Campus Free Speech

Ohio University's Radical Students Could Have Ignored Kaitlin Bennett. Instead, They Threw Liquids At Her.

The mob strategy is morally and practically flawed.

|

Kaitlin Bennett, a far-right gadfly associated with Infowars and Liberty Hangout, visited Ohio University on Monday to make a video for Presidents Day. In response, mobs of students surrounded her, screamed in her face, and threw liquids at her.

The students' behavior is contemptible. It's also a terrible strategy for countering the kind of narrative that people like Bennett want to tell about college campuses—indeed, it gives them the exact ammo they need to claim censorship. I would implore student activists to consider the optics: A mob of people surrounding and throwing things at a woman with a camera phone is only going to invite well-deserved opprobrium from the wider public.

Unsurprisingly, Bennett has leveraged the situation to her advantage, calling on President Donald Trump to "strip funding from universities like this that harbor terrorists." In her tweets about the incident, she also slammed the police for failing to prevent the students from throwing liquids at her.

Ohio University police described the incident as two-sided—Bennett and one other person, and the students—each engaging in First Amendment-protected activity, according to CNN:

Despite the tension, Ohio University police said there were no injuries or violent outbreaks reported during the protest. The students were exercising their First Amendment rights just as Bennett was, police said. "Contrary to allegations circulating on social media, the incident did not rise to the level of a riot," police said in a statement.

The incident may not have constituted a riot, but a person should be able to visit a public university campus without having liquids thrown at them by hostile throngs. What happened to Bennett is another reminder that the threat to free speech on college campuses primarily comes not from the faculty but from a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students. (For more on this subject, read this excellent piece by The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf.)

Advertisement

NEXT: New Op-Ed in the Washington Post: "The Constitution does not place a wall between the president and the Justice Department"

Campus Free Speech First Amendment Free Speech

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

172 responses to “Ohio University's Radical Students Could Have Ignored Kaitlin Bennett. Instead, They Threw Liquids At Her.

  1. Tolerance means …. oh crap. I’m not supposed to say that anymore.

  2. Interesting that the cops think throwing liquids at people is exercising their First Amendment right. Does that mean I can throw liquids at cops and they will just brush it off as me exercising my First Amendment right? I look forward to this new interpretation.

    1. I believe they call that battery. Spit into it and it’s felony assault.

    2. You don’t have a First Amendment right to say fuck you to a cop, so you can guess how throwing anything harmless at them would go.

      Also, there are no First Amendment rights. There are rights that the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

      Also also, luckily these were campus cops who at least have heard of the First Amendment.

      1. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled you DO have the right to yell “Fuck you” to cops, to give the finger, and other insults, unless you interfere with their job.

        1. Try to tell a cop that.

          1. They don’t get the excuse of qualified immunity.

          2. There are a lot of things which are legal but costly.

          3. You know what they say. Do what the cop says and then challenge it in court later. But the court doesn’t give a shit.

          4. You can, and if all the cop has is that you used the ‘f-bomb’ at him, you’ll have him and his department for false arrest.

            The hell of it, of course, is that you’d better have recorded the whole thing, with the video instantly uploaded to the ‘cloud’. When the pig does arrest you, what do you think happens to your phone? Cops have long protected themselves from legal reprisal by false charges of assault/battery on a peace officer, resisting arrest, obstruction, and so on. If the situation comes down to your word against theirs, you LOSE.

            Of course, I don’t actually advise spouting off to a cop, and especially not saying “eff you” or anything like it. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it SMART.

        2. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled you DO have the right to yell “Fuck you” to cops, to give the finger, and other insults, unless you interfere with their job.

          So? Cops don’t care. They claim qualified immunity or ignorance of the law, and nothing else happens.

          I was walking past a couple cops in Boston after leaving a Muse concert with a friend (I met here on H&R), and we overheard a conversation.

          Cop 1: “You can’t use a taser for compliance!”
          short pause
          Both cops: “Haaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!”

      2. “There are rights that the First Amendment is supposed to protect.”

        Yep. Rights do not come from government.

