Milo Yiannopoulis and Ann Coulter plan return to Berkeley

[shockerfan]

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.

If, for example, Morris Dees of the SLPC, has access to a room because the rules allow student groups to invite him, you can’t deny Coulter from speaking if other student groups invite her. She does not get denied a room because of content of her speech.

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.

Nope…public vs private. Nobody can force a team owner to hire anyone. Might be unfair (in a general sense) but not illegal.

I would call out people who are arguing for Kaepernick but are OK with Eich losing his job for hypocrisy…but neither are illegal

 

[dvdjs]

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

Descend? That rhetorical style has been a constant of motion here.

 

[shockerfan]

.

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?

thefire.org/

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education spends a lot of time suing (and winning against) public colleges that have unconstitutional speech codes.

They gave Berkeley a “yellow” rating…certainly better than the colleges with a “red” rating. My point: I would not make any assumptions that a college with a legal staff is ensuring their policies are in line with the constitution. Feel free to read their cases against various colleges.

 

[shockerfan]

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.

If we let rioter’s vetos succeed…all speech is a risk.

 

[dvdjs]

If we let rioter’s vetos succeed…all speech is a risk.

Not responsive to my comment in the least.

 

[dvdjs]

thefire.org/

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education spends a lot of time suing (and winning against) public colleges that have unconstitutional speech codes.

They gave Berkeley a “yellow” rating…certainly better than the colleges with a “red” rating. My point: I would not make any assumptions that a college with a legal staff is ensuring their policies are in line with the constitution. Feel free to read their cases against various colleges.

I am familiar with Fire’s site and advocacy work. Not so much their court cases.

Something nice on the site:

Berkeley’s new chancellor releases powerful statement: ‘Free speech is our legacy’

By Alex Morey August 23, 2017

The University of California, Berkeley’s new chancellor, Carol Christ, reinforced her commitment to regain the school’s “free speech legacy” in an email to the campus community this morning. Having declared earlier this month that 2017 was to be a “free speech year,” Christ once again asked students and faculty to rally around the idea of protecting campus speech:

Berkeley, as you know, is the home of the Free Speech Movement, where students on the right and students on the left united to fight for the right to advocate political views on campus. Particularly now, it is critical that the Berkeley community come together once again to protect this right. It is who we are.

The university will work toward a more speech-friendly campus climate, she wrote, not just because the First Amendment requires it, but because free speech is inherently valuable — particularly on college campuses.

[T]he most powerful argument for free speech is not one of legal constraint—that we’re required to allow it—but of value. The public expression of many sharply divergent points of view is fundamental both to our democracy and to our mission as a university. The philosophical justification underlying free speech, most powerfully articulated by John Stuart Mill in his book, On Liberty, rests on two basic assumptions. The first is that truth is of such power that it will always ultimately prevail; any abridgement of argument therefore compromises the opportunity of exchanging error for truth. The second is an extreme skepticism about the right of any authority to determine which opinions are noxious or abhorrent. Once you embark on the path to censorship, you make your own speech vulnerable to it.

Christ cited recent events, like the recent tragedy in Charlottesville, which have prompted many campuses to deny invitations to similarly controversial speakers. She also addressed an invitation to conservative speaker Ben Shapiro for September and confirmed that former Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos would also visit campus later this semester. Echoing FIRE’s own reasoning on issues like the heckler’s veto and violence at campus protests, Christ described how the university would ensure those events go on while also addressing campus safety — and why finding that precise balance is so important.

The university has the responsibility to provide safety and security for its community and guests, and we will invest the necessary resources to achieve that goal. If you choose to protest, do so peacefully. That is your right, and we will defend it with vigor. We will not tolerate violence, and we will hold anyone accountable who engages in it.

After months of difficult, lingering questions on Berkeley’s commitment to free expression, FIRE is heartened by this strong statement. Berkeley’s willingness to look at its policies and practices and make changes for the better is instructive for all campuses.

I think that this is consistent with he statements of the outgoing Chancellor.

 

[Jig_Saw]

If, for example, Morris Dees of the SLPC, has access to a room because the rules allow student groups to invite him, you can’t deny Coulter from speaking if other student groups invite her. She does not get denied a room because of content of her speech.

In general, I agree. As others have pointed out, the safety of the students is paramount. If a speaker may present a situation where there is danger to the students, the university has a right to not allow that speaker, even if there has been an invitation extended by a student group. That said, every effort should be made by the university to foster a safe environment and I do think that the university holds some responsibility for failing on that count when Milo was to speak.

Nope…public vs private. Nobody can force a team owner to hire anyone. Might be unfair (in a general sense) but not illegal.

I would call out people who are arguing for Kaepernick but are OK with Eich losing his job for hypocrisy…but neither are illegal

Not illegal, but neither is not allowing Milo or Anne to speak at Berkeley. It’s more a question of fairness in that case, not legality.

 

[shockerfan]

Not responsive to my comment in the least.

Sorry, I didn’t see a question in your post.

If your point is “safety first”, I agree, provided concrete steps are taken to ensure a speaker with a differing perspectives can speak at some point soon in the future.

