RE: Milo Yiannopoulos; the man twitter banned got a book deal. Currently #2 on Amazon.
February 2, 2017 at 1:42 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2017 at 1:43 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
(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.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson