That is Agree with these two posters. Also feel like other losers lke the Nazi Spencer should be allowed to speak. As stated by judoka, though in cases in which their racial hate speech for instance, elicits violence , it is reasonable for them to be required to provide security at their own expense.
They should be required to pay for whatever security they personally want, but I can't see why they would be required to pay for security that someone else is requiring based on possible attacks by their opponents. Should BLM be required to pay for security because they might be attacked by the KKK? A speaker is not responsible for criminal attacks being perpetrated by those who disagree with them (or agree with them, for that matter).
Boy that Commie Climate Change march sure got out of hand yesterday. The violent Alt Left was at it again!!! See all the red ... they must be commies.
All those jaywalkers. Don't they know people need those roads to drive to work like good honest god fearing Christian Americans?!?!?!?!?!?! LOCK 'EM UP! CHANT IT WITH ME GOP BROTHERS!
Honestly, I don't understand why so many people care if Coulter speaks. Let her speak, and you A: get an amusing evening where she embarrasses herself and fellow neocons. AND B: More people will understand how full of it she is and continue forgetting about her. Oppose her and you make her relevant again. You initiate the Streisand Effect.
[/QUOTE] This is actually only possible because he is doing these as 2020 rellection campaign events. If he was doing a speaking event as a sitting president then he would not be able to control who gets in and who doesn't.
I see your point. I think it is certainly a case by case situation. Coulter basically makes a million dollar living as a right wing celbrity by being publicly very much a dog whistle racist and annoying so she might be a special case. I What if Spencer wants to stand on a corner in say Harlem and say the N word over daily and see if he is ever prevented from talking? Should we provide daily police protection as he build his brand?
I hate the term dog whistle racism. People say whatever they say and the listeners interpret it however they want. If someone says something racist, call it racism, if they don't, then don't. I don't think it is fair to attribute racism to non-racist statements. Absolutely not. Nor should we require that he have police protection and that he pay for it in order to be allowed to do it. He can provide himself with whatever security that chooses, at his own expense, but if he doesn't want security, the police shouldn't prevent him from doing it unless he pays for police protection because other people might attack him. Anyone that does attack him should be prosecuted as best the state can.
Women's march March for Science Climate March Tax day protest May March Organized Town halls Etc Etc Just a couple minor events where thousands gathered and mass criminal activity didn't ensue. Serious question though ... did you have a problem with the Tea Party protests and town halls? Tell me what the difference is with those and an event like the Women's March? Sorry but this is ridiculous Bobby. There are a few idiots everywhere and anywhere, but it's insane to buy into this right wing agenda to either diminish or discourage liberal activitism. This sh$& is happening regardless of what the Right wing media is trying to portray and it's working (see 3 failed ACA repeals). Only thing this agenda is accomplishing is keeping you and my grumpy old racist uncle livid at "liberals" while they sit at home watching Foxnews and read the Drudge Report while they are at work. Other than that this "Liberal protest outrage" is doing nothing but making you more angry.
Personally I thought they were stupid. Then again that's normally my opinion of protests that aren't for a really good reason and these days, valid reasons to protest are few and far between....but there's a ton of protests for all sorts of stupid reasons.
But the Tea Party worked. That's the whole point. Not whether you like it or not. It's not hurting you and sure isn't hurting our democracy. And sorry but climate change, and women's rights might not be important to you but to many many others they are care about "stupid" things like that. Look at the main activists driving these #resist events. Indivisible's guide points to what was so successful in the past and is using the Tea Party movement to succeed the same Political goals for the left and frankly independents... which is to let their leaders know they can't get away with passing bills under their nose without getting hell, encouraging more ground game in 2018 ejections, and mobilizing people to vote. Do you not see what you are being told to do right now? You are being used as a tool to spread the word that "liberal protestors ... aren't they stupid and crazy. You're not like THEM at you?" so people feel like they don't want to partake because they don't want to be associated with anything they will get ridiculed for, and with your friends that also hate protesting it keeps you guys angry at liberals in general terms. It also undermines the cause of what the protestors are protesting so their message gets undermined and delegitimized. The angry racist uncle watching Fox doesn't focus on the fact that Trump wants to gut climate research and instead focuses on the idiot liberal hippie protestors. It's no accident that the right wing media you are digesting now is telling you "please join us in getting angry about protestors... we need your outrage".
