal besides being raped, assuming he picked his venue for maximum effect.
WeeklyStandard.com wrote:When Joey draws antifa out to show themselves, it’s not really conservatives he’s trying to reach. Conservatives already loathe antifa, he says. Rather, Joey’s interested in appealing to good, honest middle-of-the-road liberals. He likes them and believes there are plenty of them still out there. They’re just not terribly vocal at the moment when it comes to suppressing their own extremists, who seem hellbent on suppressing everyone else. As with some of the rancid elements of the right, when the moderates are quiet, extremist voices become amplified. “I’m also trying to help conservatives understand that they have a warped perception of liberals, because the good liberals are keeping quiet.” Joey says. “You go on YouTube and see thousands of videos of social justice warriors acting like crazy Batman because that’s what gets the views. You’re not going to see a video of a normal liberal making sense, you know?”
Joey holds the door open for liberals in his freedom-loving unity movement, and some, including liberals of color, have joined. One African-American liberal I meet, Ryoga Vee, signed on after having an antifa member call him a Nazi and then try to set him on fire with a road flare when Vee attempted to attend Milo’s Berkeley speech out of curiosity. “I don’t care who you vote for,” Joey says, so long as you’re pro-freedom.
Blaming a peaceful provocateur victim of violent assault for "putting his head in the lion's mouth" by merely attending free-speech rallies in liberal locales, which is analogous to blaming rape victims who dress provocatively; such 'provocation' unequivocally does NOT justify any subsequent violent assault, period and amen.GreenGoo wrote:Is there something with what I've said that you think is objectively, subjectively or morally wrong? Which part?
Don't forget Canada. Offend us and we'll see you in chains. Assuming you're within our borders of course.Zarathud wrote:I'm actually in Chicago. But Germany puts a hole in the arguments of those insisting on the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment as necessary for democracy.
Yea, China to.GreenGoo wrote:Don't forget Canada. Offend us and we'll see you in chains. Assuming you're within our borders of course.Zarathud wrote:I'm actually in Chicago. But Germany puts a hole in the arguments of those insisting on the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment as necessary for democracy.
I'm all for students protesting. It's when protests turn into mobs that we have a problem. Berkeley seems to have reached that point.Zarathud wrote:The colleges and universities must be neutral, but that doesn't bind the student body. Being blocked by protestors isn't a tragedy. It's called public opinion.
UK. Italy, Spain, Germany (hell, if you offend a FOREIGN dignitary, jail for you!). Pretty much anywhere that isn't the US (I'm jealous).Rip wrote:Yea, China to.GreenGoo wrote:Don't forget Canada. Offend us and we'll see you in chains. Assuming you're within our borders of course.Zarathud wrote:I'm actually in Chicago. But Germany puts a hole in the arguments of those insisting on the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment as necessary for democracy.
Well, you (general you) can be proud that you can be a douche and not go to jail, absolutely. Being proud that you're (also general you) a douche is another thing entirely.Rip wrote:Indeed, the fact that we can call each other Nazis and Commies and not be thrown in jail for is something we should be celebrating and rejoicing over not rioting and looting.
Yeah, screw provocateurs. Why should we cry over their free speech rights!Zarathud wrote:I'm not going to cry about the free speech rights of provocateurs.
Well said.Kurth wrote:Yeah, screw provocateurs. Why should we cry over their free speech rights!Zarathud wrote:I'm not going to cry about the free speech rights of provocateurs.
Spoiler:
Complaining that your opinion cannot be heard when you have the whole goddamn internet to complain is ridiculously entitled self-indulgence.Zarathud wrote:The modern world abounds with opportunities to speak and communicate. No one is owed a platform at any college or university, and there are many other platforms to speak from.
How is that? Not sure what you mean by "the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment," but I have a huge problem with the notion that stifling speech - even undesirable or repugnant speech - can ever be consistent with preventing the rise of oppressive government.Zarathud wrote:I'm actually in Chicago. But Germany puts a hole in the arguments of those insisting on the broadest interpretation of the First Amendment as necessary for democracy.
Why do you think the ACLU is trying to expand the limits of free speech? Its position has remained remarkably consistent, dating back to 1977 (and before) with NSPA v. Skokie.Zarathud wrote:My perspective comes from being a communitarian rather than a libertarian, and a lawyer who sees the limits the ACLU seeks to expand. The fetishization of "free speech" as its own end bothers me more now that I see how careless use of words hurt my kids and other people.
Getting upset over theoretical but not real world limitations on free speech rights is ass backwards. It's when the shit actually hits the fan and you have actual Nazis trying to speak that protecting first amendment rights is most important. And the fact that both political extremes have been subject to attempts to limit their free speech doesn't make it ok in the least. It just highlights how damaging curtailing speech is to a free society because once you start allowing government to choose what speech is acceptable/worthy of being heard, no speech is really safe.Zarathud wrote:I also have seen the problems that protestors create for police, and how well trained police can de-escalate the situation. Only when free speech was a theoretical, rather than a real problem, did I get upset over it. That was in my conservative Jesuit college, and in liberal law school I saw the same "injustice" applied equally to the other side. When both political extremes can claim "injustice" then it's just life, not persecution.
Not really, the internet is run by corporations more than happy to shut you up.Zarathud wrote:Selective reading. The labor unions, gay rights groups and suffragettes (among others) faced worse violence, but took their speech elsewhere and were heard off campus. Their message did not insist on any one venue.
Complaining that your opinion cannot be heard when you have the whole goddamn internet to complain is ridiculously entitled self-indulgence.Zarathud wrote:The modern world abounds with opportunities to speak and communicate. No one is owed a platform at any college or university, and there are many other platforms to speak from.