      3. You don’t have a First Amendment right to say fuck you to a cop

        Yes you do. Lewis v. City of New Orleans.

      4. “You don’t have a First Amendment right to say fuck you to a cop, so you can guess how throwing anything harmless at them would go.”
        You.
        Are.
        Full.
        Of.
        Shit.
        Again…

    3. “Interesting that the cops think throwing liquids at people is exercising their First Amendment right.”

      That is also the Libertarian Party’s official position

      1. Ya, it was pretty disgusting what the Libertarian National Party decided to focus on (Bennett calling the batterers “terrorists”) and what they ignored (a mob of individuals throwing objects at Bennett). They carried water for people violating the NAP in order to virtue signal that calling names and hyperbole is bad.

        https://twitter.com/LPNational/status/1229626052839968769

        1. Some good comments in that thread.
          The LP, and establishment “libertarian” outlet Reason, do a great job of driving people away from libertarianism

          1. Hopefully actual Libertarians have thick skin and can clearly see that unreason staff and most LP officials are NOT Libertarians.

            1. I must say that I had so much fun on Sex in Wien so check it out

          2. I know, right? What we need is more of Liberty Hangout’s version of libertarianism, amirite?

            What precisely is the distinction between what you perceive as what libertarianism ought to be, and what the Republican Party is today?

            1. Bennet is no libertarian.

              1. “Bennet is no libertarian.”

                I don’t give a shit. If the Libertarian Party doesn’t stand at least for the principle that people don’t get to use violence against a speaker who isn’t trespassing, then what the fuck does it stand for? Your NAP only applies to people who aren’t icky?

                Bennet, the Klan, the Nation of Islam, you name the annoyance: they may be odious to you, and their rhetoric abominable, but if they are in public, aren’t trespassing, and aren’t violating nuisance law, you don’t get to throw shit at them.

                How is this so fucking hard for alleged Libertarians to understand?

                1. Non sequitur.

                2. It’s not hard to understand at all.

                  The NAP is a pretty easy concept to grasp.

            2. What we need is people who talk about the NAP to correctly respond to violent. The Libertarian Party did not. It stands for nothing.

              At least Reason had the decency to point this out. The LP victim blamed and downplayed violence.

              I can’t believe the LP doesn’t have more traction, what with the GOP falling apart or something something orange man bad

        2. The fuck? Wow, they actually did write that, right? This isn’t a spoof account? From the link:

          Ms. Bennett, you have a right to your opinion, and a right to voice it.

          These college students do as well.

          Calling them “terrorists” because they utilized their right to assembly and speech is both dishonest and shameful.

          Maybe Dalmia, and her infamous tweets about the violence at Berkeley, does belong here?

          I know I don’t. Reinforces my desire to not be thought of as Libertarian, if that’s what the official party has to say about using violence against a peaceful, non-trespassing speaker. Remain irrelevant as always, Libertarian Party. I’ll know to never need your opinion on anything, now that weed is mostly legal.

          But then, I’m only here for the comments anyway.

          1. This is a perfect example of why I call myself a libertarian, but not a Libertarian.

    4. I wonder if the police would agree that Ms. Bennett and her friends could return that water without prosecution.

      Of course, I would suggest they do so at 100-400psi and 20 liters per second…

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cannon

    5. No you cannot throw liquid at cops, because cops are a “protected class.” I know this because I once threw water at an ER nurse, who is also a “protected class,” and pursued felony assault charges against me. Thankfully the prosecutor decided not to pursue it, as middle class drunk white women are probably not really a threat once they sober up.

      But, middle class conservative white women are the perfect target to throw water upon, as they are clearly the troublemakers that agitate and disrupt the most basic, gentle natures of humanity.

      1. Assault of any kind, whether against a “protected class” or not, is not the point. The cop said throwing water is a First Amendment right, which it clearly is not when the target is human, but the cop’s protected class status does not render him immune to First Amendment rights. I was pointing out his stupidity.

    6. Does that mean I can throw liquids at cops and they will just brush it off as me exercising my First Amendment right?

      In NYC, yes (water, not liquids). One of DeBlasio’s Stupid decisions. Reason covered it.

