(February 2, 2017 at 9:05 am)paulpablo Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 12:07 am)Tres Leches Wrote: Milo is probably getting off on the protests here in the Golden State. He gets to make himself out to be a martyr for free speech and loads of free publicity.
Of course, he can say whatever he wants (with limits on libel, slander and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) but he's not entitled to be protected from any backlash on what he says. If he doesn't like what others have to say in response, he should stay home.

He obviously is entitled to be protected from backlash on what he says if the backlash involves threats of violence or actual violence.

The police presence was there purely to deal with the backlash of how these people reacted to Milo being there to speak.  If they're reacting violently to that in an effort to shut down his freedom of speech then he definitely does have a right to be protected from that violence.

Milo will be loving this, and the free publicity.  I agree with that.  Pretty much a win win situation for him.

Nope no protection if he doesn't wanna get hurt he should shut the hell up .freedom of speech means baring the  results of your speech even violence

As for milo the only reason he does speak is to cause shit like this then play the victim when the logical outcome occurs

Hell if the anarchists were not to blame I wouldn't put it past milo to hire a bunch of thugs to stir up this riot so he could play the victim

As for publicity anyone who uses something like this to sell a book is scum

(February 2, 2017 at 1:37 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 9:05 am)paulpablo Wrote: He obviously is entitled to be protected from backlash on what he says if the backlash involves threats of violence or actual violence.

The police presence was there purely to deal with the backlash of how these people reacted to Milo being there to speak.  If they're reacting violently to that in an effort to shut down his freedom of speech then he definitely does have a right to be protected from that violence.

Milo will be loving this, and the free publicity.  I agree with that.  Pretty much a win win situation for him.

Nope no protection if he doesn't wanna get hurt he should shut the hell up .freedom of speech means baring the  results of your speech even violence

As for milo the only reason he does speak is to cause shit like this then play the victim when the logical outcome occurs

Hell if the anarchists were not to blame I wouldn't put it past milo to hire a bunch of thugs to stir this riot so he could play the victim

Bolded mine.  Uh...no.  Regardless of how vile Milo's speeches are, unless he's inciting violence against or threatening someone, it's legal.  The ones that are being violent in response to speech are the ones that should be arrested.  However shitty Milo's views are, and however trolly he expresses them, he is (and should be) protected from violence.

Imagine if someone vocally criticized Jesus in some backwater Alabama town, and got punched in the mouth for it.  Do they not deserve protection from that?  Or is that just another "result of their speech?"

"If he didn't want to get hurt he should shut the hell up" is an extremely reckless and dangerous viewpoint to hold.

(February 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:37 pm)Orochi Wrote: Nope no protection if he doesn't wanna get hurt he should shut the hell up .freedom of speech means baring the  results of your speech even violence

As for milo the only reason he does speak is to cause shit like this then play the victim when the logical outcome occurs

Hell if the anarchists were not to blame I wouldn't put it past milo to hire a bunch of thugs to stir this riot so he could play the victim

Bolded mine.  Uh...no.  Regardless of how vile Milo's speeches are, unless he's inciting violence against or threatening someone, it's legal.  The ones that are being violent in response to speech are the ones that should be arrested.  However shitty Milo's views are, and however trolly he expresses them, he is (and should be) protected from violence.

Imagine if someone vocally criticized Jesus in some backwater Alabama town, and got punched in the mouth for it.  Do they not deserve protection from that?  Or is that just another "result of their speech?"

"If he didn't want to get hurt he should shut the hell up" is an extremely reckless and dangerous viewpoint to hold.

Yup it is just a result of free speech free speech comes with responsibility it's not a freebie and those without conviction should shut up

(February 2, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Bolded mine.  Uh...no.  Regardless of how vile Milo's speeches are, unless he's inciting violence against or threatening someone, it's legal.  The ones that are being violent in response to speech are the ones that should be arrested.  However shitty Milo's views are, and however trolly he expresses them, he is (and should be) protected from violence.

