MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Joe Biden Slams Campus Leftists Who Shut Down Speakers: 'It's Simply Wrong'

"Liberals have very short memories."

Joe BidenBastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto/Sipa/NewscomCount former Vice President Joe Biden among those of us who remain confused and frustrated by the campus left's ongoing efforts to silence everyone with whom it disagrees.

During a joint event with Gov. John Kasich at the University of Delaware earlier this week, Biden was asked what should be done "to encourage people to be more accepting of opposing viewpoints."

"It's interesting," said Biden. "When I was coming up through college and graduate school, free speech was the big issue but it was the opposite. It was liberals who were shouted down when they spoke. And liberals have very short memories. I mean that sincerely."

Biden accused liberals of hurting themselves "badly" when they don't allow speech to take place. He specifically referenced the madness at Berkeley earlier this year and noted that the pre-emptive violence was deeply counterproductive.

"You should be able to listen to another point of view, as virulent as it may be, and reject it, expose it," he said. "The best thing to do is let this stuff be exposed. Don't be like these other people. Don't give the Trumps of the world the ability to compare you to the Nazis or you to the racists because you're doing the same thing. You're silencing."

While in office, President Obama made similar appeals to students to actually engage differing opinions rather than resorting to shutdowns. It is great to see Biden doing the same thing: answering bad speech—the kind calling for censorship—with more speech. Let's hope young people on the left will listen to Obama and Biden, if they aren't listening to anybody else.

Watch Biden's remarks below.

Hat Tip: Campus Reform

Photo Credit: Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto/Sipa/Newscom

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.

  • Brandybuck||

    ""It was liberals who were shouted down when they spoke. ""

    Wow, he must be half a century older than he looks. The idea of any liberal getting shouted down on campus any time after the 1930s is almost unimaginable. But then again, an 1960s liberal would get shouted down as a fascist in any of today's colleges.

  • Rhywun||

    Yeah I've wondered about this, since it was before my time. What was the "Free Speech Movement" really about versus the hagiography of it that my generation was taught.

  • Lily Bulero||

    It started out with students from various groups - including the conservative ones - agitating in favor of political speech on campus. The conservative students ditched the movement when the lefty members started breaking the law.

    After that, it was liberal campus administration versus liberal and radical left protesters, blocking police cars and trespassing. And that was the early days of Berkeley radicalism.

  • Quixote||

    What is this "free speech" nonsense we keep hearing about from certain politicians? Surely the former vice president would not dare to defend the "First Amendment dissent" of a single, isolated judge in our nation's leading criminal "satire" case? Rather than defend "opposing viewpoints," Mr. Biden should be working hard to convince Internet companies to ban inappropriate "editorials" such as this one:

    http://forward.com/opinion/385.....s-scholar/

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It just happened about a week ago and Reason covered it.

  • SIV||

    When we're liberals "shouted down" ? They fucking controlled everything when Biden was in college, just not as much as they do now.

  • John||

    Seriously, the assemblyman out in California being shouted down over immigration a few days ago is the first time I can remember a liberal being shouted down, though I doubt it will be the last time. Liberals seem to not understand that the rules go both ways.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Last week.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I'll take whataboutism for $1000, Alex.

  • John||

    Maybe Joe should tell the speakers just to use a shotgun. I don't think these idiots are going to listen to him. Joe saying it shows that they are doing damage to the leftist cause and starting to embarrass them. sucks to be them.

  • Tony||

    How do you feel about Trump telling private-sector employees how they should be allowed to express themselves?

  • John||

    How do you feel about the Yankees going up 3-2 over the Astros? It is just as relevant here than your question. The only difference is I give a shit about the ALCS.

  • Tony||

    You're saying some anonymous teenagers are fucking the "leftist cause." I'm wondering what you think the speech-suppressing rightwing moron president is doing to the "rightwing cause."

  • John||

    Yes Tony leftist mobs are leftist. If you are embarrassed by your brownshirts, get new ones.

