Think Freely Media presents Common Sense with Paul Jacob

The Silence of Violence

Berkeley, Milo, violence, speech, politics, photos, comment, analysis

“The Free Speech Movement is dead.”

So said the Berkeley College Republicans after violence Wednesday night forced cancelation of a sold-out speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, the Greek-born British author, now a senior editor at Breitbart News. The reference, of course, is to the University of California’s history as a haven for free expression dating back to the 1960s.

Protests of the event gave way to

  • people beaten up on the streets,
  • rocks and bricks and Molotov cocktails hurled at police,
  • a young woman with a “Make America Great Again” parody hat pepper-sprayed in the face,
  • fires set, windows smashed at the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union, along with
  • an estimated $100,000 of property damage.

Yet only one arrest was made Wednesday night, and two on Thursday, when a man in a suit wearing a Trump hat apparently triggered two guys to jump out of their car and assault him.*

CNN dubbed the “inflammatory” Yiannopoulos a “professional provocateur.” He has also been labeled a racist, which he denies, and a homophobe, even though he’s gay. Pushing the envelope against political correctness, for his part, Milo calls “college campuses . . . cancerous and toxic to free expression.”

Regardless of label, Yiannopoulos’s right to speak and the right of others to listen are constitutionally protected. And violence to block a peacefully expressed point of view is never justified.

Asked about the tactics used, one unnamed young protestor** explained, “Although, you know, it could get violent or whatever, with the fire, that’s what caused Milo to leave. We succeeded.”

The young woman added, “And next is Trump.”

Either we defend civilization against speech-squelching violence, or inherit an ugly silence.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

*More arrests may be forthcoming. The Washington Post reported that, “University police rescued many people in the crowd who were being attacked, trapped or injured . . . and are collecting video to try to identify suspects.”

** The woman was part of the ominously-named group By Any Means Necessary.


Printable PDF

 

By: CS Admin

5 Comments

  1. Jatr4 says:

    Trump didn’t go to Wisconsin to Harley Davidson because he feared demonstrations.  Many more to come!  And he managed to lie about HD troubles in the 1990s.  Par for the course.

  2. John F. Brennan says:

    The peaceful secession of power is being threatened, indeed violated, by the elitist, collectivist, statist factions.  For them the end indeed justifies ANY means necessary. History witnesses the murderous result repeated in Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia and many other revolutions. That is no longer taught at Berkley or many other similar “universities” which have abandoned education for indoctrination. 
    Beware, the seeds are planted and the mislead youth but fertilizer. 

  3. Rocketman says:

    I would be willing to bet even money that the funding for all of this violence comes from George Soros and his basket case of uber liberal groups. Considering what violence was done here, there needs to be an FBI investigation into just who put up all of the money for this and if it leads back to him then Soros needs to be charged with terrorism.

  4. Drik says:

    At Berkeley, 4 or 5 ” protesters assaulted one individual who pulled a pistol and shot one of them. Wounded him. No charges filed. if lethal force was necessary, then shooting to wound does not remove the danger. Ask any police officer.

    • JFB says:

      Defense with potentialy fatal force is legal if one has a resonable belief that such was necessary to protect their liide or prevent grave bodily harm. That is the law in most states, I beleive in California, and is derived from the natural law of self-perservation.
      Force may be applied repeatedly until the threat stops. In this case it appears that was not necessary. Generally one does not shoot to kill ir to wound, but only to stop the threat. Once the theart ceases, so does the right to use force in defense.
      Whether or not one was shooting only to wound is not relevant. Most persons, including police, are not good enough with a pistol to be able to accomplich wounding only when they are being attacked. Therefore those in law enforcement, the military and self-defense classes are not trained or encouaged to limit their rightful defense of themselves to “wound only” as such lessens significantly the likeliehood of a sucessful defensive saving the victim of the crime..
      As for charges in this case, it is extremely doubtful that a final determination as to whether or not charges will be filed against the shooter or the attacker, and there a high probibility the attacker will claim victim status and soon be bring a civil action for the damages the wounding caused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

© 2017 Common Sense with Paul Jacob, All Rights Reserved. Back to top