    7. Can we throw milk at them while they are eating their donuts?

    8. College cops..aka idiots.

  3. “The students were exercising their First Amendment rights just as Bennett was, police said.”

    Throwing liquids is not a First Amendment right. And screaming in her face? That sounds like a heckler’s veto, also not protected by the First.

    1. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

      I think the word “exercising” is what makes people believe the Bill of Rights are entitlement instead of governmental limits.

      How exactly do they associate throwing things to the federal government passing a law that prohibits speech?? And I’m not sure throwing things would classify as “peaceable assembly”.

  4. The students’ behavior is contemptible. It’s also a terrible strategy for countering the kind of narrative that people like Bennett want to tell about college campuses

    And hitting a lot of home runs is a terrible strategy for winning football games. Why would you assume that countering the narrative is their goal? Ignoring people you don’t like doesn’t give you the opportunity to display your self-righteous fury quite the way hitting them in the head with a brick does, and the brick makes a much quicker job of shutting them up than arguing does.

    1. That it does. Debate club is so yesteryear.

      1. What about Fight Club?

        1. Dude!
          First rule!

        2. Dude!!! Second RULE!!

        3. You are the all singing all dancing crap of the world.

    2. That passage got me as well. It is the equivalent of saying, “Don’t be yourself because you might prove the right is correct about the left and we can’t have that!” Avoiding an assault isn’t about good strategy and optics… it is about doing the right thing (or avoiding doing wrong things) for it’s own moral merit.

      The only reason Robby wants the left to be civil isn’t because civility is inherently good or because people on the right are humans with value… no… it’s so the left can “win” an argument or optics contest.

      “SHHHHH. Dont admit we want gulags! That will just prove the right was correct in saying we are blood thirsty!” The admonition should be more along the lines of “Stop being a monster and stop advocating for evil in the way of gulags.” Or in this case “Stop throwing water… BECAUSE IT IS WRONG. Doing so means the right IS right and you ARE a monster. And if that is who you are, we should support the right in their description of you because you deserve it.”

    3. Bennett is famous for the photo of her wearing a short shirt and slung AR-10 on campus. I would not be surprised if she owns something in .357Sig in case of attack by masons.

  5. “A mob of people surrounding and throwing things at a woman with a camera phone is only going to invite well-deserved opprobrium from the wider public.”

    “Well-deserved opprobrium?” They don’t want your stinking “opprobrium!” That bullshit is for fascists, don’t you know. They just want to shut em up.

    1. Don’t leftists deserve opprobrium just for being leftists?

  6. Speaking of Liberty Hangout, looks like they’ve found the candidate they are going to support.

    https://twitter.com/LibertyHangout/status/1228120688768229376

    1. Between this and the Libertarian Party’s official Tweet, I wonder if Twitter got hacked or if they’ve both got the same mole working for them… just too principally inconsistent to be believed.

  7. It’s wrong to throw liquids at people (nonconsensually), but throwing liquids at someone doesn’t make one a terrorist.

    1. Try again. In the new progressive morality, any hurtful speech is violence. So hurling a physical object is certainly terrorism.

      1. Using violence against civilians to accomplish a political goal – pretty much the definition of terrorism

        1. Especially when you don’t know what the liquid is.

          It’s battery. I thought libertarians were against committing battery against nonviolent people they disagreed with?

          The hard Left—-Antifa and their friends—have been making public speaking by conservatives a contact sport for about the last two years now. They aren’t doing it because they worry about the “well-deserved opprobrium from the wider public.’ As Jerryskids points out, they do it to shut opposing voices the hell up. They want opposing voices to FEAR speaking in public in places like Portland, S.F., or in college towns like Athens, Ohio.

          It’s the definition of terrorism. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll just give you a head injury, like that poor bastard Andy Ngo.

          1. 4-5 years.
            And it’s working

      2. No it’s not. Hurling physical objects at speech emanating from literally Hitler is antifascist, hence, not only acceptable, but necessary.

        1. Maybe they need to be reminded that public exasperation at groups of radical youths fighting in the streets is one of the things that enabled Hitler to take power.

    2. That’s entirely on the chemistry of liquids being thrown at the time AND the history of of the chemistry of liquids being thrown in the recent past. If you’re not sure what’s being thrown and others have been hurt by those liquids, that fear is real, justified, and may be intentional on the part of the thrower.

      Acid attacks common in the UK? Throwing any liquid at people can be pretty terrifying (and intended to be so).

      Don’t do Wrongthink and you won’t get your melted…or THINK you’re going to get your face melted…

      1. Why not exit the vehicle, wade into the crowd in your best nylons, hear the words “this is acid, bitch”, fear for your life, and let loose with the industrial bear spray?

        Jus sayin’.

        1. I bet that Kaitlin feared for her life once she was in that violent mob.

          A single shot from her weapon would have dispersed that crowd. I would have never convicted her if I was on her jury for some ridiculous gun charge.

          1. “I would have never convicted her if I was on her jury for some ridiculous gun charge.”

            You aren’t on the jury. You aren’t telling the cops to sit back and watch. People sympathetic to her attackers? They are.

            Oft-repeated, but what the hell: If you take away the soap box through committing violence against others; if you take away the jury box by not charging or by accepting guilty pleas to grossly inadequate punishments for violent behavior; if you take away the ballot box through widespread voter fraud…you start running out of boxes by which the minority can express discontent with current governance.

            Also again: once the violence starts, and it gets widespread, it’s really, really hard to turn off. So let’s not go there, OK?

            1. I would say the violence is already there but they only have water and hot coffee to throw.

              Patriots have bullets.

              1. Tell that to Steve Scalise. Or to the concert goers at the Route 91 Harvest Festival, but you’ll need a Ouija board for some of them.

                1. Progressivism will continue marching forward, sometimes slowed but not stopped, unless physically halted.
                  Do with that what you will.
                  Trump is the attempt at peaceful revolution

          2. There’s no way an Athens County jury would convict her. The leftism stops at the University gates.

    3. It does when it’s politically motivated. I don’t know why everyone forgets that part of the definition.

      ter·ror·ism
      /ˈterəˌrizəm/
      noun: terrorism

      the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

    4. chemjeff is totes kewl with water being thrown on people via firehose too.

      1. Water from a firehose isn’t being thrown, it’s being projected.

        Fortunately, chemjeff is totes cool with projection, too.

        1. I see what you did there.

  8. Robbie, that censorship exists on campuses isn’t really a debatable point at this time.

    1. Oh, someone will pop up and say censorship is not really censorship unless the government does it.

      I am getting the impression that the American left models social discourse on the model of The Purge movies and Game of Thrones. Little closed minded self righteous Bolsheviks spoiling to organize a VCheka.

  9. It’s all part of the left’s plan to move the Overton Window to a place where they can hold struggle sessions with impunity.
    The West is a decade away from the left killing its opponents under government sanction, and I don’t think it can be stopped anymore.

    1. If humanity is a virus killing The Environment and their opponents are violating everyone’s fundamental human rights to live under Socialism, death camps obviously come next.

    2. “The West is a decade away from the left killing its opponents under government sanction,” he says unironically while a far right regime called the GOP has just declared that free and fair elections do not matter in our republic.

      1. The level of delusion in this post provides good evidence that we are indeed just a decade away from the left killing its opponents under government sanction

      2. “…the GOP has just declared that free and fair elections do not matter in our republic.”

        Reference please> Definitely not from this morning WAPO:

        https://www.reddit.com/r/WayOfTheBern/comments/f66frs/washington_post_its_time_to_give_the_elites_a/

        1. Independent Bernie Sanders seems to be leading in popular votes, while upstart Pete Buttigieg is ahead in the delegate count.

          How does that work?

        2. I’ve noticed that there’s been an uptick recently of articles amongst the media of “we can’t win in 2020 anyway because Trump will cheat”. Because Russians. At some point, this shit falls into libel and slander.

