When Milo Yiannopoulos was doing this, a student at the University of Washington was shot by some of Milo’s supporters. One of the men charged posted this on Facebook the day before: “I can’t wait for tomorrow. I’m going to the milo event and if the snowflakes get out off hand I’m going to wade through their ranks and start cracking skulls.”

 

And as everyone is aware, the last time Spencer rallied his adherents a young woman was run over by a car.

 

I point this out to note the looming threat of violence is not exclusively on the students protesting (who have the same right to be there), though some of them are destructive too. These instigators like Spencer aren’t the street corner cranks that most people ignore, but have serious, if not sizeable followings who’ve demonstrated a willingness to get violent in the past. I think they’re past the point of being ignored.

 

With that said, I’m staunchly in favor of free speech. Even though these people are vile and repugnant cretins, if they are cut off over security costs then the next group that I might agree with can be silenced the same way. I don’t know if there is a magic solution, but I hope we come to our collective senses and the nonsense stops.

And I just saw this.

 

“Kill them”: Three men charged in shooting after Richard Spencer speech - The Washington Post

And I just saw this.

 

“Kill them”: Three men charged in shooting after Richard Spencer speech - The Washington Post

 

Do you think if protesters didn't show up, these guys would go hunting for them? I am all for free speech also, and agree with what you said earlier, but if the protesters don't show up and the media doesn't cover it, I don't think anyone would care. Are the protesters there because they want to shut down Spencer's right to free speech or they want their speech heard? Kind of a chicken or egg thing.

 

I wonder if Florida's stand your ground law comes into play here also. The protesters hit the jeep with a baton and the group advanced on the jeep. Who know's, what a bunch of idiots.

Do you think if protesters didn't show up, these guys would go hunting for them? I am all for free speech also, and agree with what you said earlier, but if the protesters don't show up and the media doesn't cover it, I don't think anyone would care. Are the protesters there because they want to shut down Spencer's right to free speech or they want their speech heard? Kind of a chicken or egg thing.

 

I wonder if Florida's stand your ground law comes into play here also. The protesters hit the jeep with a baton and the group advanced on the jeep. Who know's, what a bunch of idiots.

 

I don’t know.

 

I do know reasoning that the white supremacists have a right to stage a talk but others don’t have a right to protest it is untenable. Even if it’s couched in the double-standard that the protesters ought not to show up instead of placing the onus on the white supremacists not to. And if we say these events shouldn’t be protested because white supremacists might resort to violence, then they’ve already won.

Here's my opinion on this, and obviously I have a particular idealogical mindset that is going to differ than others, and that is perfectly OK.

 

Richard Spencer is only relevant because the media makes him relevant. At his speech the other day, he had about 10 supporters show up. The rest of that auditorium was full of protestors and an ENORMOUS media presence. It is no secret that media in the 21st century has a very clear agenda. Spencer even being relevant is what they (media) want, as it shows a microscopic racist side of America as some normal and widespread thing that is suddenly growing under President Trump. The only thing that is growing is their coverage of these handful of racists.

 

If the media would stop normalizing and giving these scummy people a platform, these racists would shrink into irrelevance like they have always been. However, there is a clear agenda they want to push. That agenda is showing America (and indirectly Republicans/Conservatives) as some big racist cesspool when in reality it is the furthest thing from it.

 

On the issue of security costs, I'll provide another recent example of Ben Shapiro's speech at Berkley last month. For those who don't know who is he by now, he's a conservative Jew who is considered probably one of the most levelheaded voices in politics right now. UC Berkley ended up paying several hundred thousand in security costs for his speech as well.

 

For anyone that knows Shapiro, he is very critical of Trump and the "alt-right" movement, and as such, he is hated pretty strongly by both far leaning ends of the political spectrum. However, all the headlines from the media leading up to the event were basically some version of "Berkley braces for Shapiro visit" or "Shapiro is costing Berkley XY Dollars in security fees." What complete crap. Anyone who follows the college free speech issues of late know that the violence is not from the speakers or the people who come to listen, it is from these violent "protestors" who show up to wreck havoc and pretend like they are badasses for a few hours. For example, see Milo's speech at Berkley several months ago.

 

What the issue here is what is called the "heckler's veto." Should speakers be on the hook for incidental costs occurred just because people who disagree with them use violence and destruction to create an expensive and hostile environment? Absolutely not. If they were, free speech could essentially be suppressed against anyone if you make enough threats of violence. If security wasn't provided just because a speaker didn't want to pay for extra police presence, many conservative speakers would take their chances, and probably be seriously injured (or worse) in the process.

 

What this comes down to, in my opinion, is two things. The media stirs up controversy around conservative ideas mixed in with propping up racists who have zero audience as a way to label all conservatives a threat to society. For example, Shapiro (a freaking JEW) was labeled a Nazi and "far-right" during his speech last month. As a result, violent protests resulted. These protests resulted in a huge expense for the university. This is done as a way for universities to have an excuse for not allowing controversial figures to speak on campus. As another example, I disagree with Milo on a lot of subjects, but he has a right to speak at a tax-payer funded institution like anyone else. Over the last year and half, he has been denied access due what is called the "heckler's veto." Universities simply drop astronomical security fees on student groups who invite him at the last minute before Milo (or others) come to speak, with deadlines usually within a day or two. These student groups of poor college kids cannot come up with tens of thousands of dollars overnight, and the Universities use the excuse of non-payment as a way to cancel events.

