Milo Yiannopoulos announces intent to reschedule campus talk

Photo Mike Allen

Related Posts

Milo Yiannopoulos announced Saturday that he still intends to make an appearance at UC Berkeley even though his event Wednesday was canceled by UCPD.

Yiannopoulos’ speech, initially set to occur 8:00 p.m. Wednesday, was canceled about 6:00 p.m. by UCPD after violence broke out in opposition to the event. In a Facebook post Saturday, Yiannopoulos said he plans to come back to campus within the coming months to give the talk as originally scheduled.

“I’m planning to return to Berkeley to give the speech I was prevented from delivering. Hopefully within the next few months,” Yiannopoulos said in a Facebook post. “I’ll keep you posted.”

Yiannopoulos has not yet reached out to Berkeley College Republicans to discuss rescheduling the event, according to BCR treasurer David Craig. Craig said although he does not personally support Yiannopoulos, he is open to seeing the speaker return to campus.

“If it was safe for everyone, I’d like him to be able to give the speech he intended. Ticket holders did pay for tickets, and everyone went through a lot of planning,” Craig said. “It would be nice if everyone’s time and effort yielded something.”

UCPD arrested one suspect at the Wednesday night protests and an additional two suspects in an unrelated incident Thursday morning.

Cassandra Vogel is the university news editor. Contact her at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter at @cass_vogxz.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • BeautifulAmerica

    Are paid, violent agitators, employees of George Soros, really the same as SJWs?

  • C M

    Yiannopolus is not an Aryan name. Does this wanna be white boy realize that Hitler would have marched him into an oven.

  • g2reason

    The fascists were the ones assaulting people with metal poles, bricks, pepper spray ect….. All to stop a Gay Jew from speaking in an auditorium to paying participants.
    While these people were being assaulted, the so called “legitimate protesters” cheered and danced to music; the police watched; and no one was arrested. And it’s all on video for the world to see. – good job Berkeley.

    I’ll do everything I can to make sure that Berkeley loses federal funding of every type. 300+ million a year in federal research money for starters.

    PS – Ian Dabney Miller, is faculty at Berkeley; he bragged about assaulting people on Twitter, even posted pictures of the victims.Just google his name for evidence, it’s all over the internet…. bet, the administration does nothing. Because they secretly (or not so much) support Blackshirt tactics.

  • SmokyBlue

    What’s interesting about all of these discussions is that these protesters think they are performing some kind of superbrave act, but, in fact, they are just conformists to the prevailing crowd sentiment–which actually makes them cowards participating in mob rule. Now, a person with a conservative opinion (not talking about bigots, but those with genuine conservative economic and political beliefs) going against the crowd would definitely be Courageous.

  • luckless pedestrian

    Baby Goebbels, Sharing the hate.

  • woodrose

    Back in the day, young women would be so overcome by the wonder of The Beatles, it was impossible to hear them play music live for all the ecstatic screaming. The group shortly stopped having live concerts — they literally couldn’t hear themselves playing.

    If Milo does return, maybe students could get tickets to the event and pretend to be Milo groupies, with I heart Milo signs and banners, and spend the entire time of Milo’s talk screeching and bouncing and waving signs and kerchiefs in love and joy. Drown out his odious performance art with counter performance art.

    • StanFromSomewhere

      How about if they actually LISTEN to what he says and THEN make up their OWN minds as to whether Milo is a “fascist” or not? Those responsible for shutting Milo down clearly aren’t honest enough to admit what really happened, so what makes anyone believe they were even remotely honest about their description of him in the first place?

      • SmokyBlue

        Amen.

  • thompson_richard

    A powerful American cardinal who is engaged in a bitter feud with Pope
    Francis has met Matteo Salvini, the right-wing Italian nationalist who is
    a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and has praised Benito Mussolini.

    • StanFromSomewhere

      Nothing like posting something completely irrelevant when you have nothing of substance to offer to the discussion,

      • thompson_richard

        Well, you’re right,Stanf-ord, I accept your criticism.

    • Nunya Beeswax

      Guilt by association? Seriously?

      Like Trump has control over who likes him. Of course, Trump might have fascist sympathies, but the fact that a supporter of fascism is a fan of his doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

    • gekkobear

      So we’re playing “seven degrees of linked to fascism” now?
      Crap, my mom’s hairdresser’s boyfriend’s cousin is a fascist supporter; clearly I’m guilty too! I mean that’s only FOUR links away from me.

      Is there a left-wing thought police squad who will come and let me know when it’s my time? Will I know them by the brown shirts they wear?

      Oh, that’s silly… Yes, I agree.
      Which makes me wonder why you posted your odd little rant.

      • thompson_richard

        In my pre-Cal days at Santa Monica High School– from which MILO, SO MUCH LATER – ALSO GRADUATED ~ the featured speaker at our senior assemblies– just prior to FSM –was a Malay exchange student named Irwin Somogi. He was an devout anti-communist. Supposedly “one of us.” In retrospect, I realize that he was planted. He went on – and on and on – about the threat of communism in Southeast Asia. This came to be encapsulated in the domino theory. The best treatment of the WWII Jews and the Vatican — is a controversial 1999 film which won three Golden Globes, starring William Hurt, Ralph Fiennes and Rosemary Harris. That film’s title is Sunshine. It tells the story of three generations of wealthy European Jews — in the third – and alas, last – generation a superb fencer converts to Christianity to advance his career as an Olympic gold medal winner. BUT but, where was I, HE is CAUGHT UP in the Holocaust. The Deputy – a controversial 1963 play by Rolf Hochhuth (originally written in German) is a play which I read for Prof. D.E.R. George’s class German (39D). It portrays Pope Pius XII as having “failed to act.” That play ends with a quotation from a German ambassador to the Vatican, Herr Weizsäcker: “Since further action on the Jewish problem is probably not to be expected here in Rome, it may be assumed that this question, so troublesome to German-Vatican relations, has been disposed of.” Go Bears! P.S. we have to quit meeting like this. Walk right on by — meet me in the alley.

  • Dave Doleshal

    I believe the UCB administration did the right thing by allowing Milo to speak on campus last week, and if Milo wants to come back, we should encourage him to do so. The conservative student groups who invited Milo to speak on the campus were also within their rights to do so. Milo, in coming to the campus also
    was within his rights to speak and express his point of view on the campus (without threats to his safety).

    However, all of the various student groups and others who protested and expressed displeasure, disagreement with, and contempt for Milo’s anticipated presentation were also well within their rights to do so. By gathering outside the theater, protesting, chanting anti-Milo sentiments, they were also well within their rights. However, I believe their chants of “shut it down” – meaning to prevent Milo from saying his piece – were off target. Their chants should have simply been expressions of disagreement with and criticisms of Milo’s ideas – not a refusal to let Milo express his opinions.

    To deny Milo and his allies the right to express their opinions seems to me to be a clear attack on the
    principle of Freedom of speech (as he and his sympathizers claim). I definitely do NOT sympathize with any of Milo’s opinions, but the principle of Freedom of Speech applies to everyone equally – not just to
    the people I happen to agree with. Once we affirm the right of “society” (or any subsection of society) to deny expression of ideas they dislike, disagree with, or are uncomfortable with, then we have
    destroyed the principle of free speech. Thus I believe Milo, fascists, NAZIs, the KKK, Religious fundamentalists and other extreme “conservatives” DO have a right to make their case without threat of violence or suppression.

    However, that being said, two other principles also apply. The first is that this means that ALL other people with unpopular perspectives ALSO deserve the right to fair hearing – not just ultra-conservatives. That means extreme leftists, anarchists, communists, atheists, and people who think religious fundamentalism is a form of mental illness should also get their innings. Will the conservatives allow Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Scientologists, atheists, pagans, flying saucer cults, skeptics, Satan worshipers and people who think all forms of Christianity are delusional speak at Christian religious schools? I believe they should.

    The other principle is all opinions, whether popular or unpopular, are to be fully subjected to criticism, analysis, debunking, refutation, debate and skepticism. Does the content of Milo’s presentation conflict with the facts, contain logical inconsistencies, flawed arguments, delusions, misinformation, irresponsible claims, false and misleading statements, unwarranted accusations, propaganda, and/or politically-motivated lies? If so, all these issues must be fully addressed, and if Milo’s words involve such things, other people have the right (if not the obligation) to publicly point this out.

    Furthermore, as the saying goes, freedom of speech does not include the right to yell “fire” in a crowded
    theater. Thus, there are some limitations on freedom of speech that we are all subject to. These rules apply equally to all perspectives -including Milo’s. There are rules and laws against hate speech,
    intimidation, bullying, slander, libel, fraud, defamation of character, false advertizing, verbal abuse, issuing of threats, provocation of fights, advocating harm and/or violence against groups or individuals,
    incitement to riot, etc. Near as I can tell, a high percentage of the content of Milo’s proposed presentation falls within one (or more) of these categories. To the extent that it does, this would therefore
    make him vulnerable to civil action and/or criminal prosecution. So I say we bring Milo back to Berkeley – let him have his say. Let him make his case. Let him exercise his freedom of speech along with
    everyone else. But if he crosses the line on any of these matters, he too must face the consequences of what he does and says – just like the rest of us.

    • Michael Cosby

      Yeah, I think we can just shut the comments section down now because nothing is gonna be as poignant as this.

      • SmokyBlue

        Yes, the above author’s comments are right on point. NO ONE should be excluded from the right to speak, within narrow limitations, and, consequently no speaker should have to fear for his or her life or risk the shutting down of a speech by common hooligans. The speaker should be protected in that right, if necessary (which unfortunately is more often the case in the ridiculous environment in which we live today).

      • SmokyBlue

        I would add one other qualifying comment. Why the necessity to demonstrate to begin with? Why not just go inside, sit, and LISTEN and then make your own judgment. No need for these endless demonstrations. Whatever happened to civil discourse and debate?

        • Dave Doleshal

          Regarding the practical value of such demonstrations, I must admit I often find myself questioning this myself. I don’t deny that everyone has the right to participate in them. I suppose they do sometimes serve to attract attention to important things that are being ignored. While I do not completely discount the importance of demonstrations under certain circumstances, I have my doubts about what they actually accomplish over the long haul in most cases. In this case in particular, what of value exactly did the “progressives” accomplish with this demonstration? Even if it had never turned violent, what specifically would have been accomplished by it? Was it something that might have been accomplished in some other way? I don’t say I am sure about this, (because I’m not). I’m just asking.

          • (Because I can’t seem to reply to your earlier post, I’ll do so here):

            Furthermore, as the saying goes, freedom of speech does not include the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.

            It’s a bit more than just a “saying”. It comes directly from Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919) which was a 1st Am. case in which Schenck, an anti-war protester, was arrested and convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act for distributing materials encouraging resistance to the draft.

            Justice Holmes wrote,

            The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

            The point is that 1st Am. limitations are only justified when the public interest significantly outweighs the private interest. Abrogations of the US Constitution should not otherwise be taken lightly, and even then I have my doubts about the Schenck decision.

            What public interest was served by silencing Milo?

            There are rules and laws against hate speech, intimidation, bullying, slander, libel, fraud, defamation of character, false advertizing, verbal abuse, issuing of threats, provocation of fights, advocating harm and/or violence against groups or individuals, incitement to riot

            With one exception, all of these share one thing in common: a strong public interest worth protecting and little to no private interest of importance that cannot be accomplished by other means.

            That one exception is hate speech laws. They abound in Europe, but they don’t really exist in the US except to the extent that “hate” speech (however that is defined) poses an imminent threat to public order and safety. See SCOTUS decisions Brandenburg v Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992); and Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011).

            In every one of those cases, the SCOTUS sided with Brandenburg (a KKK member), “R.A.V.” (a white supremacist and an underage individual, hence not named) and Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church, known for its homophobia and obnoxious picketing of the funerals of soldiers KIA etc. By any reasonable definition, these are all examples of “hate speech” and yet the Supreme Court found that they were constitutionally protected.

            The 1st Am. prohibits restrictions based on content. It permits restrictions only on modes of expression and then only when there is a strong public interest as per Schenck.

            The fundamental problem with “hate speech” laws is, who gets to define what is hateful and to the extent that there will always be some disagreement over that, how shall it be discerned which deserves state sanction?

            Near as I can tell, a high percentage of the content of Milo’s proposed presentation falls within one (or more) of these categories.

            Have you actually listened to any of Milo’s performances? They’re all on YouTube if you want to listen to any of them. Sure, some of what he says is disagreeable. Some of it is crude and uncivilised but I’ve never heard him say anything that I thought does or ought cross into criminal territory.

            Otherwise, I pretty much agree with most of the rest of what you said.

            To the extent that it does, this would therefore make him vulnerable to civil action and/or criminal prosecution.

            Forget civil action. Tort requires that the injured party show damages as a direct and inevitable consequence of the other party’s actions or speech (and I’m pretty sure nobody can do that).

            Under US jurisprudence, civil action requires that the litigant show standing, ie that they are directly involved in some way. You cannot bring litigation on behalf of another injured party not, at least, without their coöperation.

            So I say we bring Milo back to Berkeley – let him have his say. Let him make his case. Let him exercise his freedom of speech along with everyone else. But if he crosses the line on any of these matters – IF – he too must face the consequences of what he does and says – just like the rest of us.

            Right.

            Consequences… now that’s a sticky area because there’s nothing in the Constitution that proscribes consequences (other than by the state). What are reasonable consequences to disagreeable speech?

