UC Berkeley must face lawsuit alleging bias against conservative speakers

[prometeus]

Again, I will ask you a direct question: Who on the conservative side of the aisle do you respect enough (even if you disagree with their opinions and political viewpoints) that you believe is worthy of coming onto a college campus to give a speech or debate with a liberal/progressive scholar?

George Will, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan. Why do you think that they can hold on and argue their convictions without having to descend into the gutter? Do you honestly believe that W. Buckley would have anything to do with the self proclaimed conservatives of today?

 

[Lovebug]

It's hard to find conservative social scientists for the same reason it's hard to find biologists who are creationists or flat-earth physicists. Think about that one for a moment.

So iow, lesser human beings have to be handled. Where did we hear that before? Who was it who surrounded himself with the intellectual elite, the scientists, the biologists, the physicists?

 

[Felis Leo]

The rubric, as you put it, is not to create greater division and chaos.

Who defines "greater division and chaos"? Do you believe that the United States government (or state or local governments) should be able to exercise prior restraint upon citizens?

As all erudite persons know, speech for the sake of speaking is meaningless and a waste, just as speech that incites riots, or causes panic in a crowded theater is outright dangerous.

You made a rather worrying elision there, between speech that is meaningless or a waste, and speech that is dangerous.

That is why even free speech like many other rights are not absolutes, but like all rights are meant to enhance society and its members.

And who is to determine whether speech enhances society and its members? Should that be a decision left up to the state? Or should that be a decision left up to the listeners, who, whether they agree or disagree with the speaker, wish to go and engage with the speaker?

What I am trying to ask is, who do you believe is moral enough and wise enough to tell you who you should or should not listen to? Who do you believe should have the power to cancel a speech, or a radio program, or a televised debate that you wanted to hear based on nothing more than the opinion that was expressed by the speaker? Who would you grant that level power to? Or would you prefer to make your own decisions as to who and who not to listen to?

 

[prometeus]

Let's not move the goalpost, please.

Not at all. Not an inch but your kick was wide.

 

[Lovebug]

Not at all. Not an inch but your kick was wide.

An opposing opinion amounts to someone yelling fire in a theater? One invites thinking while the other creates panic, no?











Gotta leave, bbs.

 

[Bullseye]

Why do you conservatives need to play the conservative bias card so much? Start recruiting better intellectuals and drop the victimhood act. What, do you believe in affirmative action of speakers or something?

Ironic for a progressive to blame others of playing "cards" that seems to be pretty much progs entire ideology. You playing the "Ann Couter" card, here? Be interesting to see what progressive/liberal intellectuals the school actually approved to speak. Oh, BTW, wasn't it Berkeley that had a open minded liberal profession attack a conservative protester with a bicycle chain last year?

College is supposed to be a place where differing ideas are voiced and discussed. Imposing additional requirement on conservative speakers destroys that.

 

[Felis Leo]

It's hard to find conservative social scientists for the same reason it's hard to find biologists who are creationists or flat-earth physicists. Think about that one for a moment.

Well, would you listen to a conservative social scientist even if you found one? Because judging from your posts, and correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that your respect for people's education and intellectual robustness is contingent on people agreeing with your political viewpoints.

 

[prometeus]

Who defines "greater division and chaos"?

The guy who can split hairs with a single edge razor.

Do you believe that the United States government (or state or local governments) should be able to exercise prior restraint upon citizens?

There is no government involvement in this topic. It is about claims of speech restriction on a campus.

You made a rather worrying elision there, between speech that is meaningless or a waste, and speech that is dangerous.

Yea, both are unnecessary and should be avoided.

And who is to determine whether speech enhances society and its members?

Society itself of course, if it is a free society.

Should that be a decision left up to the state?

Who made that claim?

Or should that be a decision left up to the listeners, who, whether they agree or disagree with the speaker, wish to go and engage with the speaker?

Do you ever wish to engage a drunk? Probably not because you know that there is no point to it. Drunks will be drunks.

What I am trying to ask is, who do you believe is moral enough and wise enough to tell you who you should or should not listen to?

Generally no, but we are not talking about principles here, but a specific case.

 

[Mason66]

I see. Now, is that simply because of their extremely poor education (all conservatives being hicks from the sticks) and do not rise to the level you consider "intellectual," or is it because they have come to conclusions that disagree with your side's conclusions?

Notice the rhetoric from the left.