 

In summary, again, if you start making speakers pay for security costs associated with protecting them from people that think they do not have the right to speak, you are effectively destroying the right to free speech. The media and the alt-left need to stop normalizing violence against anyone they disagree with. Think about how quickly all these issues and divisions would go away if they did, which is exactly why they knowingly cause these problems.

 

Here's a short clip from Nightline NBC summarizing a lot of what I just said: Twitter

Here's my opinion on this, and obviously I have a particular idealogical mindset that is going to differ than others, and that is perfectly OK.

 

Richard Spencer is only relevant because the media makes him relevant. At his speech the other day, he had about 10 supporters show up. The rest of that auditorium was full of protestors and an ENORMOUS media presence. It is no secret that media in the 21st century has a very clear agenda. Spencer even being relevant is what they (media) want, as it shows a microscopic racist side of America as some normal and widespread thing that is suddenly growing under President Trump. The only thing that is growing is their coverage of these handful of racists.

 

If the media would stop normalizing and giving these scummy people a platform, these racists would shrink into irrelevance like they have always been. However, there is a clear agenda they want to push. That agenda is showing America (and indirectly Republicans/Conservatives) as some big racist cesspool when in reality it is the furthest thing from it.

 

On the issue of security costs, I'll provide another recent example of Ben Shapiro's speech at Berkley last month. For those who don't know who is he by now, he's a conservative Jew who is considered probably one of the most levelheaded voices in politics right now. UC Berkley ended up paying several hundred thousand in security costs for his speech as well.

 

For anyone that knows Shapiro, he is very critical of Trump and the "alt-right" movement, and as such, he is hated pretty strongly by both far leaning ends of the political spectrum. However, all the headlines from the media leading up to the event were basically some version of "Berkley braces for Shapiro visit" or "Shapiro is costing Berkley XY Dollars in security fees." What complete crap. Anyone who follows the college free speech issues of late know that the violence is not from the speakers or the people who come to listen, it is from these violent "protestors" who show up to wreck havoc and pretend like they are badasses for a few hours. For example, see Milo's speech at Berkley several months ago.

 

What the issue here is what is called the "heckler's veto." Should speakers be on the hook for incidental costs occurred just because people who disagree with them use violence and destruction to create an expensive and hostile environment? Absolutely not. If they were, free speech could essentially be suppressed against anyone if you make enough threats of violence. If security wasn't provided just because a speaker didn't want to pay for extra police presence, many conservative speakers would take their chances, and probably be seriously injured (or worse) in the process.

 

What this comes down to, in my opinion, is two things. The media stirs up controversy around conservative ideas mixed in with propping up racists who have zero audience as a way to label all conservatives a threat to society. For example, Shapiro (a freaking JEW) was labeled a Nazi and "far-right" during his speech last month. As a result, violent protests resulted. These protests resulted in a huge expense for the university. This is done as a way for universities to have an excuse for not allowing controversial figures to speak on campus. As another example, I disagree with Milo on a lot of subjects, but he has a right to speak at a tax-payer funded institution like anyone else. Over the last year and half, he has been denied access due what is called the "heckler's veto." Universities simply drop astronomical security fees on student groups who invite him at the last minute before Milo (or others) come to speak, with deadlines usually within a day or two. These student groups of poor college kids cannot come up with tens of thousands of dollars overnight, and the Universities use the excuse of non-payment as a way to cancel events.

 

In summary, again, if you start making speakers pay for security costs associated with protecting them from people that think they do not have the right to speak, you are effectively destroying the right to free speech. The media and the alt-left need to stop normalizing violence against anyone they disagree with. Think about how quickly all these issues and divisions would go away if they did, which is exactly why they knowingly cause these problems.

 

Here's a short clip from Nightline NBC summarizing a lot of what I just said: Twitter

 

I like where your heart is, but I think you’re offbase quite a bit. For one, Ben Shapiro is a provocateur. He is a former editor of Breitbart who’s entire genesis into the public sphere is a result of riling up conservatives to his idea that liberals are indoctrinating our nation. You are the first person I have ever heard refer to him as a levelheaded voice in politics, let alone most people.

 

Umfortunately I don’t have time to get into your broader point right now, but I would love to discuss it when I get a chance. Long story short, we’re obviously right up at the line of discussing politics explicitly, but I don’t think the entire situation is anywhere near as simple as the media is giving the wrong people voices.

I don’t agree that the fringe is miopic. I think it’s more than we want to admit and getting bolder all the time.

This is the inmates running the asylum.

 

The Federal Government needs to create a Task Force with the single goal of locking up violent protesters for an extended period of time.