Dirty Donald goes Full Fascist and threatens UC Berkley's freedom of speech

[Scrody]

You just have no idea what you're talking about.

How the fuck is he wrong? Just because most of these kids turn into puddles of piss and tears when they hear something they don't agree with, doesn't mean we should make that the standard for everyone. There are sane people in the US still.

 

[Rygu]

No, the actual Facists were hiding their faces, assaulting people and destroying public property. Go back to your community college and learn the actual definition of Facism you autistic troll.

 

[TheStruggle]

Even left wing posters aren't taking this thread seriously

 

[freaky]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
Dirty Donald threatens to cut UC's federal funding over cancelling his boy toy Milo's speaking engagement. Indefensible facism.

Milo is not Trump's boy toy, Milo is actually pretty anti-Trump.

Trump is right about Berkeley being anti-speech. The way Berkeley acted was uncalled for. Nothing wrong with Trump here.

Also, those "protesters" not only denied Milo's first amendment right but attacked innocent Milo supporters. These rioters are criminals and should be jailed imo.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

How is this any different than Title 9 cutting federal funding for "discrimination against women"?

There's a precedent for this.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right and federal funds shouldn't be going to public institutions that don't protect it.

How is this any different than Title 9 cutting federal funding for "discrimination against women"?

There's a precedent for this.

Free speech is a constitutionally protected right and federal funds shouldn't be going to public institutions that don't protect it.

Well, the legal theory for the Title IX funding would be that the states had clear notice of the conditions attached to federal funds. Title IX was passed by Congress. Title IV does indeed delineate some conditions on schools which receive federal funding, but speech issues aren't among them.


I don't think the SCOTUS has specifically ruled on that issue, the closest it came to addressing it was in this case:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-843

There's also the troubling problem of who is determining whether there were violations of free speech. Trump?

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

If the right matches tactics with the left, we will have a disaster on our hands. The right staying their own hand is the only thing keeping this all together.

Exactly. Dr. Jordan Peyerson says the same thing.

Nobody on the lefts sees it.

 

[Nonsense]

Look at what has happened at this guy's speaches in the past at some places.

I'm not sure if Trump can or even should cut off any money.

However preventing speach by acts of violence is wrong and can and should backfire on the people doing it.

People committing acts of violence are committing a crime.

Let's separate those few acts of violence, though, from the act of protest. Milo is not entitled to speak without the consequence of protest or cancellation.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Your for free speach as long as it's speach you a proved of.

Specht is one thing physically attacking people to prevent them from speaking is the opposite.

If the college and the police did what they should to protect the people that wanted to hear the speach I would say Trump was wrong.

If the left wants violence in these situations and the people that wanted tomhear the speach are not being protected Then the people shoup protect themselfs by whatever means nessarry.

This is coming people are getting tired of being attacked and it being allowed.

I have no interest in going to one of his speaches but if I wanted to and was attacked I would do what was nessarry. You will see this start to happen.

those who attempted to shut milo down are stupid. but free speech is a right that exists between govt. and citizen, not citizen and citizen.

UC berkeley was willing to let him speak. no one in the govt. said that he couldnt speak.

what trump is proposing is 100% fascism. its usually an exaggeration when people say that about him, but not in this case.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile
Dirty Donald threatens to cut UC's federal funding over cancelling his boy toy Milo's speaking engagement. Indefensible facism.

How is he threatening Berkley's freedom of speech? What..the? You make no fucking sense. Jesus, the shaft of partisan politics is so far down your throat you can't even see straight.

 

[Nonsense]

Exactly. Dr. Jordan Peyerson says the same thing.

Nobody on the lefts sees it.

What's worse, protesting or wilfully obstructing government?

 

[Nonsense]

How is he threatening Berkley's freedom of speech? What..the? You make no fucking sense. Jesus, the shaft of partisan politics is so far down your throat you can't even see straight.

Protesting is a right.

He is threateneing to cancel funding because of protests.

This is not hard logic.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

More like the left is appalled at the hate speech and fascist like tendencies of the right and people like Milo

Do you have specific examples of hate speech and Fascist tendencies from Milo?

Also, don't fool yourself. You're defending violence and censorship. Both facist tactics...

 

[Deleted member 196663]

UC berkeley was willing to let him speak. no one in the govt. said that he couldnt speak.

what trump is proposing is 100% fascism. its usually an exaggeration when people say that about him, but not in this case.

1. Not getting federal funds has nothing to do with facism. And saying "it's 100% facism" is not an argument. That's just you being a lazy fuck.

2. Berkley didn't take security serious enough, and allowed itself to be bullied.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Protesting is a right.

He is threateneing to cancel funding because of protests.

This is not hard logic.

You're the only moron calling what happened yesterday just "a protest". Partisan politics is blinding you.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

1. Not getting federal funds has nothing to do with facism. And saying "it's 100% facism" is not an argument. That's just you being a lazy fuck.

govt attempting to strong arm a public university for doing nothing wrong authoritarian.

2. Berkley didn't take security serious enough, and allowed itself to be bullied.

the cops are the ones who shut the thing down, not berkeley.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

Protesting is a right.

He is threateneing to cancel funding because of protests.

This is not hard logic.

No, he's threatening to defund as a result of the violent anti-free speech RIOT.

 

[Nonsense]

1. Not getting federal funds has nothing to do with facism. And saying "it's 100% facism" is not an argument. That's just you being a lazy fuck.

2. Berkley didn't take security serious enough, and allowed itself to be bullied.

Only funding those educational institutions that agree with your views is, in fact, fascism.

 

[...El Ray]

Shit thread, shit troll. Did not read.

 

[Breakitdown]

A wonderful move if it happens.

Everyone "protesting" on those streets should have been arrested.

 

[Nonsense]

No, he's threatening to defund as a result of the violent anti-free speech RIOT.

There was a protest during which some people became violent.

Really, a whole university loses funding when a few people commit a crime during a protest? Wouldn't that be a neat trick.