Berkeley Is Being Tested on 2 Fronts: Free Speech and Safety

BERKELEY, Calif. — In explaining why it had canceled a speech by Ann Coulter scheduled for next week, the University of California, Berkeley, said that it had “very specific intelligence” that Ms. Coulter might be in “grave danger.”

To Ms. Coulter and her supporters, it was another example of Berkeley showing intolerance of any opinions other than the liberal ones it is famous for. But the university that championed free expression in the 1960s has become known, in the polarizing first months of the Trump presidency, as something more: a meeting ground for those wanting to express themselves with wooden clubs and fists.

Days after fights broke out between anarchists and right-wing groups near campus, and a couple of months after masked protesters smashed windows and set fires to stop a speech by the incendiary right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos, the police are preparing for a possible replay if Ms. Coulter follows through on her vow to show up anyway on Thursday.

“The city and campus have become the stage on which the national political tensions are playing out,” said Dan Mogulof, a spokesman for the university. “Coming here, they know they will be able to find an opponent pretty easily.”

Berkeley now finds itself bracing, essentially, for two battles.

One is with Ms. Coulter and the groups bringing her to campus, the Young America’s Foundation and the university’s College Republicans. The groups have threatened to sue the university, saying its offer to allow Ms. Coulter to speak the next week, and in the early afternoon, when fewer students will be around to hear her, “violate fundamental principles of free speech, equal protection and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

Continue reading the main story

The other is a potential physical confrontation. Leftist activists on and off campus, including a loosely organized group calling itself Antifa, for “anti-fascist,” are threatening to do anything they can to block Ms. Coulter from speaking. Right-wing supporters are gathering support on Facebook, making plans to come to the campus to defend her.

“Our basic thing is to send a loud and clear message that this is not acceptable on our campus,” said Hoku Jeffrey, a Berkeley graduate and national organizer for By Any Means Necessary, a group that took part in previous demonstrations that turned violent. “We will not tolerate anti-immigrant bigotry or bigotry of any kind, which is the only thing she’s here to do.”

On Sean Hannity’s show on Thursday on Fox News, Ms. Coulter, never one to let a pot go unstirred, mocked her liberal protesters as “beta males” engaging in “Rodney King riots.” And Mr. Yiannopoulos, seizing the moment, said Friday on Facebook that he would hold a “Milo’s Free Speech Week” on campus this year — “whether university administrators and violent far-left antifa thugs like it or not.”

Meanwhile, Johnny Benitez of Orange County, in Southern California, said he was organizing a group of conservatives to show up in Berkeley. He was part of a group that showed up last weekend for demonstrations that ultimately led to 20 arrests.

“I don’t really have a connection to Berkeley,” said Mr. Benitez, 28. “The reason we go there is to support people who feel that their First Amendment rights are being infringed, our fellow conservatives in the city of Berkeley. The people I’m mostly organizing are coming from six hours away.”

Mr. Benitez said that his group would arrive unarmed, as they did last weekend. But in recent confrontations, demonstrators have turned rocks, fireworks and police barricades into weapons — even using a bike lock to wallop someone in the head.

“The way that they assemble, the tactics that they used, it has not been seen in this region,” said Capt. Alex Yao, the acting chief of the university police force, at a briefing on Thursday.

Some colleges and universities, like Berkeley, have asked that speakers likely to draw protests appear in the afternoon, when crowds are more controllable than in the evening. Mr. Mogulof, the university spokesman, said Friday that the university was within its rights in setting a day, time and venue that would be “safe for participants.”

Cleaning up after a violent demonstration forced the cancellation of a speech by the right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos in February. Credit Jim Wilson/The New York Times
“We are confident that we are on very solid legal grounds,” Mr. Mogulof said in an email. “The constitution permits the university to take such steps to protect public safety while facilitating expressive activities, and that is exactly what we are doing.”

Peaceful activism remains a hallmark of the university. On Thursday, students representing the International Socialist Organization handed out fliers for May Day demonstrations amid a half-dozen other booths by organizations trying to lure students to support their causes.

At the same time, Berkeley’s reputation as a campus fully engaged in the divisive politics of the day is in some ways at odds with the desire of many students to study, enjoy college life and graduate from one of the country’s premier public universities.

The news and stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state), delivered weekday mornings.

On Thursday, as university officials strategized on how to handle Ms. Coulter’s demands, thousands of students lounged on a lawn outside a library building and smoked pot in celebration of April 20, a kind of national holiday for marijuana lovers.

“Ann Coulter? What are you talking about?” a woman selling doughnuts as a fund-raiser for her sorority told a reporter. “I don’t know about that at all.”

Isaac Meyer, a nuclear engineering student from Bakersfield, Calif., said that while he knew the bare outlines of the Coulter controversy, “most people don’t have the mental energy to be upset about it.”

Mr. Meyer, a senior, said that he had taken part in Black Lives Matter protests and that many students attended a women’s march on Jan. 21. But he said he had no interest in attending the recent protests that turned violent.