          1. We’re way past the point where it qualifies as libel and slander.
            When CNN constantly pushes the narrative that all and/or generally Trump voters are racist/fascist/evil, there are consequences.
            Not for CNN, but for the people who are assaulted, whose property is vandalized, whose associates cease relations, etc.
            But CNN gets a pass for stating their opinions and desires as fact, and broadcasting them to the world.
            At what point will it be stopped?

      3. You’ve gone to just blatant trolling now.

      4. “a far right regime called the GOP has just declared that free and fair elections do not matter in our republic”

        Fuck off, you authoritarian leftist shill.

      5. I invite you, yet again, to change the constitution as per our laws to effect popular votes vs. electoral college. Just be aware that, if successful, you will have triggered a taxation without representation event, with consequences consistent with history.

    3. “The West is a decade away from the left *trying* to kill its opponents under government sanction”

      FTFY. Once they try to kick things off, they’re gonna have a hell of a time actually going through with it. And personally, I see this shit kicking off in the US this election, depending on how it goes, 2024 election by the latest. In the EU, yeah, I’d give it a decade to boil a bit more.

  10. Looking at the lead photo, I see dozens of phones being used.

    Using common progressive logic, if an object, say handguns, makes hazardous behavior more likely, then society has the right to restrict ownership and use. Ergo, these people should not have phones.

    Did I do that right?

    1. Phones? They were throwing water too. They shouldn’t be allowed to have that either…

      1. Funny how throwing water via water hose is a big no no.

        Throwing hot water is totes kewl.

    2. One girl who argued with Kaitlin’s black friend, Joel Patrick, about him not being actually black, despite his skin color, was unironically holding an iced venti Starbucks cup. I say we ban Starbucks as well for fueling this hate-filled ideology! They wouldn’t be so agitated without the caffeine!

      1. Ok, I had never heard of Joel Patrick. I just watched his Twitter video of him in a confederate flag announcing that “this university is built by white people, for white people. Y’all black people need to leave. Y’all need to go to a historically black college” (or thereabouts)

        Really funny rebuke of the no white people allowed in the diversity center chick.

        At least, that’s what I assumed it was. The twitter comments make me wonder a bit, as very few of them seem to get it. In fact, quite a few seem to be doubling down on the idiocy. Which was even funnier, actually.

        1. Local radio host (drawing a blank on the name) is supposed to have him on friday am.
          Apparently, Patrick drives a big orange truck he calls the “trumpkin”.
          Looking forward to the spot

  11. I would implore student activists to consider the optics…

    Soave wants to normalize hate but the students know not to let that happen.

    1. I would implore someone to make arrests.

    2. You beat me to it. I was going to suggest throwing liquids and assaulting your opponents under cover of darkness. Hence, bad optics avoided!!

  12. The students’ behavior is contemptible. It’s also a terrible strategy for countering the kind of narrative that people like Bennett want to tell about college campuses—indeed, it gives them the exact ammo they need to claim censorship.

    It gives her ammo because it is censorship. What Bennett says about colleges is true. Jesus Christ Robby, why is that so hard to admit?

    1. Because Robbie thinks Kaitlyn is icky. As does Reason.

      If it was an illegal drug dealer, they’d be dramatically more sympathetic.

      1. unreason writers dont actually like drug dealers like invite them over to their house…like.

        unreason just uses groups like drug dealers as tools to tear down the USA. They also use illegal aliens too.

        I would totally invite this Bennett lady over to my house.

  13. “Kaitlin Bennett, a far-right gadfly associated with Infowars and Liberty Hangout…”

    Robby Soave, a dick-sucking neo-liberal gadfly associated with the disgraced pseudo libertarian rag know as Reason…..

    Is that how it’s done?

  14. It’s also a terrible strategy for countering the kind of narrative that people like Bennett want to tell”

    People like Bennett? this implies she is some type of evil or criminal or maybe even deserving of ridicule what are you trying to say or is more of your they are just as bad, so you can be with the in crowd that does the shouting?

    1. this implies she is some type of evil or criminal or maybe even deserving of ridicule

      No it doesn’t. It merely implies that there are other people like her.

