Category Archives: Free Speech

I recently read an articletitled Are There Limits to Online Free Speech? by Alice Marwick, assistant professor of communication and media studies at Fordham University. In the article, Marwick recognizes the increasing amount of discourse surrounding what constitutes free speech in a country that is more politically polarized than ever before. She discusses how this polarization has acted as a catalyst for heated debate across the U.S.

After reading her article, Ive started to notice an emerging division of opinions concerning freedom of expression in the U.S. What many Americans view as a constitutional right under the First Amendment, many others view as unacceptable hate speech.

To an extent, this divide makes sense, considering there are countless controversial issues circulating within our political discourse. Recently, though, free speech has been used as a defense for mistaken opinions, allowing for the normalization of hate driven prejudices.

Our choice is free speech or no speech at allFirst they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Socialist. Then Read

On Feb. 1, a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a former Breitbart editorand alt-right provocateur, was canceledat the University of California, Berkeley after violent protests broke out on the campus in response to Yiannopoulos intolerant platform.

The university has been under scrutiny from both Yiannopoulos andPresident Donald Trump. Trumptweeted If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view NO FEDERAL FUNDS? Yiannopoulos also disapproved of the cancelation, suggesting the hard left has become so utterly antithetical to free speech in the last few years.

Similar reproaches were expressed here at the University of Wisconsin in response to a UW student who sought to establishan alt-right movement on campus. In a meeting with the Associated Students of Madison shared governance committee, UW Chancellor Rebecca Blank continued to stand with freedom of speech, saying that unless violence was mentioned, the student was allowed to speak freely.

In the past, free speech was a label for defense of political freedom of expression. That label was necessary and important.Americans pride themselves on being able to openly express opinions of opposition. But should Yiannopoulos dissent for minority groups and the white nationalist sentiments of the American Freedom Party really be considered political opinions? The answer is no.

UW student halts plan to bring alt-right movement to campusAfter strong opposition from both the administration and student body, University of Wisconsin student Daniel Dropik will not be pursuing Read

In todays polarized political climate, free speech has been misused to justify positions that have long been considered unacceptable in American society.

As Marwick wrote, aggressive [online] speech positions sexism, racism and anti-semitism (and so forth) as issues of freedom of expression rather than structural oppression. There is plenty of room for debate within Americas political forum, but as we continue to progress as a country, its crucialwe stop using free speech as a tool for the perpetuation of oppression.

Gianina Dinon ([emailprotected]) is a sophomore whose major is currently undeclared.

More:
Sorry, but hate speech doesn't count as free speech - The Badger Herald

posted at 5:01 pm on March 7, 2017 by John Sexton

There is a lot to like about the New York Times editorial on the silencing of free speech that took place recently at Middlebury college, but there is also a problem. Midway through, the Times inserts a paragraph suggesting the incident is part of a right-wing narrative aimed at unfairly blaming progressives, rather than an example of a genuine problem with progressive culture on and off campus.The editorial starts well enough with this accurate, if somewhat bloodless, account of the incident at Middlebury:

Truth would lose something by their silence, Mill wrote, even if their views go against the entire world, and the entire world is right.

Persuasive words. But not last Thursday in an auditorium at Middlebury, where a student recited that very quotation in introducing the notorious social scientist Charles Murray. Moments later caterwauling erupted, and the event collapsed into a night of turned backs, shouted chants, pounding fists and one wrenched neck belonging to a professor who was supposed to have provided a counterpoint to Mr. Murrays remarks, and to lead the Q. and A., but instead was attacked while leaving with him.

As I noted yesterday, political science professor Allison Stanger, who is a Democrat, wrote of the moment students began shouting her and Murray down, I saw some of my faculty colleagues who had publicly acknowledged that they had not read anything Dr. Murray had written join the effort to shut down the lecture. Speaking of her effort to exit the building later she wrote, we confronted an angry mob and added, I noticed signs with expletives and my name on them. On the moment when she was grabbed by the hair and shoved violently, Stanger writes, I feared for my life. She later went to the ER and was given a neck brace.

