MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Milo Yiannopoulos Assaulted By Crazy Student Protesters at DePaul, Cops Do Nothing

Free speech for me, violence for thee.

MiloScreenshot via Milo Yiannopoulos / YoutubeDePaul University Black Lives Matter protesters shut down a Milo Yiannopoulos event on Tuesday night. They justified their illiberal actions on grounds that Yiannopoulos's speech spreads hate and violence—which, incidentally, is true, given that the students retaliated by literally attacking him. 

In video footage of the event, a female protester can clearly be seen striking Yiannopoulos in the face. This took place during the Q and A, which was interrupted by the female student and another activist, student Edward Ward. They were joined by ten other irate students. Yiannopoulos's supporters tried to stop them, and police and security were called. 

But neither the police nor campus security did anything to stop the activists. This was ironic, because DePaul had forced the College Republicans to pay several hundred extra dollars for security for the event, according to The College Fix.

Ward told Heat Street that he wasn't interested in shutting down free speech: he was interested in shutting down "hate speech." 

"When [speech] is coming from a point of ignorance, when you make these blatant statements about feminists, when you make blatant statements about the LGBTQ community, when you make statements about black people – then it becomes a problem, because when you use this kind of hatred people like us end up dead," said Ward. “You get Charleston. These are what you get as a result of his type of speech and rhetoric.” 

Again, the implication that there is a direct, causal relationship between offensive speech and violence is ironic, because the protesters were the ones using violence to threaten someone they didn't agree with. We must use violence to prevent speech we dislike from causing violence should not be a particularly compelling line of reasoning. 

As I've frequently noted, Yiannopoulos is a Trump supporter, not a libertarian. I don't agree with many of his views, and some of his most vocal online supporters are truly awful. But we ought to defend his right to speak his mind at a public forum at a university campus, especially when specifically invited to do so by a campus political group. We ought to defend the rights of all students to grapple with ideas that are controversial. Tactics used to thwart Yiannopoulos, including the heckler's veto, can and will be unleashed on other speakers. If the academy is not a place where freedom of expression is protected for everyone, it's not a "safe" space at all. 

After the protesters wrecked the event, Yiannopoulos led his followers to the president's office and demanded the university take punitive action against Ward. "Will DePaul have the courage to discipline Edward Ward for his behaviour?" he asked, according to Breitbart

Regardless of whether Ward is disciplined, it would be nice of the university to at least acknowledge that the College Republicans were in the right. Imagine if college administrators took their commitment to free speech even half as seriously as they took their commitment to ban offensive "Trump 2016" displays.

Yiannopoulos has asked the university to refund him the $1,000 he paid in extra security fees, which seems fair. Requiring would-be speakers to pay for security, and then failing to protect them when security is actually required, is unbecoming of an institution that claims to value free speech.

Photo Credit: Screenshot via Milo Yiannopoulos

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.

  • waffles||

    Look, you can't go gallivanting about the country calling yourself a dangerous faggot and not expect this. Talk shit, get hit. Social justice delivered!

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    This took place during a Q and A,

    Looks like she Q'ed his A pretty good, amirite?

  • Suicidy||

    I would have beat the shit out of this liberal pieces of shit. I would have had my own security following MY orders. Those shitbag faggot cookies would be getting their button through a straw for the foreseeable future. As it should be.

  • Juice||

    ooo itg

  • dchang0||

    Part of the show is purposefully showing the SJWs for the hypocrites they are.

    After seeing the clear bias that DePaul has against the College Republicans, including pressuring cops to arrest the one person arrested at the event--a lone citizen journalist peacefully filming outside the venue, it is hard not to oppose the SJWs and illiberal left.

  • Kringlebert||

    You couldn't be any more of a caricature of Milo's supporters if you tried.

  • IceTrey||

    He does expect it. It's exactly what he wants. If the protesters didn't show up he wouldn't be in the news.

  • B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

    This. The only reason I know the name Milo Yanawhateveropolis is because of the violent protests of his speaking engagements.

  • timbo||

    I watched the video. It appears another sexual innuendo gesturing moron got on a stage to speak questionably discernible mumbo jumbo.
    Does it even matter what the protesting douches protest about anymore?

  • SDN||

    Get hit, shoot the hitter. Milo's security should be armed and working for him.

  • Suicidy||

    That's a bingo! Proctors like these are far too bold. They need to be afraid to open their mouths, or even crawl out from under their rocks.

  • Suicidy||

    'progtards'.....fucking autocorrect.

  • Robo||

    Hope he starts having armed fans travel with him to show what true social justice is. Meaning a bullet between the eyes when you attempt to assault someone for exercising God given rights to free speech.

  • CZmacure||

    Do you actually believe in the death penalty for assault? WTF?

  • Tom747||

    The one committing assault also was committing treason by taking away Milo's right to free speech. There is only one penalty for treason according to the Constitution.

  • dchang0||

    Yes, but there is the matter of due process.

    Milo and his supporters are justified in using self-defense matching the level of threat: if a SJW attacks with non-lethal force, they can respond with non-lethal force but not more than that.

    As soon as an SJW escalates to lethal force, though, they can absolutely respond with lethal force.

    I personally believe that throwing burning objects is lethal force--fire can and often kills or at the least does "grievous bodily injury."

    It amazes me that cops don't shoot protesters that throw flaming objects at them. They are fully justified in doing so. Small rocks are non-lethal, but large rocks and bricks can be lethal weapons.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Milo is one of the biggest trolls alive and the fact that progs are making me constantly support him is going to drive me insane before too long.

  • colorblindkid||

    I can't help but love the guy, even when he says the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    He's a professional troll and a complete idiot, but I enjoy the insanity he inspires from proggies.

    Maybe he should be Trump's VP?

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Seconded.

  • colorblindkid||

    He wants to be his Press Secretary. It would be quite entertaining.

  • JWW||

    Now that is one hell of an idea.

  • khm001||

    What's some of the "dumbest shit" he's said?

  • PapayaSF||

    Really. I've found him to be interesting and astute, even if I don't always agree, despite his penchant for talking about his sexual adventures.

  • colorblindkid||

    Mostly his logic for supporting Trump under the belief that he will herald in a new era of a libertarian-authoritarianism dichotomy instead of a liberal-conservative one. Trump will herald in an authoritarian-authoritarian dichotomy. I'd still take Trump over Hillary of Sanders, though.

  • But Enough About Me||

    Heh.

    "Hillary of Sanders." I like it.

    "I am the Dread Hillary of Sanders. Within my pan-ideology, I contain vast multitudes. Gaze upon my all-encompassing policy points and despair!"

  • PapayaSF||

    *SNORT*

  • JWW||

    +1

    Don't thing of anything, keep your mind totally blank.

    Too late.

    It just popped in there...

  • dchang0||

    Sometimes Milo slams other fringe cultural groups, apparently not realizing that the same or similar or equivalent insults were thrown at gays not too long ago in the USA. That's pretty dumb, I think.

  • Madisonian||

  • Homple||

    The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.


    ...H. L. Mencken

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    That will always be the case. Speech that everyone accepts will never need protection.

  • IceTrey||

    But when are the SJWs going to learn "don't feed the troll"?

  • SugarFree||

    Never. We are all smarter than they are by a country mile and even we can't seem to stop.

  • khm001||

    I think it's cute that you think the SJWs aren't the trolls.

  • Ship of Theseus||

    It's fucking trolls as far as the eye can see.

  • Jose Chung||

    Trolls. Trolls all the way down.

  • Bra Ket||

    I view them as drama whores with various emotional problems, who make up the primary food source for trolls in the internet's ecosystem.

  • toolkien||

    SJW's aren't trolls, they're orcs (and not the bold Uruk'hai variety).

    Hillary is the Witch King Of Angmar.

    Trump is Barliman Butterbur.

    Sanders is Radagast the Brown.

  • Ama-Gi Anarchist||

    No, Trump is The Balrog of Moria and Sanders is Saruman the Many-Colored. Not much in the way of difference in the three ruling styles: you're either crushed beneath an undead boot, a flaming-shadow filled one or a mechanical one. Its still a boot and none of the three want freedom for anyone but them.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Sanders is Bill Ferny.

  • Kringlebert||

    The "SJW" is largely a strawman caricature.

  • Suicidy||

    I just want to know when the SJWs are all going to die.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    SJWs are the new social conservatives.

    Social conservatives can't sleep at night because two men might marry each other.

    SJWs can't sleep at night if a man criticizes a woman's beliefs or if a white person engages in a non-white cultural practice.

  • buybuydandavis||

    MiloTrump is one of the biggest trolls alive and the fact that progs are making me constantly support him is going to drive me insane before too long.
  • Robo||

    Yeah that whole freedom of speech thing tends to irritate Nazis.

