>Should Muslims be able to protest outside of the twin towers/next to a christian church? Yes as long as people can get on with their day. >Should Westboro be allowed to attend the funerals of veterans with signs deliberately to harass grieving family members? Yes as long as people can get on with their day. >Should black lives matter be allowed to protest outside of police stations / on freeways? Yes as long as people can get on with their day. >Should homosexuals be allowed to protest outside of a wedding clerk's office? Yes as long as people can get on with their day.
Freedom of assembly does not mean ruining other people's lives for the wrong opinion.
pic unrelated
Samuel Sanchez
>Should black lives matter be allowed to protest outside of police stations / on freeways? Only one that shouldn't be allowed. Your freedoms end where another's freedoms begin. If you're blocking the road without permission, then you're depriving others of their right to go where they want/need to. This, and I see a lot of people conflating boycotts on the NFL, with physically attacking attendees at Milo events. One would think that would be an obvious false equivalency.
Aiden King
Yes, they should be able to, but if shit escalates and there are consequences, you can't hide behind your free speech to protect you from said consequences.
Adrian Flores
How about costing a city thousands of dollars on police protection that could be better allocated to the needs of homeless individuals, etc?
Surely that's a disruption to people's lives
Brandon Martin
,and who's costing those "thousands of dollars"? The people showing up to an event, or the people burning the city down in response? That's a pretty sad argument to try, and make.
Jace Martinez
If they get proper permits. Yes. Cheaper for the city too, christcucks are way more tolerant and nonviolent than lefties.
Ryan Richardson
>needs of homeless individuals read: heroin breddy gud use of funds gomrade.
Besides that, the police are obligated to uphold the law, and I assume that includes your amendments that make you burgers say make you so """free""".
Adam James
Yes
Jason Diaz
>"Chief Margo Bennett of the UC Police Department estimated that the cost for the event would be at least $800,000. Eleven people were arrested, according to campus and city police."
>In a Saturday email to a UC Berkeley administrator, obtained by The Times, Lucian Wintrich, who was initially among the speakers, said that Yiannopoulos had known for some time that the Free Speech Week event would be canceled.
When asked if this was all “set up,” Wintrich responded “yes.”
I was going to link to you a deleted milo Instagram post from yesterday saying "Anti-fa paid for this", maybe you've already seen it?
So if he knew it was going to be cancelled a head of time, and that the event would cost a lot of money to the city - why not go upfront and tell the public? Keeping these plans were very malicious and a sad ploy to negatively affect the community
If you have an alternative theory i'd love to hear it but until then, this seems the most obvious
It seems to be as if freedoms in the US, are only what the Marxist say they are these days. This NFL shit is proof of that. Even if one ignores all of the forms of speech that are banned by the NFL, one still can't deny, that were a play to stand on the sidelines yelling "nigger", there wouldn't be a single person on the left defending his right to free speech, and it's highly unlikely they would only go so far as boycotts to protest it.
Camden Perry
Speak for your own country, mate. Doesnt your kind regard your current leader as a "cuck" anyways, is that why you comment on American Politics?
>implying all homeless individuals use heroin
Try visiting Berkeley for once if you are going to talk like you know anything about its population
Wyatt Jenkins
Without saying no to any of the situations you present, it's not a fair comparison to say that Milo making a speech at a university with a history of fighting for First Amendment rights is comparable to Fred Phelps shitting up a vets funeral.
Kayden Cooper
>a man starts following you to work every day, torching dumpsters and cars as you pass >you get arrested for costing the city money
Brandon Martinez
"alternative theory". I'm starting to think you're either sick in the head, or from California. Even if I ignore how stupid of a post that was, one still can't deny that so far every single right wing event held there has been met with riots. The problem is that, even if what you're saying is true, it's still idiotic as he has every right to do so, and the only guilty party, are the ones committing the crime.
Aaron Price
Why would there be any need to chant nigger as a NFL player? Wouldn't be allowed to be shown on TV, wouldn't communicate any political idea except (durr "niggers").
Not standing for the pledge isn't even someone over stepping their boundaries by saying something offensive, but rather by avoiding to perform a traditional norm as a form of protest.
Leave it to Sup Forums to equate yelling nigger to kneeling for the pledge.