The college does NOT get to hide behind safety concerns to prevent a speaker they don’t like. They just can’t throw up their hands and let all sorts of left leaning speakers talk and say “oh sorry, the following right leaning speakers are a safety concern”

We’ll see if Berkeley’s deeds follow their words.

 

[shockerfan]

Not illegal, but neither is not allowing Milo or Anne to speak at Berkeley. It’s more a question of fairness in that case, not legality.

Maybe, maybe not. A public institution, that receives tax dollars, is bound not only by the 1st amendment, but also the 14th (equal protection). There is a serious legal concern not letting Milo or Coulter speak because people find their content offensive.

 

[dvdjs]

Sorry, I didn’t see a question in your post.

If your point is “safety first”, I agree, provided concrete steps are taken to ensure a speaker with a differing perspectives can speak at some point soon in the future.

The college does NOT get to hide behind safety concerns to prevent a speaker they don’t like. They just can’t throw up their hands and let all sorts of left leaning speakers talk and say “oh sorry, the following right leaning speakers are a safety concern”

We’ll see if Berkeley’s deeds follow their words.

That is exactly what Berkeley offered to Coulter.
She objected in her inimitable way.

 

[ProVobis]

If I recall correctly, in early 2016, Trump had barely any support on here and almost everyone was conservative

I have the same recollection.

Trump had barely any support here probably because he was seen as most evil among the Republicans in the primaries.

 

[Seamus_L]

It’s not that conservative anymore.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If your point is “safety first”, I agree, provided concrete steps are taken to ensure a speaker with a differing perspectives can speak at some point soon in the future.

But does it have to be that same speaker? How about a less contentious speaker who also has those differing perspectives?

The college does NOT get to hide behind safety concerns to prevent a speaker they don’t like. They just can’t throw up their hands and let all sorts of left leaning speakers talk and say “oh sorry, the following right leaning speakers are a safety concern”

They can if it is true.

 

[commenter]

But does it have to be that same speaker? How about a less contentious speaker who also has those differing perspectives?

Who defines “contentious”?
Today on most campuses there is a defacto ban on all well known conservative speakers.
It is hard for speakers, liberal or conservative, to attract a big crowd unless they are “names”; in other words, if they have a radio show, busy website, have written books or articles, etc. Liberal big name speakers come to campuses all the time. Liberals, and conservatives, prefer a speaker who has given talks at other places before, so they kind of know what they are getting.

Even if you found an unknown speaker with conservative political views, including a pro Catholic position on abortion and marriage, they will be labelled “contentious” as soon as they are announced and researched. At our local state university, any speaker, any kind of presentation whatsoever, gets disrupted or vandalized if it reflects any kind of conservative, or prolife view. There is nothing they can do, no mild mannered, conciliatory conservative speaker they can get that will not get labelled “contentious”.

On one occasion the vandals disrupted and destroyed not only the prolife presentation but damaged the campus property. So the university demanded that a large financial deposit be placed on bond,** by the prolifers** who are students at the university, **not **the vandals. to cover the anticipated security costs and vandalism for any future prolife presentations. Fortunately the prolifers went to court and got that bond requirement dropped…for the time being.

 

[commenter]

Prior post: The college does NOT get to hide behind safety concerns to prevent a speaker they don’t like. They just can’t throw up their hands and let all sorts of left leaning speakers talk and say “oh sorry, the following right leaning speakers are a safety concern”

They can if it is true.

But those who want to hear conservative speakers pay tuition and activity fees also. Why are **their **rights trashed?

Why does the college have to pay money to bring in speakers on the Left at all? Why should the rock throwers decide who is permitted to speak? This is bullying.

 

[Seamus_L]

Considering some of the genuine extremists who have spoken at Berkeley and other college campuses over the years, i don’t see what the big fuss about Shapiro, Milo and Coulter is. Well actually I do. Far left extremists, Black militants, Islamists, etc are treated with far greater tolerance on the college speaking circuit than conservatives, patriots, etc are.

 

[Jig_Saw]

Considering some of the genuine extremists who have spoken at Berkeley and other college campuses over the years, i don’t see what the big fuss about Shapiro, Milo and Coulter is. Well actually I do. Far left extremists, Black militants, Islamists, etc are treated with far greater tolerance on the college speaking circuit than conservatives, patriots, etc are.

Because when you think patriot, you think of a Greek/Brit that supports pedophilia.

 

[dvdjs]

Who defines “contentious”?
Today on most campuses there is a defacto ban on all well known conservative speakers.

This is total malarkey.

 

[dvdjs]

But those who want to hear conservative speakers pay tuition and activity fees also. Why are **their **rights trashed?

Their rights were not trashed.

Why should the rock throwers decide who is permitted to speak? This is bullying.

They should not.

 

[Seamus_L]

After melees, Berkeley mayor asks Cal to cancel right-wing Free Speech Week sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Berkeley-mayor-asks-Cal-to-cancel-12104330.php
Pretty obvious the mayor doesn't want to use the police against his militant leftist buddies.