  • Kringlebert||

    You don't "have" to do anything but be white and die. No one is "making" you support this turdball.

    You are wholly and completely responsible for your own beliefs, actions and attitudes. Own them.

  • Kringlebert||

    You don't "have" to do anything but be white and die. No one is "making" you support this turdball.

    You are wholly and completely responsible for your own beliefs, actions and attitudes. Own them.

  • Playa Manhattan.||

    How about the protesters pay for the security fees?

  • waffles||

    Shirley you jest. They don't have money. The college Republicans are the sons and daughters of the 1%, they can pay. And they will pay.

  • SDN||

    With all the lead the market requires.

  • adampeart||

    You are correct but don't call me Shirley.

  • DarrenM||

    Well, since it's obvious the security guards were actually there to protect the protesters against the Trump supporters, which was of course completely unnecessary, it would certainly make more sense.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Wait, I missed the assault. Was it the part where she poked him in the face with the microphone?

  • ThomasD||

    Can't watch the video at the moment. But yeah, if she 'poked him in the face' with an object that would actually be battery under IL law - defined as "insulting, provocative, or unwanted physical contact with another person."

    Seems like she made the trifecta

  • John||

    That would be a battery Hugh. Moreover, an assault is the threat of touching someone. You don't have to actually hit someone to be guilty of assault. You just have to create in the victim the reasonable fear that you are going to hit them. And I think Yiannopolous had a very reasonable fear one of these baboons was going to hit him. So, the assault is basically the entire tape.

    Beyond that, every person on that stage should have been arrested for disorderly conduct. If went to a concert or a baseball came and charged up on the stage or field and started shoving a microphone in people's faces, i would be arrested on the spot. Why weren't these people?

  • Lee G||

    It looked like she was debating him to me (at least per the debate videos I've seen recently)

  • John||

    So I can run up on the stage and grab an instrument and join in the band at a concert and that is okay? I can run on the field at a ball game and start playing catch and that is okay? That won't get me arrested?

  • Lee G||

    Tune your sarc meter. Geez.

  • John||

    Sorry about that.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "at least per the debate videos I've seen recently"

    Brah, I think that was meant as a jab at the quality of "debate" these days, not a justification for the people that rushed the stage.

  • ||

    How is it different than when a Trumpling does it to a member of the Press?

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Members of the press aren't really people and don't have rights. Duh.

  • John||

    It isn't. Btu I am not aware of them ever doing that.

  • Loki||

    Why weren't these people?

    Because they were fighting the good fight against insensitive thoughtcrime. Assult, battery, disorderly conduct: these are to be applauded as long as they're being done goodful rightthinkers against the scourge of meanies saying hurtful things. /SJW Derp

  • The Brakeless MAGA Train||

    oh Hugh

    *sigh*

  • Hugh Akston||

    Wait, was that supposed to be the substantive response or the witty one-liner? It's hard for me to tell the difference since your every post is so relevant.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The pod people are invading. We always knew this would happen.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Someone who looks just like you just posted the exact same thing. I would arm up if I were you.

  • ||

    *Points and screams*

  • Hamster of Doom||

    The pod people are invading. We always knew this would happen.

  • Lee G||

    I think your duplicate is already here.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If you read that in an echo-y sci-fi voice, it's really cool.

  • Lee G||

    Which is the real Hamster and which is the impostor?

  • Hugh Akston||

    You'll have to shoot them both, Spock.

  • ||

    Which is the real Hamster and which is the impostor?

    *heats wire with flamethrower pilot light*

    HoD, we'll need a specimen draw of blood, please.

  • Los Doyers||

    HEY

    *points down thread*

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If you read that in an echo-y sci-fi voice, it's really cool.

  • John||

    So knowing the legal definition of assault and of battery makes one a pod person? Does not being a pod person require you to refuse to believe your lying eyes?

    Jesus tap dancing Christ, do you think this sort of behavior is okay? And if you don't, then why does it pain you so much to say so?

  • Los Doyers||

    "Now I'll show you what I already know."

    /heats paper clip

  • SugarFree||

    It was a coil of copper wire.

  • Florida Hipster||

    There is no spoon...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It was a coil of copper wire.

    Millennials know nothing.

  • Los Doyers||

    Copper wire might have been cheap in the early 80s, but it ain't now. So we millennials use paper clips.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    +1 MacGyver

  • The Brakeless MAGA Train||

    in your obsession with all things anti-Trump, you just defended someone hitting someone in the face. It's not that your mother and I are angry, Hugh, it's just that we're disappointed.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I must be obsessed, since I've dismissed other so-called assaults that had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. It's the only explanation that makes any sense.

  • John||

    Good for you Hugh. What is your point here? Do you think this sort of behavior is okay? Would you dismiss it if it were Trump supporters doing it? If not, then why do you seem to be dismissing it here?

  • Suicidy||

    I don't. Unruly violent hippies should get the beatings they earn.

  • Pat (PM)||

    That's right. Hugh consistently demonstrates his utter ignorance of the law and defends the violent behavior of assblasted tumblr SJWs. It's not a Trump thing. He's just an abject fucking retard. Get it straight!

  • SugarFree||

    I'm sorry I called you Tulpa, Slappy. I didn't realize you had changed your handle yet again to trick people into reading your racist and fascist drivel.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I just want to know what is up with these "Dork Enlightenment" types and their acronyms? I mean, is there a train where they teach the Israeli martial art out there somewhere? And do they think this is a good or bad thing? Someone help a brother out!

  • SugarFree||

    The only people more obsessed with acronyms I've ever dealt with were librarians.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I bet all their acronyms are dirty ones.

  • SugarFree||

    College of Library and Information Technologies

  • The Brakeless MAGA Train||

    I think that "Nativist Xenophone" commenter is Slappy, not me.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Oh! Who are you?

  • Cyto||

    Like I said the other day... there really are only about 4 people commenting using dozens of sock puppets.

    Then there's a couple dozen folks like me who are too dumb to realize they are talking to 4 versions of the same guy. HnR is like a text-only version of the Phil Hendrie show. And I'm the 62 year old lady who calls in to complain about the guests.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And I'm the 62 year old lady


    Go on...

  • Cyto||

    Guffaw!

    That's awesome... 60 really is the new 40.

    And it is disturbing at the same time. As in: how exactly did you come to have that link at your fingertips? No, wait. Never mind. I don't need the answer to that one...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    how exactly did you come to have that link at your fingertips?

    Easy answer: humorless SJW's are hip to the "Asian Milf's who've had life-changing rectal sex" universe.

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Do. Do you have a newsletter?

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    ARE WE SURE IT'S A MICROPHONE??

  • Rational Exuberance||

    As opposed to what? Her favorite sex toy? There might not be a difference you know.

  • ||

    In what way does this University claim to value free speech?

  • 1775||

    In the "war with EastAsia" way.

  • GILMORE™||

    Yiannopoulos is a Trump supporter, not a libertarian.

    Did i miss the article where Robby explained to Walter Block why these things are mutually exclusive? Or is this just one of those handwaving, "It is known" sort of things?

  • waffles||

    It is known.

  • DenverJ||

    So say we all

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    ...Tap into America!

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Being a libertarian and Trump supporter makes about as much sense as being a libertarian and a Clinton supporter, e.g. none. "Libertarian Trump Supporter" is an oxymoron on the level of "anarcho-communist" or "jumbo shrimp".

    In other words, it is known.

  • John||

    There were libertarians who were Obama supporters in 08. They still seem to call themselves and be considered libertarians.

  • waffles||

    Don't you remember. The GOP had to be punished and punished hard. Duh.

  • Libertarian||

    In America, GOP punishes YOU!

  • Free Society||

    Several of them write for this magazine and I don't recall Andrew revoking their libertarian cred.

  • Cyto||

    It is your God-given right as a Libertarian to proclaim anyone "not libertarian" at any time for any reason. Even if you are an atheist. That is part of the Libertarian credo. There is really only one true Libertarian. And that one is always me. (for every possible value of "me")

  • ||

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    I thought you were only a true libertarian if the Koch Brothers were sending you checks every month? I should be getting mine this Friday, gonna head down to the monocle shop this weekend.

  • ||

    Me too! I'll follow your giant SUV down to the monocle shop in my giant SUV. We can play that run over the homeless game that all libertarians love, on the way. Special rules, 2 points for homeless cripples and 3 points for homeless orphans.

  • Free Society||

    Does your monocle supplier even use orphans in the production process? YOU ARE A FRAUD

  • Restoras||

    There is really only one true Libertarian. And that one is always me.

    Not Bo? I have been misinformed.

  • ||

    Don't forget that shreek scores higher than anyone on the test.

  • Suicidy||

    Whatever happened to the Botarded one?

  • Loki||

    It is your God-given right as a Libertarian to proclaim anyone "not libertarian" at any time for any reason.

