Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Obviously this is political and so shouldn't be hitting HN, but I'll swing at this pitch. "Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives. The whole Berkeley-is-against-free-speech talking point falls apart when you see how quick conservative America was drop Milo like a hot potato once he said something that crossed their lines. Ann Coulter is the same way, and the sheer craziness of saying a woman on the New York Times best seller list, on talk shows everyday, somehow is having her right to free speech stopped by not being able to give a lecture on campus at the most crazy liberal college in the nation.

You believe in free speech, so long as it's your free speech and don't pretend otherwise. I'm not out protesting at Fox news for giving Coulter a talk show, but we've seen how far conservative belief in free speech goes for Colbert this week.




Moderate here. I'm confused about how conservatives are the ones "bringing violence into the mix", given how keen Progressives are of the template, "[your speech] is LITERALLY VIOLENCE!".

Further, I hope you can understand the difference between supporting Milo's right to free speech and supporting the content of Milo's speech.

> Ann Coulter is the same way, and the sheer craziness of saying a woman on the New York Times best seller list, on talk shows everyday, somehow is having her right to free speech stopped by not being able to give a lecture on campus at the most crazy liberal college in the nation.

I don't know anything about this, but based on your description, I'm inclined to agree with Ann Coulter. I can imagine the tantrum that social progressives would throw if the political roles were reversed (though I don't think conservatives would be unwavering in their support for free speech in such a reversal).

> You believe in free speech, so long as it's your free speech and don't pretend otherwise.

This is probably true of most people. 5 years ago, liberals were championing free speech, throwing blasphemy days with the deliberate purpose of provoking religious groups just so they could flex their free speech muscles. The important thing, I think, is that the balance of power is relatively preserved, so each group has a fighting chance at its own free speech.


>"Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives.

It ain't conservatives rioting or assaulting professors.

>Ann Coulter is ... somehow is having her right to free speech stopped by not being able to give a lecture on campus at the most crazy liberal college in the nation.

Your right to speak at a publicly funded institution is not limited by your ability to speak elsewhere.

>we've seen how far conservative belief in free speech goes for Colbert this week.

Was there anybody saying he didn't have a right to say what he did? I'm pretty sure most people were criticizing what he said, not rioting about it or saying he didn't have a right to say it.

Coulter routinely says atrocious things in order to gain attention. I think it's stupid of campus Republicans to invite her to speak. But once that invitation is given, she has every right to speak and they have every right to listen. And the campus left, for their part, has every right to protest. But not to shut the event down, not to riot, and not to assault professors.


So, here's the deal about Colbert.

The left-wing has been attacking the employment and incomes of ideological opponents with impunity for several years now. Sometimes, often even, it's just a hapless nobody and done to make an example out of the target. The left has consistently ignored anyone trying to point this out, and indeed will usually turn on that person and make them the next target.

So, conservatives, young ones mostly, decided to start fighting fire with fire and using their own unorthodox and questionably virtuous tactics to attack their political opponents. It's important to realize, though, that the aims are different. The left has been collecting scalps to intimidate and control. The right is using those same tactics to create chaos and disorder in enemy ranks. It's unlikely that anyone really expects CBS to terminate their contract with Colbert, although I'm sure if that happened they'd find it hilarious and satisfying. But so long as the left-wing media is occupied defending their own (Colbert, in this case) then they'll have less time and energy to spend making life miserable for conservatives. Plus they'll have to make arguments against the very tactics they've been using.

I'm not happy with this particular turn of events. But the media had 8 years of a popular liberal-progressive president to practice tolerance, encourage a diversity of viewpoints, and defend freedom of speech for anyone other than themselves. To take the moral high ground and restore trust across political lines that has been slowly eroding for the last couple of decades. They did not, in fact did the opposite, and so I can't find it in me to condemn the conservatives for something like #FireColbert.


They just convicted a protester from Session's hearing. They just arrested a member of the press because they asked the wrong question of Tom Price.

But one conservative couldn't give a lecture at Berkley and suddenly the same people are concerned about free speech.


Do real people not exist who find both of those illiberal?

It's not us vs them; any attack on free speech is wrong.


