Free Speech ...

[Rerun]

Berkeley was the place that started the fight for free speech, yet they will not allow conservative speakers come talk because they "don't want to hear someone who they don't agree with"...

What do you think? 

I think Free Speech was gone when the "N" word was not allowed by whites.  Yet it was still being said by Blacks.

In turn Cracker should not be allowed.   

[Jean]

Rerun I agree with you and if it were up to me, Berkely would have been shut down a long time ago. They want no one else's thoughts or ideas on their campus.

[PrimeTimer]

I agree, Rerun. The crowd that preaches coexistence are a bunch of hypocrites and seem to only display intolerance.

[MooseMom]

I agree, but it's not quite that simple, unfortunately.  Events like these are increasingly becoming used by all sorts of weird and anarchic groups.  Why is a group like Oath Keepers even showing up if not to cause trouble.  I can't stand "snowflakes" and that whole "safe place" crowd, but on the other hand, reasonable protest is being hijacked by people who believe in nothing more than causing trouble.  And when you add the possibility of armed people showing up (I mean, it only takes one), then the issue of safety becomes real.  If someone were to get hurt, Berkeley could be sued.

At what point do you risk safety for "free speech"?  I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision. 

[Simon Dog]

If someone were to get hurt, Berkeley could be sued.

At what point do you risk safety for "free speech"?  I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision.

If you make that tradeoff, you are delegating the decision as to what subject matter may be discussed to the most violent groups.... sort of like how Islam dictates editorial policy of many newspapers and magazines.

[Michael Murphy]

I personally have a fondness for UCB Berkley it's a center for the OS I spent 40 years working on.  That being said this crap the so called Antifa (anti fascist) movement is the most fascist group in the land.  The free exchange of ideas is what free speech is all about.  If you are spouting some garbage I will just walk away but every one should have the right to say what they think.  Just to add my other pet peeve the removal of Robert E Lee monuments.  I think he deserves them, not for what he did in the Cival War but what he did at the end of it.  When some confederates began planning a gurrila campaign against the North Lee basically said it over we lost go home and get on with your lives.  The power the man held in the confederates was so great that's what they did.  His actions after the war helped reunite this country.

[MooseMom]

If you make that tradeoff, you are delegating the decision as to what subject matter may be discussed to the most violent groups.... sort of like how Islam dictates editorial policy of many newspapers and magazines.

Gotta call you out on that one.  That's a real false equivalency.

No one is preventing Ann Coulter from saying whatever she wants.  I mean, my God, she's on FB, she's on Twitter, she has written Lord knows how many books.  She's on TV pushing those books every time I look around.  She's even a regular guest on Bill Maher's show (and they are personal friends).  Who is dictating any editorial policy in anything she writes?  Or says?  I've never heard of her being in any way sanctioned or punished.  Have you?

Far from being sanctioned as she might be if she were in an Islamic country, she is raking in the cash.  This is all free publicity for her.  This is the air she breathes.  She knows exactly what she is doing, and she is profiting bigly.

Ann Coulter is loving this.  She's one of those people who talks a lot but doesn't really say anything.  She writes and speaks only to provoke, and while I don't particularly like what she says, I LOVE the fact that she says it.  I have a soft spot for provocateurs (Milo is another one.  Did you see him on Bill Maher?  It was very entertaining!!).

But on the other hand, if a venue or institution like Berkeley makes a decision that hosting a particular speaker might bring violence or discord with the possible result of injury, then don't you think they must take on at least some responsibility? 

What's great about this country is that if you're not allowed to protest at one venue, you can always find another.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/threats-violence-then-calm-ann-coulter-berkeley-no-show-n752251

[Simon Dog]

No one is preventing Ann Coulter from saying whatever she wants

True but threats of violence have denied  her a venue that would otherwise be available.

Newspapers restrict what cartoons may be published because the Mulsims credibly threatened violence.