    The interesting thing is, I'm pretty sure every libertarian has been proclaimed "not libertarian" at some point in time by at least one other self proclaimed libertarian. Which means that technically there are no libertarians, which means no one has a God given right to proclaim anyone "not libertarian." Which means that all those proclamations of "not libertarian" are invalid, which means that all self proclaimed libertarians really are libertarians, which gives them a God given right to proclaim anyone "not libertarian" and... OH GOD, I'M CAUGHT IN AN INFINITE LOOP!

  • Cyto||

    You forgot to assign a value for the variable "Me" in the algorithm. When you do that it all makes perfect sense.

  • Restoras||

    +1 Cause and Effect, ST:TNG, S5E18

  • ||

    I have come to be suspicious of people who subscribe to the label. Not all of them, but most, are authoritarians of some sort putting on a sheep's skin. See Bill Maher, Glenn Beck, John Stewart, and on and on.

    I have learned to ignore what people call themselves and gauge them on their positions and actions.

  • Cyto||

    Really good point. The "no true Scotsman" argument applies somewhat, but the famous who proclaim their conversion to the way of liberty are very often not all that libertarian.

    I was personally introduced to the term of art for my pre-existing ideology by former republican talk show host Neil Boortz when he tore up his Republican registration and joined the Libertarian party. He seems more libertarian than Maher or Stewart, but he gets plenty of shade thrown his way around here. Or used to anyway. Is he still kickin'?

  • Suicidy||

    Boortz is enjoying his retirement. He does show up on Hannity, or on his old show here and there.

  • Loki||

    I have learned to ignore what people call themselves and gauge them on their positions and actions.

    Probably not a bad approach.

  • ||

    To be fair to those naïve souls, BO was a blank slate in 2008, in which a great number of people wished some thoughts, policies, and plans onto, because "not GWB".

    There are a great number of naïve souls who are currently completely ignoring the total lack of substance, consistency, and trust-worthiness in the Donald because he pisses off the right people. While he's not a blank slate, he is such a cacophonous mess that you can see whatever you want.

    John.

  • John C. Randolph||

    BO was a blank slate in 2008,

    No, he wasn't. He was a commie rat bastard, but the press wanted to pretend otherwise.

    -jcr

  • Suicidy||

    If this country were run correctly, people like Obama would be blacklisted, and unable to gain any position of authority.

  • Kringlebert||

    Dude, you are a straight-up authoritarian fascist. Stop.

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Yeah, but BO still looked better than that angry senile war monger he ran against.

  • R C Dean||

    He was a long way from a blank slate. A long way.

    And yet many people were so wrapped up in their historic opportunity to put the first product of the Daley machine in the White House they overlooked mountains of warning signs that it might not be such a great idea.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I was tempted to vote Obama in '08. He talked about doing things I liked and then proceeded to not do any of them and instead dicked around with health insurance and secret governmenty things and threw money at rich people for "environmental" reasons.

    And there was a little part of me that said fuck yeah black president! We're finally in a sci-fi story!

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    + 1 Jewel v. NSA

  • Private Chipperbot||

    Deep impact...

  • The Brakeless MAGA Train||

    actually, it's not, but if it prevents you from having to exercise your little brain cells a little bit, then hey who am I to stop you

  • GILMORE™||

    Block =

    Let me just say that there is nothing, nothing at all, incompatible between libertarianism and voting, or supporting political candidates. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard can be considered political junkies, and you won’t find too many better libertarians than those two.

    Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism? Would this make us worse libertarians? Anyone who thinks so does not really understand this philosophy. For a remedial course, read this book: Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York University Press

    I'm not sure Block's argument is much better that your own "some things just simply aren't done, darling"-view. But Robby's handwaving is actually worse than either.

    As someone else noted = Milo doesn't (AFAIK) claim to be a libertarian. Which seems a far simpler point to make than passively suggesting "No libertarian could possibly support Trump" - when there are clearly some notable ones which do.

  • Tak Kak||

    "As someone else noted = Milo doesn't (AFAIK) claim to be a libertarian. Which seems a far simpler point to make than passively suggesting "No libertarian could possibly support Trump" - when there are clearly some notable ones which do."

    He said in an interview that he was almost an anarcho-capitalist.

  • Zeb||

    I'd still say there is a difference between being a supporter and voting for someone because they are the least worst. Saying someone is a Trump supporter implies that they support what he intends to do as president, not that they think he is slightly less terrible than the alternative.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    To be fair, we're talking Lew Rockwell and Walter Block, so "Libertarian Putin Supporter" is supposed to be legit, too.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Some libertarians realize that politics is about coalitions that best achieve your goals, not refusing to vote for anyone that isn't an ideological clone.

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    Yiannopoulos is a Romney supporter, not a libertarian.
    Yiannopoulos is an Obama supporter, not a libertarian.
    Yiannopoulos is a Kucinich supporter, not a libertarian.

    All of those are decent statements, though we know of examples of libertarians voting for them, saying they have positives, saying they're the least bad option, etc.

  • Brandybuck||

    Walter Block hasn't said anything of importance in twenty years.

  • Kringlebert||

    Any actual libertarian who is a Trump supporter is either

    1) Fantastically stupid

    OR

    2) Criminally unaware the actual tenets of their stated philosophy;
    3) Similarly clueless on the expressed tenets of Mr. Trump's stated philosophy.

  • Kringlebert||

    * Or a combination of #1 plus either or both of #2 or #3 above.

  • AlmightyJB||

  • Slammer||

    I liked when he called security, 'spineless cunts'. And the camera pans to security guards looking around, waiting for direction, and generally being spineless cunts.

  • Drake||

    Maybe steroids affect hearing?

  • ThomasD||

    Yiannopoulos is a Trump supporter, not a libertarian.

    Does he claim to be a libertarian?

  • waffles||

    No he's alt-right. Which is a meaningless bubble that encompasses libertarians because we're icky too.

  • GILMORE™||

    I think what we have here is another example of the point i've made a few times before =

    "It sometimes seems like Reason spends a great deal of energy distancing themselves from and disavowing people who share *some* libertarian views in order to remain congenial with those who share none"

    Here we have someone like Milo out there actively speaking out against these speech-repressing forces... basically becoming a figurehead of a movement attempting to push back against these very-illiberal trends Robby has made a career documenting...

    /// and yet in the coverage of his efforts, we seem to find endlessly-repeated, emphatic reminders that "HE'S NOT ONE OF US!!" like they're terrified of catching the Alt-Right cooties if they even say, "Kudos, bro"

    Its embarrassing, frankly. Particularly when we're constantly being told that Reason is an "Outreach Vehicle" for "Big Tent Libertarianism". Their actual behavior is like a private club that is terrified of letting any of the boorish rabble into their invite-only soiree.

  • ThomasD||

    It sometimes seems like Robby Soave spends a great deal of energy distancing himself from and disavowing people who share *some* libertarian views in order to remain congenial with those who share none.

  • GILMORE™||

    The thought actually originated in a different context.

    I really don't think its limited to the usual suspects either. Its more of a theme that's been around since... oh, maybe 2012 or so?

    Notable = back when i first started reading Reason (around 2003-2004) I repeatedly suggested that,

    "If libertarians want to be more popular & effective, they need to purge the crazy-losers from their ranks"

    In particular i was thinking, "Truthers, Birchers, Donderoooo, assorted others" Or, people like Paul Craig Roberts, who they seemed to have taken a real long time figuring out was crazier than a shithouse rat.

    IOW, I have no problem with trying to "protect the brand".

    I just don't think this constant poo-pooing of the Breitbart-set is really about that at all.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I just don't think this constant poo-pooing of the Breitbart-set is really about that at all.

    What do you think it's about?

  • Chipwooder||

    I'm sure some of it is about policing the ranks of libertarianism, but more about remaining on congenial terms with their pals who write for Vox and The Atlantic and HuffPo, assuring them that, while they might believe that civil liberties should be guarded even for horrible people like the Breitbart crowd, they certainly dislike them just as much as their friends do.

    In other words, they are showing that they disagree with the left only on process, not substance, as ENB so helpfully illustrated with her comment about the noble goals of "social justice" being detracted from by the illiberal means that crowd uses in pursuit of those noble goals.

  • R C Dean||

    There's a lot more job opportunities for journalists who can pass as lefty/proggy sorts.

    Its probably no more complicated than that.

  • toolkien||

    This might be true.

    But I think libertarianism DOES have a lot of people under the tent, with many different objectives, but all who - I HOPE - take a reasonably firm hold of the desire to not use Force.

    There can be people of religious persuasions who choose to proselytize versus coerce.

