Already on this thread exist at least two narratives: violent special snowflake students, outside agitators. And someone suggested paid agitators, presumably paid to discredit an intended peaceful protest. I just wonder whether it will be possible to determine truth. Who benefits when universities lose funds? Who exactly will be silenced? Interesting times.
My understanding is that UCB canceled Milo’s speaking engagement because they were concerned about safety/security of the event. For good reason it appears. Is that really a free speech issue?
Not to get political but Trump is threatening to cut funding to UCB because he’s defining this as a free speech issue. Not sure he can do that as he often threatens actions that are beyond his presidential powers, but often the threat is sufficient.
Here’s a link to the SF Gate: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Protesters-storm-Milo-Yiannopoulos-event-at-UC-10901829.php?ipid=articlerecirc
Hopefully this thread can stay open and we can hear from parents/students who were there.
Interesting. The president himself had a trip to Milwaukee canceled (I am not sure if he or the company changed the place of the meeting) because of security concerns.
<<< Berkeley has always been known for enthusiastic protesting. >>>
Enthusiastic protesting is probably protected free speech… One would really have to stretch the limits of common sense and decency to put yesterday’s destructive violence under the legal umbrella of “enthusiastic protesting.”
“Standard tactic from the Left. Deny their ugly, violent side (it must be “evil” right-wingers infiltrating our ranks, not us). I expect these “protests” to get more violent leading up to the midterm elections.”
No, actually that argument seems to stem from conspiracy theorists on the right.
Perhaps, “leadership” could make efforts to bridge divides instead of being constantly inflammatory.
@alh, it is never possible to determine who was violent and who was not in a situation like that occuring at Berkley. That is the reason for the black bloc @marvin100 so approvingly references. And just as an aside @marvin100, if those using violence were actually “perfectly prepared to be arrested” then they wouldn’t be decked out like a hipster Johnny Cash. Unless their purpose is just to try and look all edgy and cool.
@doschicos, there are in fact people who are paid to organize and protest. I am related to one, lol. And I think there has been enough visual circumstantial evidence (things like charter buses, pre printed signs, etc) to indicate that there is a coordinating effort at many similar protests, or “astro turfing” in the prejorative. I think the question of whether this is a relative handful of people or roving gangs of rent a mobs is maybe a different one though.
I know from discussions with my family member that certain organizations are often hired to plan out a protest activity and that part of that is an assumption that the organization will get a certain number of people to the event. Just a guess, but I assume the problem at these events isn’t the “paid” protestors, but a bunch of looneys who gloom on to the protest event either because they see themselves holding the flag in the street scene in Les Mis or just because they are nuts. Any idiot can see the violence never helps the point.
On the substance, I am a firm believer that the way you defeat speech you find objectionable is with more speech. That is, or at least was, a foundational notion in our society. It saddens me more than it is possible to express that our culture has reached a point where something like this could occur at one of the nation’s great universities of all places.
It is not “probably protected free speech.” Protesting is protected free speech. Is it your position that every single protester was violent and destructive? Is there no possible alternative that two things can be true at once? That there were peaceful and “enthusiastic” protesters AND agitators who may have used the protest to be violent and destructive? We can hold two views as true. It does not have to be one or the other.
My question as to whether we could determine the truth was sort of rhetorical.
<<<
AND agitators who may have used the protest to be violent and destructive?
[QUOTE=""]
[/QUOTE]
Lol…“may have”? You think that’s up for debate?
My “probably protected free speech” statement was in regards to the word, “enthusiastic” since that is not defined in regards to lawful protesting. What a normal person might say is enthusiastic and protected is not necessarily what a more violent person would say is enthusiastic and protected.
[QUOTE=""]
We can hold two views as true. It does not have to be one or the other.
[/QUOTE]
I think someone was vilified recently for stating such. Lol
Of course it is. How in the world could it be otherwise?
And @amom2girls, I think the issue is with the meaning of the word “ethusiastic”. At some point, a peaceful protest, which is obviously an exercise of protected speech, becomes “enthusiastic” to the point that it is no longer protected. For example, protestors who are holding signs and shouting at Planned Parenthood clinics are required to maintain a certain distance from the method of ingress and egress from the building. Those protestors are not generally violent, but their speech is curtailed in this way because of the “enthusiasm” with which they operate. Same point holds for people on a University campus trying to keep out conservative speakers.
The tweeter in chief just threatened Berkeley’s federal funding. No matter what you think of this particular incident, THAT is chilling. And not just for Berkeley.
Regarding the protests, when that guy spoke at UW in Seattle recently, a protester was shot outside by a guy wearing a MAGA hat.
Disappointing - whether you like, don’t like, agree or don’t agree with an alternate opinion, rioting is uncalled for completely
All are potentially true here:
violent special snowflakes
peaceful special snowflakes
violent outsiders
peaceful outsiders
All could be true at the same time.
And none are valid reasons to threaten federal funding. But I suspect flimsier reasons than this will surfice when cuts start happening.
“THAT is chilling”
And inflammatory, to say the least. And unstatesmanlike.
“none are valid reasons to threaten federal funding”
Yes. This kind of threat is counterproductive and will lead to further repercussion.
I guess what some of us have been seeing at the state level with decreased funding to universities will now happen at the federal level?
Please be even in your assessment of violent tactics so as to not be overly political. CC does not like overly political posts. To even out your perspective and not get censured by CC moderators, you may want to note that the Right has violent tactics too.
Please also note that 3.3 million people marched for the women’s march in the US alone and there was no violence. That should temper your argument about the left being violent. There were protests globally that day. No violence.
In general, can we not name call? I’ve noticed the word “snowflake” here being used pejoratively. That’s not civil nor is it necessary to make your point, whatever it may be.
^who claimed that the person he shot was a white supremacist who had attacked him. And the guy wasn’t wearing a “make america great again” hat, he alleged that his hat was stolen after he got sucker punched before the event. Or at least that is what the reporting is as of now. One way or another, the shooter surrendered and was released by the police. I assume at some point they will decide whether to indict and then we may begin to know what happened.
What appears clear at this point is that the “protestors” were throwing bricks and things at the police and (assumedly) the people trying to get into the hall to hear the speech, and that the police had to escort those who did make it inside out of the hall.