Eventually, the NY Times does condemn all of this in no uncertain terms. Free speech is a sacred right, and it needs protecting, now more than ever. Middleburys president, Laurie Patton, did this admirably, in defending Mr. Murrays invitation and delivering a public apology to him that Middleburys thoughtless agitators should have delivered themselves, the editorial states. Unfortunately, before it reaches that conclusion, the Times felt it was necessary to insert a paragraph suggesting the whole story is part of a bogus right-wing narrative:

Though speakers of all ideologies regularly appear at colleges without incident, a few widely publicized disruptions feed a narrative of leftist enclaves of millennial snowflakes refusing to abide ideas they disagree with. From the president to Fox News, right-wing voices wail, through their megaphones, about how put upon they are, like soccer players collapsing to the turf and writhing in pretend agony.

What the Times is describing with this sports analogy is whats usually called a flop, i.e. a player faking an injury in order to draw a foul on the other team. Clearly, that doesnt apply to the incident at Middlebury College. So where does it apply? Is the Times referring to a similar mob that shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulis at Berkeley? If so, the editorial writers should take a look at a first-hand account by a student reporter who was at Berkeley that night. Heres a bit of what he wrotein the NY Times last month:

Until Wednesday, I never felt in danger during a protest. Around 7 p.m. I saw a huddle of people yelling at one another. As more people surrounded them, a burning red truckers hat was held up on a stick. There were reports that another student wearing what appeared to be a Make America Great Again hat was severely injured.

Then I saw someone wearing all black walk up to a student wearing a suit and say, You look like a Nazi. The student was confused, but before he could reply, the black-clad person pepper-sprayed him and hit him on the back with a rod.

Doesthis sound like a flop created by conservatives to support a false narrative or does it, once again, sound like violent progressives venting their rage on people they see as a threat? The NY Times claim that these incidents are part of a bogus narrative, and not a sign of a genuine problem with progressive protesters, is absurd and ignorant. Not only are conservatives routinely mobbed when they come to campus, some schools now use the likelihood of progressive mob action as an excuse to disinvite them.

Last October, PEN America, a group devoted to preserving the freedom of written expression, issued a report on campus protest behavior. The report stated, a rising generation may be turning against free speech because some of its more forceful advocates have been cast as indifferent to other social justice struggles. The PEN report did not agree with the NY Times that having conservative voices shut out of campus was part of a fake narrative. On the contrary, it suggested there was a real danger to allowing mob action to become an implied threat to speech:

The assassins vetothe ability of those willing to resort to violence to determine what speech can be heardis anathema to free speech. It cedes control to the most extreme and lawless elements. It is the responsibility of the university administration and, where necessary, local law enforcement to ensure the safety of the speaker, the audience, and protesters.

The New York Times is right about the importance of free speech. Its wrong to suggest theright has created a false narrative about this issue. In fact, these incidents keep happening because the progressive left now routinely labels speech it disagrees with as hate speech or worse still as the equivalent of violence. It seems the NY Times isnt ready to admit progressives, on campus and off, are the real cause of this problem.

See the rest here:
NY Times supports free speech but blames right for 'narrative' about progressive campus culture - Hot Air

Amid increasing anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant tensions nationwide, the University of Maine System is considering a new free speech policy that would affirm constitutionally protected speech, but also would allow campus officials to prohibit speech that harasses others.

The executive committee of the board of trustees will discuss and vote on the proposed changes at a meeting Wednesday.

This is a timely issue as many universities nationally have been and are facing questions about campus climate and civility, according to the narrative accompanying the suggested changes.

The policy is based in part on the findings of the University of Chicago Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression, and the model language suggested by that committee.

One of the biggest differences between the UMS and Chicago language is that the model language has a strongly worded and lengthy defense of free speech, with a narrow section spelling out the exemptions. The UMS policy uses the Chicago exemption language almost verbatim and has a more limited description defending all speech. The final section of the UMS policy says this policy shall not be construed or applied to restrict academic freedom within the University, nor to restrict constitutionally protected speech.

