Milo Yiannopoulis and Ann Coulter plan return to Berkeley

[shockerfan]

How does the constitution and/or settled law prohibit UC Berkeley from denying a forum to certain speakers?

What are Berkeley 's rules? Are they arbitrary based on content or ideology of the speaker? If certain groups can follow the rules and bring a left leaning speaker, the you can deny right leaning groups who follow the same process. This would also mean the university could not deny any speaker the right to speak in public places on campus (free speech zones are unconstitutional…and recent cases have reinforced that). People who attempt the "rioter’s veto) must be dealt with by the police and arrested.

It’s pretty simple: your dislike of certain speech cannot abridge another’s constitutional right to speech, or a campus group following the university’s rules to reserve an auditorium like any other group.

 

[Tim_D]

With a panel of 3 (2 of whom are liberal), Maher himself (liberal) and his audience (liberal).

Like watching Hannity in reverse.

Yeah, I guess she’s never seen Bill Maher when he has a guest with a religious perspective being treated with the utmost content.

 

[shockerfan]

It’s interesting to me that those that are concerned about Milo getting to blather about his support of conservatism and child rape and Anne having the right to say nothing useful and just trying to be as offensive as possible seem to totally lack concern over Kaepernick losing his career over political speech.

I guess what you’re saying is the public university is the garbage disposal for all ridiculous speech, but everyone else is allowed to limit that speech. Makes sense.

I know another person posted a response, however, this comes up enough it deserves to be reiterated. one is public (taxpayer funded), the other is private. It’s very simple.

I can go to any public university and speak in a public area. If I am employed by a business, I do not have the right at the workplace to make a speech. As we have also learned recently, if a business does not like your public speech, they can part ways with you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I know another person posted a response, however, this comes up enough it deserves to be reiterated. one is public (taxpayer funded), the other is private. It’s very simple.

I can go to any public university and speak in a public area. If I am employed by a business, I do not have the right at the workplace to make a speech. As we have also learned recently, if a business does not like your public speech, they can part ways with you.

The library is public too. If I start giving a loud talk in the middle of the library about hydrangeas, the library will ask me to leave.

 

[shockerfan]

The library is public too. If I start giving a loud talk in the middle of the library about hydrangeas, the library will ask me to leave.

Again, what are the rules? You can’t have one set for people whose speech you like and another for people whose speech you don’t like.

 

[Seamus_L]

It really comes down to two choices that Berkeley has. They can allow Antifa, BAMN, BLM, and others to have 3 riots in September, in which people will be assaulted and property vandalized, and which they can then blame on the provocative hate speech of ‘outsiders’, or they can take resolute action against those who want to riot and for which they too will be called Nazis.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Again, what are the rules? You can’t have one set for people whose speech you like and another for people whose speech you don’t like.

I agree with this. I really do think that they should be allowed to speak, even though CPAC won’t let Milo speak at their conventions.

But they are really pimples on the body politic.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Again, what are the rules? You can’t have one set for people whose speech you like and another for people whose speech you don’t like.

Okay but what if the rule is that only the speech I like is allowed?

 

[dvdjs]

What are Berkeley 's rules? Are they arbitrary based on content or ideology of the speaker? If certain groups can follow the rules and bring a left leaning speaker, the you can deny right leaning groups who follow the same process. This would also mean the university could not deny any speaker the right to speak in public places on campus (free speech zones are unconstitutional…and recent cases have reinforced that). People who attempt the "rioter’s veto) must be dealt with by the police and arrested.

It’s pretty simple: your dislike of certain speech cannot abridge another’s constitutional right to speech, or a campus group following the university’s rules to reserve an auditorium like any other group.

Much better to be talking about Berkeley’s rules.
It would be great to actually start with their rules in hand rather than go on and on without even knowing their rules. But from the Yiannopolis case, some points are clear.

Various entities with the university community may invite speakers, but those invitations are subject to review by the university. Berkeley does not have an ideological test for approval invited speakers. Berkeley’s rules do include the prioritization of the safety of the students, faculty, staff, and visitors in scheduling, staging, and cancellation of events. Costs for security that exceed a certain standard are the organization that made the invitation.

Milo was cancelled after rioting, likely by visitors, broke out. It is fair to suggest that Berkeley should have had a stronger police presence and plan, but that advance planning led the inviting group at UCLA to rescind its own invitation when the security costs assessed were difficult for them to afford.

Coulter objected to rescheduling to a different date and venue on campus.

 

[dvdjs]

Again, what are the rules? You can’t have one set for people whose speech you like and another for people whose speech you don’t like.

Is your point relevant? What is the factual basis for a suggestion that there are different rules?

 

[shockerfan]

Okay but what if the rule is that only the speech I like is allowed?

??? Not sure what you are referring to.

I support the constitution and the rule of law. I do not support those who usurp constitutional rights, be they college administrators, rioters, heckler’s vetos, misguided politicians, etc.

 

[Jig_Saw]

??? Not sure what you are referring to.