  • Ron||

    please site where Trump has suppressed speech

  • Tony||

    He said football players should stand for the anthem or be fired.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Saying is not doing, and as he had no authority to fire anybody, he suppressed nothing.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    He threatened to apply additional taxes to the NFL for allowing players to kneel. You are correct that "saying is not doing", but threatening to use the force of the state is still pretty powerful.

  • dantheserene||

    Considering the NFL is currently treated as some sort of non-profit, almost any taxes would be additional taxes.

  • damikesc||

    Considering the NFL is currently treated as some sort of non-profit, almost any taxes would be additional taxes.

    And being a non-profit includes that they cannot be political. It's why white (but not black, mind you) churches don't do election nonsense during election seasons.

    Once you break the rules, repurcussions should be expected.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So something along the same lines as having mexico pay for the wall? I realize that barry broke the mold for royal decrees but we're not a monarchy yet and are actually stepping back from the brink under this administration.

  • BYODB||

    I can only agree in so far as Trumps comments 'chill' free speech but it is not actual suppression. Words have meanings.

    I absolutely agree that Trump isn't some kind of free speech advocate, but he isn't particularly worse on that front than previous administrations of my lifetime.

    Hell, I could just point out that Hillary Clinton thought banning people from burning the flag was a great idea at one point. It's just something politicians say, it would seem. What we should be wary of is if they follow through with it I guess, but by all means call out Trump for his stupid shit.

    Schools banning 'To Kill A Mockingbird' is actual free speech suppression, in my view, and we would be wise to be angrier about that than Trump's NFL tweets.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Then there's the left's support of Citizens United.

  • ||

    That's not an example, Tony.

    What do they feed progressive kids at school?

  • Warren||

    Another fucking YouTube video inexplicably mirrored. What's up with that?

  • ||

    inexplicably

    I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  • jelabarre||

    It's bad that commentators/reviewers are forced to mirror scenes from a show in a video meant as a commentary on the series. It isn't like they're posting an entire episode, or even scenes from the *same* episode. So it's not like you're going to be able to watch the show on the sly by watching a review. And for a lot of these I don't even think it's the content owners complaining, I think it's just Google's crappy software (then again, most of Google's software & systems are crap anyway).

  • CLamb||

    I'm guessing it was recorded on a cell telephone with the mirror feature turned on. This feature was intended to allow the telephone to be used as a mirror but many people aren't bright enough to turn it off.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Diamond Joe went to college? And not just to sell weed and score with rich girls who wanted to piss off their dads?

  • John||

    Not only for that. Mostly for that but not all that

  • Citizen X - #6||

    They tried to kick him out after seven years but discovered that he'd never actually enrolled, or applied.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    99% of the stuff that Delta House did in Animal House came from Biden's first hand accounts of his college days, relayed to Harold Ramis over the course of a 2 week coke and alcohol fueled bender. True story.

  • John||

    Before Pence could move into the Observatory the secret service spent a week clearing out the 2,000 empty Jack Daniels bottles, a basement full of hydroponic growing equipment, one live steer and several dozen confused Georgetown Soriority girls Biden had left behind. True Story

  • BYODB||

    Y'know, I'll say that the one thing about the Obama administration that I honestly will miss are the meme's of Joe Biden and Obama. That was comedy gold, Jerry.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Diamond Joe went to college? And not just to sell weed and score with rich girls who wanted to piss off their dads?

    "Diamond Joe" was one of the biggest drug warriors before he was Vice President. He was a drug hardliner who was an early supporter of Plan Colombia.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The Left has no intellectual history, Joe. We know this.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Diamond Joe, natch. On account of that bitchin' Trans-Am of his. That thing's a real panty dropper.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    He encourages the ladies to buckle up, so they don't slip right off the seat.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

  • BYODB||

    So what Joe is saying is that the anti-war protestors of the 1960's were actually Conservatives?


    I think I need to know what Joe means by 'liberal' because the only way this makes sense to me is if he means 'Communists' who's speech was likely 'shouted down' during his lifetime by guys like McCarthy among many others.

  • Lily Bulero||

    The university administrators who were attacked by the leftist radicals, were liberals in the New Deal/New Frontier sense. You know "Cold War liberals," meaning they were against communism.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Which would set up some tension between the university administrators and those demonstrators who happened to be communist. But not to worry, lot's of demonstrators were *not* communist, they simply didn't want to be "exclusionary" and keep communists out of their movement.

  • BYODB||

    Well, since 'New Deal' Liberals were basically communists I guess that still works.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    New Deal "liberals" were actual, legitimate fascists. Look up some of the admiring things Roosevelt had to say about Mussolini.

  • BYODB||

    Exactly. It's hard to ignore that the 'new deal' was communist / fascist even down to the concentration camps. FDR is either the worst, or second worst, President of all time in my consideration.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's too bad fascist largely just means "authority one dislikes" now.

  • BYODB||

    Well, that's what it means to fascists since they can't be intellectually honest about their fascism.

    To everyone else, it's still pretty accurate. If someone has a hard on for FDR era policy, your odd's are pretty good that they are either indoctrinated or an honest fascist.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Hell, a lot of FDR's New Deal policies were cribbed from Italian fascism.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Holy shit. "Diamond Joe" actually said something that wasn't bat-shit crazy or stupid? Truly a sign of the end of days.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    His reasoning was more "giving our enemies an excuse to call you fascists is embarrassing to us, your allies" than "acting like a fascist is bad." Still, that's pretty good for Diamond Joe.

  • ||

    "Your violent behavior is cramping *our* ability to act like fascists. Quit shouting down speakers so we can go back to telling small business owners what they did and didn't build."

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Yeah, and of course his assertion that liberals were ever "shouted down" on college campuses by conservatives is extremely laughable, unless his definition of liberal is "communist" and conservative is "new deal democrat," but still. This seems to be a rare moment of clarity for him. I guess he hasn't been able to score any good shit recently.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Well ok then.

  • Lily Bulero||

    Yes, Biden is right that liberals were shouted down in the 60s, but they were anticommunist liberals like McNamara, plus hapless college deans, etc.

  • John||

    They always think being a loyal member of the Party will save them. It never does but they always think it will.

  • damikesc||

    They always think being a loyal member of the Party will save them. It never does but they always think it will.

    I always tell them that the mob eventually got Robespierre too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    When I was coming up through college and graduate school, free speech was the big issue but it was the opposite. It was liberals who were shouted down when they spoke.

    If even true, they were for free speech because they were shouted down. No one argues for the civil liberties of those they oppose. NO ONE.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Certainly not you.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    SHUT UP

  • Curt2004||

    Pretty sure the ACLU has done that many times.

  • ||

    Milo does. Argument diproven.

  • jonnysage||

    The Obama administration wouldnt even appear anywhere that wasnt friendly to his side. Hes the last one who should be lecturing people to engage. He also passed 'hate' crime laws, and used fcc and irs to intimidate opposing views.

  • Aloysious||

    Crazy Uncle Joe gets one right.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Godwins are so hot right now.

  • mtrueman||

    "You should be able to listen to another point of view, as virulent as it may be, and reject it, expose it," he said.

    Listening, rejecting and exposing the ideas of someone, a racist say, is probably not enough to defeat their aims. Debates are not going to damage their ability to organize and grow in influence.

  • BYODB||


    Listening, rejecting and exposing the ideas of someone, a racist say, is probably not enough to defeat their aims.


    The implication being, of course, that we are more racist today than we were in the 1960's. Cool story.

  • mtrueman||

    "The implication being, of course, that we are more racist today than we were in the 1960's."

    No, the implication is action, words, speak louder than. How racist you are now compared to the 60s is irrelevant.

  • mtrueman||

    "It's not enough to let someone say something retarded then laugh at them."

    It's probably not enough. Sticks and stones are much more in keeping with the spirit of the times.

  • mtrueman||

    "Apparently sticks and stones"

    The application of sticks and stones requires some courage. Let me know when you've got the stones to post under your real name instead of hiding behind a ridiculous pseudonym.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Oh snap, some anonymous guy on the internet just called out another anonymous guy on the internet for being an anonymous guy on the internet! The whole world trembles.

