How about that it's not right to beat someone up because of their political views? Or that freedom of speech applies to unpopular speech just as much as that which you agree with?
Those are now unpopular, contrarian views at universities and what not.
I agree with your former argument/question, but this applies to a small fraction of people on both sides, but unfortunately causes us to paint with a broad brush.
As to free speech, I assume you are talking about people like Milo, to which I will say that he has never had his free speech violated. Free speech is not an entitlement to a forum, it is a right that guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech, but even that has some limitations.
> Free speech is not an entitlement to a forum, it is a right that guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech, but even that has some limitations.
That's a pretty narrow and legalistic idea that's often deployed to excuse some pretty terrible behavior by private parties. Yes, it's accurate if you're talking legalistically about First Amendment free speech rights, but there's a more general principle of free exchange of ideas that's clearly violated when protesters try to shut down events they disagree with. It's that broader idea that I believe people are actually referring to when they talk about "free speech" in these contexts.
Do those protesters not have autonomy to choose what they hear or whom may speak at their organization? Are they not allowed to say that an idea has no purpose except to poison and thus should not be uttered?
You may not agree with the protesters, but they too have rights and autonomy.
But the protesters most assuredly do not have (and should not have) the right to deny and infringe on the rights and autonomy of others.
It should also be noted that the speaker was due to speak at a university, an organization that's supposed to be dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. The protesters are certainly free to not attend his speech and to express their disapproval of him in ways that don't silence or harass others.
There's nothing wrong with them protesting. Or complaining to the university.
But when a group has asked Milo to speak, then you have no rights to physically block someone from speaking or try and shut down their event by force. Feels like even when not violent, some of these protests were less complaining about the event and more trying to stop supporters getting to it. And I don't think that's right.
Those are now unpopular, contrarian views at universities and what not.