I support the constitution and the rule of law. I do not support those who usurp constitutional rights, be they college administrators, rioters, heckler’s vetos, misguided politicians, etc.

I don’t think anyone who doesn’t allow Anne or Milo to have a room to speak is violating the Constitution. Just because it is a publicly funded university doesn’t mean an outsider has a right to go use a classroom. Really, free speech applies to a street corner and I’m sure Milo and Anne could find one of those in Berkeley.

My problem is the hypocrisy where some claim that free speech is being violated for those they politically agree with while not particularly caring that a football player lost his career over speech.

 

[shockerfan]

Is your point relevant? What is the factual basis for a suggestion that there are different rules?

The idea that a rioter’s veto wins out at Berkely, while law enforcement stand down, is one example.

There are also people on this forum who either actually don’t understand some of the decided law on the 1st amendment, or they are just being intentionally obtuse, because they don’t like certain people, seem to be arguing for different rules.

What is your point? Why do you seem to be debating my position of supporting the constitution and the rule of law, which should apply to Milo, Coulter in reference to the OP (and in general to BLM, KKK, Catholic Church, you, me whoever)?

 

[dvdjs]

It really comes down to two choices that Berkeley has. They can allow Antifa, BAMN, BLM, and others to have 3 riots in September, in which people will be assaulted and property vandalized, and which they can then blame on the provocative hate speech of ‘outsiders’, or they can take resolute action against those who want to riot and for which they too will be called Nazis.

BLM? Nice tactic.

If that is the choice than the choice is a sjmple one. No invitation. Not worth the cost.

 

[shockerfan]

My problem is the hypocrisy where some claim that free speech is being violated for those they politically agree with while not particularly caring that a football player lost his career over speech.

one is public, one is private. While I’m also mad that Brendan Eich lost his job at Mozilla for supporting traditional marriage, he has no legal leg to stand on. Kaepernick does not have the right to make ‘speech’ on the job that negatively impacts his employer. I can be fired for doing the same thing…I can’t go to a customer event and start speaking about traditional marriage and expect to keep my job.

No hypocrisy…apples / oranges.

1st amendment protects you from the government taking action…not an employer

 

[shockerfan]

BLM? Nice tactic.

If that is the choice than the choice is a sjmple one. No invitation. Not worth the cost.

So theoretically, every time a college invites, for example, Morris Dees of the SLPC to speak, a group of white supremacists can threaten a riot and keep him from speaking…because defending his ability to speak is “not worth the cost”?

 

[Jig_Saw]

one is public, one is private. While I’m also mad that Brendan Eich lost his job at Mozilla for supporting traditional marriage, he has no legal leg to stand on. Kaepernick does not have the right to make ‘speech’ on the job that negatively impacts his employer. I can be fired for doing the same thing…I can’t go to a customer event and start speaking about traditional marriage and expect to keep my job.

No hypocrisy…apples / oranges.

1st amendment protects you from the government taking action…not an employer

The First Amendment does not guarantee a room at a university to speak. This is not a First Amendment issue. No one is taking away Coulter’s right to go to a street corner and blather and that’s what the First Amendment guarantees.

This is an issue on how we view speech we don’t like and those on the right are trying to make it a First Amendment issue. Basically, those on the right are fine with Kaepernick losing his job, but not ok with Milo not being able to talk in a room on a university campus. Those on the left think Milo shouldn’t be allowed to speak in a room on a campus, but Kaepernick should have a job. Both are being inconsistent.

 

[dvdjs]

The idea that a rioter’s veto wins out at Berkely, while law enforcement stand down, is one example.

How is that relevant to the question of different rules. Presumably all are subject to the same provisos on public safety.

There are also people on this forum who either actually don’t understand some of the decided law on the 1st amendment, or they are just being intentionally obtuse, because they don’t like certain people, seem to be arguing for different rules.

Does Berkeley make that argument?

What is your point? Why do you seem to be debating my position of supporting the constitution and the rule of law, which should apply to Milo, Coulter in reference to the OP (and in general to BLM, KKK, Catholic Church, you, me whoever)?

My point is that you need to be more specific about what you are arguing from the constitution and case law. Some have many ideas about “free speech”, but few about “Congress shall make no law…”.

I would suggests that Berkeley has legal counsel on staff, that that counsel knows the law, and the university builds its policies to be properly aligned with the law. Can you suppluy evidence to the contrary?

 

[J_Peterson]

Read the signature.

And don’t act like a snowflake.

I love watching this place descending to the level of the Brietbart comment section.

 

[dvdjs]

So theoretically, every time a college invites, for example, Morris Dees of the SLPC to speak, a group of white supremacists can threaten a riot and keep him from speaking…because defending his ability to speak is “not worth the cost”?

Theoretically, yes. My guess is that a University would, as Berkeley did with Milo, would strongly message against disruption and work to proceed with the event. But public safety would ultimately be prioritized. If such threats were persistent, Universities might develop sophisticated security measures and perhaps restrictions on access (tough for a public university), so that discussions can continue even as some work to stifle them.