Owen Thompson
>should a group be allowed to protest somewhere where their presence will make people butthurt Yes, and if more Muslims/BLM did that then they'd be as universally hated as Westboro. Banning these people from assembly is just denying them the rope they need to hang themselves. If you immediately turn the water up to boiling without delay, the frogs will jump out of the pot and realize where everything has gone wrong.
Brody Ross
>Only if they're citizens. >Also have the right to be identified >Also have the right to be (further) tracked ...oh wait NSA doesn't do that.
Jacob Cruz
This gets right back to the crux of the problem. What you stated is purely un-quantifiable opinion, and not even remotely factual. If one can simply state "this is against my values, thus it is against the law", then anything can be defined as illegal.
Brayden Morris
See Was set up deliberately to be cancelled and cry victim (as seen by those on Sup Forums)
>Milo >just a normal guy walking to work, not expecting media attention or trying to provoke others on his way to work
never argued he should be arrested, but you are delusional if you don't think he intends for these negative outcomes to the city
>implying the damage was beyond a few broken windows and Trump supporter's faces
Yup.. keep eating up your "fake news"
Charles Harris
I know that Commiefornia didn't get that name for no reason, and that Berkeley's mayor sucks Antifa cock. All the more reason I wouldn't be suprised if it set up heroin dispenseries like my "cucked" province.
Jayden Gomez
Who gives a shit what he intends? I intend for you to get assraped in prison, but I am not doing anything to force you to commit a felony.
Landon Reyes
I think Milo should be able to do whatever he wants, so long as he keeps distributing posters of massive black penises.
Alexander Gomez
Nothing is born in a vacuum. A player chanting "nigger" would be kicked off the team (and probably beaten up) for the TV's sake if anything. It wouldnt doubtfully even get this far in the media.
And again, how do you equate someone skipping out on a social norm (not saying "bless you", "excuse me", "i'm sorry") to someone deliberately provoking others ("you fucking nigger", "jews are evil")?
Obviously we are arguing in abstracts, unless you seriously think theres something quantifiable ("one can't still deny") or factual (hypothetical NFL team yelling nigger) that your getting across, this is philosophy - shit the name of the thread is a Thought experiment
Brody Ramirez
This, and frankly there are a lot of people who find disrespecting the US, every bit as offensive as others running around, and yelling "nigger". Honestly, I think psychoanalytic criticism is best applied to the modern left. From what I've seen, you, and nearly all other leftist have a "I'm the protagonist", world view. In this view, anything against you is inherently of the "antagonist", and thus morally wrong, as it disrupts your position in the story, as the defining character. It's a very childish world view, and I think much of it stems from the loss of the father figure in western culture. You never grew up with anyone telling you "no, don't do that", and thus experience an extreme sense of juxtaposition, when confronted with such a scenario.
Leo Hughes
colleges are defacto public spaces due to the considerable amount of public funds from the states, feds and student loans.
yes despite the cost he must be able to speak.
if muslims are on private property they cant protest otherwise who cares.
funerals are on private property so no nitwits dont get to chimpout
blm should be able to protest outside police stations, sidewalks are where the public gathers. some reasonable accomodation for the local streets can be made. the freeway is off limits due to the fact its not a place people even step foot (unlike a street) fuck ever see a farmers market in a freeway? no it just doesnt make sense its not designed for people to congregate.
your an idiot and i think you know that
Connor Campbell
Once again, we're getting back to the issue with your world view. You are unable to put yourself into another's position, and thus you cannot see how both examples presented can be defined in both ways by different spectators.
Christopher Scott
>Yes >Yes >Yes >Yes
So long as they don't assemble in people's way so that they block the street or block people's access to the service or thing they are protesting. So long as they are not violent and do not issue specific threats (like Antifa does constantly). So long as they do not riot or commit violence (like Antifa does every time they show up to anything). The costs incurred by Milo are the fault of the violent rioters who attempt to commit violence and disturb any public function he attends. He is not responsible for their violence, thuggery, and barbarism, nor is any group of peaceful protesters responsible if violent rioters show up to attack them.
Hold those who break the law responsible and throw them in a cell.
I'm not saying he needs to go to prison, but HE knows the effect his words will have, so acting as if the antifa showing up, or shutting his speech down is completely unrelated to him is just playing victim.