In December, the trustees directed an ad hoc committee chaired by Chancellor James Page to consider whether changes were needed to policies regarding free speech and expression, campus climate, and political impartiality. Also on the committee were trustees James Erwin and Gregory Johnson, University of Southern Maine President Glenn Cummings, UMaine Machias Interim President Sue Huseman and general counsel James Thelen.

Read the original here:
UMaine System considering new free speech policy - Press Herald

By Carter Yancey | 03/06/2017 7:02pm

CW / Kylie Cowden

It is astonishing that discussion over the extent to which free speech applies is taking place in the United States of America. The right of free expression is fundamental and absolute, just as it ought to be. Hate speech is free speech, offensive cartoons are permissible, calls to insurrection are totally legal and vile advocations of Nazism should be ignored but by no means silenced. So far, the United States Supreme Court has done a supreme job at preserving and protecting these rights. But free speech is more than just a right; it is a fundamental moral principle.

As a human being, your ability to express yourself is a necessary by-product of your right to exist; if it is denied or suppressed, your humanity itself is being compromised. It is not only necessary to protect this right from government intervention, but also to protect speakers from other citizens. Those who would advocate assault against preachers of hate or endorse the banning of trolls from social platforms are undermining one of the most necessary concepts for a civilized society to prosper. Defenders of liberty, when citing the First Amendment to speak out against such cases, are often met with a defense that goes something like: "Free speech means the government can't punish you for giving your opinion. It doesn't mean that you don't have to face the consequences of what you say." To that, I have several responses.

First of all, we need to be ever conscious about the direction legislation is taking in first world countries. Canada has already passed laws preventing a person from using speech that could be deemed offensive by others. The phrase "hate speech is not free speech" is an attack on free speech which is clearly intended to influence political action. To dismiss the defense of free speech by calling it inapplicable to the private sector is to ignore the fact that such ideas are infiltrating our political sphere. It is not an overreach to proudly invoke the Constitutional right to free speech as a defense against current events when the other side of the debate, if left to its own devices, would gladly pass laws to limit this fundamental freedom.

Secondly, a right is something that the government has an obligation to preserve, meaning it is the duty of the government to protect me from those who would try to prevent me from or attack me for speaking my mind. You cannot relieve the government from that responsibility and then accuse me of misusing the First Amendment to defend hate speech. Anyone who commits assault should be punished by law, even if the victim of the assault is a Nazi. When riots ensue and property is damaged in the heart of protesting a speaker and the government sits by idly, reminding people that free speech is a right becomes of dire importance.

But most importantly, people who say that free speech doesnt apply to the private sector are missing the point. Of course universities have the right to deny speakers a platform on their premises, and of course Twitter has the right to ban those who would harass other users from using their site. The question is not should they be allowed to do so, the question is should they do so. No honest and proud institute of education would shy away from the opportunity to discuss and dismantle ideas. Listening to your opponents does not grant them legitimacy cowering from them does. It is good for a free market to bring bad ideologies to ruin by boycotting the lectures and writings of their supporters, but the difference between a University not accepting a speaker because there is no profit to be made and prohibiting a talk because it is contrary to an established agenda is extraordinary.

Free speech is more than a legal right to be protected by the government; it is a moral necessity that every individual should be encouraged to exercise. For readers of this column, as students of a university, this idea is of particular relevance. Campuses across our country are making a habit of creating zones where students are safe from being exposed to dissenting opinions. We have seen Universities go through great lengths to prevent certain influential people from appearing on their grounds. With this in mind, students should not only be reminded that free speech is a right, but should be taught that it is inherently a good thing even when the words spoken are bad.

Carter Yancey is a sophomore majoring in computer science and mathematics. His column runs biweekly.