All Republicans and conservatives are stupid.

This same thing happened with the past Republican Presidents.

Could either Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. have gotten to be President being as stupid as the left has portrayed them?

This same narrative is going on right now with Trump, that he is a blithering idiot.

 

[prometeus]

An opposing opinion amounts to someone yelling fire in a theater? One invites thinking while the other creates panic, no?

In general yes, but this is not about principles in general, but a specific case.

 

[prometeus]

All Republicans and conservatives are stupid.

Nobody said that so if you lack the integrity or understanding to address the issue, well you are proving the point.

This same narrative is going on right now with Trump, that he is a blithering idiot.

He is by and and all objective standards.

 

[Mason66]

Nobody said that so if you lack the integrity or understanding to address the issue, well you are proving the point.

He is by and and all objective standards.

Of course he is, according to you, just like every Republican President before him.

Did you not read the posts above that no conservative is smart enough to give a speech at Berkley, according to that poster? So yes, somebody was saying all Republicans and conservatives are stupid.

 

[j-mac]

Your side has none, except for maybe a few quacks at fourth-rate regional colleges.

Pure nonsense, and shows an intolerance that is immeasurable...

 

[Ikari]

So, will this go anywhere? My guess is that the venue that it has to be heard in says no.

Well the case can proceed forward. The judge already said they cannot seek punitive damages. So the only thing they can do is an equal-protection claim. We can see how far that will go.

On some from, it does cost more money to bring someone like Ben Shapiro onto campus than a Left-leaning speaker since the violence of antifa is aimed at the right. So there is a functional basis for Berkeley's price discrepancy. And UC Berkeley doesn't run anitfa and are responsible for the wellbeing of their student body.

On the other hand, more importantly, while there is a right/left difference that difference is at the hands of political terrorists and that is something we should not allow. I'm not sure exactly how much Berkeley has been doing to crack down on them, or any of us in general. Peaceful protest is always fine, but when it turns to systematic use of violence and intimidation, it cannot be permitted.

Berkeley is in a tough place, I think. I don't belief the University itself has any desire to squash rightwing speakers, but hosting them costs a lot more money because of the violent actions of Antifa. So it's either, cancel it because Antifa will make the environment far too dangerous for its student body, increase security appropriately and charge more money to cover the difference in price, or increase security appropriately and lose a crap ton of money on the event.

Regardless of path, they and the rest of us, should be taking a hard-lined stance against Antifa. They are a threat to the rights and liberties of the People in general.

 

[Felis Leo]

There is no government involvement in this topic. It is about claims of speech restriction on a campus.

Actually that is incorrect. Just so that we are clear, public universities (not private universities) are now and have been considered government entities and state actors, and public university campuses are no more able to restrict the exercise of free speech than any other governmental entity. So restrictions of free speech on a public campus (with the exception of content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions) have been considered governmental restrictions.

So when a public university administration restricts people from speaking on their campuses (but allows others), it is a governmental action.

 

[j-mac]

Yeah, the god damn court system. Always worried about whether things are actually legal, and never about what conservatives think is legal.

So, you think conservative speech should be illegal?

 

[chuckiechan]

So, will this go anywhere? My guess is that the venue that it has to be heard in says no.

It will. If there is any common ground among federal judges in California it is that most are publicity seekers. There is no money involved so it is basically a "sue and settle" sideshow. The UC system knows it's going to lose but Berkeley wants to "resist" for general principles and for purposes of fund raising.

The case needs to be heard. Even California cannot use artificial barriers to dis advantage conservative speakers in favor of liberal speakers on a publically funded campus.

The UC system president is Janet Napolitano - remember her? She could end it with a phone call to Berkeley Chancellor Carol T. Christ who thinks she is God.

 

[Moderate Right]

So, will this go anywhere? My guess is that the venue that it has to be heard in says no.

Just shows the hypocrisy of the whole thing. If the tables had been reversed and a conservative school didn't allow liberal speakers in for the very same reasons Berkley cites (no matter the cost for security, etc), all hell would break loose from liberals and they would be suing up a storm. Even funnier is the fact that Berkley is the birthplace of the free speech movement. But, apparently free speech only goes in one direction.

 

[j-mac]

Well the case can proceed forward. The judge already said they cannot seek punitive damages. So the only thing they can do is an equal-protection claim. We can see how far that will go.

That it is being heard in the 9th circuit it will be interesting to hear the decision. I think an equal protection claim is the right way to go here....