Imagine if someone vocally criticized Jesus in some backwater Alabama town, and got punched in the mouth for it.  Do they not deserve protection from that?  Or is that just another "result of their speech?"

"If he didn't want to get hurt he should shut the hell up" is an extremely reckless and dangerous viewpoint to hold.

Yup it is just a result of free speech free speech comes with responsibility it's not a freebie and those without conviction should shut up

...Are you saying that it's okay to respond with violence to speech that upsets you?

(February 2, 2017 at 1:48 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:48 pm)Orochi Wrote: Yup it is just a result of free speech free speech comes with responsibility it's not a freebie and those without conviction should shut up

...Are you saying that it's okay to respond with violence to speech that upsets you?

Nope i'm saying if you stir shit up except don't cry when comes back to bite you in the ass

If I show up in the middle of Harlem in Klan outfit with sign saying all ni%%gers are retarded and should not  be in America I have business complaining if I get my ass kicked I provoked it if i'm not willing to bear that I should stay home

(February 2, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:48 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: ...Are you saying that it's okay to respond with violence to speech that upsets you?

Nope i'm saying if you stir shit up except don't cry when comes back to bite you in the ass

If I show up in the middle of Harlem in Klan outfit with sign saying all ni%%gers are retarded and should not  be in America I have business complaining if I get my ass kicked I provoked it if i'm not willing to bear that I should stay home

Should those that assault you for saying that be arrested?  If so...then the law is protecting you.  Just like it protects Milo.

Would you advocate that people respond violently to Milo? Would you condemn them?

(February 2, 2017 at 1:55 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:53 pm)Orochi Wrote: Nope i'm saying if you stir shit up except don't cry when comes back to bite you in the ass

If I show up in the middle of Harlem in Klan outfit with sign saying all ni%%gers are retarded and should not  be in America I have business complaining if I get my ass kicked I provoked it if i'm not willing to bear that I should stay home

Should those that assault you be arrested?  If so...then the law is protecting you.  Just like it protects Milo.

Nope waste of police time I provoked this on purpose to piss people off

(February 2, 2017 at 1:57 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:55 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Should those that assault you be arrested?  If so...then the law is protecting you.  Just like it protects Milo.

Nope waste of police time I provoked this on purpose to piss people off

So..people can react violently to speech that upsets them, and they shouldn't be arrested for it.  That's what you're supporting.

(February 2, 2017 at 2:02 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 1:57 pm)Orochi Wrote: Nope waste of police time I provoked this on purpose to piss people off

So..people can react violently to speech that upsets them, and they shouldn't be arrested for it.  That's what you're supporting.

Yup and I hold myself to that same standard if you going to go around spewing bile to piss people off and stir up anger by being as vile as possible. Then don't be surprised if it comes back to bit you. what goes around comes around. Those who are not willing to endure all for there beliefs clearly have none. Milo issue is he thinks he entitled to a soap box and whines when ones not provided so he can make an ass of himself and waste peoples time.

---

That is free speech fundamentalism

(February 2, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(February 2, 2017 at 2:02 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: So..people can react violently to speech that upsets them, and they shouldn't be arrested for it.  That's what you're supporting.

Yup and I hold myself to that same standard if you going to go around spewing bile to piss people off and stir up anger by being as vile as possible. Then don't be surprised if it comes back to bit you. what goes around comes around. Those who are not willing to endure all for there beliefs clearly have none. Milo issue is he thinks he entitled to a soap box and whines when ones not provided so he can make an ass of himself and waste peoples time.

---

That is free speech fundamentalism

No.  That's not free speech fundamentalism, that's ludicrous and dangerous.  I really don't know how to respond to this.

You're saying:  People who respond violently to speech that upsets them shouldn't be arrested, and it's the fault of the one who expressed the speech.  They should've simply kept their mouth shut if they didn't want to be assaulted.

That's the opposite of the principle of free speech.  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills; I can't be the only one here who thinks that's a horrible viewpoint to hold.