Respectfully, that moment is long past. Look at the team in the White House.
Many, including President Donald Trumpspoke out about these events, but with apparently little understanding of what actually occurred or all that the campus did to try and protect speech. As university administrators and professors who teach and write about First Amendment law, we see what happened at Berkeley as enormously important in our current debate over free speech.
The event has triggered intense debates about the scope and limits of free speech. However, to understand who did the right thing and who did the wrong thing, you must also understand a few basic First Amendment principles.
Basic free speech principles First, by law campuses must allow all views and ideas to be expressed, no matter how offensive.
Above all, the First Amendment means that the government cannot prevent or punish speech based on the viewpoint expressed. This also is a crucial aspect of academic freedom.
Although hate speech unquestionably causes harms, it nonetheless is expression that is covered by the First Amendment. We therefore strongly disagree with those who say that campus officials at Berkeley could keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his hateful and offensive message.
Campus officials at Berkeley recognized that Yiannopoulos had a First Amendment right to speak. Second, campuses must do all they can to ensure that audience reactions against a speaker are not allowed to silence the speaker.
Free speech can be undermined, not only by official censorship and punishment, but also by individuals who seek to disrupt or shut down others when they attempt to exercise their rights. Campus officials have a duty to protect the free speech rights of protesters, but they must also protect speakers and prevent heckling.
Apparently, this, too, occurred at Berkeley. Staff members spent weeks planning extensive security arrangements, including bringing in dozens of police officers from nine other UC campuses.
This should be a last resort taken only if there is no other way to prevent a serious imminent threat to public safety. This appears to be exactly what occurred at Berkeley, where the riotous demonstrators could not be controlled.
In such cases, authorities should do all they can, after the fact, to identify and punish those who used violence and violated the law, and should assess how different security arrangements might be more effective in preventing future disruptions. Campus officials should also do what they can to reschedule the speaker for another time.
Misguided criticism of Berkeley officials A number of commentators were outraged that Yiannopoulos was not able to speak, and claimed that free speech was under attack at Berkeley. But the campus itself consistently reaffirmed his right to speak, resisted calls to cancel the event and arranged for extraordinary security at great expense.
The vast majority of the demonstrators were also merely exercising their free speech rights. Thus, the campus efforts were consistent with free speech principles.
If there is blame to be assigned it should focus on the small number of outsiders who were intent on using violent and unlawful means to disrupt the event.
Nonetheless, President Trump tweeted after the event that federal funds might be withheld from Berkeley unless it allowed freedom of speech. Putting aside that he lacks the legal authority to do this, Trump ignored the fact that freedom of speech never is absolute. Campuses can punish speech that constitutes true threats or harassment or incitement of illegal activity.
Campuses also need to act to protect the safety and welfare of all on campus. Campus officials at Berkeley faced an enormously difficult situation. They were not insensitive to speech and they did not deserve the disapproval of the president.
The campus did not keep Yiannopoulos from speaking because of his views, but because public safety at the time necessitated it.Meanwhile, there have been a lot of pious pronouncements from liberals and reformist leftists about “freedom of speech” for a racist provocateur like Milo Yiannopoulos.
New York Times columnists like Frank Bruni and Charles Blow criticize demonstrators as being intolerant of ideas different from their own. Billed as a protest against what organisers see as the subversion of free speech that has infiltrated British society in recent years, the 'Day for Freedom' march from speaker's corner in Hyde Park to Whitehall encompassed groups such as the Football Lads Alliance and the Veterans Against Terrorism alongside social media provocateurs such as Milo Yiannopoulos.
Milo Yiannopoulos (/ j Feminism, freedom of speech and the "No Platform" policy. The No Platform policy of the UK's National Union of Students is intended to protect campuses from "individuals or members of organisations or groups identified by the Democratic Procedures Committee as holding racist or fascist views".
Freedom of speech There must be free speech, even for Milo Yiannopoulos Matthew d'Ancona. Despise the alt-right controversialist all you like, but banning him is doing the work of the far right. Milo Yiannopoulos is too real for Democrat Liberals and their safe spaces, because he tells the trut h and they can't handle it.
It is beautiful how Milo has dismantled the left.
It is beautiful how Milo has dismantled the left/5(54). On the first of February, Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to be giving a planned speech at the University of California. This speech was cancelled, due to the protesters setting fires, throwing objects, and becoming violent.