Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't believe you typed "force feed speeches on them that they don't want to hear." I can't believe I have to type "if they don't want to hear them THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO."
I can't believe it's only been 15-25 years since the time when if you didn't like a speaker who was coming to speak, you DIDN'T GO.
Fascinating.
It's a free country, if you don't like the speaker, you can certainly elect not to go; Or you can speak up and say you don't like the speaker. Either way is fine. It's called freedom. Just because you prefer one way doesn't mean the other method is in any way wrong, provided that the letter of the law is followed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
What a bizarre question.
There are no words someone could use, save for possibly a direct threat of imminent violence, that would legally or morally justify violence on my part. Is this permissible in your world? To initiate violence based solely on speech?
I don't remember my response to you then but you never actually answered the question. Let me rephrase the question: If someone called Tom's mom a ***** and Tom punched that person, Is Tom against free speech?
The answer is no. Tom would not be against free speech. Sure, Tom shouldn't have punched the guy but his reaction was to the direct insult, not free speech itself.
Do you get it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
I remember this little conversation in the last thread:We are circling the drain.
Why don't you test the strength of your convictions by giving this video a good listen:
This is an example you are attempt to spin the truth.
Fact is, nobody ever said any speech is a crime, but some speech is going to cost more than others. Which is how things work in real life. Just like some people have higher car insurance because they drive like maniacs. If some speakers elect to say certain things, it comes with a higher cost. It's life, sorry I have to break it to some of you.
.
Mob rule. How nice of you. When Ahmedinijahd or however his name is spelled came to the UN, did anyone protest this violently? Even after he said there were no gays in Iran?
Wrong. 100% wrong. In the middle ages there were "strong reactions" to people arguing against the Church.
In the 60s there were "strong reactions" to civil rights demands.
A "strong reaction" usually means something is going against a well held belief. That's all.
Ok. That doesn't refute my point in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Are you for real? Nobody is FORCING speeches on someone. Is attendance at Horowitz, Coulter or Yiannopolous' events MANDATORY? Are they running around with a van blaring their speech on campus?
What I mean is, they don't like that certain someone is presenting on campus, which is well within their rights to speak up and say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
Fascism. Pure fascism from people who claim to be anti-fascists.
The thing about free speech is that YOU do not get to decide for ME what ideas and people I can expose myself to. If you don't like what is being said you can a) peacefully demonstrate b) present alternative points of view c) ignore the speech you don't like.
No one is trying to decide for you. Chill out.
The point is, this is not people against free speech, this is the protesters against some particular speakers. There is a huge difference that people like you are trying to gloss over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7
You don't get to cause such a security issue that I or others are prevented from being exposed to speech and ideas that YOU don't agree with.
Fascists.
And I never said that it's ok.
You need to relax and hear what I am actually saying instead of coming out all guns blazing and missing the mark.
.
I guess they should have charged Dr. King millions for security and just shrugged and refused them a permit when they couldn't pay the tab. Because ya know...it's ok because he was controversial and if he wanted to be that way well then that's his fault and he should have to pay.
Yes exactly! Dr. King would have to pay, except in this case the government stepped in and footed most of the bill. Just like, if the government had stepped in and pay for the cost of security to ensure the conservative speaker get to speak in Berkeley, that'd be perfectly fine.
This is how fair market works, people!! There is a cost to speech, and yes that principle applies even to Dr. Martin Luther King.
That's just fine with me. This is an efficiency market, people don't waste their time protesting unless they feel really strongly about it. If something is so rile that it elicits this harsh a reaction from so many people, there must be something seriously objectionable about it.
Let the population decides what is and what is not objectionable. There is no point to silence the crowd just so you can force feed speeches on them that they don't want to hear.
Now, there are certainly measures the promoter can take to ensure the speech is given to people who wants to hear it - tighter security being one thing. If someone say objectionable things and it cost that person more money to secure an environment to present his/her objectionable material, I think that's very fair.
.
Such crap. No one is force feeding you to listen to speeches. If you don't want to hear it, don't go, but don't "force feed" cancellation of speeches by people you don't agree with.
Let's get one thing straight, this one particular event is NOT a First Amendment issue, it is a MONEY issue.
There is now higher cost and tighter restriction associated with certain controversial speakers, it is the organizer's reluctance to pay the price that got the event canceled, not the protesters.
As I've said before, if a speaker's material is so offensive that it cost him/her more money to secure an environment to present, it's just how the fair market works.
.
I know it's pointless to keep mentioning this to you, but who caused the escalating costs of security? The "protesters" who implicitly threaten violence, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY INTENDED! So one day maybe it's a speech by someone you like that gets shut down by others. It's un-American.
Yes exactly! Dr. King would have to pay, except in this case the government stepped in and footed most of the bill. Just like, if the government had stepped in and pay for the cost of security to ensure the conservative speaker get to speak in Berkeley, that'd be perfectly fine.
This is how fair market works, people!! There is a cost to speech, and yes that principle applies even to Dr. Martin Luther King.
Yes exactly! Dr. King would have to pay, except in this case the government stepped in and footed most of the bill. Just like, if the government had stepped in and pay for the cost of security to ensure the conservative speaker get to speak in Berkeley, that'd be perfectly fine.
This is how fair market works, people!! There is a cost to speech, and yes that principle applies even to Dr. Martin Luther King.
Good example!! Thanks for the assist!
.
So then you want the government to arbiter which speech they support and other speech can easily be shut down with a few dozen violent agitators.
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,338 posts, read 7,110,408 times
Reputation: 9487
You're really surprised that a few liberal college students shut this event down? They're kids.
I'm a liberal, and I think what they're doing is idiotic. Just let them speak. Shutting it down with a protest only puts more wind in the sails of angry conservatives.
The point is he was allowed to speak, even though I think he should've been arrested. They throw gays off roofs in Iran, and stone them to death if they don't die from the fall. You should protest him as wholeheartedly as you protest Milo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