    There can be people on the left, hovering around the Chomsky part of the circular continuum (that the political continuum is a circle with anarchism at 12 and statism at 6, with right and left half-circles to either side) that are naive syndicalists, but if they're non-aggressive, fine.

    There can be people who are part of the Spooner-Nock end of the anarchic right. Non-aggressive, fine.

    Then there's Reason and a large portion of the commentariat, that espouse SOME restraint in government Force, but support others. The average writer for Reason is moderate left and a goodly portion of the commentariat is moderate right.

  • toolkien||

    cont

    The problem is, just like is discussed in the book Radicals for Capitalism, there's a LOT of people under the general non-aggression tent, but they have their "dead rats" - the things that they will use offensive Force for (that others won't), and it splinters into multiple factions. Purity is paramount, and the hatred of the apostates is present.

    You say homoousian, I say homoiousian let's call the whole thing off...

  • Suicidy||

    There is some sense in what you say.

  • GILMORE™||

    I don't really know.

    as per my first statement, my impression (which is often wrong) is that its about staying simpatico with other publications where many of the writers here also publish.

    But the "Cultural Libertarians" piece ENB did a while back (which amounted to a denunciation of the Breitbart set as irredeemable fakes/persona non grata) seemed to suggest a deeper divide.

    Basically, that the magazine feels like it has a mandate to try and bring cultural liberals over to a more-libertarian view... but simultaneously disavows and distances itself from people who share libertarian political beliefs, but maintain less-appealing socially-conservative views
    (despite arguing that the state should have no role in enforcing *anyone's* social views)

    It seems to be a high-level brand-positioning-thing.

  • Loki||

    It seems to be a high-level brand-positioning-thing.

    Another thought that just occurred to me is that maybe they're just trying to position themselves as the reasonable/ redeemable libertarians so that they'll be spared a one way ticket to the death happy fun-time camps once the progs implement their "final solution." /sarc (mostly)

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    seemed to suggest a deeper divide.

    To be honest, I kind of saw it begin after Gavin's appearances on The Independents.

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    To be honest, I kind of saw it begin after Gavin's appearances on The Independents.

    HM, would you share what you observed regarding this, please? I'm interested in your take.

  • Loki||

    IOW, I have no problem with trying to "protect the brand".

    I just don't think this constant poo-pooing of the Breitbart-set is really about that at all.

    I think they are trying to "protect the brand" it's just that they're protecting it from people that you don't think they need to protect it from. Which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, after all.

    I'll grant that some of the Reason writer's reflexive "We're not with 'those people'" routine gets irritating (it would be nice to read a Trump post or a story like this without the writer feeling compelled to virtue signal), but so does the constant blathering by some commenters about KOCKTALE PARTIEZ and KOZMO FAGGITS. It's pretty much irritating horse shit all the way down.

    If I didn't hate my job so much that I feel like I need to take mental health breaks to keep from dying of boredom/ depression I probably would have given up on this site a long time ago because of it, to be honest.

  • R C Dean||

    My level of engagement is here is declining, precisely because I think Reason has taken a badly wrong turn in currying favor with people who are irredeemably opposed to liberty, and believing that you can elevate equality over liberty without liberty suffering.

  • GILMORE™||

    I think Reason has taken a badly wrong turn in currying favor with people who are irredeemably opposed to liberty, and believing that you can elevate equality over liberty without liberty suffering.

    i get a little bit of that too.

    I feel like there's a less-independent POV now; where they feel compelled to constantly say what they're *not*, lest they be confused with those other "so-called" small-government types (who are probably yucky homophobes and opposed to abortion or something)...

  • GILMORE™||

    hey're protecting it from people that you don't think they need to protect it from.

    I think the problem is that they're so busy "protecting their brand" from ACTUAL ALLIES in specific policy areas that they're basically ceding large swaths of the debate to these other voices, and losing a lot of potential new-readers and forgoing an opportunity to take a stronger voice in these public debates.

    there's millions of young people who are disillusioned with contemporary politics and people like Milo have capitalized on that disillusionment.

    He did it mainly by jumping on the "gamergate" issue and saying, "The Cultural-Left here is wrong = full stop".

    Of course that was a stupid issue but it was something that a lot of kids knew about, and Milo's strong stance was something that resonated with people.

    Reason , for all its claims to want to appeal to "millenials"... has done a piss poor job of doing so. Why? They seem to tut-tut the SJW-left, AND do the same to people "Over-reacting" to the SJW-left. Its not an 'independent view' - its wishy-washy.

    Reason is supposedly a strong advocate for liberty, yet what would a younger reader think when they read about "Mandated Transgender Pronoun Laws" in NY and ENB says, "She needs more time to ruminate" before deciding if they're a bad idea or not?

  • Drake||

    Yep. We make cocktail party jokes but it becomes more obvious every day.

  • SIV||

    What have I been telling you cosmotarian faggots all these years?

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I buy into it. I am probably completely guilty of being a cocktail partian. I talk to people who think I agree with them on everything simply because I hold very personal liberal views, but I don't want government interference. Telling them I'm a libertarian means doing some distancing from the icky men's rights no roads white supremacist whatever the Salon image is.

    My favorite was when someone accused libertarians of being entirely men's rights activists JUST AFTER we'd been talking about how feminism should be inclusive and support the ways men are discriminated against by gender and support male parental rights/shelters/etc. The cognitive dissonance!

  • DarrenM||

    That big tent is more like a pup tent.

  • Loki||

    Alt-right (n): Anyone who belongs to any political movement that Progressives and establishment Republican and Democrats dislike and/ or find icky.

  • ||

    Doesn't matter whether anyone likes what this guy says, or not. When he loses his right to free speech so will you, and I, and these protesters. I'm sure it will come as a shock to the latter.

  • John||

    Is there is question that they would do exactly the same thing to Gary Johnson or Thomas Sowell or anyone else that doesn't completely and unconditionally buy into whatever today's party narrative is? Hardly.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No. And I don't think anyone here is pretending Yiannopoulos is anything but in the right here.

  • John||

    Hugh and Hamster seem to be doing that. They are busy calling everyone who is appalled by this a "Pod Person". Hugh can't seem to find anything wrong here.

  • Suicidy||

    Bet they won't try that shit with McAfee. Not if they don't want to be deposited into a shallow grave at 3 AM.

  • Free Society||

    I think part of the problem is people assuming that these protesters are exercising their right to free speech, they're not. They're actively trespassing, violating the rules of private property owners and disrupting the speech of others at every opportunity. That is not free speech. That's a number of relatively minor crimes, but not free speech.

  • ||

    It is plain that they have no idea what freedom of speech is and they made it glaringly obvious with the line - "not protesting free speech, I am protesting hate speech".

    I would love to hear one of those mendacious fuckwits give me a solid definition for 'free speech'.

  • Zeb||

    I just want to smack the idiots who say "hate speech is not free speech".

    Um, yes it absolutely is free speech.

  • ||

    Uh, you can say what you want, but not hate speech, you can't say that.

    There you go.

  • Free Society||

    You know it's going to be some variant of "Free speech is speech that is not offensive/hurtful/inciteful/othering." Then two sentences later they'll tell you how white people should kill themselves because privilege..... and of course they'll not see the contradiction. They're error isn't so much that that they parse out free speech into separate categories, and that is a major categorical error for sure, but they can't even keep their warped version of the term logically consistent with itself. So the unspoken by widely accepted addendum to that definition is "as long as it's only offensive/hurtful/inciteful/othering if about white people."

  • Loki||

    You know it's going to be some variant of "Free speech is speech that is not offensive/hurtful/inciteful/othering." Then two sentences later they'll tell you how white people should kill themselves because privilege..... and of course they'll not see the contradiction.

    Something something... "punching up"... mumble mumble... "white privilege"... yada yada...

  • Michael||

    I honestly have no clue why anybody here would want to expend so much thought on the logic and motivations of these people. They're idiots. They were born idiots, they trudge through the entirety of their pathetic lives as idiots and they will ultimately die as idiots. It's best to ignore them as much as possible and encourage others to do the same.

  • Chipwooder||

    I just can't put myself in the mindset of someone who thinks that the best response to speech they don't like is to rush the stage and start screaming. Does that ever happen with Marxists on campus? I can't think of such an incident.

    The right may be stupid, spineless, and statist, but these people are evil and dangerous. The left is the true enemy in every way.

  • Loki||

    I'm sure it will come as a shock to the latter.

    "B-b-but... I'm a doubleplusgoodthinker!" /progtard

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Ward told Heat Street that he wasn't interested in shutting down free speech: he was interested in shutting down "hate speech."

    What Ward means by "hate speech" is Yiannopoulos' take on Gamergate, amirite?

  • Haha, charade you are||

  • Trouser-Pod (The blowhard)||

    Hey, a baby with a whistle, and an argument over which communication is more annoying?

    Check.