Your example is false because you yourself would be inactive, how can you "intend" anything without setting any sort of gears in motion - to "intend" on a certain endgoal. Milo isnt a completely inactive passive figure that gets acted on, he knows what he's acting UPON and as such, has an intention
see image
Connor Sanchez
Violent rioters and those who hope to become violent rioters have no respect for the rule of law, usually they are either animals who enjoy mob violence because they were raised poorly, or they subscribe to an ideology whose specific goal is to destroy the rule of law.
Jace Sullivan
Did I miss where we wrote about a person's inalienable right to "get on with their day?"
Landon Russell
Would you consider it against your rights if I put you under house arrest for no reason?
Ian Johnson
Coming from someone who uses chanting "nigger" as an example for free speech, I don't think theres any amount of virtual signaling you can try that would convince them you can
"put yourself into another's position, and thus you cannot see how both examples presented can be defined in both ways by different spectators."
But ofcourse you'll say im detracting from the topic, so go more in detail about my actual logical flaws instead of trying to pass this half assed ad hominen as logic
Austin Rodriguez
He doesn't cost the city anything, the violent rioting criminals do. The simple solution would be to take the violent rioting criminals and throw them in prison or shoot them, like they deserve. For some reason though, it seems like most of the times Antifa shows up in a democrat run city, the cops get a call telling them to stand off and allow violent leftist domestic terrorists to assault people, destroy property, light cop cars on fire, and generally behave like animals.
Blake Peterson
>putting someone on house arrest imprisonment [see 8th amendment] >getting in the middle of someone's way to work an inconvenience at worst
are you even trying?
Tyler Edwards
Stupid fucking argument. Free speech is for ALL speech regardless of whether you agree with it or not. The left is the only side that disagrees with this. I don't agree with Westboro Baptist, BLM or Muslims but in the US freedom of speech is granted to all so yes they can talk.
Jordan Green
>you yourself would be inactive I'm posting in this thread. Maybe that'll incite you to go rape your neighbor, I don't know. His words have no direct effect other than projecting comprehensible speech sounds. Yes, he knows violent savages love to commit felonies when insufficiently coddled, but it is entirely not his responsibility to coddle them. In fact, a person has every right to ask strangers if they wish to commit violence. If they decide they do, though, that's on them, not the person checking if they're still unhinged.
Nathaniel Morales
>Declaration of Independence: "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" >Canadian Bill of Rights: "the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property" >"Your rights end where mine begin, visa versa" >"Treat others as you would want to be treated" It's first grade spongebob
Connor Gutierrez
It's an inconvenience if you block one lane and slow everything down. If you surround a roadway and prevent cars from going anywhere, you've effectively claimed political hostages.
Colton Ramirez
Contrary to liberal belief, a peaceful protest does not include bike locking people in the head, throwing bricks and eggs, or burning down entire city blocks. So yea "get on with their day" pretty much covers the "peaceful" aspect of it.
Daniel Hall
Yes, yes, yes, yes, no, and yes.
Stop pretending to be in favor free speech, sweetie. No one believes you.
Josiah Young
>Throwing people in prison or shooting them >Simple solution
I'm glad sociopaths like you aren't allowed any political power
You don't even live in Berkeley, stop pretending you do. They had around a hundred people in Milo's vicinity (after going through metal detectors), no violence hysteria occurred - as the news might make you think.
Take it from me - I live down the fucking street.
But to address your logic; Alcohol doesn't cost the city anything (its just a chemical!), the specific drunk drivers that get into accidents do. Lets just shoot or throw those people in prison and there will be no need to form any more laws about alcohol - its just a chemical!
Landon Garcia
>ad hominen If you can't handle those, go back to plebbit.
"Coming from someone who uses chanting "nigger" as an example for free speech,"
Once again, you don't like it, thus in your view it's not protected speech. This is the problem with your world view, and it amazes me how you can't see how being able to arbitrarily label some speech legal, and some speech illegal, entirely defeats the purpose of even having free speech.
Colton Johnson
>no violence hysteria occurred No one was allowed to cover their face. Also makes ya think.
William Adams
correct.
Charles Morris
Yes, people should be free to drink alcohol, however if they commit a crime while drinking alcohol they should be punished for that crime. People should be free to protest, however if they commit a crime while protesting they should be punished for that crime.
