If Milo Yiannopoulos was Looking for Freedom of Speech, Why Would he Look for it on America’s College Campuses?

A lot of folks on the political right, in a sincere but misplaced attempt to understand their political opponents, make excuses for their bad (sometimes criminal) behavior.

“They just don’t understand.”

“If they only stopped to think about their position…”

“They don’t know what they’re doing?”

Sadly, yes they do.

Last night at the University of California Berkeley we saw the disgraceful behavior of ant-democratic, anti-free speech, anti-American radicals infringing on conservative/libertarian writer, Milo Yiannopoulos,’ First Amendment rights–destroying property and abridging the rights of those who came to hear him speak.

These people (term applied loosely) are not mere political opponents the leftist media would have us believe. These are militant malcontents who know exactly what they’re doing: attempting to use violence to disrupt our civilized, democratic republic. One sign read, “Be Ungovernable.”  

Think about it. Conservatives and libertarians often point out that the left needs the right because without the productivity of the right the left would have nothing to redistribute. Conversely, the constitutionalist right does not need the leftist activists, especially the radical left because they contribute nothing. The radicals don’t produce; they consume. These violent lefties don’t create, they destroy. And yet the national media put them forth as rank-and-file Democrats.

As a retired police officer my heart went out to those Berkley officers obviously restricted from acting appropriately. They were complying with the incompetent direction of political leaders who cling to some romantic notion of the protest culture a la 1960’s. Tacitly or overtly, they allow left-wing crybabies to crush an invited campus guest’s civil liberties and then blame the guest rather than those who infringe on constitutional rights and destroy property.

Here’s the leftist equation:

Free speech does not include Hate speech.

What is hate speech?

Whatever the left says it is.

The left blames Yiannopoulos for the threats, violence, and destruction by referring to him as controversial, radical, and divisive; inflammatory, provocative, and of using “hate-speech.” Isn’t this like blaming the rape victim rather than the rapist for being sexually assaulted?

All of this occurring at the birthplace of America’s campus Free-Speech Movement made famous at Berkeley half-century ago. Many leaders of America’s college campuses have become despicable in the eyes of liberty. It seems Berkeley is now in contention to be the birthplace of the Restricted Speech Movement.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our readers said:

Write us your thoughts about this post. Be kind & Play nice.
  1. Matt says:

    I guess the CPAC isn’t all for free speech either, as Yiannopoulos has been canceled?

    Look, this guy is a fraud. Like many before him, he is getting paid to shock, and is not a man of principle. Free speech affords him the right to say anything he wants, but universities do not have to promote those views by providing him a venue. Free speech does not include immunity from criticism.

    Obviously any violence and damage during the protests is reprehensible. I believe most people – leftists included – would agree. But the protests themselves are also acts of free speech, and those students have every right to make a statement, as do the Westboro Baptists when they haunt the funerals of gay Americans.

    As for “radicals” not contributing anything: those kids are going to college, and dollars are being generated for those universities. They are paying rent, taxes, many are also working, or will work. Don’t give up on those kids. That radical who set something on fire is young and inexperienced – there is an entire lifetime of potential ahead.

    • Profile photo of Steve Pomper
      Steve Pomper says:

      Matt, As always, your response is thoughtful and the kind of discourse I wish more people who disagree on issues could have. That Milo is a fraud is beside the point. You may be right, but it is an opinion that not everyone shares. The First Amendment doesn’t care if you like, don’t like, or even believe a speaker–doesn’t matter–isn’t that the point?

      You’d have to agree that it is conservative/libertarian folks who are getting flack from campuses, not leftists regardless of what trash they spew or treasure they bestow. Learning what I have recently, about Mr. Y., I’d be more concerned about his views on pedophilia than on any “fraudulent” political views.

      As for the “radicals who set something on fire…” we call them rioters and/or arsonists (both felonies). Young and inexperienced is an excuse for making errors in judgement but not for committing dangerous crimes. I’m sure you’re not surprised by my perspective on this. I’ve spent more than my share of “quality” time on the opposite side of riot lines from these “young and inexperienced kids”–they know better; they just don’t care about other people’s rights!

Express your thoughts