Violence vs. Free Speech

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
OP-EDs from local Berkelians (students and writers, and not "outside agitators"):
http://www.dailycal.org/2017/02/07/violence-self-defense/
Last week, a violent protest erupted on campus, in response to a scheduled speaking event by Milo Yiannopoulos. Many people soon began to decry the protesters. Here are a few arguments in favor of the use of violence in protests.
UC Faculty Members Shamefully Justify the Berkeley Riots

http://www.ktvu.com/news/233582223-story
Mayor Arreguin says he was very alarmed by the riots and he knew that Yiannopoulos speaking at the university may incite a large crowd. Arreguin previously called Yiannopoulos a white nationalist and later apologized. He tells KTVU, "I do think he's a white nationalist, but I think we probably shouldn't be using labels. But I think he announced he's funding a scholarship for white men, and has said a lot of hateful things about women, about minorities about Muslims. I think his speech is frankly hate speech personally. But he does have a constitutional right to be heard. It's not the views I believe in."

He adds he would not open the doors to Yiannopoulos again because of the violent response. "Going forward we need to balance the right to free speech with the need to preserve public safety." he says that will be a discussion with the city going forward.
Emphasis mine . . . so despite charging a security fee you make no attempt to prevent or stop the violence through crowd control, make no attempt to enforce the law through arrests, and then use the violence to justify denying free speech to the peaceful party involved.

Milo's success at exposing these fascist pricks' playbook can't be overstated. He's also exposed the leftist journalists, comedians, actors, etc who've failed to condemn it for what it is. They can't claim to support free speech anymore.

Lack of committment to defending free speech is dangerous. After much of Charlie Hebdo was massacred, every Western outlet worth a damn should have republished CH's critical cartoons and depictions of Muhammed to send a clear message that a violent response to speech would get you nowhere.

Many held back and even opposed giving the PEN American Center's Freedom of Expression Courage award to Charlie Hebdo, because they didn't like the content of CH's speech. The Draw Muhammed contest in Texas put their efforts to shame:

[video=youtube;No-4DZ5Gip0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No-4DZ5Gip0[/video]​


The result of that?
Former Charlie Hebdo Writer Says She Quit Because The Terrorists Won

A week after the attack, the remaining staff put out a new edition showing Mohammed holding a sign that read ?Je suis Charlie,? the hashtag that was used on social media to express solidarity with the magazine. Yet six months later Charlie Hebdo staff decided to stop drawing cartoons of Mohammed.
That doesn?t mean the other side?s arguments are without merit. When announcing the decision to stop drawing Mohammed, Charlie Hebdo?s editor, Laurent Sourisse, said, ?We?ve done our job. We have defended the right to caricature.? He notes that while they are expected to continue exercising their freedom of expression, no one else is similarly willing to take the risk of depicting Mohammed.

Sourisse told the press that he fears the public is less and less tolerant of the magazine, and that no one would defend their right to publish a cartoon of Mohammed now. He might be right. People are also afraid to speak out, and understandably so. Last year, the magazine?s financial director, Eric Portheault, said, ?We feel terribly alone. We hoped that others would do satire too. No one wants to join us in this fight because it?s dangerous.?
So maybe the editors of Charlie Hebdo are right?there?s no real appetite to push back against the censorship that Islamists, and many on the Left, are pushing. Elsewhere in Europe, comments about Islam and migrants continue to spur objections to free speech. Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders was convicted in December of ?inciting discrimination? for asking a riled-up crowd whether they wanted more or fewer Moroccans in the country.

Beyond state action, a general climate of self-censorship prevails across Europe, where citizens are afraid to criticize anything Muslims do, much less Islam itself. But is the fact that no one else will do it, or that Charlie Hebdo has fewer and fewer defenders, reason enough to stop? Rhazoui says no. Sadly, she may be one of the few remaining holdouts. If the most daring publication in the world won?t publish images of Mohammed, who will?
This is a tragic and chilling loss of free expression.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,145
Location
Michigan USA
That war seems to extend all the way to the Senate. If you missed it, Senator Elizabeth Warren was prevented from reading a letter written by Coretta Scott King about Jeff Sessions today. The letter was written to protest his confirmation as a federal judge. She was stopped using a rule that prevents one senator speaking badly of another on the Senate floor.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
I'm not familiar with that particular senate rule so it's hard for me to comment on this. What I will say, however, is that Lizzie is a POS and I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently but, unfortunately, that's a pipe dream, since MA voters will continue to reelect her.
 

kunedog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
310
So it is okay to suppress what Warren has to say?
IMO it was wrong. I tried reading up on rule 19 and came to the conclusion that it's more of a guideline, since it's almost never invoked. I think I'd even support suspending the rule when the whole point of the debate is judging the character of that Senator.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,145
Location
Michigan USA
I'm not familiar with that particular senate rule so it's hard for me to comment on this. What I will say, however, is that Lizzie is a POS and I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently but, unfortunately, that's a pipe dream, since MA voters will continue to reelect her.

Levvel, is it okay to suppress Warren?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
Levvel, is it okay to suppress Warren?
I'm not familiar with that particular senate rule so it's hard for me to comment on this. What I will say, however, is that Lizzie is a POS and I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently but, unfortunately, that's a pipe dream, since MA voters will continue to reelect her.
Does that answer your question?
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,145
Location
Michigan USA
That is too narrow. Level says " I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently" after calling her a POS. That implies that he believes that she is so despicable that not only should she be silenced, that she should be dead(that is the only permanent way I know of). That is what Level is here speaking against, yet it is okay for him to have the same view against someone that has views that are in opposition to his.
 

TC

aka TomCat
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
11,436
Let me try to rephrase what GR is asking. regardless of the rule in question do you believe someone who wants to cite a fact from a nominee's past as a reason against them should be silenced
I think they cited the "fact" that Sessions is a dirty filthy racist a few hundred times already. :p

But yeah, it was pretty dumb to shut her down, even if she was breaking rules. The democrats calling everyone else a racist has worked out great for the republicans so far, so why stop Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren from digging an even bigger hole?




- - - Updated - - -

That is too narrow. Level says " I wish there was a way to shut her up more permanently" after calling her a POS. That implies that he believes that she is so despicable that not only should she be silenced, that she should be dead(that is the only permanent way I know of). That is what Level is here speaking against, yet it is okay for him to have the same view against someone that has views that are in opposition to his.
By permanently, it seems pretty clear his post was in reference to not getting reelected.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
By permanently, it seems pretty clear his post was in reference to not getting reelected.
This. I'm amazed that anyone could misconstrue that as wanting a senator dead :blink: I literally explained what I was talking about in the same sentence.

Mitch McConnell shut her up temporarily - doesn't mean he put her in a coma. So why would shutting her up permanently mean bloody murder? WTF?
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,145
Location
Michigan USA
I never said murder.

Still waiting on an answer to the original question though. Do you think she should be suppressed?
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
I already answered your question. Generally: yes, through not bring reelected. Within the Senate: can't say because I am not familiar with the rule she supposedly violated.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
19,145
Location
Michigan USA
Why do you think not being a Senator will silence her? She is not a shrinking violet, and she has already shown that social media is in her wheelhouse.

But it is somewhat satisfying to see that you willingly admit you are not for the First Amendment.
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,865
Why do you think not being a Senator will silence her? She is not a shrinking violet, and she has already shown that social media is in her wheelhouse.

But it is somewhat satisfying to see that you willingly admit you are not for the First Amendment.
Sounds like you don't know what the 1A is, seeing as I did not at any point advocate legal action against Warren't right to speech. Keep trying to put words in my mouth, this is rather amusing.
 
Top