Rioters at Cal Berkeley force cancellation of conservative speech, then claim "This shows we support free speech!"
Leftists *say* they support the idea of free speech--a freedom enshrined in the First Amendment. But in reality, whenever possible they use every means they can to *prevent* conservatives from speaking. A prime example is the recent riots at Cal Berkeley, organized to prevent a conservative from giving an invited speech.
The riot to shut down the speech was carefully organized over a period of months. The "game plan" is set out in the text below, from the organizers of the riot. It's their 'how-to' doc to prevent gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos from giving a speech he'd been invited to give.
The organizers call their plan "The official anti-Milo toolkit."
While most Leftists aren't too bright, they *are* extremely media-savvy, as well as cunning: they know how to use friendly leftist reporters to manipulate public opinion. Because if lots of people see that they're really fascists--that they want to use force and violence to shut down dissent--they'll lose support fast.
If you realize that their claim to support free speech is actually a total lie, and that what they're really trying to do is to *prevent* any speech that they don't like (as shown by the title, "The Official Anti-Milo Toolkit"), then as you read the following "script" you'll be able to see very clearly how cunningly they argue "Oh we're ALL about free speech...BUT it's really *complicated,* see, so all *good* people are *forced* to protest against *certain types of speech.*"
"Free-Speech Script for Role Plays"
INTRODUCTION: Today we’re talking about some common *myths* around the notion of free speech. In recent years, college campuses around the United States have seen heated debates about free speech. Student activists *have called for the cancellation of events that make our campuses unsafe spaces for some students.* Others bemoan these actions as impeding free speech. What’s behind all the hype?
INTERVIEWER: When student groups protest or demand the cancellation of speakers’ events, they are censoring that speaker and suppressing free speech.
RESPONDENT: *Well, it’s not so simple as that.* [See?] Students and groups protest or demand the cancellation of events for a variety of reasons. [Note that instead of answering the charge, the authors avoid responding by raising a totally different claim: 'we protest for a *variety of reasons.*'] Generally, these protests are meant to draw attention to something *problematic* about the speaker, including their incitements to violence against individuals or against those who belong to particular communities.
*Often* [a sophomoric debating tactic, like "Some say..."] these *problematic* things actually bear on *others’ ability to speak* and on their *access to free speech.*
[Note the deft counter, claiming 'These *problematic things* (i.e. someone wanting to give a speech the left doesn't want heard) "actually bear on *others' ability to speak.* Note the use of the ambiguous term "bear on:" They're implying that if they "let" someone they don't like give a speech, it'll somehow take away *their* right to same. Of course they can't say this plainly because everyone would recognize it as obvious crap. But this is a *standard tactic* of the left (and well known in debating).]
For example, when students and faculty at Haverford College raised concerns about then-UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s scheduled commencement speech in 2014, they did so because Birgeneau himself had recently suppressed the speech of student protestors at UC Berkeley who were involved in the Occupy movement.
In this case and others like it, it’s very important to keep in mind that *different people come to public spaces with different amounts of power and resources for making speech.*
[Oh, I see: that explains why you claim the right to shut down speech you don't like--due to the "difference in the amounts of power." Bullshit."]
Birgeneau was an invited guest of Haverford College, set to receive an honorary degree from the university. *He had many other avenues available to him for expressing his political, personal, and intellectual positions.*
[This is classic, implying that because the speaker had "other avenues" available to express himself, he shouldn't have been allowed to speak at *this* event.]
The UC Berkeley students who were beaten by police with batons with Birgeneau’s support had themselves been exercising their right to free speech through protest. Relative to Birgeneau, they had fewer options for doing so.
[Classic mislead again: The "students" have the absolute right of free speech--but because they're not the chancellor of a university, fewer people ask to hear them. So in the Left's logic, this gives the Left the right to shut down the guy's speech, presumably to level the playing field. Cuz, like, the Left is ostensibly all about fairness, right? Bullshit.]
And actually, protests often occur because groups have tried other avenues of communicating concerns to no avail.
[Classic again: "It's ever so reasonable for us to shut down speech we don't like *because* we "tried other avenues of communicating concerns to no avail." Translation: We didn't get what we demanded.]
When we consider these two moments of “free speech” alongside one another—an invited speech by a campus administrator and student protests—we see that *“free speech” is not a monolithic thing.*
[Ah, "not a monolithic thing." This term certainly sounds intellectual to many, but in fact has no relevant meaning for this topic. It's one of many examples of the left using meaningless terms (relative to the topic being debated) to try to intimidate opponents.]