      1. Say “people like X” in most groups and you will be called a racist or homophobe or etc… so yes there is an implication there

        1. No, there isn’t.

          1. People like you would think so.

    2. To be sure…

    3. Well she does approve of some forms of government initiatory force so she is a little bit evil.

  15. There’s a funny side to it: it’s hilarious how one little girl made them have a meltdown.

    1. she is the next Trump

  16. I would expect the Libertarian Party’s disgusting tweets on this incident to be mentioned in this article.

    1. Libertarian Party
      @LPNational

      Ms. Bennett, you have a right to your opinion, and a right to voice it.

      These college students do as well.

      Calling them “terrorists” because they utilized their right to assembly and speech is both dishonest and shameful.

      The 1st Amendment only protects peaceful assembly. Hitting someone with objects is not peaceful and therefore that is NOT protected by the 1A.

      1. The LP is just like the GOP, in that sooner or later all LINOs will be voted out or throw out of the LP. As the Republicans are taking back the GOP from RINOs, the Libertarians will take back Libertarianism from Anarchists and Lefties hiding as LINOs.

        1. The people currently trying to take back the LP from the LINOs (and I wish them luck) are the Mises caucus. Many of them take philosophical inspiration not just from Ludwig von Mises, but also from Murray Rothbard. And Murray Rothbard was, wait for it… an anarchist!
          It has always puzzled me why you are so sure about who is and is not a “true libertarian” when you know so little about libertarian thought.

          1. Poor new sock troll.

            Anarchists dont want tiny and limited government under rule of law. Libertarians do.

            1. Thank you for proving my point.

              Incidentally, I’ve been here for many years and I’ve never posted under any name but this one. I’ve even responded to you in the past. I don’t blame you for not remembering though, I post very infrequently.

  17. It’s just assault. Not like they rioted or anything.

    1. And even if they did, the cops would just give them a little space to destroy…

  18. “a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students”

    Robby knows the meaning of tiny all too well, no excuse for misusing it here. Maybe the problem word is subset, because the horde of radical, anti-speech students is large and growing…

    1. I’m not so sure it’s growing at this point. The Gen Z people I encounter seem to have little use for them.

  19. Thanks for your great and motivating article.

    1. You forgot the spam link.

      1. I also dont know how much they made from home this week.

  20. American students are pathetic. What these kids try to pass off as “work” is laughable. It’s so easy to compete against them in the workplace. My most reliable and hard-working coworkers are foreign-born.

    Have fun being poor, kids.

  21. “What happened to Bennett is another reminder that the threat to free speech on college campuses primarily comes not from the faculty but from a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students.”

    Wrong. Not even close. The offenses against free speech on college campuses are and long have been mainly the work of hundreds of censorship-shackled, fourth-tier (or worse), nonsense-teaching, conservative-controlled schools that suppress science and warp history to flatter dogma, collect loyalty oaths, mock academic freedom, and enforce old-timey speech and conduct codes every day.

    Clingers can nip at the ankles of better schools until they tire, though.

    1. Hundreds? Name 10.

      1. Ten? Name 3.

        I got Bob Jones University and Liberty University.

        I’m done.

        1. Oh, I had to ask google on this one… but for context there are 5,300 colleges in the united states.

        2. Bernie Sanders was invited to speak at Liberty University, and received a respectful hearing from the students there, though not many converts.

          Not sure about Bob Jones University, but I’d be surprised to hear about the students there throwing coffee at left-wingers, either.

          1. They sure wouldn’t be throwing coffee if it were Brigham Young University.

    2. The offenses against free speech on college campuses are and long have been mainly the work of hundreds of censorship-shackled, fourth-tier (or worse), nonsense-teaching, conservative-controlled schools that suppress science and warp history to flatter dogma, collect loyalty oaths, mock academic freedom, and enforce old-timey speech and conduct codes every day.

      It is a good point that it’s a bit absurd to say that the problem is only a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students when peace officers and administrators openly allow them to participate in such illegal acts while turning around and conducting inquisitions against boys and girls for getting naked or even imbibing alcohol together.