            Disinvitation? Sure. How about refusing to hire somebody with differing partisan political views? Or differing views on social politics? Dodgy and (IMO) unethical, but perhaps lawful depending on where you live and the subject. How about refusing to do business with on similar gounds? Not in OR or CO, and probably not in CA either.

            two other principles also apply. The first is that this means that ALL other people with unpopular perspectives ALSO deserve the right to fair hearing – not just ultra-conservatives. That means extreme leftists, anarchists, communists, atheists, and people who think religious fundamentalism is a form of mental illness should also get their innings.

            Absolutely, why not? Some of them might not garner large audiences, but that’s fine, too. Boycotting ideas or events is also protected under the 1st Am.

            The other principle is all opinions, whether popular or unpopular, are to be fully subjected to criticism, analysis, debunking, refutation, debate and skepticism.

            Absolutely. The solution to bad speech is always more speech, never censorship, no-platforming or silencing by any means.

            Bad ideas are readily and easily refuted by better ideas. Good ideas speak powerfully for themselves and require no artificial assistance.

          • Dave Doleshal

            I don’t know what the problem is what that earlier post that prevents it from displaying properly.

            Anyway… You seemed to be more up on the details of the legal aspects of these matters than I am, but I think we are in substantial agreement on this. I admit I have not yet closely examined the content of Milo’s previous speeches, so I cannot really say whether he violates one or more of these rules or laws. What I have seen of his speeches since my previous post, while offensive, rude, and distributing, seems not to go much beyond what is routinely said on “conservative” radio and television broadcasts that are accessible here in Northern California. All I can say is IF some of what he does and says does violate these existing rules and laws, then he can and should suffer the same consequences as anyone else would. The burden of proof that he does so would be on his critics.

            If, however, what he does and say does NOT rise to the level of violating these existing rules and laws, then there is no grounds for forbidding him to speak and/or depriving him of his freedom of speech. I say this not because I am sympathetic to any of Milo’s opinions, but because depriving ANY person of their freedom of speech sets a very bad precedent. Each time we do that to one person, it makes it easier to deprive the next person of their freedom of speech.

            If the only thing Milo is guilty of is being rude, offensive, obnoxious and disturbing to many people, I don’t see how that would be sufficient reason to censor him. The better response would have been for his opponents to set up their own talks and presentations in which they refuted what they feel are false, misleading and otherwise problematic claims.

          • I think we are in substantial agreement on [the legal aspects]

            It seems so.

            What I have seen of his speeches since my previous post, while offensive, rude, and distributing

            Vulgarity and offensiveness etc are frequently in the eye of the beholder. There is probably someone somewhere who could raise some sort of objection to all but the most anodyne propositions you might make, therefore—

            there is no grounds for forbidding him to speak and/or depriving him of his freedom of speech.

            Right.

            depriving ANY person of their freedom of speech sets a very bad precedent. Each time we do that to one person, it makes it easier to deprive the next person of their freedom of speech.

            Yup.

            I’m reminded of a short speech from the Star Trek: TNG episode “The Drumhead”, which was about due process and witch-hunts:

            [T]here are some words I’ve known since I was a schoolboy: “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.” Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie, as wisdom and warning. The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.

            Gene Roddenbery frequently used his science-fiction universe for the purposes of social commentary, TNG continued that tradition and these words are no less salient for all that they are fiction.

            The better response would have been for his opponents to set up their own talks and presentations in which they refuted what they feel are false, misleading and otherwise problematic claims.

            Yes, it would have, but that is difficult for most of Milo’s opponents because their stances tend to be rooted in ideology or subjective perspective rather than in logic or facts. By definition, it’s very hard to persuade somebody to adopt a point of view that has no objective basis.

            Milo’s repeatedly challenged his opposition to present a counter argument and nobody has yet been able to offer any argument that doesn’t depend on certain axiomata and assumptions.

  • bring back milo!

  • Nina

    The Berkeley riots will go down in US history as one of the most colossal own-goals of all time. Milo’s book is now #1 on Amazon and it hasn’t even come out yet. The snowflakes so terrified of hearing an opinion different than their own gave their opponent fame, money, and the moral high ground.

    • Neighbor

      The “snowflakes” were not the rioters. But cool story bro.

      • Faggory Daggory Doo!

        well we dont know who the rioters

      • StanFromSomewhere

        The snowflakes certainly went overboard making excuses for the rioters.

        • thompson_richard

          do you prefer dummkopfe or snowflakes?

      • No, the rioters weren’t students or faculty. I think that’s been fairly well established by now (at least as being much more likely than not).

        But, between the legitimately assembled protesters and police, nobody seemed to make much effort to stop the violence once started. I don’t hear any of those owning their part, their failure to act.