  • Free Society||

    As I've frequently noted, Yiannopoulos is a Trump supporter, not a libertarian.

    I've got it on good authority that libertarians can support Obama, they can support Hilary or Bernie. But my oh my if they support Trump you've got to revoke their card.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm afraid to say it, but if one of those three gets elected, I'd prefer it to be Trump. Only because a Democrat would get a complete pass from the media, while Trump would get some actual scrutiny. I mean, Hillary could barbecue kittens on the White House lawn and the media would only say that the kittens were cute.

  • Free Society||

    If Trump were accused of selling state secrets, or of renting US power through a non-profit shell corporation I think an indictment would be forthcoming. And that's a good thing, the bad part is that that rule is not a universal. It obviously doesn't apply to Democrats, especially the two presently running for office.

  • sarcasmic||

    Lady Justice wears no mask.

  • Chip the Chipper||

    or panties

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    +1 undouched cooter

  • Zeb||

    Is voting for someone the same as supporting someone? I would suggest that for a lot of libertarians it's not.

  • Juice||

    Even if in your mind you don't support the person you're voting for, casting that vote is technically supporting them in the only way that really counts.

  • ||

    Even if in your mind you don't support the person you're voting for, casting that vote is technically supporting them in the only way that really counts.

    ^ This

    They don't count any votes as "people who hated my opponent more than me." They count them all as "popular mandate for my every whim."

  • Zeb||

    But that is supporting their election. An awful lot of people don't really support the agenda of the people they vote for, which is more what I was thinking of.
    And, especially in the case of a journalist, what one writes and says can often have more practical effect than how you vote.

  • sarcasmic||

    We must use violence to prevent speech we dislike from causing violence should not be a particularly compelling line of reasoning.

    We're talking about people who do not reason. They have emotional reactions. Like animals. And Tony. No reasoning at all. They would fail the gom jabbar.

  • Lee G||

    Proud of it too

  • You Sound Like a Prog (MJG)||

    That's some good crazy.

  • waffles||

    This is the man who is inspiring characters like Trigglypuff across our nation's campuses. I can disagree with his politics while admiring his results.

  • Chip the Chipper||

  • Los Doyers||

    At least she starts grooving to the chant.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In video footage of the event, a female protester can clearly be seen striking Yiannopoulos in the face.

    Really? We're doing the whole hyperbole thing now? Not that people should be touched if they don't want to be, but Milo's cheek gets struck with more force by things even blacker and harder than that woman's limp fist on a regular basis.

    This is more of a non-issue than Shovegate.

  • Lee G||

    I like her victory dance.

  • Slammer||

    She's hot. Total asshole, but hot.

  • Cyto||

    You never stick it in total....

    eh... you can see where I'm goin' with that one.

  • Juice||

    Hot? Ok. Each to his own, I guess.

  • GILMORE™||

    This is more of a non-issue than Shovegate.

    I agree.

    but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the left will turn any physical contact into a re-enactment of Mai Lai, then their activists should probably avoid sticking their mitts into people's faces, else people like Milo screech for a medic and wheel out the lawyers.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the left will turn any physical contact into a re-enactment of Mai Lai, then their activists should probably avoid sticking their mitts into people's faces, else people like Milo screech for a medic and wheel out the lawyers.

    I do see value in that. Though, I'd prefer in this case that such a tactic originate from Yiannopoulous himself before hoping aboard.

  • Rhywun||

    I'll be in my bunk.

  • Haven "Irish" Monahan||

    "Really? We're doing the whole hyperbole thing now?"

    Well, they made Michelle Fields getting tugged sound like she got shot so at least they're consistent

  • Johnny B||

    So you think this logic would work if the perp were a male and the victim female?
    Try making that argument in front of a Title IX inquiry.
    Just sayin'

  • DocMike||

    Something for the pro-milo counter protestors:

    https://throwflame.com

    The SJWs might not remain alive, but all of them would be black...
    Win-win

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • DocMike||

    I didn't take you for a humorless SJW type. Ah, live and learn.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Why? Did I hit a nerve?

  • DocMike||

    No, but only SJWs are so fast on the Godwin. Or perhaps you are a fellow traveler of the stage crashing Derp-squad. Hard to decide.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Or, perhaps, if you want me to laugh at something, it should actually be funny.

    But you knew that already.

  • DocMike||

    I don't have any interest in amusing an SJW. Proggies like yourself are humor averse.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I think it's hilarious that you define "SJW" as "busting DocMike's balls". Because we all know you're just fucking hilarious and it's all about you!

    Jesus Christ! Grow some thicker skin, dude!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • DocMike||

    Some of that herbal tea the SJWs serve at their events are highly caffeinated. You need to cut back. Exclamation points make me sad.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Jesus Christ! Grow some thicker skin, dude!

    Hey, unfunny Heroic SJW, this is the internet, and on the internet we have teams, on you are playing on the wrong team, therefore you the enemy.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I don't have any interest in amusing an SJW. Proggies like yourself are humor averse.

    Nailed it!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Haven "Irish" Monahan||

    Fuck you, SJW scum. I bet you go around harassing Gamer Gaters and calling in bomb threats to Christina Hoff Sommers speaking engagements.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I bet you go around harassing Gamer Gaters and calling in bomb threats to Christina Hoff Sommers speaking engagements.

    Only after a nice tall glass of refreshing caffeinated herbal tea.

  • Florida Hipster||

    I make a tea from sweet mint. I doubt it has caffeine. You should come over and we can talk about how vegans are superior to breeders.

  • ||

    I make a tea from sweet mint. I doubt it has caffeine. You should come over and we can talk about how vegans are superior to breeders

    Is Polly Prissypants going to be there?

  • Florida Hipster||

    Is Polly Prissypants going to be there?

    I should be so lucky.

  • ||

    I don't got an idea what's going on here. Wait... I know, you're both fucking Winston's mum, aren't you?

  • SugarFree||

    They have very tender feelings, HM. You have to tread lightly.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I'm sorry I triggered him by posting a meme.

    Eat some vegan meatballs, play with your cats, and go whine about it on your tumblr, you feminist bitch.

  • kevrob||

    That mint concoction is an infusion. They can be very nice, but herbal infusions aren't tea.

    {sips nice hot cuppa Barry's....}

    Kevin R

  • DocMike||

    If I were triggered, I would do something like demand you go back to Tumblr.

  • SugarFree||

    Does some Trump site have a "Go be a dipshit on Reason" campaign like balloonjuice?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For an edgy, internet-culture savvy badass, you seem to be quite ignorant of a common meme.

  • ||

    You don't even know what socialism is, faggoot!

  • waffles||

    I can't tell who is legitimately triggered and who is being sarcastic! Ahhhhhgggghhghghhgh *bites down on leather belt* *triggering intensifies*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's actually kinda hot.

  • SugarFree||

    Bite the leather, the shiny, shiny leather
    Whiplash wafflechild in the dark
    Comes with berries, your syrup, don't forsake him
    Strike, dear mulatto, and cure his butt

  • ||

    Relax, it's a fight over Winston's mum.

  • SugarFree||

    Relax, it's a fight over Winston's mum.

    THE ONLY WAY TO WIN IS NOT TO PLAY

  • Intraveneous Woodchipper||

    "YOU PLAY. TO WIN. THE GAME!"
    -Herm Edwards

  • Loki||

    I'm assuming everyone except the newest Tulpa sock is being sarcastic, but yeah, hard to tell for sure. Poe's Law, FTW.

  • Anomalous||

    That was completely unprovoked. She acted as if he had touched her hair.

  • waffles||

    I thought black people, especially women, love to be complemented on their hair and touching is the highest for of praise. Am I wrong? Am I not supposed to do that?

  • SimonD||

    It's just like anything else with a lefty. It's OK, unless it isn't.

    No objective rules = Principals, not principles.

  • Careless||

    Gilmore had a large series of links yesterday of black women complaining that white people desperately want to touch their hair

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Requiring would-be speakers to pay for security, and then failing to protect them when security is actually requied, is ubecoming of an institution that claims to value free speech.

    Jeebus, Rico, I copied this quote to add that it might also be breach of contract, but all I can see are the glaring typos. Do you even reread what you've typed before clicking post?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Get this. They paid interns for that proofreading.

  • Free Society||

    I thought Robby was just a prolific intern.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    It's understandable. When you are holding your nose with one hand while typing, you can't have 100% accuracy.
    Since it looks like political violence against acceptable targets is gonna be a thing in the next few months, I recommend Reason look into bulk clothespins purchase.

  • Loki||

    When you are holding your nose with one hand while typing, you can't have 100% accuracy.

    These euphemisms...

  • TMLutas||

    The fix will be to hire security directly from a company that will actually do the job of allowing the event to go forward. The prospect of that would make most college administrators soil their unmentionables.