Go here to read the rest:
Free speech is more than a right - The Crimson While

New York Times

Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech New York Times Mr. Erdogan's opponents in Germany, both Turkish and German, say the president wants to use the freedoms of Western democracy to further consolidate his anti-democratic powers at home, and they accuse him and his men of using their right to free speech ... The Latest: Opposition: Turkish govt limits free speech too - Spokane, North Idaho News & Weather KHQ.comKHQ Right Now How Germany accidentally gave Erdogan a boost ahead of key voteAl-Monitor all 759 news articles »

The rest is here:
Turkish Referendum Has Country Trading Barbs With Germany Over Free Speech - New York Times

Pakistan is no place for free speech.

A justice on Pakistans Islamabad High Court (IHC) has threatened to shut down the entirety of social media if criticism of Islams Muhammad continues, declaring these blasphemers as terrorists.

According to local reports, Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqi burst into tears while issuing the warning for those who apparently have taken to social media to criticize Muhammad. Siddiqi made it very clear that Pakistan would not allow for such displays of free speech.

Why is the blasphemous content present on the social media? What steps had the government taken up in this regard so far? Siddiqi asked. I submit and sacrifice myself and all what I have including my parents, my life and job to the person of Allahs messenger If the sacrilegious pages cannot be blocked, then, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) should cease to exist, he added.

Siddiqi then took his comments a step further, arguing that social media in its entirety should be cut off for Muhammads sake.

"Each and everything can be sacrificed for the honor of Allah's Messenger. I will close entire social media, if I have to," he said.

And then came the conclusion: The justice declaring those who decide to engage in free speech as terrorists.

"I hereby declare as terrorists who commit blasphemy to the holy Prophet. the IHC justice declared.

About 75 percent of Pakistanis support the countrys blasphemy laws, which say that insulting Islam is punishable by death. This has led to massive discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities living inside Pakistan. The blasphemy edicts sometimes lead mobs to take the streets, and guaranteesviolent repercussions for those who have been deemed slanderers of Islam.

Pakistan is currently fending off a wave of jihadist terrorist attacks. In one such incident in February, a suicide bomber killed 88 people after detonating his vest at a Sufi shrine. This might lead observers to believe that such a vital issue to national security would take priority in Islamabad. Instead, the judiciary is discussing how to block what its citizens discuss on social media.

Free speech does not exist in Pakistan. And worse, the highest levels of government are accused of becoming cozy with international terrorist groups.

Pakistan was notoriously once the home base for deceased al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, who set up shop in Abbottabad, located less than a mile away from a prominent Pakistani military academy. Its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has long been accused of collaborating with jihadist terror outfits.

Jordan Schachtel is the national security correspondent for CR. Follow him on Twitter @JordanSchachtel.

Originally posted here:
Pakistani judge threatens to shut down country's social media over free speech 'terrorists' - Conservative Review

3:20 p.m. ET March 7, 2017

A University of California-Berkeley spokesman says a small group was responsible for turning protests violent when Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos came to speak.(Photo: AP)

They told me if Donald Trump were elected, voices of dissent would be shut down by fascist mobs. And they were right!

At the University of California, Berkeley campus, for example, gay conservative speaker Milo Yiannopoulos had to be evacuated, and his speech canceled, because masked rioters beat people, smashed windows and started fires. Protesters threw commercial fireworks at police.

According to CNN: The violent protesters tore down metal barriers, set fires near the campus bookstore and damaged the construction site of a new dorm. One woman wearing a red Trump hat was pepper sprayed in the face while being interviewed by CNN affiliate KGO. . . . As police dispersed the crowd from campus, a remaining group of protesters moved into downtown Berkeley and smashed windows at several local banks. No arrests were made throughout the night.

According to CNN, the protests caused over $100,000 in damage.

Yiannopoulous wasnt the only victim of silencing efforts. At Marquette University, conservative speaker Ben Shapiro faced efforts by Marquette university employees to silence him.

The Young Americas Foundation obtained Facebook comments by Chrissy Nelson, a program assistant for Marquettes Center for Gender and Sexuality Studies, encouraging people at the behest of one of the directors of diversity to reserve all the seats for the hall and then not show up. The purpose of this was to take a seat away from someone who actually would go.

So students who wanted to hear a speaker with alternative views would find themselves unable to get a seat, because a university employee had made fake reservations. All, apparently, in the name of diversity.

Likewise, when conservative Gavin MacInnes (a founder of Vice.com) appeared to speak at New York University, he was met by an angry mob that forced him to cut his talk short, while a woman who identified herself as an NYU professor urged police, whom she said were protecting the Nazis by keeping the crowd away from MacInnes and his entourage, to "kick their ass instead of protecting them.

This stuff all looks terrible so bad that Democrat operative Robert Reich was reduced to blaming outside agitators for the violence, a trope that, as law professor Ann Althouse noted, has unfortunate resonance with the Jim Crow era. And President Trump even tweeted that Berkeley should lose federal funding for its inability to ensure free speech rights for everyone on its campus.

Well, the rioters may or may not have been Berkeley students as Althouse notes, since they were wearing masks, theres really no way Reich could tell but I think its safe to say that the rioting happened because they thought they could get away with it. (And with no arrests, I guess they did.) Likewise, I think that the staffers at Marquette didnt entertain any thought that what they were doing might get them punished. (Nor, as far as I can tell, have they been).

Thats because there has evolved on our campuses a culture of impunity: Misbehavior on the part of lefty activists will get winked at, even as other groups (sports teams with sexist appearance rankings, say) get raked over the coals for minor misbehavior. This double standard is of a piece with many campuses openly taking sides over the election, treating Trumps win like a terrorist attack, while investigating Trump supporters for racist allegations only to find no evidence that they had done anything except say Make America Great Again, as Babson College, a small school in Massachusetts, did.And as CNN's Marc Lamont Hill acknowledged, right-wing rioters are absent on college campuses.

Whether or not Berkeley loses its federal funding over the Milo riots (and it wont), I think its time for action to address this double standard. First, state and local law enforcement agencies need to target violent rioters who seek to silence speakers. It is a felony under federal civil rights law to conspire to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights, among which is free speech. In addition, many states have laws (generally called Klan laws) that punish people who engage in mob violence or intimidation while masked. These should be applied as well.

Second, perhaps its time to have a Title IX-style law banning discrimination according to political viewpoints on campus. Many states (including California) already have laws banning discrimination in hiring and firing based on political viewpoints. Perhaps we need a federal civil rights law providing that colleges that receive federal funds (which is pretty much all of them) can lose those funds if they discriminate against students because of their political views.

Some colleges may complain that this is federal interference in their internal affairs, but given the limited resistance theyve mounted to intrusive Title IX regulations, it will be hard to take such complaints seriously. Americas colleges and universities have a free speech problem. Its appropriate for the federal government to take action to protect the civil rights of those affected.

Glenn Reynolds is a member of USA TODAYs Board of Contributors.

Read or Share this story: http://on.app.com/2mCvuiX

See the original post here:
REYNOLDS: End conspiring to stifle free speech - Asbury Park Press

Lisa Rathke, AP Images

Protesters turned their backs and shouted as Charles Murray, the controversial political scientist best known for The Bell Curve, tried to speak at Middlebury College on Thursday. The confrontation became violent later as protesters swarmed Mr. Murray and the professor who moderated the event as they tried to leave.

In the wake of protests that disrupted a controversial speakers appearance and left a professor injured, Middlebury College has become the latest flashpoint in a national battle over campus speech and safety.

In a statement to the campus on Friday, Laurie L. Patton, the colleges president, described a violent incident with a lot of pushing and shoving as protesters swarmed Charles Murray, the speaker, and Allison Stanger, a professor who served as moderator, after the event. Ms. Patton apologized to Mr. Murray, Ms. Stanger, who was injured during the encounter, and everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion.

We believe that many of these protesters were outside agitators, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.

Even before it happened, Mr. Murrays appearance had put those values on trial. Now the incident has stoked new debate about whether the protesters were suppressing or exercising free speech, and about who was responsible for escalating the disruption into a fracas that sent Ms. Stanger to the hospital for treatment of an injury to her neck.

At the center of the incident was a familiar figure: Mr. Murray, the polarizing political scientist best known for his 1994 book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. The book, co-written with the psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein,argues that the gap in academic achievement between black and white students can be at least partially explained by genetics. The book has been widely criticized for both its sociological methods and its racial implications.

A conservative student organization invited Mr. Murray to Middlebury; the colleges political-science department then sponsored the invitation.

On Wednesday, a day before the event, the student newspaper published a letter from a group of nearly 500 alumni and students who condemned Mr. Murrays visit, calling it a decision that directly endangers members of the community and stains Middleburys reputation by jeopardizing the institutions claims to intellectual rigor and compassionate inclusivity.

The following day, The New York Times reported, most of the over 400 students at Mr. Murrays speech turned their backs to the speaker and shouted him down. Middlebury officials moved Mr. Murray to a new room, where Ms. Stanger, a professor of international politics and economics, completed an interview streamed on video despite further disruptions.

In an essay published Sunday, Mr. Murray no stranger to campus protests argued that, due to its length and intensity, the Middlebury disruption "could become an inflection point."

"Until last Thursday, all of the ones involving me have been as carefully scripted as kabuki: The college administration meets with the organizers of the protest and ground rules are agreed upon," he wrote. "If this becomes the new normal, the number of colleges willing to let themselves in for an experience like Middleburys will plunge to near zero."

After the event, as protests continued outside, a group including Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger left the venue. There, according to Ms. Patton, a violent incident occurred, culminating in an attack on the car in which they were leaving campus.

Bill Burger, a college spokesman who was part of the group escorting Mr. Murray, told the Times that masked protesters accosted Ms. Stanger. Someone grabbed Allisons hair and twisted her neck, he told the newspaper.

Ms. Stanger was treated and fitted with a neck brace at a nearby hospital, according to the Addison Independent.

A group of student protesters published a conflicting account of the incident, arguing that Middlebury officials had exacerbated the incident and that Ms. Stangers hair was not intentionally pulled but was inadvertently caught in the chaos that Public Safety incited.

On Twitter, Mr. Murray applauded both Mr. Burger and Ms. Stanger:

We believe that many of these protesters were outside agitators, wrote Ms. Patton in her note to the campus, but there are indications that Middlebury College students were involved as well.

Whatever the mix of students and outsiders, many commentators from across the political spectrum were quick to portray the incident as an example of students intolerance of uncomfortable speech.

In an editorial assailing The Mob at Middlebury, The Wall Street Journal urged Ms. Patton to follow through with discipline to scare these students straight. And Suzanne Nossel, executive director of PEN America, an association of writers and editors, condemned a lawless and criminal attack that marks a new low in this challenged era for campus speech.

Amid the fiery off-campus response, Middlebury students and faculty took stock. Some expressed dismay at the disruption of Mr. Murrays speech and the chaos that ensued.

It is understandable why some students may find Murrays research findings offensive, wrote Matthew Dickinson, a professor of political science at Middlebury. It is less clear, however, why so many believe that the appropriate response was not to simply skip his talk, but instead to prevent others from hearing him and, in so doing, inadvertently give him the platform and national exposure they purportedly opposed.

But the view that student protesters erred in shouting down Mr. Murray is far from unanimous. I am angry that free speech is conflated with civil discourse, wrote Linus Owens, an associate professor of sociology. Mr. Owens argued that Middlebury legitimized Mr. Murray by giving him a stage and deciding that only then we can ask smart and devastating questions in return.

Thats one model, sure, he wrote, but its not the only one.

In a Facebook post, Ms. Stanger described Thursday as "the saddest day of my life." By turning away from the stage during Mr. Murray's speech, the professor wrote, the protesting students had "effectively dehumanized me." Still, she argued against a common criticism of the disruption as an example of ivory-tower excess.

"To people who wish to spin this story as one about what's wrong with elite colleges and universities, you are wrong," she wrote. "Please instead consider this as a metaphor for what's wrong with our country, and on that, Charles Murray and I would agree."

Update (3/5/2017, 8:47 p.m.): This article has been updated to add statements from Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger.

Brock Read is assistant managing editor for daily news at The Chronicle. He directs a team of editors and reporters who cover policy, research, labor, and academic trends, among other things. Follow him on Twitter @bhread, or drop him a line at brock.read@chronicle.com.

Follow this link:
A Scuffle and a Professor's Injury Make Middlebury a Free-Speech Flashpoint - Chronicle of Higher Education (subscription)

Once again it appears we are living in an alternate universe. In Montana and all over the United States of America, the elitist progressive liberal globalist socialist anarchists (EPLGSA) who claim to be advocates for free speech are demonstrating just exactly the opposite and looking really, really stupid doing it.

Has our civilized American society been broken down by the EPLGSA to the point where only the loudest, noisiest side can be heard? When our elected officials offer the opportunity for an exchange of information between themselves and the electorate, how does it serve anyone by having the EPLGSA totally disrupt such gatherings? How is it that the EPLGSA could be so arrogant that they think their free speech rights trump everyone elses free speech rights? But, arrogance seems to be a natural trait of the EPLGSA.

The time has come for accountability. Is it time for law enforcement agencies to put order back into law and order? Why should taxpayers be footing the bill for these goofball demonstrators? If these people wish to tear things up, let them pay for the damage.

For my liberal progressive friends; does this intolerant behavior make you proud? How is this good for America?

Read more:
Demonstrators oppose free speech - The Missoulian

A small riot erupted Saturday afternoon in Berkeley, California, after violent protesters confronted pro-Trump demonstrators and allegedly began a confrontation that turned violent.

The confrontation occurred on a day when Americans across the country held peaceful demonstrations in support of President Donald Trump, free speech and America.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the pro-Trump demonstrators participating in the March 4 Trump rally began marching at 2 p.m. PST Saturday at the Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park. Just several blocks up the road, they were met by counter-protesters dressed in masks and black clothing who began the confrontation.

From the San Francisco Gate:

By 3 p.m., the self-proclaimed anarchists were dominating the crowd. Dressed all in black and wearing cloth bandannas over their faces, they stopped traffic as they marched from the park through downtown with the smaller mix of Trump supporters and counterprotesters. In the park, people opposed to Trump threw eggs and burned both American flags and the red Make America Great Again Trump campaign hats.

Photos and videos posted to Twitter and other social media showed fistfights, shouting matches, people being beat with sticks and signs, people pulling hair and some counter-protesters pepper-spraying the pro-Trump marchers, including an elderly man.

https://twitter.com/JasonBelich/status/838160510092619776

https://twitter.com/JasonBelich/status/838189629257895936

https://twitter.com/San___Frexit/status/838238465456234496

As a result of the violence, police in riot gear lined the streets and attempted to control the crowd and stop the violence.

Berkeley police said they arrested 10 people: five for battery, four for assault with a deadly weapon and one for resisting arrest. Seven people were evaluated for their injuries at the scene, but no one had to be taken to the hospital.

According to Matthai Chakko, a spokesman for the city of Berkeley, police confiscated items such as a dagger, metal pipes, baseball bats, two-by-four pieces of wood and bricks.

A group of people carrying bricks were detained and the bricks were confiscated, he told the Times.

Some reports also indicate that some of the counter-protesters responsible for the violence came from the militant activist group By Any Means Necessary and the so-called black bloc, two groups that many blame for the violence at UC-Berkeley last month.

Visit link:
Violent protesters beat pro-Trump demonstrators at Calif. rally, burn American flags & free speech signs - TheBlaze.com