> They just convicted a protester from Session's hearing.

"She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave," the jury foreperson told the Huffington Post. "Ms. Fairooz's comments as she was being escorted out caused the session to stop. It disrupted the session." [1].

> They just arrested a member of the press because they asked the wrong question of Tom Price.

"Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, was with Mr. Price, and at one point in the recording, a man’s voice is heard saying: “Do not get close to her. Back up.”

"...a criminal complaint said he “tried aggressively to breach the security of the Secret Service” and was “causing a disturbance by yelling questions.”" [2]

1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-a-woman-wasnt-convicted...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/business/media/reporter-a...


Oh no, a disruption? That is absolutely grounds for arrest.

She laughed. Big fucking deal. She could have said "suck a cock you suit wearing cunts." for all I care. That is not grounds for arrest- this isn't 1927. Besides, the hearing was probably hilarious.

Don't get me started on the reporter. A disturbance by yelling questions lol. What the fuck do you think reporters do? Politely whisper questions?


She was convicted by a jury, who presumably heard testimony from multiple witnesses.

Were you there? Do you know what really happened? Do you know how to extract facts from narratives in a news article? Do you even read the news article or just the headline?


Facts with references and citations have no place in this thread. Downvote.


HN political discussion in a nutshell.


> "Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives.

Antifa and other leftist extremist groups have attacked people a lot lately...

> ...when you see how quick conservative America was drop Milo like a hot potato once he said something that crossed their lines.

"Conservative America" doesn't care about Milo, and most didn't know who he even was before the election and the left attempting to hold him up as some straw man of right wing thought. Pre-election the only thing people knew that guy for was GamerGate, he's never been taken seriously by the right.


Only one of the replies I'm going to reply to, but wow. Just wow. Making Milo an unperson.


Do you actually know conservatives that you associate frequently with in real life? I really doubt they've ever been interested in what Milo has to say.


Conservatives aren't the one attacking people.

If liberals are upset that we keep bring up the violence, then they should stop assaulting people AND stop defending the violent crazies who do so.

Go read the Berkeley student newspaper online and see what these people ACTUALLY believe. You should be absolutely horrified by how many student writers are defending violence.

Conservatives "dropped" Milo by disinviting him from speaking at private events.

That is absolutely not the same as assaulting people who show up to an event.

If the Berkeley Republicans club wanted to disinvite Milo, they are free to do so.

But Milo, and anyone else, can also just show up at a public park near Berkley, and nobody should be able to stop them.


> "Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives.

The problem is that I am not a conservative. I've marched against the Iraq War at Berkeley. I believe in all free speech. It's not a partisan issue that you can shove off on me being some hypocritical conservative just because 'your side' is being forced to confront its own hypocrisy. This sort of intolerance that we're seeing at Berkeley today is not liberalism. It's a new and dangerous brand of fascism.


>Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives

It is your contention that the violence at Berkeley was committed by Milo supporters? Do you have evidence for this claim?


Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives.

Antifa's aggression is the fault of conservatives? Sounds like victim-blaming to me.

Ann Coulter is the same way, and the sheer craziness of saying a woman on the New York Times best seller list, on talk shows everyday, somehow is having her right to free speech stopped by not being able to give a lecture on campus at the most crazy liberal college in the nation.

The issue isn't Ann Coulter and her right to speak at Berkley. The issue is what it says about Berkeley and leftists in general: Namely, that they have no interest whatsoever in listening to or engaging with ideological opponents, and would rather just shut them up.

If this was an isolated incident, people would not care so much. But it's not.

http://heterodoxacademy.org/2016/10/21/one-telos-truth-or-so...


>The whole Berkeley-is-against-free-speech talking point falls apart when you see how quick conservative America was drop Milo like a hot potato once he said something that crossed their lines.

He made statements endorsing child molestation - are you honestly going to blame us for not being okay with that?


Free speech includes the freedom to take the consequences. Milo said something that crossed CPAC's line. In consequence, they dropped him. Fair enough. I don't like it, but I'm not about to argue there's anything wrong with it.

Endangering someone's physical safety, in order to prevent him from coming to your town to say things with which you disagree, is a whole 'nother thing entirely.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: