MILO is REJECTED. FREE SPEECH is being SQUASHED.

Post Reply New Topic

https://youtu.be/Sff_-5dCnBA

while I think there's not really any reason for a comedian like milo to speak at college campuses, barring him from giving shows to paying individuals in any country is a bit much. Then again: Australia is free to reject foreigners it doesn't want on any grounds it sees fit - if he were Australian and they'd ban him from giving shows, I'd consider it a free speech issue that Australians should worry about.

Since when did the first amendment say that freedom of speech includes the right to perform in other countries? Pretty sure freedom of speech in the constitution just applies in the United States. I mean go to North Korea and openly criticize their dictator and see what happens...

Also though I don't think being barred from performing/speaking at a college is a violation of free speech either. It takes time, resources and money to host a speaker I assume so I can imagine they might want to be able to use a bit of discretion as to what speakers they host. Not sure what Milo has to say that would really be relevent on a college campus, which subject of learning is he an expert in? 'I want to rant about extreme right wing ideology' doesn't seem like a valid reason to be hosted by a college. I would say the same if it was a speaker wanting to rant about extreme feminism how the planet doesn't need men, is college really the place for that kind of nonsense?

The point is for education, when discussing college campuses in America. Students are supposed to get equal opportunity to get challenged on ideas with opposing ideas. I could understand not letting a racist get up on stage and rant racist thoughts, that is not what Milo does and I believe he is married to, or was married to a black guy(as a note to people judging his views as racist). If all students do not want to hear him, sure, that's fine I guess, keep them in their bubble of never having to think for themselves, but if some students do desire to listen, others should not be able to block them from doing so, that is oppression on free speech. They are actually discussing this 'issue' with congress, congress may pull federal funding from colleges and universities who seem to wish to block all conservatives from being able to speak. Students are supposed to be challenged, not live in a bubble called a 'safe space'.

I do agree with the other portion though, not all countries allow free speech, thus his free speech right does not apply in other countries.

They changed their minds...
He is now allowed to come into Oz...

While I personally applaud this on the basis of freedom of speech, and more importantly, freedom of thought, I won't be going to see what all the fuss is about...
I'm smart enough to avoid dangerous situations...

The last time he was here, the feral left-wing fascists caused injury and an enormous damage bill...
Presumably, because they value other people and have a pacifistic live-and-let-live weltanschauung....
Their hypocrisy is staggering...

Correct...
There is no 1st amendment constitutional right to freedom of speech here in Oz...
In fact, recent laws have been implemented to further intimidate Asstralians into shutting the duck up...
Left-wing politics is making serious inroads into Asstralian society, possibly due to the lefty indoctrinations of previous skool cids...

I remember being shocked when I first realised there was no equivalency to the Ameri...errr...U.S.A's 1st amendment, here in Oz...

Last edited by Pepe on 09 Mar 2019, 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

If it is a private university this is not an issue as they can ban pretty much any speech they want. A public university is a government institution. The people at the very top are appointed by state and local elected officials so it becomes a matter of government censorship. The government has a constitutional obligation to protect free speech and protect citizens from violence. This is expensive, one price of freedom.

Political speakers are usually invited by political student organizations. The campus is under no obligation to fund these organizations. Governments defund for political reasons every day. An example would democrats come in and all the
Republicans who are not civil service members are fired.

I see he has been allowed to speak which is good because it is standing up to violent mob rule.

This why I am 50-50 on this man...
Half of what he does I like...
Half of what he does I do not like...

I never paid much attention to this guy but a quick peek at Wikipedia tells me that his appearance at a university could be inflammatory and that he apparently incites others to criminal activity.

I don't know what country or university this is about as I don't want to watch the video, but whatever authorities have banned him are probably within their rights. His fans can march around wearing yellow vests and throw bricks if they want, but not in my neighborhood, thank you very much!

Plus nobody is stopping them from watching him on YouTube.

I do use Wikipedia a lot...
But I have a sack full of salt at hand...

I have personally seen evidence of bias...
Perfectly in keeping with hooman psychology...

The video is made by an Australian social commentator and editorialist, I believe...
It is about Milo's up and coming tour(?) of Australia...

They changed their mind...
He is allowed entry now...

And now he's been banned from entering Australia again, on character grounds as previously, following his comments on the Christchurch terror attack.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/milo-yianno ... ch-comment

So I don't know whether the sort of thing he said would be constitutionally protected were he an Australian citizen, but OTOH the Australian authorities don't need much legal justification for denying him entry (I say this based on the understanding that this is generally true world-wide). If he really wanted to go to Australia, and wasn't just trying to create an incident out of a desire to agitate his fan base in Australia, then I hope he learns his lesson regarding how many people feel about his public utterances.

BTW I checked and learned that he resides in the US. Even as a resident alien, I believe his speech is totally protected except for some well-known exceptions. But he is not safe from deportation.

I live in a country that does censor speech - for historical reasons. After all, Germany had a bit of an issue with demagoguery in times of the Weimar Republic - let alone what followed after.
I personally and philosophically understand why free speech would theoretically be perfect - if the society concerned had an agreement on absolute non-violence and a certain framework ofbinalienable rights etc.

The christchurch attack shows that non-violence can no longer be presupposed (could it ever be, really?) hence, free speech must be be curtailed.
And Milo is just getting rich on what I came across as the "youtube-commenter's fallacy":
"The truth often hurts, so if it hurts, it must be the truth."

Quite a few people on WP like to use this argument. Some of them also post a lot of videos from Youtube.

There's definitely a lot of "if it makes liberals/people on the left feel bad, then I should say it and I'm right to do so" and general trolling of the political left going on here on WP. It's very childish. It feels like WP has imported posters from 4chan or something, with the blatant trolling and shitposting that goes on.

Curtailing free speech lets a few terrorists dictate policy for an entire society. Curtailing free speech often helps the terrorists achieve their goals by "proving" whatever conspiracy theory they are promoting (example "see this proves we are a threat to the Jew world order")

Free speech as with all freedoms often comes with a high price.