“Most of the people I know, when we find out about a protest like that, we think, ‘Oh, well, we can’t walk to that part of campus today,’” he said.

Veterans of the Free Speech Movement of the ’60s, a seminal moment in the university’s history, are disheartened that Berkeley is now associated with violence and blocking speech instead of promoting it.

“I don’t think Ann Coulter has anything useful to say, but it was unconstitutional for the university to bar her from speaking,” said Lynne Hollander Savio, who took part in the movement and is the widow of Mario Savio, its leading spokesman.

Ms. Savio sees a clear generational divide. Free speech, she said, was more of an absolute for her husband, who is commemorated outside Sproul Hall at the heart of the campus by the officially designated Mario Savio Steps.

“Mario took a principled position — it was free speech for all,” she said. “I think free speech has slipped as a value.”

Or rather, it has been gleefully co-opted by some on the right. On his Facebook post announcing his plans for a weeklong visit to Berkeley, Mr. Yiannopoulos said that each day would be “dedicated to a different enemy of free speech, including feminism, Black Lives Matter and Islam.”

He also wrote that he would give a prize to whoever has done the “most to protect free expression at UC Berkeley and its surrounding area.”

He said it would be called the Mario Savio Award.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/berkeley-ann-coulter-speech.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0



The student left wing of today, do not hold the same liberal values of the left wing of the past.
In fact in many cases they conflict with Liberal values and are acting like Fascists with violence towards those they disagree with on views. What they are doing by such acts, is knowingly justify the use of violence against those proclaimed to speak hateful views. Which then opens the door up to countless hate crimes against people for their beliefs. You don't champion the cause of Liberalism by using hate and worse violence, in the attempt to silence people who's views you are in conflict with, but by countering with reason. To have people there to challenge the speakers, that they disagree with you.

Umm der i have said this Before the NEW LEFT is not soft like the old Left.

You can not debate stupidity, free speech has become Freedom to spread falsehood.

The Conservative right would destroy the planet and enslave the peoples for the profit of a few. It is Unmoral to not fight it by any means necessary.
In the past it was seen as moral to go a fight communists with Violence and before that Fascists THIS is just the next step in political evolution, to destroy the conservative capitalist.

veya_victaous wrote:Umm der i have said this Before the NEW LEFT is not soft like the old Left.

You can not debate stupidity, free speech has become Freedom to spread falsehood.

The Conservative right would destroy the planet and enslave the peoples for the profit of a few. It is Unmoral to not fight it by any means necessary.
In the past it was seen as moral to go a fight communists with Violence and before that Fascists THIS is just the next step in political evolution, to destroy the conservative capitalist.

So based on your flawed methodology. Its perfectly acceptable to use violence against any Mosques, as they preach hatred against homosexuality?

Just because you do not agree with something, does not mean you can impose your views with violence.

what do you think bombing ISIS is?
enforcing our opinion through violence.

And prejudice is bad, but Destroying the world is worse, enslaving your own citizens is worse.

Also not all mosques do anymore so than all churches do ... and neither are political institutions
Can you see the common thread between those that we have utilized violence against before?
All Political institutions, even ISIS is the attempted political institution of the Islamic homophobia.

veya_victaous wrote:what do you think bombing ISIS is?
enforcing our opinion through violence.

And prejudice is bad, but Destroying the world is worse, enslaving your own citizens is worse.

Also not all mosques do anymore so than all churches do ... and neither are political institutions
Can you see the common thread between those that we have utilized violence against before?
All Political institutions, even ISIS is the attempted political institution of the Islamic homophobia.

Bombing of ISIS is the engagement of a war, where ISIS is the aggressor, denying the human rights of others.

The point is your methodology allows for violence to organisations and people that openly are hateful towards others.

That can even include left wing organisations that spout hate against Zionists.

Your view would even open up "Black Lives Matters" to have violence used against their marches, because some of their members have called for violence against whites.

The list is endless that you have opened up the door to, in allowing for the use of violence against beliefs.

You are saying you are against Free speech and to use violence against Free speech if you deem it hateful.

I never said shit about speech being hateful that is your thing
I said it about being a FALSEHOOD.

ISIS is the aggressor in the middle east but we bombed them before they had a successful terrorist action in the west. therefore we are the aggressor to them. We RIGTHFULLY utilize violence against the establishment of their political institution.
Zionism is also based on Falsehoods so
And the Western corporation deny human rights across 3 continents have so for a lot longer than ISIS have been around so based on your justification for Bombing ISIS, Apple should also be bombed? Monsanto, Blow them up?

BLM is based on a real statistically backed evidence. Although some take it too far by suggesting random whites, as opposed to those that practice racist profiling in their decision matrix of who to shoot.

The above is just gibberish and now you are making excuses for ISIS and comparable to violence at speeches.