        Here’s a suggestion: should Milo return or at any similarly contentious event, make sure you have police posted everywhere. If you see someone show up in black with their face hidden etc, make sure the cops know about it. Take photos.

        That riot was not inevitable, but it takes alertness and a willingness to do the right thing to ensure that nobody is given the opportunity to foment such violence.

        • Neighbor

          I agree police should have done more especially off campus (window smashing) -the city of Berkeley had only 12 officers assigned- ridiculous.

  • SmokyBlue

    I attended a prominent university in the late 60’s which hosted speakers covering the gamut of the political spectrum: white power advocates, communists, Black Power advocates, you name it. I attended every one of these sessions as did most of the student body. Most did not agree with the more extreme speakers, but I can honestly say that those talks amounted to some of the best experiences I have ever had. That’s what a liberal arts education is supposed to be–EXPOSURE to many different ideas and points of view. Where in the US do you find that today?

    • ShadrachSmith

      MILO called on President Trump to follow through on a tweet he put out in which he mentioned pulling funds from UC Berkeley for failing to protect MILO’s First Amendment protection to free speech. And MILO and Bannon may well read some of MILO’s tweets.

      Thanks, Janet.

    • Neighbor

      Did they single out individual students for harassment, broadcasting their images on stage without permission? Did they lead chants like “feminism is cancer” and “women are parasites”? I kind of doubt the ‘white power’ part of your story.

      • StanFromSomewhere

        And you have any proof that Milo was about to do that? Didn’t think so.

        • SmokyBlue

          Exactly.

          • thompson_richard

            Get Amazon to take its ads off Breitbarf!

      • SmokyBlue

        Yes, one of the speakers was a white racist, but don’t know what the rest of your comment has to do with anything. The speaker who was the most rude regarding the attendees was the black power advocate, but no one ever walked out during any one of the aforementioned speeches. Evidently, many of the students of today can’t handle anyone or anything that is in disagreement with their own opinion. It appears that the campus environment has devolved into one of intolerance, immaturity, and political correctness. How sad!

        • thompson_richard

          Milo attacked a transgender student by name at the U Wisc and he was banned from Twitter for inciting trolls to attack the “Ghostbusters” actress Leslie Jones. I graduated Santa Monica High School in 1962 and I’m ashamed of my fellow alumnus already — so why would I want him to return to planet earth much less my undergraduate alma mater?

          • SmokyBlue

            Well….he has the right to speak under the First Amendment, or does the “liberal” (funny, so-called liberals and progressives, should look up the definition of “liberal” and “progressive”. They are anything but—more like narrow-minded hacks) crowd only want to hear people speak with whom they agree. Yep, thought so.

          • thompson_richard

            California protests lead the way for Trump resistance movement

            Our state has embraced its reputation for progressive politics and civil rights activism, cementing its role leading the movement to defy the White House. While protests erupted across the US on Donald Trump’s inauguration day, the carefully planned demonstrations in the San Francisco Bay Area offered a window into the highly coordinated and energetic resistance campaign that is rapidly emerging in California.

            “We interrupted people’s business as usual, so you had to think about the impact of Trump on marginalized communities,” said Cat Brooks, co-founder of the Anti Police-Terror Project, who helped organize the protests. “You don’t get to not take a stand any more. You have to pick a side.”

            Despite concerns of possible retaliation from Trump, California’s leaders have pledged to aggressively resist him – on immigration, health, the environment, voting rights and more – while grassroots activists have strategized ways to stand up for the most vulnerable communities and launch mass actions.

            “California is becoming a beacon for progressive states in our country looking for hope as we enter the Trump era in America – an era that promises to be the most regressive in generations,” said state senate president Kevin de León. “We have made great strides in California, and there’s no turning back.”
            That legacy means there is a strong foundation for California to impede Trump the same way Texas fought Obama. Some have even pushed a far-fetched “Calexit” campaign to secede from the nation, though prominent officials and activists have repeatedly rejected the idea.

            In the capitol of Sacramento, lawmakers have also rushed to advance a series of bills designed to thwart Trump’s immigration agenda, including recent legislation to become America’s first “sanctuary state”. That means law enforcement would be restricted from assisting federal immigration authorities.
            This week, San Francisco also became the first city in the US to sue Trump over his executive order requiring the federal government to withhold grants from sanctuary cities. The action is in stark contrast to a municipality in Florida, which said it would immediately comply with the order and no longer protect immigrants. “Power comes in two forms – in numbers, which California has and in money, which California also has,” said Hani Ganji, president of the northern California chapter of the Iranian American Bar Association, who rushed to the airport to help detained immigrants. “California has a responsibility to stand up and fight back.”

