Far left students shuts down Professor from speaking at free speech event in Toronto

[Sheik Yerbouti]

These "students" are already voting age and are the fighting force for the progressive 'army'. These are the ones fighting for laws to be created/changed to suit their masters' agendas.

Brainwashed "useful idiots" who, like so many here, believe the issues they've been taught and ignore all reality that contradicts it.

Worse, the laws they enact affect EVERYONE, meaning their short term gain will likely become a long term loss for everyone. Think big picture.

someone needs their binky and a safe space

 

[Blue_Max]

someone needs their binky and a safe space

Brilliant rebuttal.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Brilliant rebuttal.

well I was trying to keep it simple for you maxi.

 

[Victorian Gray]

These "students" are already voting age and are the fighting force for the progressive 'army'. These are the ones fighting for laws to be created/changed to suit their masters' agendas.

Brainwashed "useful idiots" who, like so many here, believe the issues they've been taught and ignore all reality that contradicts it.

Worse, the laws they enact affect EVERYONE, meaning their short term gain will likely become a long term loss for everyone. Think big picture.

You were born to be a victim. So sad.

 

[UglyCasanova]

Interesting that the two responses to your post Blue Max were basically dismissing what you were saying as irrelevant. It's almost as if they know they're dangerously close to trampling over the rights and liberties of others but it doesn't matter for the greater good.

 

[Blue_Max]

Interesting that the two responses to your post Blue Max were basically dismissing what you were saying as irrelevant. It's almost as if they know they're dangerously close to trampling over the rights and liberties of others but it doesn't matter for the greater good.

It' just like the "protests" themselves -- they know that the hard facts and proven data don't favour their side so the only way to win is to scream and make noise (etc) to prevent their opponents from speaking at all. The more their opponents speak, the more they lose ground... that cannot be allowed. Alinksy told them what to do next.

 

[Ackmed]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/2...o-come-from-wealthy-families-study-finds.html

Interesting. The left does often resort to violence lately in these "protests" over speakers. Seems they think they're in the right, when they are not.

It is sad to see how many here are ok with a violation of someone's right to free speech if they don't agree with the message.

Again, you don't seem to understand what your right to free speech entails.

No, that person is clearly you. You don't appear to think that shutting down someone from speaking in a public venue, is suppressing their rights. It goes both ways. And both Dems and Repubs do it unfortunately.

 

[agent00f]

You understand the radical Muslims are ultra right?

You have to understand that white nationalists are far too dumb to grasp they're right wing, and that's the same side as the right wing:

You understand that Dulux comes in ultra bright?

People shouldn't be allowed to lie? I asked what your position is regarding free speech, all you've done thus far is call me dumb. Feel free to actually respond at some point.

Professors and parents, hopefully. And maybe the taxpayers who subsidize their tuition.

These "students" are already voting age and are the fighting force for the progressive 'army'. These are the ones fighting for laws to be created/changed to suit their masters' agendas.

Brainwashed "useful idiots" who, like so many here, believe the issues they've been taught and ignore all reality that contradicts it.

Worse, the laws they enact affect EVERYONE, meaning their short term gain will likely become a long term loss for everyone. Think big picture.

 

[jackstar7]

Why is it a dumb question? I asked your opinion on free speech.

Sigh. I'm not opposed to any free speech on principle, especially with regards to government action against such.

Personally, I am against all kinds of speech. I don't like when my kids swear, I don't like liars lying and pretending what they are saying is true, I despise obfuscation, I loathe open bigotry, etc. Yeah, I'm one of those people who advocates for tolerance while being quite intolerant of a lot of fucking bullshit.

But my opinion is not a factor. The government's actions are. Does that clear anything up for you?

 

[jackstar7]

Interesting. The left does often resort to violence lately in these "protests" over speakers.

Often? GTFO.

 

[jackstar7]

Interesting that the two responses to your post Blue Max were basically dismissing what you were saying as irrelevant. It's almost as if they know they're dangerously close to trampling over the rights and liberties of others but it doesn't matter for the greater good.

You want to protect open bigotry and preserve it in society? Please explain its value.

 

[sdifox]

Here is my interpretation of things. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of said expression. Prof Peterson advanced his view, which I think is ignorant at best. Then the protesters decided to do all they can to drown him out.

There is claim that Prof. Peterson's rights are being violated but I don't see that. After all his youtube videos are still up, he is doing brisk business going around pushing his agenda. There is no gag order on him.

You can certainly call the protesters rude. To silence the protestors however will violate their freedom of speech. Now you have conflicting freedom of speech claims, and both are valid. Thus the only thing the authorities can do is separate the two groups and prevent physical interaction.

Perosnally I would not bother protesting Peterson in person, but I will not shed a tear for him being subject of protest either.


another thing to know is that in Canada, Reasonable Accommodation applies not just for disabled but all minorities.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_accommodation

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Here is my interpretation of things. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences of said expression. Prof Peterson advanced his view, which I think is ignorant at best. Then the protesters decided to do all they can to drawn him out.

There is claim that Prof. Peterson's rights are being violated but I don't see that. After all his youtube videos are still up, he is doing brisk business going around pushing his agenda. There is no gag order on him.

You can certainly call the protesters rude. To silence the protestors however will violate their freedom of speech. Now you have conflicting freedom of speech claims, and both are valid. Thus the only thing the authorities can do is separate the two groups and prevent physical interaction.

Perosnally I would not bother protesting Peterson in person, but I will not shed a tear for him being subject of protest either.

When do protesters not have a right to interrupt a speech in your opinion? Do you consider all campus space to be public land?

 

[sdifox]

When do protesters not have a right to interrupt a speech in your opinion? Do you consider all campus space to be public land?

I think all universities in Canada are more or less considered public space. There is no access restriction, though there is permit for photography, so not 100 percent.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think all universities in Canada are more or less considered public space. There is no access restriction, though there is permit for photography, so not 100 percent.

So anything that involves people speaking at a public university is fair game to interrupt then? Including classrooms?

 

[sdifox]

So anything that involves people speaking at a public university is fair game to interrupt then? Including classrooms?

you can get removed by campus police if you are a disruption to class, but I don't think public events are covered the same way.
There has been disruption to Senate throne speech before, a page held up a sign that said stop Harper. she got fired afterwards.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-page-fired-for-anti-harper-protest-1.1057092

<--- not an expert on campus bylaws.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

Seriously... THIS is the type of behaviour you and our resident leftist intersectional progressive anarchists are championing:

What exactly is a leftist intersectional progressive anarchist?

 

[Paratus]

What exactly is a leftist intersectional progressive anarchist?

I'm guessing it's the reason he can't get a date.

(That's was a joke Max )

But quite frankly I've lost lock on what the hell he's arguing about. Does anyone know? He keeps saying how no one can proves he's wrong but since I can't tell what he's on about...

 

[agent00f]

So anything that involves people speaking at a public university is fair game to interrupt then? Including classrooms?

Don't be ridiculous. The whole underlying point of rules is that the pros outweigh the cons. Notice the basis of that highlighted word is to weigh the magnitude of each contributing attribute, for example in the US the weight of free expression is given some precedence, but certainly not unlimited reign as the situation with slander or incitement. Similarly, conscientious folk weighing schools' rules can judge the difference in situation between a classroom and whatever political event.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

you can get removed by campus police if you are a disruption to class, but I don't think public events are covered the same way.
There has been disruption to Senate throne speech before, a page held up a sign that said stop Harper. she got fired afterwards.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-page-fired-for-anti-harper-protest-1.1057092

<--- not an expert on campus bylaws.

That story says she was forced to leave, and the last line implies she could have been charged with something had security been willing to pursue it, presumably trespassing. Flooding an event with people to the point of violating safety code would presumably be disallowed for public events at any building in a country with said code.