Its about as dumb as it gets

You also think ISIS have a defense based off no attack by the West, but by them actually attacking people in Syria and then later Iraq. So its good to understand you defend ISIS, as we always suspected you are a Muslim extremism or at worst a sympathizer. But you offer no evidence for your claim and even worse use ISIS to something rhe debate is not even about.


So to you if something is based on falsehoods and preaches hate, like say the BDS, or any Palestinian support group, then to you its acceptable again to kick the shit out of them.

You see, you continue to make your argument worse and to claim the self determination of the Jews is a falsehood, wanting a Jewish home is a falsehood, just sums up everything that is hateful about you. Leaving you also open to violence against you, based on your poor methodology.

BLM has people calling for violence, so again you would make it acceptable based on your dumb beliefs, to have violence against them.

At no point have you addressed the issue, where you think its acceptable to use violence against groups based on perceived hateful beliefs they have.

The list is endless that you have opened up the door to, in allowing for the use of violence against beliefs.

You are saying you are against Free speech and to use violence against Free speech if you deem it hateful.

You are as black and white as Tommy.

You feel the need to be on the good guys and thus devoid of any blame
I hate to tell you all mankind has blame on them.
None is perfect an no group is truly good since good is merely a perspective,

we are but the violent hairless apes.
Thus we (you) justify epic violence against one group but can not accept that others may by the same justify violence against other groups.

AND Violence against willful idiocy. I care not if it is hateful or not. I am not anti homophobia because it is hateful, but because it is illogical. Again IT IS YOU that preach hate and violence against those that preach hate and violence... the great hypocrisy of the violent hairless ape trying to deny his evolution.

veya_victaous wrote:You are as black and white as Tommy.

You feel the need to be on the good guys and thus devoid of any blame
I hate to tell you all mankind has blame on them.
None is perfect an no group is truly good since good is merely a perspective,

we are but the violent hairless apes.
Thus we (you) justify epic violence against one group but can not accept that others may by the same justify violence against other groups.

AND Violence against willful idiocy. I care not if it is hateful or not. I am not anti homophobia because it is hateful, but because it is illogical. Again IT IS YOU that preach hate and violence against those that preach hate and violence... the great hypocrisy of the violent hairless ape trying to deny his evolution.

1) Misdirection again

2) More gibberish as you need to define who is good and bad. Clearly using violence against Free Speech is bad, ruling yourself out of the equation

3) Poor answer, as some of these apes are not violent. So now even further embarrassing you try to use evolution as your excuse to violence against Free Speech. So that does not justify violence, it justifies why you are an idiot

4) So violence is again acceptable against, based on the willful idiocy you have posted above.

So to sum up you advocate violence against free speech when its hateful, which includes kicking the crap out of a regressive like yourself. I dont preach violence against anyone for their beliefs. So again you lie to try to cover for your absurd methodology that thinks its okay to use violence against free speech

You have just made yourself look as dumb as Tommy here

The list is endless that you have opened up the door to, in allowing for the use of violence against beliefs.

You are saying you are against Free speech and to use violence against Free speech if you deem it hateful.


Try again

No If I deem it Stupid

YOU are to one that deems it acceptable if hateful OR Don't you approve of violence against ISIS?

And you are to one Avoiding the questions and posting gibberish
Answer the questions

veya_victaous wrote:No If I deem it Stupid

YOU are to one that deems it acceptable if hateful OR Don't you approve of violence against ISIS?

And you are to one Avoiding the questions and posting gibberish
Answer the questions

Priceless

Its you that made it acceptable to use violence against Free Speech

Its you that opened the door to this and then had you argue in defense of this through the most ridiculous comparisons, like ISIS where you did wrongly defend ISIS

To then say you are the standard based on what is stupid is also a flawed method

The facts are this, by you backing violence against Free Speech, is as bad as Islamists you commit to riots and murder, through supposed insults to Islam


That is what you make yourself comparable to

what have i always said about Muslims

THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE

it is the way people work

it is you promoting a hate-less fantasy that doesn't exist, when it pretends to exist it still hates those that are not part of it.

If you back universal Free speech than why not ISIS?
you want to draw a line but are unwilling to accept that Berkeley has drawn a line and some of your beloved are on the wrong side of it

veya_victaous wrote:what have i always said about Muslims

THEY ARE JUST PEOPLE

it is the way people work

it is you promoting a hate-less fantasy that doesn't exist, when it pretends to exist it still hates those that are not part of it.

If you back universal Free speech than why not ISIS?
you want to draw a line but are unwilling to accept that Berkeley has drawn a line and some of your beloved are on the wrong side of it

Religiously inspired people through absolute morals

I am not against the Free Speech of anyone, which includes ISIS< I am against them enforcing their views on people. Already we allow Islamists to promote their hate in the west, its about challenging that hate, with reason

Understand the difference dummy?

So again I show why you back violence because you simple do not like what someone says

That makes you uncivilized and a Philistine.