Antifa are violent domestic terrorists who subscribe to an ideology who's express purpose is to destroy free nations via the introduction of communism and anarchism. Any one of them found committing a crime should be punished for that crime, if they are assaulting police with bricks or setting fire to property or police vehicles they should be shot as they pose a clear and present danger to both civilians and police.
Benjamin Reed
are you even trying?
Not really, this has become more entertainment at this point for me.
>putting someone on house arrest imprisonment [see 8th amendment] >getting in the middle of someone's way to work an inconvenience at worst
So if you work at home, then house arrest would be a simple inconvenience? It doesn't matter as it is in effect the same. You've denied someone, something that they are lawfully allowed to do, without the authority to do so. Even police have gotten in trouble for stopping people for no reason, so why would a private citizen have that authority?
Austin Martin
No, your intention when posting on this thread is to get a specific response from me, are you really telling me you dont think theres any difference between posting to get someone raped, and speaking in a politically charged city about attitudes you know wont go over well? Really?
> His words have no direct effect other than projecting comprehensible speech sounds
you're starting to seem unhinged yourself, obvious these comprehensible speech sounds gather up into a pattern of words that has meaning that is heard and understood by others, knowingly possible to be taunting or hurting someones feelings.
if you're really that nihilist, what are you doing talking on the internet? there just comprehensible figure signs - they have no direct effect right?
Nathaniel Ortiz
>a politically charged city Who gives a shit? I'm politically charged but you don't see me committing arson outside events by college socialist clubs. >about attitudes you know wont go over well Who gives a shit? They'll go over just fine with the group that invited him to speak. Other people are allowed to like things you don't like.
Hudson Lopez
>admitting to using ad hominen thanks for admitting your failure of logic, I will now cease any reasonable arguments with you
I live in Berkeley, I was there on the day/nights of all three (four?) "riots", I saw after the first how the only real damage was smashed windows, at the third event I watched as the news lady literally sensationalized the tension (which had been completely non violent)
you think all news media is fake until it supports your narrative? you dont realize these news stories are blown out of proportion to get views? have you even been TO California?
And yeah, no one was allowed to cover their face, including the "alt-right" - whats your point?
So drinking and driving is against the law. Is that more of a law against the individual drivers, the alcohol itself, or a mix between the two?
>Antifa are violent domestic terrorists who subscribe... Boring
>setting fire to property or police vehicles oh yeah because certainly someone is going to die if not done? totally not just an excuse to murder the opposite party, right?
Nazis are violent domestic terrorists who subscribe to an ideology who's express purpose is to destroy free nations via the introduction of institutionalized racism and fascism.
O wait man, nevermind the nazis are chill cause they only hurt minorities, right??
Where you work has absolutely no bearing on the fact that house arrest is illegal imprisonment, I cant understand why its so hard for you to understand.
You're practically equating a 5 hour flight delay, to being locked in a dark cellar.
Like jesus, book another flight, cancel it, or wait it out and stop bitching. Its not like there is only one flight to any given location.
Zachary Powell
>Other people are allowed to like things you don't like. ..which includes people protesting against someone who they think shouldn't be given a platform.
From the same man who brought you "words are just comprehensible sounds that have no effect"...
wow you deserve a pat on the back for not attacking your hypothetical colleges hypothetical socialist club! everyone should be as a brave as you! and if you ever saw the college and surrounding citizens demanding such a club be shut down, you would stand up for the club right? Freedom of speech??
Levi Moore
>I live in Berkeley I called it.
>"Like jesus, book another flight, cancel it, or wait it out and stop bitching. Its not like there is only one flight to any given location."
Very well, if you're incapable of seeing nuance in reductio ad absurdum argumentation, then let us just assume you're being halted in the same manner by an "alt-right" march.
>"admitting to using ad hominen thanks for admitting your failure of logic, I will now cease any reasonable arguments with you"
You don't consider labeling everyone you don't agree with as "racist" to be an "ad hominen"? This, and if you define ad hominen, by it's true translation which is "at the man", then the violent protest, your side has partaken in, would be the ultimate form of an "ad hominen", as it's directed in such a way to do damage to a person, or persons. This, and frankly, one could easily define deliberate disrespect towards the US, as an ad hominen, which is for one, against un-involved persons, and two, an ad hominen, you've been defending.
