Is Offensive Political Violence Ever Justified?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by Hollow Island

yeah, they would be. I understand why they don't think their side should be punched. They're wrong, but I get it. It's the liberals who have been whining about it that get be riled!

btw remember when that guy was shot at a Milo event a couple weeks ago and all the right wing whining about political violence? Me neither

When you first put forth the idea that punching Nazis is a moral good

and then declare that Nazi's and conservatives are on the same side

...is it really still necessary for me to keep pointing out why this is the top of the most slippery slope imaginable?

Additionally, the Milo shooting bothered me. However, that guy turned himself in to the police, who let him go free of charge, claiming self defense. There's video of the altercation. Know things

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

The fact that the government's commitment to free speech is codified doesn't take away from the fact that free speech is a foundational social concept, as well.

If Spencer or Milo were actually being silenced, no one would be protesting because no one would know what they stand for. They have plenty of outlets and everyone knows where they stand. They're not having their right to free speech silenced.

[cobl04]

That's the thing that shits me the most. They bitch and moan about how the left hates free speech, they've both got gigantic platforms to say whatever the hell they want.

Platforms that minorities don't have.

So yeah, I think a few punches to the head is fine with those shitrags.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

They have plenty of outlets and everyone knows where they stand. They're not having their right to free speech silenced.

That's just weak, Phils.

UC Berkeley: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.

Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos talk after violent protests - CNN.com

[cobl04]

He has a Facebook page and a YouTube account. Explain to me how you think his free speech is being silenced.

[DaveC]

the right to free speech only means that the federal government can't throw you the fuck in jail because it doesn't like what you're saying.

i don't understand where this notion came from that everybody is entitled to speak wherever and whenever they choose and say whatever the fuck they want to - consequences for others be damned - and if someone else doesn't want them to speak that they're immediately some sort of oppressed victim of an unconscionable constitutional crime.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by cobl04

He has a Facebook page and a YouTube account.

Quite an accomplishment for anyone

[IWasBored]

Originally Posted by DaveC

the right to free speech only means that the federal government can't throw you the fuck in jail because it doesn't like what you're saying.

i don't understand where this notion came from that everybody is entitled to speak wherever and whenever they choose and say whatever the fuck they want to - consequences for others be damned - and if someone else doesn't want them to speak that they're immediately some sort of oppressed victim of an unconscionable constitutional crime.

Because then how else are they going to say "it's a free country I can say whatI want" as an excuse for calling them out on being dicks? That's what it's about, and that's what it's always been about. And if you don't like it when people are dicks, then you're a snowflake, because saying "I know you are but what am I" is so 1990.

Obviously Milo has a platform. We know who he is. So he can't troll on twitter, or certain college campuses. It isn't an egregious violation of first amendment rights, it's on the same level as it would be if Deiman banned me from FYM if I start spouting mysogonistic, homophobic, transphobic, or racist views. No one is saying I can't be a bigot*, they're just saying look we don't want your shit here.



*Although if you do go around saying groups of people are inferior to your race, social strata, gender, based on any criteria, you should really expect people to get angry enough to punch you in the face. Spout enough hate, it's very odd you wouldn't get a little bit back.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

That's just weak, Phils.

UC Berkeley: "We condemn in the strongest possible terms the violence and unlawful behavior that was on display and deeply regret that those tactics will now overshadow the efforts to engage in legitimate and lawful protest against the performer's presence and perspectives," UC Berkeley said in a statement.
"While Yiannopoulos' views, tactics and rhetoric are profoundly contrary to our own, we are bound by the Constitution, the law, our values and the campus's Principles of Community to enable free expression across the full spectrum of opinion and perspective," it stated.
As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks.
No arrests were made throughout the night.

Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos talk after violent protests - CNN.com

What the hell are you talking about? How is this in any way a rebuttal to what I said?

Unless your argument is that Milo has a constitutional right to go on a well-paid speaking tour at college campuses, you've lost me.

[Caleb8844]

Do you believe that you have a constitutional right to shut down any private event you deem worthy of being shut down?

I'm not actually trying to be a dick about this as much as I am trying to actually understand the argument.

It's trivially easy to understand why explaining the scope of the 1st amendment to me is not relevant here, so resist the urge

Do the students gain their right to shut down a private event because they're also students, and in a way, their tuition money is covering some portion of the event's costs? Meaning, would your mental calculus change if they were non-students?

If not, is the fact that it's at a public institution where the right to shut it down originates? Meaning, would your mental calculus change if the event were held at a private university?