So, although not a governmental sanction, the threat of violence is very effective at denying certain view points venues in which to express those opinions.

But on the other hand, if a venue or institution like Berkeley makes a decision that hosting a particular speaker might bring violence or discord with the possible result of injury, then don't you think they must take on at least some responsibility? 

Absolutely not.   The responsibility lies with those perpetrating criminal acts.   Your logic is the same as "If a woman wears short tight skirts and 5 inch heels in a bad section of town and is sexually assaulted, doesn't she bear some of the responsibility?".   

Other parties that bear partial responsibility are those that deny people behaving in a lawful and peaceful manner the ability to carry effective self defense weapons because they are not government employees.

What's great about this country is that if you're not allowed to protest at one venue, you can always find another.

You mean like the small dedicated "free speech zones" on college campuses far away from the bulk of the foot traffic.

[Michael Murphy]

No more like the main entrance on a public sidewalk.

[MooseMom]

Simon Dog, if you had been the head honcho at Berkeley, what would you have done, then?

Newspapers restrict all sorts of content for all sorts of reasons.  I'm not sure what the purpose it would serve for any newspaper to publish cartoons that they know would be provocative.  There are all sorts of threats that people in the media face.  Here in Chicagoland a few years ago, a popular member of a sports team had been accused of rape, and a female reporter for a local sports radio station did a story on the allegations.  The threats of rape and/or death she received from "fans" were so intense and alarming that she had to stay away from work one day, and when she returned to work, she had to be escorted by guards. 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/dicaro-how-not-to-talk-about-the-patick-kane-rape-allegations/

But SHE carried on.  SHE didn't go away and whine like Ann Coulter.  So, I have little sympathy for Ann Coulter, who is being a bit of a snowflake.

I agree that responsibility for violence is with the criminals, but the responsibility for the safety of people attending an event lies with the host.  My apologies; my post in this regard was not very well written.  I think you know what I was meaning to say.  But I am confused about something in your reply.  Are you really saying that if people who are behaving in a lawful manner are denied the ability to carry a gun when they are attending an event where they suspect there may be violence, then some third party bears responsibility?  Oh, man.  That begs a question; one could be faced with violence at any time, so does it follow that one should always be armed?  If I was at some protest or at some event I thought would be raucous, I wouldn't want to be standing next to some guy which a gun!  How am I to know if you're "the good guy with a gun"? 

No, I mean like the nearby park that ended up being a protest venue because Ann Coulter had hinted she'd be there, but she wussed out.  Why couldn't she just show up with her gun to protect herself?

[Simon Dog]

Simon Dog, if you had been the head honcho at Berkeley, what would you have done, then?

Put extra police on duty, announced that the policy would be to arrest anyone interfering with the free movement of people in or our of the assembly, but also make it clear that any form of speech protesting the event would be tolerated.   I would then work with the DA  to make sure there were not plea bargains, and cases were taken to trial if anyone engaged in any sort of violent act at the event.

I'm not sure what the purpose it would serve for any newspaper to publish cartoons that they know would be provocative. 

Major news story that Muslims are up in arms over a cartoon of Muhammed.    The exact nature of that cartoon was newsworthy - but the mainstream media decided to censor it and deny us access that news.

Are you really saying that if people who are behaving in a lawful manner are denied the ability to carry a gun when they are attending an event where they suspect there may be violence, then some third party bears responsibility?  Oh, man.  That begs a question; one could be faced with violence at any time, so does it follow that one should always be armed?

That is exactly what I am saying.   If I am unable to defend myself because I am unarmed when at, or walking to, an event the entity that denied me the ability to defend myself does indeed share some of the blame.   It's called  "but for causation" in the  legal world.     And I was honored to write the  check for the local attorney who filed the amicus brief in MA v. Caetano.

And I agree that one should always be armed, provided one is properly trained and has no history of violent or mentally unstable behavior.  I also believe in wearing a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car, and keeping up2date on my vaccinations.