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

Protesting hate speech is free speech. You are deliberately conflating protest of free speech with government sanctioned punishment of free speech.

In all honesty I'm don't agree with the violent protests against Ann Coulter and Milo out at Berkeley. But what you are talking about is not blasphemy.

You are wrong: this is the Government-sanctioned prevention of Free Speech.

The problem is not that there were protesters. The problem was the the Government (which the University is an arm of) allowed a mob to shut down speech, thereby making the Government complicit in the censorship, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Specifically, the errors made by the University include (1) failing to provide adequate security, thereby permitting fascists to shutdown speech and (2) attempting to require provocative speakers to move their speech to a time when students would be less available to actually listen.

A single unexpected incident is not a problem: stuff happens that you don't plan for. The problem came when they failed to accommodate later speakers.

The blasphemy cited in the article specifically focuses on the government prosecuting and imprisoning those who said the wrong thing. Protesting a speech by someone IS NOT EQUAL to the government imprisoning someone.

A better example of infringement of Freedom of Speech is arresting a reporter that asked a question of the Health and Human Services Secretary. Or prosecuting and convicting someone during Sessions confirmation hearing for laughing out loud.

Just because Ann Coulter couldnt give a speech doesnt mean jack. Isn't it interesting how concerned some people are when one person, who is on the radio and tv and has books published, had trouble giving a speech in Berkeley. However when other people who don't agree with you are actually arrested by the government suddenly free speech doesn't seem so important.

You are assuming a lot of things about me that are simply not based in reality and not based in my comments.

Don't do that. Be better.

Maybe we need to talk about consent here. Should speech where one party doesn't consent to having a conversation at all really be protected? How about disrupting speech between other people who mutually consent to it?

No, we don't need to talk about consent. If both parties had to consent to a conversation, the civil rights movement would have never happened.

I don't know about that. Protests often do involve illegal activity. You have heard of civil disobedience?

No, I've never heard of civil disobedience. Fantastic question.

Sure seems to me like people would have been able to say, "I don't consent to listening to these people ask for equal representation, an aggressive violation of my rights." And then the whole movement gets stopped in its tracks when it ceases to be protected speech.

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