Milo Yiannopoulos LIVE NOW at DePaul University!

originally posted by: MysticPearl
a reply to: mOjOm

Well going around screaming and yelling at people so they can't be heard generally would qualify as disturbing the peace.

Lets not forget very threatening. The "Straight out of Chicago" chick was getting up in Milo's face several times and the leader was pacing back and forth like he was going to starting murdering people.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheBulk

No, in fact I don't support that kind of debate at all. You all just assume that even though I'm simply asking some f*cking questions and pointing a few things out.

But since everyone just wants to bitch and moan around here and pick a f*cking fight with someone for any GD reason now you all just assume I support them shutting this down, which I don't at all. Never once did I even imply that I did.

You can't even have a conversation with anyone here now because everyone has something they have to prove all the time.

It's f*cking insane!!!!!!!


There aren't any rules to how you're allowed to protest BTW. If there were specific rules as to when or where it wouldn't make for much of a protest would it. It's called Protesting for a reason. Again, not that I'm saying I agree with anything anyone was doing. I'm just pointing out that is how it works.

You're here defending the tactics. So the question I want you to answer is would you support that the rest of us use this tactic to shut down everyone you agree with?

a reply to: TheBulk

Yes, if I decide to go outside and do that to random people, they'll call the cops and I'll rightly get arrested for being an asshat.

It's not freedom of speech.

a reply to: MysticPearl

It's not freedom of speech.

True it's called 'democracy'.

Where mob might makes right!

a reply to: TheBulk

No, I'm defending anyone. All I've said is that there isn't anything, no law or rule or whatever saying that someone can't yell over the top of you when your speaking.

I'm not saying that I like that any more than you either. It's just a fact. That's just how it is. That's all I'm saying.

But now what I'd like to know is why just simply pointing that out, which is something we all already know anyway. That just pointing that out must automatically make me siding with someone??? Why must you imply that I'm against free speech for simply pointing out that one aspect of reality???

Is it impossible for someone to point something out anymore without being labeled something negative???

FFS!!!!

a reply to: neo96

It's called communistic totalitarianism under the guise of democracy.

That was a weird double post. Not sure how someone else got in between it either.

originally posted by: mOjOm

Is it impossible for someone to point something out anymore without being labeled something negative???

Why are you pointing it out, if not to justify (or at least deflect attention from) their reprehensible behavior?

Devil's advocate?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheBulk

No, I'm defending anyone. All I've said is that there isn't anything, no law or rule or whatever saying that someone can't yell over the top of you when your speaking.

There most certainly is.

It's called disturbance of peace.

Disturbing the peace, also known as breach of the peace, is a criminal offense that occurs when a person engages in some form of disorderly conduct, such as fighting or threatening to fight in public, causing excessively loud noise, by shouting, playing loud music, or even allowing a dog to bark for prolonged periods of time. When a person's words or conduct jeopardizes others right to peace and tranquility, he or she may be charged with disturbing the peace

What we saw was person(s) conduct engaging in jeopardizing the rights of others to peacefully assemble and debate the topic and speaker at hand, through loud noises, shouting and to me, what looked like threats towards Milo.

If you don't believe, grab your phone, go down to any local establishment, do what this lunatic did, and see what happens. Then please come back and post the resulting video.

a reply to: mOjOm

Dude the chick was sticking her finger all up in his face if he wants to press assault charges he can, what the hell are you talking about? Security shut the event down because of the threat of violence, this is an all out assault on free speech, I hear from your side -" the wrong side of history" ya you might want to consider your position, under your same buzz words and catch phrases.

a reply to: NthOther

Because someone else brought up that it is anti-Free speech. But there isn't any Free Speech law in existence for it to be against. If it was the Government doing it then yes, your Freedom of Speech is protected. But if it's some other person using their right of free speech to scream over the top of you speaking there isn't any protection from that.

I'm not saying that because I promote such behavior or because I think that is how it should be or anything. I'm just pointing out that claiming it's a free speech issue isn't correct. You aren't protected from that anywhere.

In fact Truly Free Speech would mean exactly what that means, Free Speech. Meaning everyone can just scream and yell whatever they want for whatever reason. That is Free Speech at it's most extreme.

I'm not judging it or anything either. Just pointing out that it's not technically a Free Speech issue.