    3. Is there a reason for the delay in you killing yourself?

      1. Reason keeps paying him to post here to drive traffic? The library he uses the Internet from doesn’t have anything sharp he can use?

        Could be anything.

    4. Conservatives are to blame?

      You’re a fuckhead of the highest order.

      You explained the far left perfectly you degenerate retard.

    5. Let’s see: Berkeley, Ohio U, Yale, Oberlin, Evergreen, Brown, U Mass…

      Need I go on?

  22. “Harbor terrorists”

    More dumbing down of the of the English language.

    1. Some people *ahem unreason* are calling throwing things a “peaceful assembly”.

  23. It’s also a terrible strategy for countering the kind of narrative that people like Bennett want to tell about college campuses—indeed, it gives them the exact ammo they need to claim censorship.

    Yeah… censoring people you disagree with will do that….

  24. Driver looked like a black dude. Excuse me…. dude of color. Somebody ran up and threw water in his face.

    Isn’t that normally a hate crime?? I mean, they were shouting hateful things and flipping him off at the same time. What’s a brother got to do to get the NAACP in on this stuff? Cops standing 4 feet away while it happened too. Surprised the NAACP isn’t going after that racist cop who failed to make an arrest for that hate crime.

    1. Isn’t that normally a hate crime??

      Normally, yes. In this case it’s unclear.

    2. I’ve read it was actually a Starbucks coffee, not water.

      1. Oh…. well that makes more sense then. Because then all the people throwing water after that are just trying to help him rinse it out. Because you don’t want to let a stain get set… then it won’t come out.

        Those people were actually being nice!

    3. dude of color

      How dare you presume hirt gender.

  25. There once was a time when throwing stuff and screaming at people would get you placed in a mental hospital. Now it gets you into college. Progress folks! Progress

    1. Who is running the asylum?

      Thought so….

  26. These students need to understand a personal experience with the school-to-prison pipeline.

  27. boohoo she got what was coming to her. plus, she ‘carries’ right? So she shouldn’t be scared.

  28. I’d throw some of my liquids at her, IYKWIM

    1. The lady has—vast tracts of something or other. https://twitter.com/kaitmarieox/status/1130243887208030209

  29. She’s got a Wikipedia bio that withstood a proposal for speedy deletion.
    Apparently being covered by Newsweek, USA Today, Washington Post, NY Post makes her notable despite those who hate her views and seek to deny her a platform.

  30. I like all the people *aggressively videoing* the SUV. It has to be 80% of the people have their phone out very angrily taking video of some dude trying to drive through a parking lot.

    Hilarious!

    “Yeah buddy!!! I got you on video!!! And everyone is going to see us all yelling at you!! What do you think about that!?!?”

  31. These kids weren’t raised right.

    There. I said it.

    1. They never tasted poutine.

      1. Neither have I.

        Gross.

  32. Suppression by the Authoritarian Right is just as disgusting.
    Left – Right = Zero (As libertarians have known for over 50 years)

    1. Hihn! Oh thank god you’re here. Everyone’s been pointing at this sock or that sock and saying “Look, it’s Hihn!” I knew they were wrong, and they should be saving their energy for the real deal and now here you are.

      Listen, I know because of your dementia you think it’s still the 1970s, but it’s 2020 now and a lot has happened. The authoritarian right has gone dormant. They’re a bunch of impotent cucks now who just get laughed at. But the left are out there with bike locks and trench clubs giving brain bleeds to reporters. It’s a scary time. Stay safe, and do not under any circumstances wear a red baseball cap with white letters on it. That marks you as a target for the violent mobs.

    2. Go throw yourself in a wood chipper, fucko.

  33. “…the threat to free speech on college campuses primarily comes not from the faculty, but from a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students.”

    And these ideas just spring into the minds of these students, ex nihilo, as if by magic. They certainly don’t pick them up from their professors, by golly!

    And I just love all of these people who want to turn this around on Kaitlin Bennett. “It’s her fault that we acted like a bunch of retarded screaming baboons! She knew we would do that before she came here!”