What you don't seem to understand is that those people are undermining themselves by protesting without legitimate cause and by doing so in crazy and violent ways. What you are doing is blaming people for their natural reaction to people making asses of themselves rather than blaming the people making asses of themselves for their own actions. I disagree with you that what they are doing isn't hurting democracy, when people protest without cause, it desensitizes people to protest meaning that if there ever comes a time where there is an actual valid reason to protest, it won't be effective anymore. Protest without legitimate cause is ridiculous and SHOULD be ridiculed to the point where people shouldn't want to be associated with those kinds of things.
Im not blaming cynical angry right wingers. I'm just saying they are being told to do something and feel a certain way for a reason and you are living proof of buying into that. Look at what I said and look at what you said in response... like clockwork ....you just basically admitted that climate change, Women's Rights etc are stupid. You and others have come on this forum with a purpose (mostly unknowingly) to not protest the protestors but to help the Republican Party by trying to cover up weaknesses FOR THEM. You are telling people pretty clearly but indirectly that "climate change doesn't matter... help us get votes to remove science funding from the budget". You are being used by doing what you are doing now. I'm not telling you to start loving protests and to attend the National Pride March on June 11th. Sit at home and cynically watch Fox News b**** about it and show pictures of angry kids in Berkeley light a trash can on fire. Just realize that in Russia protestors get thrown in jail and in Chechnya homosexuals are subject to torture and are beaten to death. It could a F-ton worse than having to be annoyed by causes you think are stupid getting tv time. Also both sides use protesting to get political capital. Lastly ....Democrats were stupid for not paying enough attention to the Tea Party so the GOP, being the more media savvy party, is doing what they can using you guys and your cynical voices, to combat what they know is effective politically.
The problem here is a disconnect of liabilities. Berkeley is a public institution, so we get our panties in a wad about how they have to provide forums of free speech. But they are also the entity that's on the hook if anything bad happens. They don't get to say, "Sure you can speak but provide your own security because Antifa will probably burn all the recycling bins when you speak." If there's a riot and people get hurt or killed, Berkeley gets sued. So we want to say Berkeley must provide adequate security, they must carry the risk of bad things happening, and they have no right to say no. That's messed up. If it was Stanford, Stanford would just say no because there is no reason they should incur risk so somebody completely unaffiliated can have free speech. Definitely the May Day Massacre. Go Rockets! Yeah, I have no sympathy for those guys either.
By the same token do minorities get free security walking through a racist neighborhood? There's a balance here. The public should provide reasonable security to protect the public interest. But a institution even if funded by public dollars should not be obligated to provide security to an event on it's grounds if it does not feel it can adequately provide security to keep everyone safe. In this case the school was willing to provide security if Coulter was willing to reschedule but that would have taken away her narrative of the left killing free speech.
They get whatever police protection happens to be patrolling at the time. Your analogy is off though. Imagine if minorities were not allowed to walk through a racist neighborhood unless and until they had hired security that was satisfactory to local officials. Would you think that was acceptable? I am not arguing that UCB should have been required to provide free security, rather, that they cannot demand security as a precondition for speaking, and then require that the speaker pay for the security. Essentially, they would be requiring that the speaker pay to be allowed to speak. That would hardly be free speech, now would it? They can provide whatever security they want, or not. The issue is that they should not require that security be provided at the expense of the speaker. I think they should have offered Ann the option of speaking without security at her own risk. Then it is up to her if she wants to face antifa on her own, provide for her own security, or cancel. I just don't support threats from a tiny group of agitators being allowed to shut down events.