Sorry if you don't like hearing that. It's not my fault. I don't make the rules. It's just how reality works. Take it up with God or nature and drill them as to why it works that way. I didn't set up the world like that.

originally posted by: NthOther
ATS should try to get an AMA set up with Milo.

This is a phenomenal idea!!!

a reply to: TechniXcality

Again. So I'm on someone's side again.

F*ck you people. I CAN'T SAY IT ANY MORE CLEAR THAN I HAVE ALREADY. I'M NOT TAKING ANYONE'S SIDE. I WANTED TO HEAR MILO TOO. I'M JUST AS UPSET AS YOU THAT IT WAS CANCELED!!!!!!!!!!!

I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. I WAS SIMPLY ANSWERING SOMETHING ABOUT FREE SPEECH.

FORGET I EVEN BOTHERED. SORRY TO EVEN TRY AND HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.

GO BACK TO YOUR BITCH SESSION AND I'LL LEAVE YOU ALL TO IT.

a reply to: mOjOm

If you are trying to shut someone up, you are anti-free-speech. It matters not whether your method of doing so is legal.

It is a dick thing to do, and your hiding behind a convoluted defense of morality-justified-by-law suggests that you know it's a dick thing to do.

a reply to: mOjOm

#TRIGGERED

Maybe once you come back down from your safe space in the land of rainbows and butterfly's you will realize this is a free speech issue, violence and threats of violence were used to shut the event down, there is no other side ! there is no devils advocate here! either you accept that, or you goto your safe space.

a reply to: MysticPearl

Threats of violence I agree is against the rules.

But again. I wasn't talking about violence at all.

I also don't know if there were any rules of conduct that people had agreed to in that debate or not. If so, then I'm guessing that someone didn't follow them and they should be told to leave.

But it seemed to me that there was no rules at all set down or if there were nobody enforced them. That's too bad too because I wanted to hear what milo had to say. I find him to be a very intelligent guy with a unique position of being Gay and Conservative and outspoken as he is. He gets around the typical label's that get applied to people when they disagree about stuff.

I'm totally for free speech. I think it should be handled correctly too. I find it a little telling that all that aside just me bringing up a possible opposing view point to one tiny topic of Free Speech is met with accusations and falsely labeling me now. I didn't realize that such warriors of free speech yourselves, that you'd be unable to discuss some of the finer details about the subject. I would have thought all us advocates of free speech would have a little more respect for each other and what each other have to say without assuming everything is an attack.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: mOjOm

If you are trying to shut someone up, you are anti-free-speech. It matters not whether your method of doing so is legal.

It is a dick thing to do, and your hiding behind a convoluted defense of morality-justified-by-law suggests that you know it's a dick thing to do.

F*ck ya it's a dick thing to do. Which is also why I'm not trying to defend it either. I think it's completely f*cked that they couldn't just talk or have an argument that opposed what Milo was saying. I didn't even get to hear what he said. By the time I started watching it was already just that A-hole with his whistle and the chaos that followed.

I'm not hiding anything. I've only explained myself repeatedly in here and yet once again I have to defend myself from you implying that I'm covertly an anti-free speech advocate. It doesn't seem to matter what I say either. You or someone else keeps accusing me of it anyway.

So F*ck it. Don't believe me. Just believe what you want regardless of what I say or what is obviously correct. Great discussion. What a great example of how well discussions of even the most trivial kind work out around ATS now.

a reply to: TechniXcality

/drops the mic.

That was pretty damn spot on. I remember seeing videos of people protesting Bush. And they were assigned to little fenced off areas outside the venue. Does anyone else remember that?

Yea,here. Have a look.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: MysticPearl

Threats of violence I agree is against the rules.

But again. I wasn't talking about violence at all.

I also don't know if there were any rules of conduct that people had agreed to in that debate or not. If so, then I'm guessing that someone didn't follow them and they should be told to leave.

But it seemed to me that there was no rules at all set down or if there were nobody enforced them.

I think there's a common sense element here as in, could this protester/student act the same way towards a professor and get away with it.

Would it really need to be spelled out in the student handbook you can't approach and disrupt a professor in the manner she approached Milo? If not, why would there be a different expectation for a campus guest holding a forum?

a reply to: mOjOm

How about something resembling class?

To disrupt like this is not debate, nor frankly does it do much for "justice". It just makes people angry, which does little to solve the issues.

To truly solve the issues, whatever that issue may be, needs people to actually be willing to walk in others shoes.