          • SmokyBlue

            Who cares?

          • helen

            Unless we dump the violence and return to education over indoctrination, and universal civil rights over safe spaces for the weaponized “vulnerable”, we are going to LOSE!

          • Dave Doleshal

            Yes, I agree completely. Violent solutions are not really solutions – even if they superficially LOOK like solutions.

          • thompson_richard

            I worked in and for the County of Los Angeles Probation Department – Juvenile Division and I remember being called over to the female side of the camp (or hall) to help with cell extractions. Very sad business. I also remember having a child on my caseload – not yet a teenager – who shot his partner in a robbery over the division of the ‘take.’ When, Helen, your roommates and/or friend(s)/self are under attack, dial 911.

          • helen

            How many are inciting violence against him personally and against the organizers personally and against regular community members who showed up at the event?
            How can you be outraged by his horrible behavior, yet remain oblivious to actual assault? If a transgender student, or Muslim immigrant came out to see the show they would have been subject to violence along with all the other “nazis”.

          • thompson_richard

            Helen, I was going to retort using the gravedigger’s line to Prince Hamlet about a lie that was too quick for him. But at 72-years young, instead I’ll quote a great, great American: “If only we could convince those selfish elders to pass more quickly,
            their extended townie offspring and friends might also stop clinging to
            the area for hokey sentimental reasons. The provincial concept of
            multi-generational bonds has to be thoroughly dismantled or we will
            never succeed in transforming from a community into an impersonal
            association of young, purely market – oriented strangers.”
            I’ve long since closed my Amazon account (and the Paypal side car, right after the move against “the customer is always right” unto “Now hear this//repeat//Amazon speaking!”). In other news, Mr. Thiel has taken out Kiwi citizenship papers. Breitbart, Bannon, Milo Minderbinder will join him there right before “the rapture.”

          • helen

            Are you quoting my sarcasm?

          • thompson_richard

            I read everything you put forth. Marvelous (no sarcasm intended).

          • lspanker

            Milo attacked a transgender student by name at the U Wisc

            He did? Sources and cites, please.

    • alcatraz

      How many of those people were espousing ethnic cleansing, of people who make up the student body?

    • BeautifulAmerica

      It’s not allowed.

  • Arafat

    We should not let him come here because that would be respecting the First Amendment and, fellow liberals, the First, Second and other Amendments must be destroyed.

    Liberals unite against the First Amendment!!!

    • #justlikehitlerwouldhavewanted

    • thompson_richard

      At the moment, I’m supporting the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  • KT

    My big issue isn’t with Milo…he can spew his hatred if he chooses to. My big issue is with the Republican Club on campus who thought that Milo would be a good speaker to represent their values. Many of us reasonable people are weary of the bigoted attitudes of some Republicans and their support of policies that favor the rich while they scorn the middle class and poor. Inviting Milo wasn’t done to promote the free flow of ideas. He represents the “bully” approach that shuts down political discourse. Inviting him to speak was done with an “in your face” attitude that I find appalling. The many protests around the country will not stop as long as the Republican party supports bigoted policies and worship of wealth at the expense of a thriving economy for all.

    • lspanker

      Many of us reasonable people are weary of the bigoted attitudes of some Republicans

      Yet you liberals NEVER exhibit bigotry against others, do you? You NEVER smear people who disagree with as “racists” or “haters” merely to silence them, do you?

      and their support of policies that favor the rich while they scorn the middle class and poor.

      You mean like granting more power and funding to the pet projects of trust-fund liberal activists (i.e. so-called “transgender rights” and legalization of pot) while sneering at unemployed Joes in Indiana and Michigan as “deplorables” or Southern whites (some of the poorest people in this country) as “hicks”? You are rather selective in what you see, aren’t you?

    • roccolore

      You bigoted fascist Democrats are the hatemongers who riot and looting. Fascist Democrats like you hate free speech.

  • ShadrachSmith

    Napolitano is creating and protecting these riots. It is Napolitano who deserves the orange jumpsut for felony riot + fire. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9cb63bf0632275eaa7ffeb1724450bc0852720ed17d2edcd4052ac66cfa17149.jpg

    • thompson_richard

      Gosh AArrooddee! I never thought I’d support Janet for jumping ship at the close of Obama’s earlier 4-year term. She left Washington DC approximately at the time Snowden sought asylum in Moscow.

      Maybe California got the better deal (after all).

  • david

    Rioters opposing FREE SPEECH in America should take their violent road show to North Korea, not Berkeley, if they really want to see a strong reaction.