On some from, it does cost more money to bring someone like Ben Shapiro onto campus than a Left-leaning speaker since the violence of antifa is aimed at the right. So there is a functional basis for Berkeley's price discrepancy. And UC Berkeley doesn't run anitfa and are responsible for the wellbeing of their student body.

They may not "run" it, but they tacitly approve of it when they give stand down orders to police to break up the violence that precedes a conservative speaking on campus.

On the other hand, more importantly, while there is a right/left difference that difference is at the hands of political terrorists and that is something we should not allow. I'm not sure exactly how much Berkeley has been doing to crack down on them, or any of us in general. Peaceful protest is always fine, but when it turns to systematic use of violence and intimidation, it cannot be permitted.

What about when their own faculty join in on the violence?

Berkeley is in a tough place, I think. I don't belief the University itself has any desire to squash rightwing speakers, but hosting them costs a lot more money because of the violent actions of Antifa. So it's either, cancel it because Antifa will make the environment far too dangerous for its student body, increase security appropriately and charge more money to cover the difference in price, or increase security appropriately and lose a crap ton of money on the event.

The University system IMHO, has helped create this problem through the actions, "safe spaces" and such, so I think they should absorb the costs, or just come out and admit that they are NOT institutions of diverse opinions anymore and give up their taxpayer subsidies....

Regardless of path, they and the rest of us, should be taking a hard-lined stance against Antifa. They are a threat to the rights and liberties of the People in general.

Agreed.

 

[prometeus]

Actually that is incorrect. Just so that we are clear, public universities (not private universities) are now and have been considered government entities and state actors, and public university campuses are no more able to restrict the exercise of free speech than any other governmental entity. So restrictions of free speech on a public campus (with the exception of content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions) have been considered governmental restrictions.

So when a public university administration restricts people from speaking on their campuses (but allows others), it is a governmental action.

It just occurred to me that in away you are living up to your signature and no I am not faulting you for it.
I am more inclined to follow Kant's take on it.

 

[prometeus]

Of course he is, according to you, just like every Republican President before him.

You proved my point again.

 

[chuckiechan]

That it is being heard in the 9th circuit it will be interesting to hear the decision. I think an equal protection claim is the right way to go here....



They may not "run" it, but they tacitly approve of it when they give stand down orders to police to break up the violence that precedes a conservative speaking on campus.



What about when their own faculty join in on the violence?



The University system IMHO, has helped create this problem through the actions, "safe spaces" and such, so I think they should absorb the costs, or just come out and admit that they are NOT institutions of diverse opinions anymore and give up their taxpayer subsidies....



Agreed.

It's being heard by a district judge. First she rules then it is appealed to the 9th circus.

The judge is not going to rule in favor of Berkeley. You have to understand how "sue and settle" works. It uses the legal system to let Berkeley back out while claiming they fought to the end. A better lawsuit would be to sue Berkeley for the action of trespassers allowed on campus who agitate on behalf of third parties and have roughed conservatives up and encouraged others to do so. The problem here is the UCB police stand down unless someone is really getting hurt so there are no arrests, thus no one to use to sue.

I wish it was not going to court. Many people in California are afraid to speak out loud about anything anymore, and it looks as though the pendulum is beginning to swing just a bit in California.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Why do you conservatives need to play the conservative bias card so much? Start recruiting better intellectuals and drop the victimhood act. What, do you believe in affirmative action of speakers or something?

They don't have facts, they have nothing to support their argument. Whining and playing the victim is just one of their deflection cards. These people are the worst

 

[biff_poindexter]

So, will this go anywhere? My guess is that the venue that it has to be heard in says no.

I believe Richard Spencer is one of the greatest conservative speakers of our generation -- He should be permitted to speak any and everywhere he so chooses. I really likes when he does the Nazi salute (in jest of course), it really epitomizes the free exchange of ideas.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Again, I will ask you a direct question: Who on the conservative side of the aisle do you respect enough (even if you disagree with their opinions and political viewpoints) that you believe is worthy of coming onto a college campus to give a speech or debate with a liberal/progressive scholar?

Kasich
Tara sotomayor
There's a few more but I can't think of there names right now.

But I have question for conservatives...if the overwhelming majority of anywhere does not want something why shouldn't there voices be heard and listened to?
I guess I just don't see this as a free speech issue but more of a what's the big deal issue?