  • mtrueman||

    Nobody here is anonymous. You are pseudonymous while I am nomynous.

  • BYODB||

    We only have your word for that, of course, and you have given us few reasons to believe anything you say in the past.

  • mtrueman||

    "and you have given us few reasons to believe anything you say in the past"

    Says the moran who claims that global warming is caused by solar flares.

  • BYODB||

    You still haven't bothered to actually look up what the solar cycle is? That's some willful ignorance right there.

  • BYODB||

    The reason I say that's the implication is because the only way listening, rejecting and exposing the idea's of someone is probably not enough to defeat their aims' is if most of the population agrees with them and is therefore racist.

    If the majority of Americans are not racist, then it seems likely their aims won't come to pass.

    Since I know you simply love to post non-sequitur though, I'm going to assume you're doing so again.

  • mtrueman||

    The communists want to attack and defeat their enemy, the racists and fascists etc. I don't think they have much hope for help from the majority of Americans, the kind of sheep who lined up to vote for the likes of Trump or Clinton only a year ago.

  • BYODB||

    What makes you think that the Communists want to defeat the fascists, and furthermore what would make you think that Communists and Fascists aren't racist? It's one of their defining features, in fact.

  • mtrueman||

    "What makes you think that the Communists want to defeat the fascists"

    They are attacking their speaking engagements.

    "and furthermore what would make you think that Communists and Fascists aren't racist"

    They may well be. Nobody's perfect.

  • BYODB||

    What fascist speaking engagements have communists crashed one might ask.

  • mtrueman||

    I can't help you there. I should think Reason magazine has the answers you seek. They've shown a lot more interest in the matter than I can muster.

  • BYODB||

    As expected, you are indeed making shit up again. Thanks for the confirmation.

  • mtrueman||

    "As expected, you are indeed making shit up again."

    Hey. Free speech!

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well, the main thing is that most people aren't violent assholes, and don't choose to side with people who are.

  • ||

    The implication being, of course, that we are more racist today than we were in the 1960's. Cool story.

    Also, nobody's ever tried to tie a race-issue bow around a racially agnostic political issue and, because all races are inherently the same and racists are always inherently wrong *always*, no one race has traditionally or intrinsically better or worse political ideas, needs, or motivations.

    North Korea and Iran's views are just as morally, socially, and politically valid as Japan's and China's, Canada's and Mexico's, or Catalonia's and Spain's.

    If you don't reject the racists outright, they win. Unquestioned Racial Equality, the secret 0th Amendment to the Constitution.

  • BYODB||

    Actually, unquestioned racial equality isn't a secret amendment it's right there in the Declaration of Independence when it states that it's a self evidence truth that all men are created equal.

    Just saying. But I don't think anyone seriously says that all races are literally the same since it's clear that at a glance there are obvious morphological differences. If someone says they're the same, I would suppose they are referring to the fact all humans have natural rights. Or at least that would be my hope.

  • ||

    Actually, unquestioned racial equality isn't a secret amendment it's right there in the Declaration of Independence when it states that it's a self evidence truth that all men are created equal.

    Just saying.

    Regardless, my first point was that the actual first change made was "It's OK to (let others) talk about it."

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Listening, rejecting and exposing the ideas of someone, a racist say, is probably not enough to defeat their aims.

    This is true unless their aim was to either incite a violent reaction or, you know, have their ideas be accepted and taken seriously. But since those are basically the only two options, i'm not sure what your point is.

  • mtrueman||

    "their aim was to either incite a violent reaction or, you know, have their ideas be accepted and taken seriously"

    I don't think there's any mystery about their aims. The idea is to disrupt their enemy's ability to organize and attract new members. I don't think they see any advantage in engaging their enemy in debate.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    And I'm saying it has the exact opposite effect. They put them down violently and thus create a more sympathetic base for them to recruit from. They do not argue with their ideas, which means the sometimes subtle errors in their argumentation is not made explicit, making it harder for others to refute them.

