It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UC Berkeley must allow conservatives to speak on campus

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Then I assume you would be perfectly fine with right wing people going in to every feminists indoctrination class and shouting so no professor can teach.


Is a classroom the same as a public performance?




posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: network dude




If kids can't learn that the world is full of people who might disagree with them and how to navigate through the world knowing that, they won't make it out here.


Does this apply to people like Milo and Coulter? In a perfect world they'd get their stage and about 45 audience members and they would slink away and whine about how misunderstood they are

The trouble is - they aren't misunderstood. Thus - the protests

See, these kids already know they disagree with them. They have something to say about what these people represent

I personally say let these speakers speak, but I'll be goddammed if I don't understand these kid's motivation

Let them protest. Peacefully



How do you know you understand these kids motivation?

People like Christina Hoff sommers, Jane Fiamengo, charles murray, and many many others have also been forced off campus by protests.

Did you understand the kids motivations in those cases as well?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler




Then I assume you would be perfectly fine with right wing people going in to every feminists indoctrination class and shouting so no professor can teach.


Is a classroom the same as a public performance?


Whats the difference.

Both are occurring on campuses paid for in part by federal tax dollars.

Both have audience members that paid to hear someone speak.

Explain to me why its ok for hecklers to shut one down and not the other.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler




No I dont understand what you are saying because yopu are being intentionally vague.


I couldn't be any more obvious. You just want to argue something for the sake of arguing

Or else you want me to agree with you about how well mannered the protestors should be. I don't agree with you

Are we clear?


No we are not clear.

I asked two simple questions.

Should protestors be able to stop people from entering to hear speakers, in a non violent way (like blocking the door)

Should protestors be allowed to heckle speakers so that they may not speak and people cant hear them.

You didnt answer either.

I have taken no stance on how polite protestors should have to be.

My positions is that they should not be allowed to do the things I have mentioned above.

The fact you feel those things are just being impolite is very telling.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'll bite:


originally posted by: Grambler
Should protestors be able to stop people from entering to hear speakers, in a non violent way (like blocking the door)


Nope. Not really possible to do this without assault, which is illegal.


originally posted by: Grambler
Should protestors be allowed to heckle speakers so that they may not speak and people cant hear them.


Yes. Free speech. Speakers better speak up.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Did you understand the kids motivations in those cases as well?


Not specifically in every instance? Do I need to?

Are you saying that they don't have the right to protest? Is that right conditional?

The U.S. Department of Justice in January filed a “statement of interest” in the case, accusing the university of applying a “double standard” by imposing tougher rules on the Berkeley College Republicans.

I understand this. It's not difficult



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Of course they have the right to protest.

They also should be escorted out of they are disrupting the event.

Just like I have the right to protest feminist classes that indoctrinate people with post modernism into hating the tyrannical patriarchy, but I do not have the right to set in the entire class screaming my protest so that the teacher can not be heard.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

So is it ok for me to go to a classroom and scream the entire time because I dont like a professor?

would removal of me from that class be a violation of my free speech?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Fools


4) Abolish its heckler’s veto—protestors will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression


ROFLMAO

do you REALLY think this is in any way possible ???????????????



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
but I do not have the right to set in the entire class screaming my protest so that the teacher can not be heard.


You likely agreed to some document during enrollment that stated this isn't acceptable behavior in class, so you would be removed for violation of that agreement.

Now rather that agreement extends to speakers on campus is something else.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I like how in the upside-down world of our modern censors, censoring others, disrupting speeches, and even violence is a form of protest and dissent.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I expect consistency. Not shutting down one side only.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

OK then - let's continue

If somebody feels strongly enough about a class that's being taught - should that person or persons have the right to shut down that class?

I don't know - are they protesting peacefully? Are they trespassing? Are they breaking the law?

What have I said about any of this so far? Is it possible you don't want to understand me - on purpose? I think this is the case

I believe in the rights of the conscientious objector. This includes people who protest abortion - even though I personally am absolutely pro choice

Does this make it any clearer for you?