Most importantly, everyone comes to speech with different amounts of power. For many people, organized protest is a way of *asserting their right to protected free speech in the face of disempowerment.*
[Ah, I see: We agree that the Constitution recognizes the right to free speech. But with the above statement you're clearly claiming that *you* have the right to use "organized protest" (you certainly have the "organized" part down) to shut down someone else's speech--speech you don't like, and don't want heard--ostensibly to 'assert your right to "protected free speech."'* This is as clear an admission as you'll get from 'em.]
INTERVIEWER: But if we don’t let certain people speak on campus, then don’t we open ourselves up to being censored?
RESPONDENT: The argument that Milo Yiannopoulos is being singled out and denied access to free speech not only erases the many avenues he already has for circulating his ideologies [there's that rationalization again: "he has other ways to get his message out, so we can shut this one down"], but it masks the ways in which the university routinely censors political opinions with which its administrators disagree. For example, in 2016, UC Berkeley administrators called for the cancellation of a student-taught class on settler colonialism in Palestine. Only after significant public outcry about this act of political censorship was the class ultimately reinstated. We need to acknowledge the already *existing, uneven access to free speech on campus*...
[Total inability to recognize their own hypocrisy here...]
INTERVIEWER: Students are treated like snowflakes and they live in bubbles. It's good to be exposed to different points of view.
[Of course that's not the purpose of free speech, merely a minor side-benefit. So you can spot a rhetorical setup coming!]
RESPONDENT: The bubble rhetoric is flawed [yep, a setup], as the university is not a bubble separating us from reality but is itself a political space.
[Ah, well, that changes *everything*, eh? Cuz, y'know, speech simply *must* be restricted in "political spaces," comrade.]
It is up to all of us to shape its values, understand its already existing exclusions *and inequalities*...
[Oh, certainly, comrade. Cuz, we don't want *inequality* in the real world, right? And we don't mean just inequality of opportunity, but also inequality of *outcome.*]
...and work to extend its resources to communities that have been historically excluded from university spaces. Furthermore, the notion that vigorous political debates should be relegated to “safer” private spaces not only de-politicizes the public sphere (including public university campuses) but also assumes that private spaces, like homes, are necessarily safer spaces to which we all have access. This is simply not true.
[Again, total inability to recognize their hypocrisy: they're *complaining* that "vigorous political debates" should NOT be abolished" ("...have to be "relegated" to private spaces..."). But that's exactly what they're demanding: No public debate allowed if they don't like the position being taken by the speaker.]
INTERVIEWER: You know the saying, “stick and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Aren’t students who don’t want certain speakers on campus being overly sensitive? Words aren’t going to hurt them, even if they communicate bad ideas.
RESPONDENT: Words have concrete effects on the world, and they can inspire others to commit violent acts and create a hostile environment for targeted groups.
[Agreed. As in, oh, calling for Trump to be killed--as MANY on the left have already done, in print, on social media (so they can't claim they were misquoted). But of course those aren't the "words" or urges they're objecting to. BTW, I'm not a Trump fan.]
Words can put people’s lives and well-being in danger. Take, for example, the spike in hate crimes following Trump’s inauguration, where in some cases, individuals have shouted “Trump” after committing these crimes.
[Every one of which was shown to be either a hoax or hyperbole--as when students at a northeastern university drove thru the campus yelling "Trump Trump!" Y'all seriously think that's a hate crime? Idiots. Snowflakes.]
These instances make clear the links between Trump’s violent rhetoric and acts of harm committed against the communities he targets.
[But *our* violent rhetoric and acts of harm are fine, thanks. Cuz you know, there's such a difference in *power.* Oh, and we've tried to communicate our complaints, to no avail, so we have the absolute *right* to riot. Er, demonstrate.]
Words embolden acts of hatred and violence...
[No kidding. Total hypocrisy. But hey, that's the whole level of the Left.]
INTERVIEWER: OK, but everyone has a right to free speech. It's in the Constitution.
[Do you see a setup coming?]
RESPONDENT: To address this, let’s turn to BeeBee Buchanan's recent article on the histories that underline the writing of the Constitution.
[Now this is funny: Everyone knows BeeBee Buchanan, noted constitutional scholar, right? No? Ah, well...that's because this snowflake is the major author of this crap. Click the link at top and go just past the "Free Speech Script for Role-Plays" to "Sample free-speech syllabus" and you'll see BeeBee's name at the top. But the list isn't alphabetized. Gosh, why would someone put this particular name at the top? Cuz she was the main author of this shit. Hardly a knock, but shows how they think: "LISTEN TO MEeee!!! I am *reeeally* relevant and important, and a deep thinker!"]
