Social Justice Warriors LOL

[Forty Two]

By Lukas Mikelionis | 7:28 am, May 25, 2016
Yiannopoulos event was shut down last night
\
The student who dramatically shut down Milo Yiannopolous’ speech at DePaul University last night has claimed the controversial speaker’s views on race and feminism are to blame for the Charleston shootings – and has vowed to continue halting “hate speech”.

Yiannopoulos’ talk was abruptly halted when a group of activists stormed the stage and allegedly threatened to punch the speaker in the face.

The protesters refused to leave the stage and snatched the microphone from the interviewer’s hand during the event about free speech.

"all feminists are idiots"

"black women are mad because I fuck black men"

According to Mr. Ward, this is hate speech that must be banned.

That's the face of the SJW today. They are a laughable bunch of douchebags. Imagine if the libertarians, liberals or conservatives acted this way. Just imagine if a Trump supporter stormed the stage at a feminist or other SJW conference, stole the microphone, shut down the event, and took a swing at the presenter.....

[Milo] then led a crowd to the college principal’s office to protest the shutdown of his speech.

Yiannopoulous told the audience: “I suggest we walk to the president’s office and complain now.

“Let us go and express how you feel to the president about your safety.”

The chaos continued outside where the audience clashed with left-wing activists.

Yiannopoulos said to Breitbart: “Will DePaul have the courage to discipline Edward Ward for his behaviour?

“In a normal world they would, but there’s a nasty institutionalised habit of letting left-wing activists get away with the worst of offences.

“After all, despite forking out nearly a grand in security costs, they wouldn’t even stop the activists from storming the stage.”

SJWs need to fuck off...fucking wankers.

Police and security did nothing - http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05 ... s-attacks/ Why? Because they don't want to be labeled racists and misogynists. That shit has to stop. These folks should have been arrested immediately.

[Animavore]

The protesters refused to leave the stage and snatched the microphone from the interviewer’s hand during the event about free speech.

Irony Alanis Morissette could only dream of.

[Tyrannical]

Liberia.
Merely say the word and any and all black social justice types will run.

[Forty Two]

The protesters refused to leave the stage and snatched the microphone from the interviewer’s hand during the event about free speech.

Irony Alanis Morissette could only dream of.

Actually, the SJWs claim that they are actually acting in favor of free speech because by shutting down the hate speakers they are expanding the opportunities of marginalized groups to be heard, thereby expanding speech. No, really...they really think that.

And, of course, their mantra that hate speech is not free speech, so they label negative opinions as hate speech and, wallah, they aren't against free speech at all....

If they were just stupid, that would be one thing, but the real problem is that they know what they're doing. They are pernicious monsters.

[Forty Two]

[Brian Peacock]

Freedom of expression must include the implicit licence to offend. However, there must be limits to how far that licence extended - there's no ready formula here.

[DaveDodo007]

To be fair they are doing their best to get Trump elected, so there is that.

[Forty Two]

Freedom of expression must include the implicit licence to offend. However, there must be limits to how far that licence extended - there's no ready formula here.

There is, actually. It's over the line if it incites an immediate breach of the peace by provoking a fight, so long as it is a personally abusive word(s) which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult." and not merely offensive in general. Defamatory speech, or speech which qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress. That kind of thing.

[PsychoSerenity]

- there's no ready formula here.

There is, actually.

That kind of thing.

So the answer is either what ever you say it is, or That kind of thing?

Well clearly there's no need for further discussion and we can all go home.

[Forty Two]

Who said there was no need for discussion -- there are always issues to discuss. However, to say there is "no ready formula" is bollocks. There is a large body of law setting forth the parameters quite well. It's just "what one says it is." It's not arbitrary.

There are clear distinctions to be made between getting in someone's face and yelling at them (personal insults) to pick a fight, and standing on a stage making criticizing feminism.

It's funny, the people who shut down the Milo speech were actually engaging in fighting words. One anti-Milo protester jumps in front of the camera and starts screaming curses, "fuck yous" and other epithets while trying to physically grab the camera. These are the fucksticks who are trying to shut down the "dangerous" speech of a Milo.

[Brian Peacock]

Freedom of expression must include the implicit licence to offend. However, there must be limits to how far that licence extended - there's no ready formula here.

There is, actually. It's over the line if it incites an immediate breach of the peace by provoking a fight, so long as it is a personally abusive word(s) which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction. Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult." and not merely offensive in general. Defamatory speech, or speech which qualifies as intentional infliction of emotional distress. That kind of thing.

Do you not think this runs the risk of enabling the offended to define the bounds of everybody else's freedom of expression?

[pErvinalia]

The problem I see is "ordinary citizen". This is potentially why "hate speech" laws against minorities have been so hard to get enshrined.

[Tyrannical]

The problem I see is "ordinary citizen". This is potentially why "hate speech" laws against minorities have been so hard to get enshrined.

The term minority is usually but not always relative. Muslims, blacks, hispanics, jews, Asians etc are actually a majority in some places I hear
All it takes is a little immigration and problem solved!

[devogue]

I think anybody should be allowed to say anything they want.

Interrupting should be a criminal offence, though.

[piscator]

Shut the fuck up.