If not, is it really just the fact that you personally find the content of the speech beyond the pale? Meaning, would your mental calculus change if the event were held by a Ben Shapiro-like figure (a right wing conservative, but patently obviously not a white supremacist in any way [neither's Milo, but I'm just bored of taking that avenue for this debate])

I fully understand the emotional grounding of this side of the argument, but I'm actually really struggling to locate the logical grounding

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

Do you believe that you have a constitutional right to shut down any private event you seem worthy of being shut down?

What does that even mean?

Honestly, I'm a lawyer and I have no idea what you are referring to by a constitutional right here?

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

What does that even mean?



Honestly, I'm a lawyer and I have no idea what you are referring to by a constitutional right here?

Perhaps I shouldn't have used "constitutional," but it was a play on the repeated idea that people don't have a "constitutional" right to speak wherever they please.

I'm responding to a slew of comments saying that, as long as one has an outlet for one's speech elsewhere, there's nothing wrong with forcefully blocking them from speaking at an event.

You're all doing this little slide where you imply that people like Milo are bitching because they can't just speak at whatever random place they want.

Private groups sign contracts to have Milo perform a service, and then third parties block this service from occurring.

I'm asking where the third parties derive the apparent authority to do this, and in what situations they would lack such an authority

essentially: is the position being put forth really, "all contracts are subject to third party nullification"?

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[anitram]

Originally Posted by Caleb8844

I'm asking where the third parties derive the apparent authority to do this, and in what situations they would lack such an authority

What authority?

It is precisely the lack of authority to decline an event that causes protest. If the students had such authority, he would not be appearing in the first place.

So they organize and protest, either hoping that the individual would pull out voluntarily, that the university/organization would re-consider and cancel the event, or maybe they realize nothing will happen but protesting is their last outlet. The students themselves cannot "block" the event, only the university can, at their discretion, which they freely exercise on their properties. That university can do a risk/benefit analysis and decide how to proceed. The fact the students are out there yelling with signs MAY in some instances persuade them, and in others not. But I don't understand how you think that anybody has conferred any authority on the actual protesters.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by anitram

What authority?



It is precisely the lack of authority to decline an event that causes protest. If the students had such authority, he would not be appearing in the first place.



So they organize and protest, either hoping that the individual would pull out voluntarily, that the university/organization would re-consider and cancel the event, or maybe they realize nothing will happen but protesting is their last outlet. The students themselves cannot "block" the event, only the university can, at their discretion, which they freely exercise on their properties. That university can do a risk/benefit analysis and decide how to proceed. The fact the students are out there yelling with signs MAY in some instances persuade them, and in others not. But I don't understand how you think that anybody has conferred any authority on the actual protesters.

You and I may be talking past each other when we use "right" and "authority"

Obviously no authority has been legally conveyed on them.

But something tells me that if a bunch of KKK groups made it their duty to follow Shaun King around to each and every speaking engagement, launching fireworks at the building he's in, attacking his supporters and destroying random bits of local property, we wouldn't really be inclined to humor or defend them. I suspect we might instead be tempted to crack down rather firmly on them.

So by simply saying, "well, it is what it is - what're we gonna do? Besides, I can see where they're coming from.." we are conveying a right/authority - a moral authority, at the very least - to them. Does that make sense?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[DaveC]

when the ones who riot against milo appearances start having anything remotely genocidal as part of their openly stated agenda you can make that comparison.

[Caleb8844]

Originally Posted by DaveC

when the ones who riot against milo appearances start having anything remotely genocidal as part of their openly stated agenda you can make that comparison.

Are you contending that Milo Yiannopolous supports genocide?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[PhilsFan]

He supports putting trans and immigrant lives in danger, that's established at the very least.

[cobl04]

And for all the "SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT LEFT" bullshit, he's extremely homophobic.

[Irvine511]

A good old pie in the face can sometimes do the trick:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H-A2Ql81WTY

No sympathy for this awful, awful woman. I enjoy hearing her cry. Mockery and humiliation is what people like her, and Milo, and white supremacists, hate the most and deserve the most. Sure, it's enjoyable and satisfying to watch that punch to the face -- but just because I watched it several times doesn't mean I don't think the puncher shouldn't also suffer the consequences. As for Milo, an empty hall or some other kind of humiliation is the best response, protests are what he wants and in fact needs.

[Bluer White]

I suppose an unwanted pie in the face is an assault, but not sure this is what the political violence thread is about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKFTfnM2mmE