Their analysis [one guesses Buchanan's] *productively* reframes this question: “The Naturalization Act of 1790 extended citizenship to ‘free white men with property’ — meaning that citizens were required to have these social positions in order to be incorporated under the Constitution of the United States. For those of us outside of that frame, neither our speech nor our bodies were free. Black bodies and communities were enslaved to support the speech and interests of white capitalists; preoccupation with the free speech of landed whites occurred simultaneously with, and relied on, the subjugation of Black bodies — because we were not considered people.
*Freedom of speech, then, is NOT a universal, constant idea which has existed throughout history; it is deployed differently depending on time frame, and bestowed unequally based on social position. Understanding these discrepancies, *we cannot ‘defend free speech’* without examining by whom and for whom speech is free. Instead, let us ask: how does this idea defend the interests of the powerful and silence the oppressed?”
[And here we see the real point yet again: So as BeeBee and the Left see it, "free speech" is NOT a universal right, despite being specified in the Constitution. The alleged reason is that it has been "deployed" differently in the past. So, you know, we can't allow it today--at least not for ideas we on the Left don't like.]
So the Left claims to be in favor of free speech, but actually demands that people not say anything in a public forum if it bothers the Left. So there ya have it.
And with that, read the following letter, titled "An open letter to Milo," that was published in the "daily Cal" paper. See where the hate is coming from. Hint: it's the Left--in this case a drag queen named Neil.
I’m going to take my heels off so I can get down to your level. Let’s cover some basic ground: your bleach job and concealer several shades too light don’t make you Aryan, it just makes you look like Gerard Way failing to get into a frat party. You’ve taken all your self-hatred, warped it, and levelled it at vulnerable people. I think you’re pathetic and sad.
I’m not going to waste time telling you that you’re a bigot. The faculty has pretty well covered why you shouldn’t come here in their open letters to the chancellor. Besides, being called a Nazi doesn’t appear to stop you or anyone else on the alt-right from doing a goddamn thing.
I ought to sue your “Dangerous Faggot” tour for misleading the public. The only thing you’re dangerous to is a skinhead’s self-esteem. The world is full of very dangerous faggots, but you are not one of them. I raise a glass to the real dangerous faggots, from the AIDS survivors and queer anarchists to the gender warriors and the mincers of Fire Island. Here’s to every disobedient queer body to ever walk the streets in defiance of state and society.
If we, the gender deviant, were not dangerous, you would not be so clearly threatened by us.
As I write this, Milo, I’ve got terrible period cramps, and I’m a bigger fag than you’ll ever be. Hell, I’m probably a better top than you.
I’ve hated you for a long time — being compared to you by some commenter on my column sent me into a rage for several hours — but the stunt you pulled against that young woman in Milwaukee was the last fucking straw.
If you’d like a transgender Berkeley student to direct your firehose of impotent rage at, I offer myself. I’m a Jewish anarchist drag queen with no eyebrows. The jokes write themselves. It’s a matter of public record that I look fantastic. Tell that crowd to laugh at me. I’m not ashamed of my face or my body or my politics or my life choices.
You can’t cut me down to size, I’m five foot two and chronically depressed. I dare you to say something about me that I haven’t already said about myself.
I’d like to address the real reason you’re coming here — Berkeley College Republicans, a pit of snakes, money and Pepe memes, agreed to host you, upping their game from the cardboard Trump cutout. I am just happy that their tacit white supremacism is now completely undeniable. They bring you here and then complain that It’s Going Down compiled their members’ public information and that UCPD would like to be compensated for the heightened security your presence on our campus will require. Hey BCR, what happened to Blue Lives Matter?
Frankly, I hope BCR gets their dads’ checkbooks out and raises the coin to bring you here. I hope our chancellor remains spineless in the face of justified faculty and student outrage.
When you get here on Feb. 1, we will be waiting here to strip you of your gay identity. You can have sex with all the men you want, but you’re not gay anymore. You’ve used your sexual orientation as an excuse to spit bile and galvanize cowards for long enough. Put your badge and gun on my desk. The community rejects you. You have never been one of us.
You never should have booked this UC tour, Milo. But you want to come to my town? I say, welcome to Berkeley, motherfucker. I’m the meanest gay on this coast. I was assigned to raise hell at birth. You come through me.