There may come a time in this country when doing something illegal is the morally correct choice

But, that's not the argument you want to have - is it? You want the easy, lazy, palatable, publicly satisfying fight


I'm out of here for a while Grambler. You're going to have to waste time with someone else



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied

originally posted by: Grambler
but I do not have the right to set in the entire class screaming my protest so that the teacher can not be heard.


You likely agreed to some document during enrollment that stated this isn't acceptable behavior in class, so you would be removed for violation of that agreement.

Now rather that agreement extends to speakers on campus is something else.


No I am not a student, I have signed no such agreement.

So should I be removed for not being a student? Does that mean all hecklers at conservative events should be checked to ensure they are students in good standing?

And why wouldnt that agreement cover behavior during campus sanctioned events on campus grounds?

Do you have an example of an agreement like you are claiming for me to read, because even as a student I dont remember anything such as that.

We had a code of conduct, but that applied to me even if I was at a school play, sporting event, etc, so why wopuldnt that be the case here?



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


At some point illegal actions might be the moral choice. Campus protests? I guess it depends

Moral is not legal. When we get to the point that we follow individual morality instead of laws, we can consider ourselves equal to and no better than Iran. That's sort of how they operate... they have laws, but a good deal of their restrictions come from whichever religious leader they choose to follow.

If you prefer that form of government, then I don't know what to say. Long live the Ayatollah?

The right to protest (which is not enumerated in the Constitution, btw) stops the second the protest becomes violent or violates law in any way. That includes blocking access, and it includes heckling. Both are borderline violence and both intrude on the right of the speaker to speak, as well as the right of those who wish to hear them. Your rights, protesters' rights, everyone's rights have limits. No one just gets to do whatever they want. No one has a right to riot.

It sounds like you are trying to claim a right to riot if things don't go your way.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Again you have not answered the question, I dont know if you are missing it or not.

I assume the person disrupting class or a speaker is not using violence, not doing something illegal like pulling a fire alarm.

Should they be allowed to totally disrupt the class or speaker given that?

I say no.

You say, I still dont know?

It seems you are suggesting that the rights of the conscientious objector means they should be allowed to do this.

I disagree. They have the right to protest, they do not have the right to disrupt events that others have paid to see.

I am not saying they should be arrested, but they should be removed and barred from attending future events.

Others wise protestors could censor anything they dislike, including classes.

As far as breaking the law, sure sometimes one can morally break the law; perhaps stealing fruit to feed a child.

I fail to see how censorship attempts of any kind have ever had any sort of moral grounds, and thus your mentioning of the need to in the future break the law in regards to shutting down speech seems dangerous and irrelevant.

In fact the very brekely protestors would have used your rationale, that there was such a moral imperative to stop milo or ben shapiro or any of the other speakers, that it made their unlawful actions moral and just.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

In addition.,

What could the moral case for censorship possibly be?

Once you agree that it is sometimes moral to break the law to censor certain speakers, then the battle is already lost.

Because every rioter shutting down any speaker will merely say that this speaker was so immoral they had to be shut down.

Its the same with the "Is it ok to punch a nazi?" argument.

As soon as you say yes, or sometimes, its a quick step for you to use violence against any political opponent and just say that to you, they are nazis.


Dae

posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Should protestors be able to stop people from entering to hear speakers, in a non violent way (like blocking the door)



originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Nope. Not really possible to do this without assault, which is illegal.


No you're wrong, it is totally possible.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Do you understand what the term 'consequential effect' implies?

Just like one mans hero is another mans terrorist, so too is one mans 'protest' another mans violent threat.

Now, the consequential effect of PERCEIVING a protest as an act of aggressive violence will most likely result in violence.

In other words, don't cry when Berkeley professors and students start getting smashed over the head with bikelocks - it will simply be a 'protest' and protected under whatever law you are currently hanging your hat on.

'consequential effect' - no laws can stop that train - none.



posted on Dec, 4 2018 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Fools


4) Abolish its heckler’s veto—protestors will no longer be able to shut down conservative expression


ROFLMAO

do you REALLY think this is in any way possible ???????????????


Yes, because in Berkeley as well as other universities the activity is egged on by the staff of the university and we all know that is true. With this law in place, any staff member that is guilty of this will have problems they may not want to have.

Were you really rolling on the floor? I seriously doubt it.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join