    • roccolore

      Or Cuba.

    • KT

      Anarchists probably caused most of the violence. Most, if not all of the protesters from Berkeley were peaceful.

      • Arafat

        Yeah…anarchists. Let’s never take responsibility is your mantra.

        When liberals marched on Ferguson and riots erupted it was the anarchists too. When liberals rioted after Trump’s victory it was the anarchists too.

        It is never OUR fault.

        LOL

        • KT

          Let me see if I understand this…Trump promotes violence in his speeches, but you assume it’s liberals who are the violent ones? I don’t recall Hillary suggesting that anyone gets punched or taken out at her rallies. Why do some Republicans like Milo and Trump promote hatred and violence, and then point to mostly peaceful students who came out to protest that hatred and blame them for what a few hooded anarchists did? The Republican Club on campus invited Milo knowing full well that there would be protests, and then point to the protests as the problem. No, we don’t hate free speech, but we do hate intolerance, bigotry, and harassment. We’re proud of that, too.

          • SmokyBlue

            It appears that the violent ones were all Leftists—or whatever name they call themselves.

      • Dave Doleshal

        I am sure that virtually all the student protesters at this event were quite non-violent. I was there earlier in the day, before all the trouble started. There was no hint of violence among the assembled crowd then. Based on my own conversations over the next few days after the riots, it seems obvious the only violent people were members of that group of 100-150 “Black bloc” people from off campus who suddenly showed up and caused the trouble.

        (At least part of the problem with the ineffective police response seems to have been how suddenly the trouble happened and how suddenly it ceased. After several hours of peaceful demonstration, the black bloc folks suddenly ran up to the building, smashed the windows, set the fires, then a few seconds later had retreated just as quickly to blend back in with the crowd. By the time the police emerged a minute later, the action was over, they did not see who did it, and it was hard for them to know just who to arrest).

        As for who exactly the Black bloc folks were, what their political philosophy was, that is difficult to say. People use the word “anarchist,” but I am far from sure that tells us very much. Technically speaking, anarchism is the name for a broad range of radical political ideas, such as advocacy of strict political equality for all and/or advocacy of direct democracy, which do not automatically equate with the advocacy of violence. (Historically, some anarchists have advocated violence, but most of the people I know today who advocate strict equality and direct democracy – and who label themselves as “anarchists” do NOT advocate violence). Dismissing them with the convenient label “anarchists” does not reveal who they actually were, what they ideology actually was, or what kind of agenda actually motivated them.

        • SmokyBlue

          But we do know that what they did was criminal; that’s the point. Labels don’t matter. They should be arrested at the very least. This type of behavior should not be tolerated; any organizers or promoters of such violence should also be arrested.

          • Dave Doleshal

            Yes, I would agree. Anyone who was engaged in or promoted violence against people or against property should be arrested and tried. The question of their personal political beliefs, loyalties, ideas etc should not really be a consideration. If someone has done something destructive/criminal, just because their political philosophy might happen to coincide with my own philosophy would not make me less inclined to want them arrested. The same principle should apply in the opposite direction as well – just because they might hold political ideas greatly at odds with mine should not justify them being treated more harshly by the legal system. The general principle should be that the treatment of any person by the police, courts & legal system should be strictly a function of their behavior) – not a function of how closely their political philosophy matches our own.

    • ShadrachSmith

      One of the far-left “anti-fascist” groups behind last week’s riot in Berkeley, Refuse Fascism, received $50,000 from a group backed by socialist billionaire George Soros, according to the Daily Caller. And nobody was arrested. Makes you wonder how much Napolitano got?

  • Disqusted

    Milo should take his egotistical road show to North Korea, not Berkeley, if he really wants to see a strong reaction.

    • roccolore

      Fascist Democrats like you should move to North Korea since you hate free speech.

      • KT

        No, we hate bigoted, egotistical jerks like Milo and Trump. We don’t have a lot of patience for people who support fascists and racists, either.

        • SmokyBlue

          Well………people who believe in the First Amendment don’t have a lot of patience with jerks like you who subvert the Democratic process.

          • KT

            I support the First Amendment, which is why I support the right of students to protest Milo. The Democratic process was subverted by jerks like Putin, who helped put your guy in office. Look, you can criticize me all you want…doesn’t bother me. But, it would be really nice to have an intelligent dialog rather than just responding to crazy insults like “Fascist Democrats.” If you have something meaningful to say, I’m all ears. Unfortunately, too often, the alt-right, white supremacist bullies just spew hate and meaningless insults. Now, I’m done with this non-existent dialog. Spew on…

          • SmokyBlue

            It appears that you are confused. The First Amendment guarantees the right of ANYONE to express an opinion whether you agree with it or not.

