While I do occasionally listen to KPFK in LA (part of Pacifica Radio, which is KPFA) I think that the fear of violence may be the underlying reason; if Oliver Stone or another speaker was scheduled to speak, I don't think they'd cancel.

Not trying to be political, just observational!!

I've been to Berkeley, and I really enjoyed it. My brother earned his B.A. there. It was once considered a bastion of free speech. That time has come and gone. This looks to me like censorship by mob.

Actually, I think the "mob" (the majority of the student body) is all for actual free speech.

It seems more like censorship by a very few "elite" nanny-types who think they know what's best for everyone else.

I don't care if those few are "right" or "left" or on another planet -- they're hypocritical idiots.

Many of the protesters were found to be not students, but anarchist agitators. They wear all black, and they will join any protest. They're the first ones to break widows and start fires. They came out to Sacramento for one protest at the Capitol, and they beat up a TV newsman. It was caught on camera, of course. Some of them were apprehended, and they were from the bay area 90 miles away. I have nothing against peaceful protests, and I have participated in a few. But I don't care for opportunistic vandals.

This is true. There is in the Bay Area a crowd of anarchists who attend these events and employ violence in a self-indulgent and destructive way.

That said, it is incumbent, I think, on the university to ensure that free speech is protected. Is that difficult and expensive? Certainly. But you don't get to be Berkeley if you can't ensure the free exchange of ideas. Spend the money: let people of all stripes speak.

Preventing Dawkins from speaking because fear of "abusive speech" is an attack on everyone's freedom of speech. Years ago, we understood that even extremists (and Dawkins is hardly an extremist) had a right to free speech--even if that speech was deemed offensive.

Bannng Dawkins is giving into the tyrannical demands of terrorists. They have won when Western Governments and/or institutions compromise long-standing rights in favor of security or politeness. Fuck that! The Boner.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/24/2017 08:39PM by BYU Boner.

I with you on this. See my comment above.

You're absolutely correct, Don!

yep ~

Glad you're still around, Bro!

I am for free speech and the exercise thereof. I am so free speech that I disagree with the “hate speech” laws we have in Canada. No matter how much I may disagree with Richard Dawkins, Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos, I do not want to see their ability to speak curtailed.

But we’re not talking about the First Amendment here. ifi- gets it right, in my estimation, placing the campus problems like this one largely at the feet of lazy, weak-kneed elites.



But America, there IS an actual 1st Amendment problem in your country; right now, this moment, today:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/7/21/criminalizing_critics_of_israel_congress_considers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-piece-of-pro-israel-legislation-is-a-serious-threat-to-free-speech/2017/07/24/0752d408-7093-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.1002bcb96945

Call your congresspeople! Now! If you care about the First Amendment, then do not let this Bill pass. Like the speech of Dawkins, it doesn’t matter if you agree with BDS or not; but unlike in the Dawkins case, Congress itself is the one proposing to do the curtailing in the BDS case.

“To determine the true rulers of any society, all you must do is ask yourself this question: Who is it that I am not permitted to criticize?" No, that isn’t Voltaire, as far as I can see. Is it any less true if a white supremacist said it? No, it isn’t.

Human

Wow, I wasn't aware of that bill, Human.
Thanks for pointing it out.
Time to contact my Senators...

Very glad you noticed, ifi-. And am encouraged you see this as serious enough to call your House Rep (they have a companion Bill) and Senators.

Let's hope a few others notice as well.

Human

There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides of this issue, and the legislation is likely more a show piece than anything that actually threatens anyone's speech. It is aimed substantially at companies who may be coerced into abiding by boycotts endorsed by clients.

I'd go slow in aligning with any faction of the BDS movement. They regularly align themselves with some of the worst anti semitic groups around. Much of the BDS movement in Europe openly associates with neo Nazis since they share similar goals. And remember, love them or hate them, Israel is the only democracy in the middle east surrounded by a bunch of Islamic theocracies. Israel is alone in that region for offering safe haven for gays, full rights for women, and safety for Islamic apostates. Muslims as a whole in Israel enjoy far more rights than they do in any of the surrounding Islamic states. Quibble with some of their politics, but they are a safe haven for many who have no other choices in the region. And they are a staunch ally of ours.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/pay-no-mind-to-the-fake-ruckus-about-a-phony-israel-anti-boycott-law

Take a moment to read the actual bill here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720

TMSH,
While you make some thoughtful points, I've already e-mailed my reps with an opposition statement.

Not because I'm "aligning" with anyone.
Simply because the bill (yes, I read the actual bill) imposes serious financial and criminal penalties in the US for exercising free speech.

That's a road I don't want us going down. Not even a step. The object of the "protections" is irrelevant.

And just so you know...I voiced similar opposition to "hate speech" bills (mostly against gays/minorities), including two in my state.