Left-leaning protestors refuse to allow free speech.

[Okeefenokee]

Looks like the issue is the Republicans Club cucking out.

It's actually a Republican win because it reveals the hypocritical face of the fascist Left, and more and more people are realizing what's going on.

No, no, no, no. Canceling the event does nothing you have to have the confrontation. That is some gamergate, criticism = harassment bullshit. Leftist cant be anonymous bullies get them on camera, make them famous. Aids Skrillex, Carl the cuck, Trigglypuff, Mizzou "muscle" professor, Hugh Mungus lady. Make them show up, give them a microphone, then meme the shit out of them. Milo and Ben Shapiro have made careers out of doing this shit.

and roger.

[jbird4049]

This is so cute.

This oversimplification is amusing. Free speech supporters come in all flavors. In the 60s the Free Speech Movement, which was composed of lefty radicals, fought for, well free speech. And it was the conservative establishment that was trying to control speech. Just what do you think the Red Scare was about?

Today, some lefty fanatics are doing the same. So, just wait awhile, the free speech supporters will switch sides.

[Speaker to Animals]

Maybe universities should focus on education and research instead..

[clubgop]

This is so cute.

This oversimplification is amusing. Free speech supporters come in all flavors. In the 60s the Free Speech Movement, which was composed of lefty radicals, fought for, well free speech. And it was the conservative establishment that was trying to control speech. Just what do you think the Red Scare was about?

Today, some lefty fanatics are doing the same. So, just wait awhile, the free speech supporters will switch sides.

The red scare was the 50's dude and not about free speech it was about communist infiltrating government and decades later when KGB records were released the problem was even worse when then they thought. Its about honesty something for which the left is totally incapable of. Facebook tried it but the whole "fake news" thing blew up in their face, twitter doesnt even pretend anymore. Switch sides? What decade, next century?

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, it turns out McCarthy had a point. The KGB did in fact infiltrate hollywood, academia, and the government, and we are still dealing with the repurcussions of the attack the KGB calls ideological subversion.

[Okeefenokee]

Yeah, it turns out McCarthy had a point. The KGB did in fact infiltrate hollywood, academia, and the government, and we are still dealing with the repurcussions of the attack the KGB calls ideological subversion.

Funny, I don't think I've heard any Hollywood types talking about the Russian hacking. They must not be happy that DC is dragging their beaux into all this.

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, it turns out McCarthy had a point. The KGB did in fact infiltrate hollywood, academia, and the government, and we are still dealing with the repurcussions of the attack the KGB calls ideological subversion.

Funny, I don't think I've heard any Hollywood types talking about the Russian hacking. They must not be happy that DC is dragging their beaux into all this.

The situation is flipped now. The Soviet Union dird, but the ideological attack lives on. There is just no Soviet Union to finish the attack.

Which is a good thing for the cultural marxists, given that the Soviets would have murdered them all after taking control. That ex-KGB agent who explained how all this shit would happen to us in the 1980s said these people are permanently damaged as far as the Soviets were concerned.

[atanamis]

There are two ways to look at this.

Freedom of speech as a legal construct is about preventing government from silencing those who it does not want to hear from. It is not actually a right to be heard or to be granted a platform. Government can in full compliance with the first amendment prohibit anyone from using government resources to express their ideas. The schools in question here are government owned schools, but legally have every right to decide what kinds of speakers they want to allow or encourage. Freedom of speech doesn't even really mean that government has to provide security for your gathering. Police can be called after a crime has been committed, but the Supreme Court has made abundantly clear that police to not have any kind of burden to proactively protect people. Political campaigns are generally expected to pay local police for security work that is needed at their events, or to hire their own security, just as private businesses hire security guards to protect their property and customers. At a government level, so long as government is not using force to block your speech on your private property to people who have chosen to be there or to distribute your information in legal ways, they are not actually in violation of this principle. And for the record, I support permitting almost any such speech which is not inciting violence.

But the complaint here wasn't about government action as such. The speech wasn't even cancelled due to school administrative requirement so far as I can see. It was closed because of protesters, and the complaint is that those protesters were in the wrong. To address protesting in general, I would point to the above to say that protesting on public property is not itself a constitutional right. We have the right to assemble and to speak, but not to impose our presence where it is not legally allowed. Historically, protests have been met with violence from law enforcement and have often engaged in violence against persons or property. When Ghandi or MLK engaged in protests what they added was the element of non-violence on the part of the protesters. But those protesters themselves were clubbed down rank by rank in multiple different protests. They blocked traffic, they hindered people going about their business, and they didn't lift a finger against police as they were beaten down in ways which were perfectly legal in their day. In a culture that is shocked by violence against unresisting subjects, such determination speaks in a way that violent mobs simply do not. This isn't necessarily to condemn those who feel their only resort is violence, but I do think that the techniques used by these men were incredibly effective for those with the courage to use them.

As to the protest itself, I fully support people wanting to non-violently support the message of a speaker whose positions are opposed. If a speaker who supported terrorism or hate were to speak near me, I can absolutely see myself protesting the expected contents of the speech or even just the prior actions of the speaker. If the speaker were particularly onerous to me, I could even see myself protesting that they were being given a platform to speak on. To claim that an editor of a news company is being prevented from having a platform honestly seems a little dishonest. He can and will use any number of other channels to express his position. The planned speech was granting a platform, and if people want to peacefully protest that I don't really see a problem with that. My preference though would tend to be to encourage more speech though rather than suppress it. Rather than organizing a protest to prevent this person from speaking, it seems that a better policy would have been to organize a response to the speech in another campus location. Speech is optimally reacted to with a rebuttal speech rather than by seeking to silence the first speech.

I wandered a bit here, but overall I feel that this issue is largely smoke and mirrors. Nobody is actually being hurt if this man is allowed to speak and have his ideas heard on one more platform, and nobody was really hurt by the decision to not have him speak. This is a case of college students engaging in culture war to effect what kinds of speech happen near them. And as with most such culture war, I am willing to wish both sides the best of luck and let them have at it so long as they refrain from violence.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Let me just adjust my tin foil hat and say that I would bet Milo encouraged the student organization to shut it down.

Nothing gets Milo attention like getting no platformed, but his whole shtick is being a provocateur... which is basically impossible when your side just won.

[atanamis]

Let me just adjust my tin foil hat and say that I would bet Milo encouraged the student organization to shut it down.

Nothing gets Milo attention like getting no platformed, but his whole shtick is being a provocateur... which is basically impossible when your side just won.

Honestly, that is why this is such a no issue for me. His NOT getting to speak gained him more exposure than speaking would have. If anything, this suggests a strategic error on the part of these protesters rather than any abuse of free speech by them.