          • lspanker

            Grow up. Your side lost touch with the American people, then chose a crappy candidate with high negatives and serious legal, ethical and anger management issues, then further alienated voters not by appealing to reason to potential Trump voters, but calling them “deplorables”. Top it off with the violence orchestrated AGAINST Trump voters, and a lot of fence-sitters and people who otherwise weren’t that thrilled with Trump decided he was clearly the lesser of two evils and pulled the lever for him (personally I did not, but after I witnessed the post-election antics of the Democrats, I am actually relieved that Hillary lost). Your refusal to deal with reality is the reason you lost the last election, and the reason you will in all likelihood lose the next one.

          • thompson_richard

            Will “we the people” lose in the Electoral College in 2020? Agreed: that FSMers helped propel Reagan to the Governorship and more arguably the Presidency.
            But he won the popular vote in a landslide.
            Trump didn’t — and his most recent poll numbers are low, low, low.

          • StanFromSomewhere

            Come back when you educate yourself on how the Electoral College works, crybaby.

          • thompson_richard

            You got me wrong, Stanf-ord! I was a major fund raiser for Hillary, but I support the Electoral College. As for “crybaby,” I prefer “efeet in-teel-ie” or even dumb-ass. Satya Nadella, the head of Microsoft, was born in Hyderabad. In Cupertino, a suburb in Silicon Valley, half the population is foreign born. Man from Somewhere is a chapter title from Chas. Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend, so I must conclude that you were an English Major from Stanford who now lives on the second floor of a walk-up in a posh Bay area neighborhood. .

          • lspanker

            Lay off the bong before you post next time, goofball.

          • thompson_richard

            Try to be Breit, Bart!

          • thompson_richard

            I support the First, the Fifth, the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth and the TENTH!

          • Nunya Beeswax

            The right to protest, yes. The right to “stomp and smash and bash and crash
            and slash and bust and burn,” no.

          • roccolore

            You Democrats ARE fascists who hate free speech. YOu make excuses for rioting and looting. You are a black supremacist hatemongering bully.

        • lspanker

          You have no proof that Milo is a “fascist” or a “racist”, nor do you really care. You’re no better than the militant Muslims who scream “blasphemy” and orchestrate “demonstrations” that turn into bloody riots. See, just as Muslims have certain subjects which they view as haram or off-limits for discussion, you have decided that certain issues are off-limits for discussion in public discourse as well. You’re not really afraid that Milo is a fascist or racist whatsoever. Your REAL fear is that he will open up topics for discussion that you desperately want to remain off-limits, because someone (maybe Milo, maybe someone else) will bring up a concept or idea that will challenge your own ideas that you can not address or refute. That’s the real fear – the rest of your rhetoric is merely a lame excuse offered for public consumption…

          • thompson_richard

            Bloody is a swear word in the UK (Barkeley was a Bishop who played basketball… plus he invented the 3-point rule).

        • roccolore

          You Democrats are the bigots who hate Jews, hate our troops, hate Christians, hate cops, and support jihadists.

          • thompson_richard

            I’m a Vietnam-era veteran who gets along fine with our troops.

        • thompson_richard

          R ichard T hompson favors your remark.

          • StanFromSomewhere

            Richard Thompson by all accounts is an attention-starved troll. I have seen enough of your posts to know not to expect anything of substance from your contributions here.

          • thompson_richard

            You’re in Bear Territory, Stanf-ord.

        • roccolore

          You Democrats are the fascists and racists. You are anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-Islam, anti-military, anti-police, anti-Israel, and you support hate hoaxes.

          • thompson_richard

            Most people are opposed to West Bank Settlements undertaken by Netanyahoo and the Likud.

    • ShadrachSmith

      Dallas assassinations pretty much killed the positive PR from mob violence as community outreach. That’s your fault.

    • Arafat

      Thanks for comparing Berkeley to North Korea. You’ve made my point.

    • lspanker

      Milo needs to bring in right back here. Let’s see if you liberals who claim that you support free speech, and were “peaceful demonstrations” can have him back without all of you turning into a bunch of crazed loonies breaking things.

      • thompson_richard

        Why not the Cow Palace? There are so many Shadrachs & Ispankers.

        • StanFromSomewhere

          How about putting all you people in the Cow Palace? We can call it “WACK-CON” or something like that, and charge a flat fee admission for you and your ilk to yell, scream, protest, and fight with each other all day.

          • thompson_richard

            Lady Gaga says you’re on!