  • B.P.||

    Like the Hell's Angels?

  • SimonD||

    Heck, I think I'd come out of retirement to lead that detail. I may even do it for free.

    /sarc (the free part anyway, I don't work for free)

  • Anomalous||

    He learned this by watching Gillespie.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    And people wonder why so many people are supporting Donald Trump.

    Sigh.

    Everything they hate about Trump is the product of the Pandora's box they opened. Some of us said it wasn't going to end well. For them or anyone.

  • cbpelto||

    RE: And Neither the Police Nor Campus Security Did NOTHING

    After paying DePaul EXTRA for 'security', they should get their money back.

  • cbpelto||

    Oops.... that should be 'ANYTHING'.....

  • Lee G||

    RE: And Neither the Police Nor Campus Security Did NOTHING

    Nikki, paging Nikki to the grammar phone

  • Free Society||

    Don't do that, you fool.

  • Agammamon||

    They justified their illiberal actions on grounds that Yiannopoulos's speech spreads hate and violence—which, incidentally, is true, given that the students retaliated by literally attacking him.

    I know what you're trying to say here - a jab at them for a self-fulfilling prophecy - but as written its got a completely different meaning.

    Yiannopoulos' speech is just speech - it doesn't spread anything. Its these people's *reactions* to that speech and their group-reinforcement of their righteousness that lead to violence. These people and only these people responsible for their reaction to Yiannopoulos.

  • Bra Ket||

    I was kind of thinking the same thing, but then in a purely scientific sense, the speaker's words are indeed causing the listener's reaction. You can imagine an experiment that might easily prove this.

    So to make the same point you are making on such terms, the important question is when do we assign moral responsibility, which is not based on "cause" alone, but also reasonable behavior on the part of the listener.

  • kevrob||

    The reaction may have been invited by Milo's words, but it wasn't "caused." DePaul is a Catholic institution, and back before I quit that particular congeries of superstitions, Catholics still believed in Free Will and considered pure determinism heretical. They aren't Calvinists, after all. Here we see the pernicious effects of the Grove City case and the follow on legislation effectively stripping private institutions that take the king's shilling, even indirectly, from exercising their First Amendment rights, to, frex, have rules against LGBTQWERTYUIOP organizations. -
    Kevin R

  • Cyto||

    Milo won this round, huge. Not only did he manage to troll a bunch of idiots to protest in an idiotic manner, he gets to play the "the man is out to get me" card because they forced him to pay for security that failed to provide security. So much so that the crowd had time to chant "Do your job!" at the security officers who refused to intervene.

    You really can't have a bigger win than this as a professional campus speaking tour troll. He'll be on every talking head show for weeks over this one. Well played, sir, well played.

  • John||

    I think you are right. And on top of that, these people are too stupid to even realize how badly they lost. They really have no idea how ridiculous and awful they look to the rest of the world. I would bet you anything that they think they won this and feel great about how they showed the world how to deal with a hate speaker. They really are that far gone.

  • invisible finger||

    Epi called it projection, but what it really is is straight-up narcissism. They're too full of themselves to actually ignore the goddamned event. The event would draw almost a dozen people otherwise, but they're so in love with their own reflection that they simply MUST show up to an event which is obviously trolling them. I sure hope the organization that put this on charged a couple bucks admission.

  • Feminist Killjoy||

    I agree. It was pretty much agressive social signalling. They accomplished nothing, but boy do they feel self righteous!

  • mplspolitics||

    " I would bet you anything that they think they won this and feel great about how they showed the world how to deal with a hate speaker."

    Oh they do.

    " I would bet you anything that they think they won this and feel great about how they showed the world how to deal with a hate speaker."

    Oh they do:
    http://tinyurl.com/jaz3vrn

  • Invisible Handjob||

    Yep. This is exactly what he's aiming for, for the protesters to act like lunatics. He purposely says the most awful, insulting shit he can so they go nuts. The only way it could have gone down better if he had actually been physically assaulted and, say, had a black eye to show for it.

  • Free Society||

    The protesters are lunatics. What did he say at this gathering that was "the most awful, insulting shit he can", dead baby jokes? Did he heil Hitler a few times or what?

  • mplspolitics||

    He's actually pretty fact based. Is he hyperbolic? Yes. Not nearly as much as you though, clearly. You also seem to be fairly ignorant when it comes to the definition of assault. Shocking.

  • MoonPIE||

    Did you ever hear the radio guy Phil Henry. He was great... He would do call-in bits with ridiculous positions and people would call in and debate him, debate himself.

  • MoonPIE||

    oops Phil Hendrie

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    "when you make blatant statements about the LGBTQ community ... then it becomes a problem"

    Making statements about the LGBTQ community = Problem!!

    Physically assaulting a gay man = Not a Problem!!

  • Cyto||

  • PapayaSF||

    Great site.

  • ||

    Blatant statements?

    Not true or false, just blatant?

    I think she has him there.

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    Not even positive or negative, just blatant.

    Under that criteria a statement of "Gay people are awesome!!" is a "problem".

  • Doctor Whom||

    True? False? Those are words that the patriarchy uses to discredit what people of oppressed identities have to say. Also, postmodernism shows that they are meaningless constructs.

  • Rhywun||

    So what did he actually say? Is it in the video that I can't/won't watch?

  • ||

    So I actually go to DePaul and heard about the protests that broke out yesterday. The president of the university while saying that he didn't agree with Milo's views were very disappointed that the student body acted as obnoxiously as they did at this event yesterday. He even apologized to the College Republicans for the actions of the students.

  • ||

    How long until he's forced out?

  • Bra Ket||

    Tough to say. The fact that he took such a dangerous stand for common sense may reflect the fact that he is extremely secure in his job for other reasons.

  • ||

    Did he refund that extra security fee? Talk is cheap.

  • Loki||

    He's gay so, hate crime?

  • Lee G||

    I hate crime, how about you?

  • John||

    Just another example of a gay man getting kicked around by a Catholic institution, right?

  • ||

    He's not the right kind of gay.

  • Rhywun||

    You know who else was a cis, white male?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I caught the new film The Nice Guys last night, and one of the characters has a few non-sequitur "you know who else was following orders?" moments that were so funny.

  • Florida Hipster||

    How was the film overall? A rental or must see?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It is a must-see in Crusty's world. I would never recommend that a person pay to see anything in a theater, though.

  • Florida Hipster||

    Thanks

  • ||

    Bruce Jenner?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Eddie Murphy?

  • The Grinch||

    Well done young 'uns. This kind of speaking truth to power will drive people away from Trump in droves, and by away I mean to.

    How can so many people be so obtuse? Groupthink?

  • John||

    All they were lacking were some Mexican flags. If you really do hate Trump and don't want to see him elected, you should hate these people. If Trump hired a bunch of boneheads to do a false flag operation to make his critics look like retards, he couldn't have done any better than what these retards did for free.

  • Cyto||

    I was thinking the same thing. I really have no clue what the "Mexican immigrant protester" is trying to accomplish by waving the Mexican flag. I thought the message was something along the lines of "we immigrants are Americans too" and "we just want to come here to live and work and have the American dream'.

    Exactly how does waving a Mexican flag in the face of a bunch of people who think that you don't have allegiances to this country and should go home to your own country help? Doesn't that kinda make their point for them?

  • Eternal Blue Sky||

    It IS a nice flag. Got an eagle fighting a snake on a cactus. That's pretty fucking metal.

  • Tak Kak||

    "Exactly how does waving a Mexican flag in the face of a bunch of people who think that you don't have allegiances to this country and should go home to your own country help? Doesn't that kinda make their point for them?"

    In my far left conspiracy boards I've read that Trump supporters hand them out.

  • John||

    Like Trump is that devious or even would need to be if he was. What do they say about the burning shit down and jumping on top of police cars? Are evil Trump supporters doing that too?

  • Slammer||

    I heard Trump supporters were handing out flipped over vehicles, John

  • Haven "Irish" Monahan||

    They were pre-burned flipped over vehicles

  • Cyto||

    I'm always amazed at how smart conspiracy theory folks think other people are. If anyone was smart enough to think up all this stuff in advance and have it all work out "just so", they wouldn't be doing whatever petty thing they are accused of doing.

    And no, I don't think Trump is doing any of this intentionally. If he were in fact smart enough to be the master of mind control that Scott Adams thinks he is then he never would have had to go on a stupid reality TV show to earn a living.

    I'm going to stick to my analysis that he's a room temperature IQ with a superdome-sized ego who happened to luck into the perfect storm. (mostly because it is the only way I can sleep at night. My world view does not include the possibility of Trump winning a major party nomination for anything, let alone President - so I'm just going to keep pretending that this is all the part of the show before Bob Newhart wakes up in bed next to Suzanne Pleshette.)