Don't be ridiculous. The whole underlying point of rules is that the pros outweigh the cons. Notice the basis of that highlighted word is to weigh the magnitude of each contributing attribute, for example in the US the weight of free expression is given some precedence, but certainly not unlimited reign as the situation with slander or incitement. Similarly, conscientious folk weighing schools' rules can judge the difference in situation between a classroom and whatever political event.

Sure, I was starting with an extreme example to illustrate that not all public property is intended to be treated equally. If a person wants to hold an event on a walkway, I have no problem with others choosing to shout that person down. A reserved event inside a building where maintenance, travel, safety, etc considerations have to be taken into account is a different issue. What about any event held by a famous/expensive guest speaker, perhaps some big-name politician or philanthropist-CEO or something? Let's say Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg decided to speak at a campus, would you be OK if a couple hundred Windows-and-Facebook-hating, global-Zionist-conspiracy-fearing, smelling-of-semen-and-Cheetos 4chan users came over to drown it out?

 

[sdifox]

That story says she was forced to leave, and the last line implies she could have been charged with something had security been willing to pursue it, presumably trespassing. Flooding an event with people to the point of violating safety code would presumably be disallowed for public events at any building in a country with said code.



Sure, I was starting with an extreme example to illustrate that not all public property is intended to be treated equally. If a person wants to hold an event on a walkway, I have no problem with others choosing to shout that person down. A reserved event inside a building where maintenance, travel, safety, etc considerations have to be taken into account is a different issue. What about any event held by a famous/expensive guest speaker, perhaps some big-name politician or philanthropist-CEO or something? Let's say Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg decided to speak at a campus, would you be OK if a couple hundred Windows-and-Facebook-hating, global-Zionist-conspiracy-fearing, smelling-of-semen-and-Cheetos 4chan users came over to drown it out?

My point about the page's story is that she exercised her freedom of expression, and paid the price. I think she was willing to pay the price going in.

 

[agent00f]

Sure, I was starting with an extreme example to illustrate that not all public property is intended to be treated equally. If a person wants to hold an event on a walkway, I have no problem with others choosing to shout that person down. A reserved event inside a building where maintenance, travel, safety, etc considerations have to be taken into account is a different issue. What about any event held by a famous/expensive guest speaker, perhaps some big-name politician or philanthropist-CEO or something? Let's say Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg decided to speak at a campus, would you be OK if a couple hundred Windows-and-Facebook-hating, global-Zionist-conspiracy-fearing, smelling-of-semen-and-Cheetos 4chan users came over to drown it out?

I would certainly hope the schools treat events for folks like Bill Gates and whoever the college republicans invite like maybe Richard Spencer differently.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

My point about the page's story is that she exercised her freedom of expression, and paid the price. I think she was willing to pay the price going in.

The difference is that one story involves a person disrupting a public event illegally and paying the price of being escorted out and losing her job, and the other involves people disrupting a public event illegally and the holders of the event paying the price of having their event ruined while the disrupters apparently pay no price.

I would certainly hope the schools treat events for folks like Bill Gates and whoever the college republicans invite like maybe Richard Spencer differently.

Ok, as long as you can admit that you believe in selective protection of speech according to how much you like it.

 

[sdifox]

The difference is that one story involves a person disrupting a public event illegally and paying the price of being escorted out and losing her job, and the other involves people disrupting a public event illegally and the holders of the event paying the price of having their event ruined while the disrupters apparently pay no price.



Ok, as long as you can admit that you believe in selective protection of speech according to how much you like it.

In no way is the Throne Speech considered a public event. She chose to break the rules. Protesting an event on campus is not against the rules, that is why there was no arrests.

Like I said, you are free to say whatever you want, but others may react to it and express their opinion to you.

Also, freedom of expression in Canada differs from USA's.

 

[Orignal Earl]

But quite frankly I've lost lock on what the hell he's arguing about. Does anyone know? .

Gamergate