I'm not a fan of the safe space attitude of many colleges. I do however think both sides of this debate have taken moronic extremes and have misconceptions. First and foremost, protesting a speech is not against the first amendment. I'm well within my first amendment rights to show up at a speech liberal or conservative and stand outside with some signs/chant. That being said most of these protests are counter productive and not very necessary. People like Milo wouldn't get all of this attention if they didn't have people showing up to protest them. I ask all of those who claim to care about free speech on campuses what are your thoughts on the recent move by state legislatures to limit protest and free speech. Because personally I'm not a fan of either cases of free speech being stifled but conveniently the right wing feee speech advocates only seem to care about one instance. Republican lawmakers introduce bills to curb protesting in at least 18 states
What's been happening on college campuses has been absolutely disgusting. In which campus administration have been purposefully cowtowing to protesters (oftentimes not even students as in the case of UC Berkeley) who violently prevent guests speakers from exercising their first amendment rights. I am talking about public universities here, not private, although it happens there as well. In several instances, campus administration have instructed police to shut down the entire event rather than to remove violent protesters. Protesting is absolutely a right, using violent tactics to infringe on the rights of others and dressing it up as a protest is not. Unfortunately I do not think this bill (from my very quick glance at it) is the correct response. It increases the scope of police power in instances where protests may not infringe on the rights of others. It's the opposite of what needs to happen. But that's expected to be from government. The correct response imo would be to punish campus administrators who fail to protect the rights of individuals on that campus by removing federal funding. It is absolutely stupid that it's gone this far.
The issue here specifically is that leftist protesters are not just "standing outside with some signs/chants". Several publicly funded universities have had events invaded by extreme leftists who would snatch the speaker's mic, or show up with bullhorns and yells to completely drown out the other side's voice. At other events they literally physically blocked off entry to auditoriums, so that those who wanted to hear the speaker could not enter. Some events never got to take place, because the administration "could not guarantee security" for the event, or would hike up the security fee by several grand at the last minute, often leading to the cancelling of the event. These people are essentially shutting down speech with violence, the threat of violence, or simply by crying loudly enough about the invasion of their safe spaces. The fact that this is happening in 2017 US is absurd. No wonder so many classical liberals don't want anything to do with that kind of behavior or people.
heres a quote from that article From Virginia to Washington state, legislators have introduced bills that would increase punishments for blocking highways, ban the use of masks during protests, indemnify drivers who strike protesters with their cars and, in at least once case, seize the assets of people involved in protests that later turn violent. The proposals come after a string of mass protest movements in the past few years, covering everything from police shootings of unarmed black men to the Dakota Access Pipeline to the inauguration of Trump. most of that seems pretty common sense right ? People should not be allowed to block the streets while protesting. They just shouldn't. No reason to impede everyone elses rights is there? Ban the use of masks? How is this bad? If people can't be fucking cowards and hide from their actions behind a mask, it would probably curb a lot of the "moronic extremes" that you are talking about. seizing the assets of people who are involved in violence? What the hell is wrong with that? See the biggest issue here is that there is a lot of bad shit happening right now being masqueraded as protesting. And, if you follow the money you will see its one person who's financing a lot of the turmoil. These laws you say are harming free speech, I think would help free speech. People would be able to actually protest without the fear of some random asshole coward in a fucking burka smashing them in the face with a bottle, and getting away with it.
More big government from the right. Giving more power to the state over the individual and the usual suspects cheering on the sidelines like good statists.
What are you on about? No legislature has been passed. The entire discussion is about allowing individuals to speak and letting other individuals hear them. How did you miss that?
I see the post above and find it curious that is the message you got out of all that. Personally, I'm ok with violent protesters being prohibited from masking themselves. Protesters who block highways for miles restricting thousands of people, including emergency services, should be removed by law. When Chris Christie was convicted of Bridgegate, the Left couldn't throw it in his face loudly enough how he "restricted emergency services!!! People could have died!!!" Well, the same goes here. Blocking off highways for miles is an asshole thing to do and anyone doing it should be removed. I know you're not very aware of what goes on in the US, but based on what you've seen posted and mentioned above, are you ok with protesters violently, or through the threat of violence, shutting down speakers across colleges in the US?
No I believe in small government. I'm not a statist. More laws mean more government. This desire of the Republican right for more laws against what they disagree with is very telling, spoilt children also share this trait. I realize it's been a while since you immigrated to the US so you probably have forgotten what it is like to live in a society where protest is not only acceptable but also celebrated.
If you believe in small government you are still a statist. I also see the left trying to pass laws against what they disagree with.
There is no country where violent retards who prevent free speech and those looking to attend it are celebrated. If there is, I am glad I am not a part of it and look forward to watching it go under. It does not seem like you've watched any of the videos or read the points made here. This is specifically not about suppressing peaceful protest but about suppressing those who are looking to prevent people from peacefully speaking through use of violence or threat thereof. This is basic information in the US and several occurrences thereof are what triggered the testimony to congress in the first place. You have not answered yet if you are in agreement with those who violently or with the threat of violence prevent speakers from appearing on college campuses. Are you implying that in the United States only the Right is interested in preventing this from further happening? The Left is perfectly ok with speech being suppressed?
I fully support anyones right to protest. I would not encourage violent protest but things can get heated. You should get off your arse and go to a few protests, you might gain a better understanding of what can happen. I haven't watched the video or read any of the biased articles tbh. From reading the laughable dripping with bias OP it was obvious that this thread is another Trump supporters wank circle. The usual suspects are all in attendance feigning outrage.
Thanks for the attempt at protest-schooling comrade. I've actually been to a few here recently in our hyper liberal city and the fact that "things can get heated" has absolutely nothing to do with the argument at hand. If anything, it strengthens it, as getting it "heated" should not be allowed to shut down those looking to speak. Unless you are supporting violence to squash speech, you should know this. How many US protests have you been to? You seem to be ok with shutting down speakers and somehow believe that in America it is only the Right that is interested in preventing this from happening. Since it is obvious you haven't watched the testimony to Congress, I'd encourage you to and then feel free to return to the conversation with something substantial in opposition to the actual points made. As it stands right now, you appear to be in support of violent protesters looking to shut down speech, because "things can get heated".
wait...so you are saying that these regulations we are talking about are "big government" but in other threads rail on about socialized medicine. Just what in the fuck do you think that is? That is the literal definition of big government.
I knew there was something there. America is a country of immigrants and refugees so you're in good company.
Where have I said anything about shutting down free speech? What I did state is that people should have the right to protest whatever they want, whenever they want and wherever they want. It's you that seems to want to restrict and control peoples right to protest. I'd rather eat my own shite than listen to Sharpio whining so I'm afraid I won't be watching your little video.