  • John||

    Even if he were, it would be impossible to keep it a secret. Just who do you get to hand out Mexican flags or burn shit down that you can trust not to go to the media and rat you out? There is no way you could keep that a secret. That is why 99% of the claims that this or that is a false flag turn out to be completely untrue. False flag operations are very hard to pull off. Even when they have been "pulled off", it is in cases like the Reichstag fire or the Kirov assassination where the side doing it had all of the guns and tell the public "fuck you and you better not question this". Those cases are famous because everyone knew at the time they were false flags.

  • Cyto||

    Which is exactly what the guy who passed out the Mexican flags would say!

    So, where were you last night?? Huh? I bet you have your alibi all set up too....

  • Tak Kak||

    "And no, I don't think Trump is doing any of this intentionally. If he were in fact smart enough to be the master of mind control that Scott Adams thinks he is then he never would have had to go on a stupid reality TV show to earn a living."

    Maybe he just wanted more walking around money?

  • John||

    Maybe he just wanted more walking around money?

    Or just liked being on TV. Never underestimate the attraction some people or a lot of people have to being on TV or in the movies. Elvis Presley was the biggest entertainer in the world but a terrible actor. Why did he stop doing concerts and only make movies for several years?

  • Tak Kak||

    "Like Trump is that devious or even would need to be if he was. What do they say about the burning shit down and jumping on top of police cars? Are evil Trump supporters doing that too?"

    He and his supporters are both stupidly evil and brilliantly evil at the same time.

  • EscherEnigma||

    It's what people have been saying about Obama, the mom-pants tyrant who's totally weak and ineffectual while ruthlessly cramming down his liberal agenda.

    That claims of incompetence and evil genius would seem to be opposed has never really stopped people from applying both claims to people they don't like. The importance isn't the actual meaning of the insult, it's that it's an *insult*.

  • Careless||

    They've been doing this since Bush's first attempt at amnesty 10ish years ago

  • invisible finger||

    Even in the 19th century, the German-immigrant socialists knew better than to wave the German flag at union rallies.

    But nowadays you have no cred unless you signal that you are part of a minority group.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I really have no clue what the "Mexican immigrant protester" is trying to accomplish by waving the Mexican flag.

    Self expression. Their picture on the news.

  • TMLutas||

    The lack of mexican flags among black lives matters protests is probably because the black mexicans are largely marginalized and oppressed in Mexico.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I was in Guadalajara for a week a few months back, and I didn't see any black mexicans at all. Were they being oppressed away from the city or something?

    -jcr

  • Chipwooder||

    Exactly right. The surest way to push fencesitters to Trump's camp is by demonstrating how his enemies are violent, unhinged lunatics.

  • Loki||

    How can so many people be so obtuse?

    A K-12 education system that fails to teach them critical thinking skills and a college that's nothing more than a prog-tard indoctrination camp, that's how.

  • ThomasD||

    "We must use violence to prevent speech we dislike from causing violence"

    "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

    Same party, same playbook.

  • Suicidy||

    Then we must clearly stand around whining and wringing our hands! For that is the libertarian way!

  • ThomasD||

    Seems more like topical commentary, but I appear to have touched a nerve, so as with all things YMMV.

  • Loki||

    Requiring would-be speakers to pay for security, and then failing to protect them when security is actually requied, is ubecoming of an institution that claims to value free speech.

    The key words here being being "claims to."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Apropos of nothing.

    *inflicts*

  • Slammer||

    I saw something about him recently. I cant remember. Did you see something in the news?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I saw something about him recently. I cant remember. Did you see something in the news?


    Goddammit! Now you done made me remember about that picture.

    *goes off to vomit*

  • Slammer||

    Thats it!!!! I think it was an ad HERE!

  • ||

    Is this what the liberals mean when they call for civility? Civility doesn't mean what I thought it meant, apparently.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Sort of like when hamas calls for a cease fire.

  • John||

    Civility means shut up and let them tell you how racist you are. Didn't you know that?

  • Libertarian||

    I think the phrase "no punch backs!" is what you're looking for.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, punching down. I can't remember all their crazy shit all of the time. But Milo was sitting down and she was standing up. So it's ok if he knocks the bitch out, right? Mama told me knock you out, bitch.

  • Suicidy||

    Progressive civility is when they riot and attack, and the other side will not defend itself, is shut down, beaten, or even killed.

  • Rasilio||

    So they made the College Republicans pay extra for security and then that security did absolutely nothing to prevent protesters from assaulting the speaker?

    It seems to me that both Yiannopoulos and the College Republicans have very solid grounds for a lawsuit against the college, both for breech of contract in failing to provide the contractually agreed to security and likely on public accommodation grounds since it could easily be argued that the requirement to pay for the security but then the failure to actually secure the event was a politically motivated ploy to prevent an event from happening solely because of the political views of those involved.

  • John||

    They certainly have a lawsuit against whoever provided the security be that the college or some private firm. If I hire you to be security at the event and then your guys do nothing when the mob overruns the stage, you are most definitely in breach of contract and will owe me whatever damages I can prove.

    Your point about liability brings up an interesting point. Suppose someone had really been hurt during all of this, either because they were assaulted or by some accident. It seems to me that De Paul and the security firm would have been on the hook for a huge judgement here. The dumb ass lefty administrators who thought it was cute to tell the security guards to stand down were placing their own employer in real danger of some massive liability had anything gone seriously wrong and someone gotten hurt. I bet anything that thought never even occurred to them.

  • ||

    The left have been encouraging people to act like this for quite a while now, and it's getting worse. At some point or other, the leaders, most of whom are Democrats, are going to realize it's getting out of control and will try to reign them in. But it's too late. Someone is going to get seriously hurt or killed soon enough. I'm pretty worried about the Trump rallies this summer. Either these dummies fuck with the wrong person and someone gets killed on either side or both, or the cops get involved and we all know how people can wind up dead around cops. It's going to happen, sooner or later. Probably sooner. I mean just a few days ago, the protesters at a rally were throwing things at people. They're treading on dangerous territory here and too stupid to realize the danger.

  • John||

    That is what happened in the French Revolution. The reign of terror was not just the Jacobins going crazy and killing people. They were killing people as a way to satiate the mob and regain control of things. Robespierre started out as a pretty reasonable guy. But for years the revolutionaries, who were all upper middle and upper class by the way, had been using mob violence to terrorize and kill their enemies. Eventually, that got out of hand and everyone was in danger. The entire reason for the reign of terror was to replace the mob with the government and at least get the government back in control of things.

    Mob violence is great right up until the mob turns and starts going after anyone. And the mob always turns.

  • davidcoghlan897||

    @Loise, you make $27h thats great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online, seriously I couldn't be happier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in $35h and sometimes even as much as $85h…heres a good example of what i'm doing,

    ============ http://usatoday.nypost55.com

  • davidcoghlan897||

    @Loise, you make $27h thats great going girl good for you! My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online, seriously I couldn't be happier I work when I want and where I want. And with a little effort I easily bring in $35h and sometimes even as much as $85h…heres a good example of what i'm doing,

    ============ http://usatoday.nypost55.com

  • Mongo||

    Ha-haw!

    That was a funny vid.

    "GET A JOB! GET A JOB! GET A JOB!"

    [chick does a funky dance]

    Better than some McGlaughlin Group kvetching or NPR snooze-fest.

  • R C Dean||

    Is it just me, or is this the first time "and the cops do nothing" has been criticized, rather than celebrated, by the commentariat?

  • SugarFree||

    We're mad about the money. He paid extra and didn't get the service.

  • Cyto||

    Ok, that's probably fair.

    No, wait! It was private security provided by the University and paid for by the speaker and hosts. Yes! We are back in business!

  • waffles||

    They are security guards. But yeah that's a clever observation.

  • thrakkorzog||

    Plenty of commenters around here have complained about cops doing nothing. If your car gets stolen, the cops will send someone around after a few hours to write a report, and that's about all the effort they'll put into it.

    On the other hand, get caught driving that same car 11 over the speed limit with a dimebag in your pocket, you can expect to spend some time in prison.

  • Loki||

    If your car gets stolen, the cops will send someone around after a few hours to write a report

    I didn't even get that when my car got broken into. Some low forehead took my statement over the phone and gave me the report number to give my insurance company and that was that.

    get caught driving that same car 11 over the speed limit with a dimebag in your pocket, you can expect to spend some time in prison.

    Or end up in the morgue if you fail to respect their AUTHORITAY.

  • John||

    No. It is not. People were pretty upset about the cops who stood around and watched the other cops beat the homeless guy to death. People get upset when the cops refuse to enforce the law against politicians and such. This really just another example of that.

  • R C Dean||

    Geez, John. You need to sarcasm harder, dude. Try some Sarcagra, or maybe Ciarcasm.

