I will admit I don't know much about the story, the speaker, his positions and past record of speaking engagements. In general, people with opposing ideas should have the right to express them, and those who disagree have the right to peacefully protest. The rioters that broke the law should be arrested. That said, I also agree that there are real limits to "free speech". Does what the speaker saying go beyond those limits? Has what he said caused violent riots at previous places? These are questions that should be asked and answered before providing the speaker a forum. trump's bluster simply feeds the far right who agree in part (all?) with what the speaker in this case is saying. But as a taxpayer I am equally if not more concerned if the University is allowing and even promoting violence by providing a stage for speech that goes outside what is protected under free speech protections. If someone I know or care about goes to UC Berkeley (many years ago my sister did her Masters there), I would say "screw free speech" if she was at risk because someone felt the need to make people violently upset.
The cap. What's ironic is Milo is fervently against Affirmative Action and his reasoning is that people shouldn't be hired on the basis of their race....and now he turns around and says there should be a cap on women in math and science...wait, what happened to just giving everyone a chance to prove their qualified? I'm amazed that any conservative, true conservative would be for any kind of cap. Only if you are for some 'Natural order' crap are you for this, which is also funny because most of the people that would love for this to happen would also love to send Milo to conversion therapy to get their precious natural order.
I am glad that most of the people on this thread are agreeing that these particular liberals were wrong.
The blame begins and ends with each individual who made the conscious decision to break the law (and in some of these cases brutally attack helpless fellow Americans). Absolutely sickening. I suspect that your extreme...dislike of our President is behind your lousy reasoning process.
Should we ask and investigate every speaker in this country? Or just ones who are not pro liberal? So you are essentially ready to blame the speaker (Milo) for the violence for a speech he never made? Does Madonna's "blow up the white house' constitute inciting violence? I dont recall you having any problems with this. I understand the likes of you want to cherry pick the definition of free speech and suppress any speech liberals do not agree with, but free speech is free speech. Inciting or encouraging violence is not. However if extremists can not contain their peaceful disagreement and resorts to violence, this doesn't make the other party guilty for the actions of the violent thin-skinned snowflakes. Just as I feel Muslims need to do more to speak out against Muslim extremists, the Left really needs to speak out against extreme violent leftist. Instead , Muslims and the Left prefer to remain pacifist and often (which is evident by your post) imply they 'deserved it'. Disgusting.
Your post is full of misinformation. The poster you are responding said that those that rioted should be arrested. That's holding them and not Milo accountable for the violence. Madonna didn't advocate blowing up the white house. She said she thought about it, and in the end decided against it. I know that the right is trying really hard to paint it like she was advocating violence, but it just isn't the case. Muslims have done far more than you in speaking out against extremist Islam. They speak out against it all the time, and in addition they actually enter into combat against the militants, unlike you.
Seriously, who really cares what Milo believes? The vast majority of people never heard of Milo until now. The Left extremist now have made him a martyr. The left has now giving him a full front page platform to spread his message. Its truly sad how narrowminded the left have become.
I'm not familiar with Milo, but he's always described, rarely quoted what could be so bad that he shouldn't be allowed to speak?
He blame the school and threaten funds. You blame the individual that broke the law, as we all should. See the difference?
where the heck where the cops to serve and protect? Berkeley pulled away the police from direct conflict with these violent radical left wing anarchists... Milo and those who wanted to hear his message had to defend themselves.
Going through your questions: * Hopefully any speaker at a University should be asked questions, and their past speaking engagements should be examined. The crap about pro-liberal is just that... crap. * Madonna was wrong to say that. She even realized and apologized, and clarified her statement. Are you seriously comparing Madonna and the speaker in question? Again, free speech is not unlimited. And doesn't matter if it's "left" or "right". And the rest of your takes about "thin-skinned snowflakes", and "pacifism", and especially the part implying assumptions of "deserving" anything is more crap.
I agree he should be ignored, but he's the narrowminded one along with his supporters. All of his views on women break down to them knowing their place, he constantly jokes about how women are too sensitive for most of the real world and even the internet.
btw, the above and the faux outrage is more alternate facts. Amazing how the alt-right is so focused on hate that they rally around violent protests against someone who's whole spiel is to incite hatred and violence.
Milo is a jackass but jackasses have the right to speak so long as their speech doesn't inciting violence.
amazing how you excuse hatred and violence that's not incited. I guess the sjw's have it inside them, in their heart and soul?
Where have I excused hatred and violence. I have posted the rioters should have been arrested. Where does that excuse the rioters?