Blake Davis
>you would stand up for the club right? Freedom of speech?? I would, so long as the college applied the rule universally, which would mean that they'd, also have to allow for a natsoc club, if there were sufficient prospective members.
Kayden Lee
please point to where I have called anyone racist in this thread. or point to where I have said I support anti-fa ("*your side* has partaken in")
regardless of who has said what, this (was) an argument between you and me, not them- you chose the ad homenin and as I've said, I'm done arguing with you
have a good evening
Nathan Jenkins
The convenience of the state is not a compelling reason for a ban.
Even if I believed you have proved malicious intent, which I don't, Your causality is fucked up here. The proximal cause of the expenses is a violent gang who attack speakers they don't like. It's as retarded as blaming artists for the Draw Mohammed day fatalities.
You're trying to build a case for transferring blame and responsibility for simply public speaking of person who quite frankly doesn't even have that controversial of a message. It's not as if it would be banned by the FCC for example. Or, lets say I accept that he's doing this in bad faith. Is falsely claiming that he wants to speak at a venue really objectionable?
>Try visiting Berkeley for once if you are going to talk like you know anything about its population Don't be such a judgmental bigot user. I've seen my share of crazy shit go down near Peoples Park. You've got the potential of a reasonable case here, and there's no reason to blow it by being a bitch.
Ryder Fisher
Lol homie I also live in Berkeley and went to check out a couple of these protests. Every time it was chill and peaceful on both sides until Antifa showed up. I don't understand what you're arguing- you're saying it's the speakers' fault that this group of people choose to commit crimes? Antifa shows up at these kinds of events with genuine intent of violence, they aren't shy about admitting that either. They are the villains here, not the guy sharing his opinion (no matter how much you disagree with it).
Mason Anderson
>In vein of this weekends event's
>So YES Milo should be allowed to speech at Berkeley despite the cost and the protests of the people..
>Should Muslims be able to protest outside of the twin towers/next to a christian church?
>Should Westboro be allowed to attend the funerals of veterans with signs deliberately to harass grieving family members?
>Should black lives matter be allowed to protest outside of police stations / on freeways?
>Should homosexuals be allowed to protest outside of a wedding clerk's office?
>Free-speech / freedom of assembly, right?
Yes
Landon Collins
Yes, Milo literally held a gun to their head (figuratively speaking) and told them to destroy stuff.
Connor Parker
"please point to where I have called anyone racist in this thread. or point to where I have said I support anti-fa ("*your side* has partaken in")"
You didn't, nor do I know if you support anti-fa (though I suspect as much). Which brings us to another issue. On the left, there is a view that "when I'm speaking, I'm only accountable for me", "when he's speaking, he's accountable for all opposition". The simple application of this rule to you, presents how foolish of a rule it is, which is why I did it here.
Grayson Wood
yes, you idiot. this is the entire point. kys
Levi Clark
Which this actually brings up another point. (thanks for that Norway).
For you, "Milo is accountable for opposition actions, but I'm not even remotely accountable for my sides actions, and thus shouldn't be judged by them." Even if we flipped this logic to say, "X group causes Y group to do this", then that would mean that I "who finds your speech offensive, through my set of ethical though", can hold you accountable for the actions of anyone on the far right, should I be able to find even the slightest bit of causality, even if it's related to your group on a macro, and not just yourself.
Ayden Nelson
*ethical thought
Nolan Butler
Antifa are villains because they want to use violence?
were the americans the villains of the revolutionary war then? since they fought against what they didnt agree with?? Wow and they even broke the law TOO! This is mutiny then, correct?
>Don't be such a judgmental bigot user >calls people violent gang members >posting on Sup Forums for gods sake..
virtue signaling
ok but for the rest
I admit i've thought about it and yes - this cant be all of Milo's fault, but it is ridiculous to say he is entirely blameless either.
Lets say i'm your younger brother, and you know everytime you call me pig at the dinner table I get upset and throw a huge fit. One night, knowing this you call me a pig and I get upset. Our fictional parents wouldn't like this, but its hard to imagine you as being entirely innocent. Even if you didn't throw the tantrum, you knowingly caused it to happen - and assuming this was an habitual habit, so would the parents.