  • John||

    My doctor won't give me a script. The DEA is all over them about giving those things out to sarcasm addicts instead of those who really need it.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm waiting for Trump or Milo or somebody to start bringing civil suits, with discovery, to start digging into who sent these protestors. You know there's a trail that leads through some pretty unsavory places to some pretty big names.

    Given that these protestors are committing criminal acts, you'd think our doughty Cop-Industrial Complex would be interested in exploring a criminal conspiracy. Yet they seem oddly apathetic.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Right has yet to learn to use legal terrorism like the Left.

  • Chipwooder||

    fun counterfactual - what would have happened if the exact same scenario occurred with a black leftist speaker and two white College Republicans jumping up on the stage and screaming in the speaker's face?

  • waffles||

    I literally can't even.

  • Bra Ket||

    Day one would involve visits to the white house for all the victims. Move on from there.

  • John||

    First of all, the security there would have happily beaten them like baby seals.

  • Abu Nudnik||

    Please stop baby-seal-clubber shaming.

  • buybuydandavis||

    If Progressives aren't stopped, and soon, you *will* be seeing that scenario a lot, and it will be a lot more violent.

  • Real American||

    they lesson is that if your first amendment rights are being violated, resort to using your 2nd amendment rights. When violence is incentivized, it will become more frequent.

  • Free Society||

    Yet they seem oddly apathetic paralyzed with apprehension.
  • Notorious UGCC||

    "Regardless of whether Ward is disciplined, it would be nice of the university to at least acknowledge that the College Republicans were in the right."

    Acknowledging that the Republicans were in the right would basically mean disciplining Ward.

    I mean, how could they say, (a) "yes, you're right, he violated your freedom of expression as well as college policy," and (b) "we will let him get away with it"?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    DePaul University president Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider has apologized to Milo. In a letter to students Holtschneider said he sympathized with the DePaul College Republicans group, which hosted Milo’s event, saying they “deserved an opportunity to hear their speaker uninterrupted, and were denied it.”

    He added in the letter: “I was ashamed for DePaul University when I saw a student rip the microphone from the hands of the conference moderator and wave it in the face of our speaker.

    “Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so. Universities welcome speakers, give their ideas a respectful hearing, and then respond with additional speech countering the ideas.”

    No word on whether Milo will get his cash back.

    Turns out gay bashing doesn't look too good.

  • Free Society||

    The purported gay basher is black AND a woman, no? Well I'm sorry, but black women outrank white gay men on the victim scale.

  • buybuydandavis||

    “Yesterday’s speaker was invited to speak at DePaul, and those who interrupted the speech were wrong to do so.

    Means nothing until he's willing to condemn and *hold accountable* the thugs who interrupted the speech and the administrators who told security to stand down and let the interruption continue.

  • ||

    Edward Ward is a thug.

    Or maybe he's just upset about his name.

  • ||

    As a student of DePaul, they ain't givin' shit back.

  • pan fried wylie||

    They would fail the gom jabbar.

    Proud of it too

    "Damn right, it only took me an hour to chew through my leg."

  • Abu Nudnik||

    Sad. A very sad state of affairs. People who shut down free speech always have a reason for it. These are rationales. They are always wrong.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "If the academy is not a place where freedom of expression is protected for everyone, it's not a "safe" space at all. "
    That's a nice sentiment.

    I'd be expelled from Brigham Young and Liberty for being gay. Is Reason ever going to write an article about that? Or does, in that case, Freedom of Association (for the school) trump "freedom of expression" for students?

    And where does "freedom of expression" for non-students even fit into this? Does Milo Yiannopoulos *have* a "freedom of expression" on a university campus that he's not a student, staff or faculty on? Any platform he gets there is not an entitlement, it's a gift. And frankly, this university, even with the protestors and violence, is doing more for "freedom of expression" then conservative universities who much more carefully screen their students and speakers for inappropriate thought.

    That said... until student protestors or speakers get shot by the National Guard, I think universities today are much safer then previously.

  • The Grinch||

    Good job excusing the inexcusable.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Does Milo Yiannopoulos *have* a "freedom of expression" on a university campus that he's not a student, staff or faculty on?

    The student organization that invited Milo does have a right to hear him.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "The student organization that invited Milo does have a right to hear him."
    At best you can argue they had a right to *invite* him. But if they had a right to *hear* him, then it would be violated if he said no, so that doesn't seem right.

    For that matter, do they have a right to invite him? Assuming they're using school resources (access to the student fund, school buildings to hold the lecture/speech/whatever in, etc.), the school has it's own Freedom of Association that trumps any "right to invite" the students may have.

    People confuse *privilege* with *rights* far too often. Just because something is *unfair* or *mean* doesn't mean a "right" was violated.

  • The Grinch||

    Even though the squelching of opposing viewpoints is antithetical to what higher education should be all about, I'd agree that the (private) school has the right to exclude certain speakers if they so choose but people also have the right to bitch about it and to point out the school's hypocrisy.

    That being said, there was no excuse for BLM's threatening behavior and cooption of an approved event. The loudest group who's threatening to punch someone in the face shouldn't end up with the microphone and security should have carted those people off. Instead, it looks like they'll face no consequences but, sure, if DePaul wants to be known for this kind of nonsense, that's their business.

  • Pat (PM)||

    I'd be expelled from Brigham Young and Liberty for being gay.

    No, you actually wouldn't (although you'd have to agree to many restrictions on your behavior, as do all of the students). Even if you would, tu quoque is a fallacious form of argumentation. Not only are you a lying sack of fascist dog shit, but you're a pretty stupid one at that.

  • JeremyR||

    I would be more sympathetic for him if he didn't wallow with neo-nazis.

    He still has speech, but he's really got no morals or ethics himself, he's simply a troll, like Ann Coulter.

  • GILMORE™||

    that's the same argument Mark Ames made about Reason

  • Pat (PM)||

    It's good to see libertarians who for years have championed the speech rights of outright, unabashed communists who would happily, and with no exaggeration, line them up against the wall if their vision of ideal governance were ever actualized, finally realizing that certain things are just a bridge too far.

  • Suicidy||

    I personally favor a constitutional amendment recognizing that marxism is antithetical to the constitution, and therefore outlawing it's practice in the US. Which of course would effectively outlaw the modern democrat party, and also put most college faculty and Hollywood actors out of work for good.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Who?!!

  • Rockabilly||

    1984...here at last

  • buybuydandavis||

    As I've frequently noted, Yiannopoulos is a Trump supporter, not a libertarian. I don't agree with many of his views, and some of his most vocal online supporters are truly awful.

    You're just jealous because Milo has prettier hair.

  • Sombody||

    This is real life jerry springer. All you guys are disgusting for watching this stuff. *closes youtube window*

  • Mechanical Patent||

    Milo's cheek gets struck with more force by things even blacker and harder than that woman's limp fist on a regular basis.

  • Jason Vick||

  • american socialist||

    Please. That guy has probably jerked off about a thousand times to this video already. I don't really care for the BLM movement or their followers so is this really the fault of liberals?

  • Suicidy||

    Yes. This is the kind of shit you people have worked tirelessly for. When socialist scum are finally in charge, there is no dissent allowed. Look at every socialist regime in the last century. Every one of them is oppressive.

    Also, none of them pay their mortgages.

  • Charles.H.Anziulewicz@wv.||

    Poor Milo really needs to find himself a husband, it might mellow him out a bit.

  • Bgoptmst||

    "When [speech] is coming from a point of ignorance, when you make these blatant statements about feminists, when you make blatant statements about the LGBTQ community, when you make statements about black people – then it becomes a problem, because when you use this kind of hatred people like us end up dead," said Ward. “You get Charleston. These are what you get as a result of his type of speech and rhetoric.”

    And to prove my point I will use violence!

    Wait wtf?!?

  • Andrea Ostrov Letania||

    This is what capitalism leads to: Homosexist supremacism that destroys moral freedom:

    http://tinyurl.com/zwzn7xy

  • block30||

    This is due in large part to Obummer. He wants to control the narrative of his legacy with his carefully worded speeches while for eight years HIS administration ran amok with our constitutional rights and our tax dollars. How many days left til he's out of office? Good riddance! And this is coming from a person who was sort of hopeful at the beginning of his first term... I tried to give the guy a chance.

  • ejhickey||

    Watched the video with the sound off. Thought it was a minstrel show

  • ahmed kamel||

    This is due in large part to Obummer. He wants to control the narrative of his legacy with his carefully worded speeches while for eight years HIS administration ran amok with our constitutional rights and our tax dollars. How many days left til he's out of office? Good riddance! And this is coming from a person who was sort of hopeful at the beginning of his first term... I tried to give the guy a chance.

    اخبار مصر
    الابراج

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online