By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hiku said:
eva01beserk said:

How about when ben shapiro went to give a speech at Berkeley and there where riots and he got shut down. Riots by the liberals, the suposed "anti nazi anti hate group progressives".  

University said no at first cuz of the danger and their security could not handle it. He then had to pay for separate security then the university made some other excuse and still got denied.

What this executive order is aiming for is for people like ben shapiro to speak freely and if people plan on rioting or anything of the sort, the university must put its effort in diffusing the violence and preventing it from happening, not preventing the speaker from coming. 

Well, I was asking the person in question because I'm curious about how university attendants feel this impacts them personally.

As for your example, I don't know enough about the situation to assess whether Berkeley should have him speak or not.
But a quick google search shows me he did speak at Berkeley in Sep 2017.

But regardless, a university, like any other similar institution, should be able to decide whether or not it is in their best interest to have any particular person speak at their grounds. That can include things like cost, and whether or not most of their audience would be interested in it in the first place.
Threats of violence should never be tolerated though, and I doubt they ever were. But if there is a perceived risk that required multi million dollar investments, then it would not be out of the ordinary for someone to pass on that for something closer to their intended budget.

As for 'anti hate groups', I believe you're referring anti hate in regards to discrimination, bigotry, etc.
They in turn may very well hate people who hate someone because of the color of their skin. But the difference is, they have a good reason.

Already corrected that I got the speaker wrong, it was milo. 

Universitys can make invitations and cancel them at any point sure. They can offer money to who they like to speak and offer nothing to thouse they deemed hateful. I got no problems with that. But if the university does not incetivice anybody to come and they say thats ok Ill do it for free, I dont even need a stage or anything and you still have a problem and say completly ban the person, then that is just insane. 

And no. It should not require a majority vote. If 100 out off 20000 want to invite a certain person, if they can afford it then just let them.

I dont really mind hate. Im hispanic living in a 99% white state. If people hate me I could not care less. As long as they dont do anything to me they can say what they want. This is the problem I have with what you say. even if I hated someone who hates me, that still gives me no wright to attack them if they have done nothing to me yet. Fighting back in self defense I got no problem with. But the riots i have seen, the destruction, the people getting hurt by antifa and other extremist just because someone is talking and they dont like it is not acceptable. Thats child like behavior. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.