Oh, and in case you had any doubts here's a pic of Neil Lawrence:
But wait! There's more! After a howling, burning, physically violent mob forced university administrators to cancel the speech, the editorial board of the campus newspaper published an editorial on the riot, absurdly titled "Protest shows presence of free speech on campus." Of course what the rioters actually did--as any rational adult can easily see--was to *prevent* a speech from being given. For the snowflakes on the paper to ludicrously claim the riot was an *example* of free speech is as ludicrous as claiming assassination demonstrates a respect for life.
Totally clueless and hypocritical. But that's the Left. Here's the propaganda piece:
Hours after the cancellation of an event where Breitbart technology editor Milo Yiannopoulos planned to target undocumented students at UC Berkeley, community members gathered to clean up shattered remains of the night’s chaos — largely the work of outside anarchist groups.
[Really? Proof, please. BTW, on the fake news cable channel CNN, former secretary of labor Robert Reich claimed he'd "heard some talk" that the riots were actually instigated by *conservatives* to make the Left look bad. Yeah.]
Yiannopoulos, per usual, played the victim. After he fled protesters to the safe space of his hotel, he ranted on Facebook Live and whined to Tucker Carlson on Fox News. He and members of the Berkeley College Republicans mourned the “death of free speech.”
What they fail to realize, however, is that freedom of speech is not a pick-and-choose endeavor. The protest was a grand display of the same freedom of speech Yiannopoulos uses to justify his incendiary, useless harassment.
[You can't make this stuff up! These slimy rat-bastard assholes are claiming rioting and burning and beating is actually "a grand display" of free speech, positively *gloating* over the fact that their riot prevented the speech they didn't like from being given. Their rationale--at least at the moment, as shown in the 'graf above--is that the speech Yiannopoulos uses is "incendiary, useless harassment." So once again, they deny others freedom of speech based on views they dislike.]
It wasn’t the way we had hoped the night would unravel. His opponents could have defeated him without sabotaging the protest and blemishing rational liberal resistance. But one way or another, his supporters would have twisted the narrative to fit their agenda.
Yiannopoulos said the protest was proof that liberals fear conservative ideas, but...
[You've now been reading this leftist propaganda long enough to guess that the next phrase will be a total non-sequitur. In other words, rather than trying to show that the Left--liberals--*don't* fear conservative ideas, they'll ignore the indefensible by instantly throwing out something entirely unrelated--like "...]
...but he was never going to accomplish ideological conversion with derogatory rhetoric.
[Ah, I see. That absolutely rebuts the notion that the Left is unwilling to let the guy speak because they "fear" (hate) his ideas. Yep yep yep. Perfect logic--if you're a moonbat.]
The campus administration faced a lose-lose situation. Had they canceled the event, they would have neglected UC Berkeley’s commitment to free speech.
[Of course that's exactly what they did. Thus showing how the U really feels about letting people give speeches their faculty and students hate/fear.]
But by inviting Yiannopoulos, they invited chaos. They should have seen this coming...
[Translation: "Even though we *succeeded* in keeping this enemy of the Left from speaking, you can't blame us! It's the fault of the U administrators, cuz they should have seen this coming and barred the campus conservatives from inviting him in the first place!]
There were still steps the administration could have taken, however, to avoid the violence. It could have scheduled the event for earlier in the day, for instance, when anarchists could not shroud themselves in darkness.
At the end of the day, Yiannopoulos and his repulsive demeanor never belonged here. *He isn’t a productive member of society*...
[Ah. But the folks who start fires in the street, throw gasoline bombs and fireworks at cops and smash shop windows ARE??]
...and he certainly doesn’t reflect the type of respectful and educated discourse UC Berkeley promotes.
[Ah yes..."respectful and educated discourse" is Left-speak for "howling mob smashing windows and beating suspected enemies with shovels" (which actually happened.)]
But students found a way to make the best of a losing situation. They gathered in droves on Sproul Plaza. They played YG and Rihanna. Trumpets blared. Although harmful outside groups co-opted the media narrative, the majority remained peaceful. At the end of the night, campus police made only one arrest, and the individual was not associated with our campus.
[This is classic propaganda: The cops claim they were told to take no action. So the true statement that only one person was arrested is utterly misleading, since the editorial board is using it to falsely claim there was virtually no violence ("the majority remained peaceful").]
BCR [College Republicans] had advertised the event as an opportunity for the campus to learn more about Yiannopoulos and what he stood for. But this was a teaching moment for Yiannopoulos as well. Had he paid any attention, he would have seen that free speech at UC Berkeley is still very much alive.
The paper's editors--presumably reasonably qualified to speak for the Left--are either totally deluded or deliberately lying: By rioting, the Left was able to prevent a speech from being given. To claim this shows that Berkeley's administration or faculty or student body supports "free speech" is absurd, and a total lie.