> simply public speaking of person who quite frankly doesn't even have that controversial of a message you can throw in as many adjectives as you want, you formed a pretty slanted self serving sentence to serve as fact.. Im not going to treat it as so.
>Is falsely claiming that he wants to speak at a venue really objectionable? its inherently in-honest and underhanded by nature, but something is telling me you have already made the acceptation
>thinks "crazy shit" happens near peoples park >calls ME a bitch
haha
cities are all more populated which means more people which means more crazy shit can possibly go down.
is this a surprise? or just a result of a liberal city? what are you getting at
Dominic Bell
Unpopular opinion: Milo should not be allowed to speak because he has nothing to say.
Nathaniel Stewart
>my sides
literally >my sides
why are you still here ? did anti-fa forcefully put you under house arrest or something?
of course not! Milo thought showing up to Berkeley would go perfectly as planned, no one would have a problem with it and it would be a jolly good time, right?
and NFL players can kneel for the anthem?
Austin White
>and NFL players can kneel for the anthem? Along as the high ups says it's okay.
Logan Campbell
In retrospect, you should have pointed my use of "sociopath" in as hypocrisy on my end regarding ad hominen
everybody else: its been great but im going to go now, I feel better about this discussion than the other times i've been on Sup Forums thanks for talking to me (excluding those who insulted me) and just remember to challenge your own thoughts sometimes, I've walked away with a change in mine and im perfectly ok with it :+)
>why are you still here ? Because here you can't dictate what is, and isn't acceptable, which seems to be too much of a burden for you. This reinforces what I suspected earlier, when I stated that you likely grew up without a strong father figure. You've never been told "no", and thus when you've been injected into an environment where you can not dictate the rules, you break down. Let's just be frank, my "ad hominem" didn't really offend you, and was entirely accurate, but it gave you an excuse to break debate. This isn't an uncommon tactic for those with your thought process. Once a rule you've set has been broken, the game has been "won" by default, even if the other side never agreed to it.
>I'd be offended by the allegation, and would consider that an "ad hominem"
Adam Moore
He knows shut it down
Jackson Diaz
Comparing Antifa with the American revolutionists is a pretty wild leap there. Yes, you can call absolutely call it mutiny if you want, the difference between the revolutionists and Antifa is that the revolutionists represented the majority of the country (that's why they won). The American revolution was fought over civil rights- "no taxation without representation." It was a colony revolting against imperial leadership because they weren't able to make political/economic decisions in their own land. Antifa members do have this representation, every one of them can vote if they choose to. They're just whining because most of the country doesn't agree with them.
Joseph Mitchell
>Lets say i'm your younger brother, ....
The decision to throw a tantrum or not belongs 100 percent to, lets call the sibling "Wojack" for convenience. Any other allocation takes away from the agency of Wojack and is an infringment on Wojack's rights..
Likewise, lets call the other sibling "Pepe". Calling Wojack a pig might be considered punishable, independently of Wojacks's response, but since you're signing off now, we won't get into it further, and I'll continue.
Functionally, even if the parents put an explicit ban on calling wojack a pig, Pepe being a dedicated shitposter can conceivably think of an infinite number of other non banned things to say that would start an immediate tantrum. So the parents COULD abstract this to "be nice to wojack", or "pepe is responsible for saying anything that causes wojack to have a tantrum".
That last bit is key, because in that case Wojack is no longer treated as their own independent person, but a ward of pepe. Just as the parents would have to pay if Wojack pisses in the ice cream freezer at the supermarket. If you think Milo partially deserves responsibility, that's the same as saying that Milo partially owns antifa.
There's an additional error here in thinking of the state as a parental substitute, which leads to all sorts of other problems, but those are relatively minor.
>its inherently in-honest and underhanded by nature, but something is telling me you have already made the acceptation No I haven't. But if it's objectionable to the point where it needs action particularly by the state, you need to define it.
>you can throw in as many adjectives as you want, you formed a pretty slanted self serving sentence to serve as fact.. Im not going to treat it as so. You missed where I was going with this. There's an exception to free speech that is "fighting words", or a literal invitation to combat, which I was anticipating, and preparing to head off.
