|
Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 [2] |
ElizaRags35
My 2 Girls
Member since 2/09 20494 total posts
Name:
Me
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
My alma mater allowed him to speak but protested by having a unity fair scheduled for the same time.
Link
|
Posted 2/2/17 12:17 PM  |
| |
|
RainyDay
LIF Adult
Member since 6/15 3990 total posts
Name:
|
Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
The rioting is not helping
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:19 PM |
| |
|
MC09
arrrghhh!!!!
Member since 2/09 5674 total posts
Name:
Me speaks pirate!
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Violence is wrong. Hate speech, like everything else, has consequences. You can't be surprised when things turn violent. Even if he wasn't allowed to speak he's said plenty before.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:22 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:23 PM |
| |
|
Mill188
LIF Adult
Member since 3/09 3073 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:31 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by Mill188
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
That's not remotely what I said. I said that he HAS done these things in the past - which means that the institution which invited him has every right to change their mind and cancel. And in doing so, HIS rights are not being infringed upon.
ETA: I didn't comment on the rioters at all in my first comment, simply on what freedom of speech means. I don't believe in rioting, but I also know that rioters can not infringe on an individual's rights - unless they represent the government.
Message edited 2/2/2017 12:34:28 PM.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:33 PM |
| |
|
KarenK122
The Journey is the Destination
Member since 5/05 4431 total posts
Name:
Karen
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Mill188
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
That's not remotely what I said. I said that he HAS done these things in the past - which means that the institution which invited him has every right to change their mind and cancel. And in doing so, HIS rights are not being infringed upon.
ETA: I didn't comment on the rioters at all in my first comment, simply on what freedom of speech means. I don't believe in rioting, but I also know that rioters can not infringe on an individual's rights - unless they represent the government.
The institution did not change their mind and cancel. They HAD to cancel because of the riots. That is a big difference. I would have no issue at all if the institution decided against having him speak. That is their right and they are hiring the speakers. Not having him speak and canceling his assembly, I agree with you is not an infringement of his rights but having a group of people riot and cause damage and injuries in order to PREVENT him from speaking is absolutely a violation of rights.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:40 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by KarenK122
Posted by MandJZ
Posted by Mill188
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
That's not remotely what I said. I said that he HAS done these things in the past - which means that the institution which invited him has every right to change their mind and cancel. And in doing so, HIS rights are not being infringed upon.
ETA: I didn't comment on the rioters at all in my first comment, simply on what freedom of speech means. I don't believe in rioting, but I also know that rioters can not infringe on an individual's rights - unless they represent the government.
The institution did not change their mind and cancel. They HAD to cancel because of the riots. That is a big difference. I would have no issue at all if the institution decided against having him speak. That is their right and they are hiring the speakers. Not having him speak and canceling his assembly, I agree with you is not an infringement of his rights but having a group of people riot and cause damage and injuries in order to PREVENT him from speaking is absolutely a violation of rights.
No, it isn't. One individual can not violate another's rights. Governments violate rights. It maybe is something you find reprehensible, but nobody's rights were violated by the event being canceled. Period.
ETA: and yes, whichever organization on campus invited him DID change their minds. They may have been influenced to make that decision, but they still made the call to cancel because of the violent protests. You may argue they had no other choice, sure, but in the end it was still a decision that was made.
Message edited 2/2/2017 12:45:04 PM.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 12:43 PM |
| |
|
MandJZ
Time for Baby #2!
Member since 8/10 4194 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
What Milo had planned to do during his presentation
|
| Posted 2/2/17 7:24 PM |
| |
|
stinger
LIF Adult
Member since 11/11 4971 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by Mill188
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
In case no ome heard the violent rioting was admittedly casued by an anarchist group called
Black Bloc
Dont forget there is a long history of protests at Berkeley
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:26 PM |
| |
|
MrsT809
LIF Adult
Member since 9/09 12167 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Alt-right speech cancelled at UC Berkley after violent protest
Posted by stinger
Posted by Mill188
Posted by MandJZ
It concerns me that so many people don't seem to understand the definition of the right to free speech as its protected by the constitution.
"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 right that is protected is that the GOVERNMENT can not infringe on one's freedom of speech. Nobody has a RIGHT to say whatever they want wherever they want. That's not what this is.
Also, the RIGHT to freedom of speech stops at hate speech and inciting violence, both of which this man has practiced.
Wait - so it's his fault that people rioted and caused damage? Come on. I think the man is a complete tool but the only people responsible for the damages, fires, injuries, etc., are the people who were rioting!!!
Read the Chancellor's statements (both of them) they are beautifully written. Protest all you want - but do not cause property damage, injuries, etc., in doing so. The protesters were WRONG here.
The 1st Amendment also protects the right to PEACEABLY assemble - not riot:
"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.”
In case no ome heard the violent rioting was admittedly casued by an anarchist group called
Black Bloc
Dont forget there is a long history of protests at Berkeley
I had not seen that. I wonder if that's the same group or affiliated with the group that rioted during the inauguration. Unfortunately, liberals will be blamed for the actions of a group of anarchists. Peaceful protesters cannot be lumped with rioters and anyone who decided to join in on the violence should be held accountable. I saw the same reaction after the inauguration weekend with trump supporters lumping the millions who protested peacefully on Saturday with the anarchists who rioted on Friday.
|
| Posted 2/2/17 8:55 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] |
Currently 329237 users on the LIFamilies.com Chat
|
Long Island Bridal Shows
|
