His argument is wrong from the start because he claims Mill was talking about the state. State universities = the state. I also believe Mill would have supported free speech at any liberal university (not just state schools) due to basic freedom of inquiry being fundamental to aquiring knowledge, but that takes more time to show.

You argued microbet was being inconsistent in not supporting racist speakers at the university. I pointed out how your argument failed. If you want to reiterate your conclusion for some other reason, go ahead, but that doesn't show that your argument didn't fail.

I support free speech as a voluntarily accepted norm at private universities for basically Millian reasons.

Kathy Griffin was exercising her free speech rights in her disgusting act, but she has to suffer the consequences of other people exercising their free speech and other rights in denouncing her and ostracizing her.

This used to be universally understood and accepted on both sides. Then Rs became the "trolling liberals is the only thing we can all agree on" party and so now we have this situation where college Republicans are constantly inviting hate-mongers and try to incite controversy, then feigning outrage whatever percentage of the time they generate the outrage they were seeking in the first place. Its a free country and they can do what they want within the appropriate frameworks, but main takeaway is the hollowness of R party these days.

Of course Micro's argument was a Straw Man and false to begin with, no one is saying anyone has a right to book a place and speak at the universities. The speakers in question all followed the Universities procedures for speaking and did have the right or at least the groups who invited them had the right to book the place on campus and have the speech held.

Absolutely 100% without question. You think I would have the police interfere with their speech? Lol, of course not.

Can the right handle this sort of thing without slashing anyone's throat?

I literally just quoted you some.

So? The point is they don't have the right. It's not a violation of the first amendment to either deny them or to protest them (to the point of shouting them down) if it happens.

I don't know what you're talking about. His argument was wrong because he said Mill was only talking about the state (which you and I both disagree with), but it is the state schools=the state who are shutting down speech by allowing mobs to intimidate and sometimes violently interfere with speakers. This makes him wrong by his own measure. Flipping the script to show how his logic against racist speech has been used against gays and women in the past and could be used against his speech in the future was intended to convince him to adopt a stronger defense of free speech.

The heckler's veto is not free speech, and it's a tactic much closer to fascism than speech you find hateful. By the way, please don't paint all Bernie supporters with a broad brush due to the insane actions of one guy.

Yeah, I think the Bob Jones University students have every right to protest me speaking on their campus as loudly as they want, much less someone like Kathy Griffin. Its just common sense. I assume you would get push-back if you tried to make a big deal about giving a speech saying creationism is non-sense on their campus, but its just not something I'm interested in. Again, main reason this is an issue is that R party was revealed to be a hollow-shell about nothing more than serving the wealthiest and making liberals mad. Since most people aren't wealthy, they really put alot attention on the making liberals mad part, and they are willing to go as extreme as necessary to do so.

None of you fascists understand the word fascism. It's not a synonymous with being impolite or even violent. George Orwell wasn't being a fascist when he was trying to kill Franco supporters in Spain. Gaetano Bresci wasn't being a fascist when he assassinated King Umberto.

I don't give a damn what that lunatic said about Bernie in the past, his cape, his "free speech" rallies, his racism, his antisemitism are all Trumpism.

You quoted what you believe to be state suppression of speech (each of which might be true, I haven't looked onto them individually), and to the extent right wing politicians are suppressing free speech, I'm with you. You also quoted emailed death threats, presumably by right wingers, which I also condemn.

Let me make this clear, I don't think the left is worse than the right wrt free speech, in fact, historically they have been much worse in this country. But there are not currently mobs of right wingers in the news every month shutting down speakers at universities, using brown shirt tactics in the name of anti-fascism, which is the current topic and the reason these guys get to hold their rallies, quite rightly, in the name of "Free Speech". If more people supported their right to assemble and speak, and these mobs stopped regularly threatening that right, then you would have an argument.

This **** is really ****ed up. I don't support Trump, I swear. Are you still coming to kill me?

I can't tell if serious.

Don't worry, I don't take it as a serious threat. I'm following your logic again. You called me a fascist, and then summoned Orwell as justification to kill fascists.

No, he just said that Orwell's comments ~= fascism. Suggest you use your free speech to ask for an English class and learn how to read.

These Trump supporters disagreed with you by kicking that guy out of their rally for starting **** and acting like a nazi.

Not all Trump supporters necessarily agree with that dude, but the nativist movement makes him and those like him inevitable.

Comon man, I'm getting tired of this mob of silliness. It's simple, he called me a fascist. He used Orwell trying to kill Franco (fascist) supporters as justification for.... you connect the dots. I'm not threatened, but can't you see how that logic is bunk, and can and is be used to justify violence against literally anyone you disagree with? Just call them a fascist and they're fair game. Be like Orwell!

And I'm arguing that not only do they have every legal and moral right to free speech, despite what people do in their name, but that you aren't going to help anything at all by trying to suppress it. You have to defeat their ideas with better ideas of your own. And ideas that don't sound as authoritarian as theirs would be a good start.

Nothing I said was the least bit authoritarian. You authoritarians don't understand what the word means.

Limiting your political opponent's freedom to assemble and speak with violent mobs is brown shirt authoritarian fascist poop!

Well alot of people are tired of your silly little game of trolling liberals. I don't think you are a full-on Trumpite, but you are clearly loving the only thing Trump does have to offer, which is pissing people off for sport.

His point was pretty clear, you and Trumpkins keep calling leftist weirdos highlighted for you by Fox News fascists when that doesn't make the least bit of sense if you look up what the word actually means and then he demonstrated that you. Shouting or even violence, whether just or extremely unjust, doesn't equal fascism. Anarchists, Marxists, etc. those may be appropriate terms to use the describe those leftists you don't like. Its about learning what words mean before you keep repeating them like a parrot.

Wrong. That's not the only thing I like about Trump. He is also very tall.

Don't preach to me about the definition of fascism while your peeps call everyone right of Stein fascist. That's the frickin point.

If they require someone be right of Stein before they call them a fascist, then they are more correct in their usage than you are. And they are ****ing mouthbreathing morons so....

Lol, ignorant and proud of it! Another thing you must love about Trump.

The "Smash on sight!" doctrine of self defense?

When "Smash on sight" dude is your headliner for a rally, you don't care about free speech.