Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

What do you call people meeting together holding up signs and talking to each other? Come on man.

Idiotic.

Bad spelling.,

Bad art.

Incoherent

Mumbo jumbo.

With talking points.

And they don't talk to other people.

They talk AT people.

Huge difference.

I don't think the Tea Party is going to be there Neo.

Oh I was talking about Occupy Wall Street,Black lives matter,La Raza,ANTIFA.,

Sounded like you were talking about the Tea Party ... or a Trump rally.

/shrug

a reply to: DBCowboy

Jesus.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: kaylaluv

The fact that all of that even has to occur.

Yes, it's awful that bad people do bad things. It has always been awful.

It's awful that all men have to be a little paranoid about how they behave around children because some bad men rape children.

It's awful that law-abiding gun owners have to get background checks because some bad people do bad things with guns.

It's awful that we have to have adequate security at a controversial speaking engagement because some people might commit some violence there.

It's awful.

a reply to: Kali74

And ?

Is a private citizen government ?

The problem is that we're stuck in the position of defending the right of a rhetorical bomb-thrower against the people who've likely been caught by the shrapnel.

They don't particularly care if she never speaks again, so they don't care what happens at Berkeley.

What needs to happen is that they need to understand that we aren't necessarily defending her or her views as much as we're trying to point out that allowing people to shut her (and other controversial speakers) down through threats of violence and intimidation that turns into actual violence and intimidation is a dangerous place to be in.

I was watching Tucker, too (not alone in this thread), and Krauthammer has a good point: One thing both left and right used to be able to pretty much universally say in this country is "I don't agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

We seem to no longer be there. Now some of us are excusing the shutdown of people who speak on ideas and ideologies they don't particularly like on the ground of protest or the blame the speaker like we used to blame the rape victim. We use sophistry or legalism of excuse riots or justify them.

We forget that what is done one way can easily be turned against us in ways we don't like.

Remember how the left was going to never lose another national election in this country? Now they have.

So, keep telling yourselves that no one will ever challenge the riots with like violence and this will be allowed to continue with impunity. You better hope it doesn't because sooner or later something, somewhere will give. People will push back. You better hope it's the law restoring and not the mob. We all better hope that.

Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?


In more important news: hello shiny new border!

a reply to: Kali74

or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Many people do not understand how the 1st works.

It's best explained as the people have the right to form a belief. They then have the right to speak freely about that belief. They then have the right speak to more people by broadcasting that belief and speech through the press. They then have the right to assemble with others with the same belief (protest). And finnaly they have the right to take that protest to the government, of they so choose.

It all fits together and we cannot pick the parts we like and not put everything in proper context, as some seem to be doing.

a reply to: neo96

Look at it again.

the right of the people peaceably to assemble

and

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a reply to: introvert

Many people do not understand how the 1st works.

They truly don't,

Quote any part of that that say private citizens can be 'protested'.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Thank you for understanding. I wish we lived in an ideal world too but I am aware of the kind of world we live in and that is why I questioned about the extra security measures needed because apparently they had recieved violent threats?

It seems like everyone agrees that that was wrong, which makes me glad.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

What do you call people meeting together holding up signs and talking to each other? Come on man.

Idiotic.

Bad spelling.,

Bad art.

Incoherent

Mumbo jumbo.

With talking points.

And they don't talk to other people.

They talk AT people.

Huge difference.

I don't think the Tea Party is going to be there Neo.

Oh I was talking about Occupy Wall Street,Black lives matter,La Raza,ANTIFA.,

Sounded like you were talking about the Tea Party ... or a Trump rally.

/shrug

Spoken like someone who has never been to either type of event.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?

The protesters are well within their right. No need to make excuses for them.

Those that are violent are not protesting. They are breaking laws.

It's a rather simple concept to grasp. Not quite sure why so many are having troubles getting it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?

The protesters are well within their right. No need to make excuses for them.

Those that are violent are not protesting. They are breaking laws.

It's a rather simple concept to grasp. Not quite sure why so many are having troubles getting it.

Tunnel vision from too much right-wing propaganda.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

What do you call people meeting together holding up signs and talking to each other? Come on man.

Idiotic.

Bad spelling.,

Bad art.

Incoherent

Mumbo jumbo.

With talking points.

And they don't talk to other people.

They talk AT people.

Huge difference.

I don't think the Tea Party is going to be there Neo.

Oh I was talking about Occupy Wall Street,Black lives matter,La Raza,ANTIFA.,

Sounded like you were talking about the Tea Party ... or a Trump rally.

/shrug

Spoken like someone who has never been to either type of event.

Spoken like someone who denies anything that disagrees with their agenda.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Some of you say you denounce the violence and in the same breath make excuses for the protest. Either they are wrong or they are not. Which is it?

The protesters are well within their right. No need to make excuses for them.

Those that are violent are not protesting. They are breaking laws.

It's a rather simple concept to grasp. Not quite sure why so many are having troubles getting it.

Because apparently the protestors are the ones being violent? How do you differentiate between the violent protestors with the peaceful ones when the threat of violent protest stopped it from happening?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Many people do not understand how the 1st works.

They truly don't,

Quote any part of that that say private citizens can be 'protested'.

Show me where it states the right to speak freely is only limited to speech against the government.

If you read it properly, it states that the government cannot abridge the right to speak freely. So people can protest anyone they damn well please.

Yay freedom.

a reply to: Kali74

I don't have to.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The key word there is CONGRESS.

If congress tried to infringe those rights the people could use their speech,assembly and petition that would do absolutely nothing about it.

But hey.

Who cares.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Pretty sure you can tell the difference. Just watch videos of Antifa rioting and you'll see the difference.

Violence used for political purposes is terrorism.

There have been extremists from all "sides" in Berkeley; that is also what the police warned of that prompted UC Berkeley to act to make their event a safe one.

YAL didn't like that effort and cancelled the event. Coulter stated earlier today that her invitation was rescinded.

In no sense has UC Berkeley taken away or compromised anyone's free speech. As a public institution, the administration has the responsibility to protect students, faculty, staff and visiting members of the public.

Anything else stated here, no matter how many times a different mouth spouts it ... is a lie.

a reply to: neo96

Quote where there's any kind of restriction on what people can assemble about.