  34. Summary of Saove’s article: “Evil Kaitlin Bennett tricks misguided leftists into doing some slightly naughty things, then takes advantage of their missteps. Republicans pounce!”

    1. “Children, please! You’re not supposed to show what we really are until we’re much further along with the takeover!”

  35. What happened to Bennett is another reminder that the threat to free speech on college campuses primarily comes not from the faculty but from a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students.

    Who do we suppose taught these students how to go about ensuring their campuses are ideologically pure? Activist faculty and administrators coach them including that they should claim to feel “unsafe”. This allows those administrators to take the actions they want but would never be able to justify without reference to a subjective and unchallengeable “fear”.

    1. “What happened to Bennett is another reminder that the threat to free speech on college campuses primarily comes not from the faculty but from a tiny subset of radical, anti-speech students.”

      Since we have to be reminded of it so often, one wonders just how “tiny” that subset is…

    2. Activist faculty and administrators coach them

      It starts in kindergarten. They’ve had lots of coaching before they get to the university.

  36. Isn’t splashing a form of assault?

    1. Unless there’s enthusiastic consent.

  37. tay At Home  Mom From New York Shared Her Secret On How She Was Able To Rake In $1500 Weekly From Online Work Just 3 Weeks After Losing Her Old Job…….. Read more

  38. I am boss of my own will. Come to join under link to earn $75 per hour by watching tv with family in spare time. Earn as much as you spent time. If so please copy the link and full fill your dream….. Read more

    1. You have the preamble right, spam bot. I clap for you. You’re learning.

      And report you.

  39. I personally think a year or 2 year old flagship model is the best midrange phone. The Galaxy Note 8 is currently about $600 bucks, best midrange price phone out in my humble opinion
    ……………. Thecashcoin.com

  40. Well of course; The Democratic name and platform is ALL about (cheering on Democracy) WHICH IS by it’s very foundation “mob” rule.

    It’s gangland style governing where whoever has more gang-members or bigger weapons wins. There is NO Supreme Law, NO Individual Rights, NO limit at which gangs can inflict damage on any given person.

    Any claim to an “Individual Right” will be distorted by gang-code to mean Gang-Rights (i.e. Democracy).

    Someone manipulated the masses of American’s by claiming we were founded on the championing of a Democracy (“mob” rule) instead of the Republic which America was founded upon.

  41. Religious fascists and materialist communists were doing the exact same thing while Americans were electing Herbert Hoover to destroy the U.S. economy: both brands of communo-fascist socialism literally worship the initiation of force. Voters should pay close attention in a nuclear age. If foreign powers notice that Americans pass up the chance to vote AGAINST the initiation of force by voting Kleptocracy candidates instead of Libertarians (mostly illegal abroad), they may give all of us what the GO Pee and Dems are begging for. Stick THAT in your Pascal’s Wager and smoke it!

  42. The famous saying “I may not like what you have to say but I will defend your right to say it” Now replaced with this on college campuses. A generation now rooted in intolerance.

  43. Wow..!! such a nice article you have done it’s really useful and giving us value. Your writing tactic really appreciated and well organized. Thanks for sharing valuable post to us. I pleasure to share Rose Day Shayari

  44. Hyperbole on both sides. Throwing liquids at someone would usually be assault, but not for entitled students at a tax-supported university.
    On the other hand, labeling liquid throwers as “terrorists” is a stretch.
    Laughter, satire, ridicule, not outrage, are the best offenses against provocateurs.

  45. That mobs behavior was DESPICABLE! Leftist Liberals portray themselves as being bastions of love, unity, tolerance and acceptance, but their behavior demonstrates otherwise! Hate-filled, divisive and intolerant! Then I read/hear people minimize and excuse that behavior! That was bullying, hateful, nasty and downright ignorant! So brainwashed into believing that Conservatives and Trump supporters are racists Nazis, that they can’t even see the truth! Conservatives and Trump supporters don’t treat people like that, and anyone who believes they do is gullible and has been brainwashed! Believing lies!

Comments are closed.