  • mtrueman||

    The sympathetic base is not important. They are sheep. Eliminate the leaders. Didn't the 60s teach you that much?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you advocating for murder?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Well, this IS a guy who thinks that megadeath in the Great Leap Forward was a small price to pay for Mao to bring back traditional Chinese medicine. Murdering a few dozen people who may or may not be racists? That's chump change.

  • mtrueman||

    "Mao to bring back traditional Chinese medicine"

    Mao never 'brought back' traditional Chinese medicine.

  • mtrueman||

    How badly do you want to defeat the racists and fascists? A lot, a little bit, not at all? If you really want to defeat them, you've gotta be prepared to escalate violence. In the end, it's the only 'debate' America's masses truly appreciate.

  • ||

    Racists and fascists will be easily defeated by being exposed for what they are. Most Americans are opposed to racism and fascism. What you want to do is not escalate violence, but draw them out and get them to expose themselves as racists and fascists. You want people to hear their actual words and see for themselves how their arguments are racist and fascist.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It doesn't count as real victory until your enemies are dead.

    Did you learn nothing from Conan?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    This might be a fundamental difference then. I cannot advocate murder as an appropriate response to speech.

  • mtrueman||

    "I cannot advocate murder as an appropriate response to speech."

    Nobody is asking you to. Others take defeating their enemy more seriously.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Others take defeating their enemy more seriously.

    The technical term for these people is "psychopaths."

  • mtrueman||

    The technical term for these people is "psychopaths."

    We like to call them retards.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Are you calling yourself a retard here? Because you seem to be saying that about the side you are advocating.

  • mtrueman||

    "Because you seem to be saying that about the side you are advocating."

    Instead of advocating a side, I'm questioning the ability of debate to win this political difference. Maybe at one time it was enough, but we've gone beyond that. Society has coarsened and dumbed down, and lost its faith in authority. Americans will inevitably turn to violence to settle their differences.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    No one in Asia kills anyone, ever!

  • ||

    This. The denial of a platform tactic is bad, because it prevents people from hearing the actual reasons why you oppose what they are saying.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It is both unnecessary and insufficient!

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It totally does. It's much easier to recruit from a martyred status then it is after having video of your views being solidly rebuked.

  • BYODB||

    Ben Shapiro comes to mind. I don't necessarily agree with the guy, and generally they have him debate retards, but it is fun to watch and occasionally they make good points.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yeah, he seems fine. I like when people argue on some level of good faith. Shapiro is not always that, but he seems okay about it. That being said, he is also much more traditionally conservative than I am.

  • BYODB||

    I'm definitely not as conservative as he is, and like I say I disagree with him a lot (or at least sometimes), but his debates are sometimes interesting to watch and he does actually make good points that give me pause on certain issues.

    I might be strange though since I used to debate but gave it up once I realized it was just another stupid game with moronic rules. That said, watching debates is still amusing for me.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    It's easy to see how one could be enthralled by the logic and intellectual rigor shown here.

  • damikesc||

    Listening, rejecting and exposing the ideas of someone, a racist say, is probably not enough to defeat their aims. Debates are not going to damage their ability to organize and grow in influence.

    This is true.

    The Left does seem to love Ta'Nehisi Coates, after all.

    Or do you mean OTHER racists?

  • ||

    The larger problem is that other people only hear the message that you don't want the person you're trying to shut down to speak. They don't hear your explanation of WHY you disagree with their speech. You DO want to protest offensive speech, but you don't want to do it in a way that obscures the reasons why you are protesting. You don't want the only message that gets out to be that your trying to shut them down.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's be nice if people debated offensive speech.

  • ||

    Some people ARE xenophobic and racists and calling them such is speech.

    Speech is not censorship, it is not a denial of a platform.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Yes, but it's not debate, which is what Paul and SparkplugPose were talking about.

  • ||

    How can you debate if you aren't allowed to use words ? Attempts to control the language your allowed to use is a tactic the left pioneered.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I don't know what we're arguing here. I feel like some confusion seeped in on one of our sides.

  • ||

    I'm arguing that "racist" and "xenophobe" are sometimes accurate descriptive terms, which may legitimately be used in a debate. Just because a racist is offended by being called a racist, doesn't mean he's not a racist, or that his opponents should pussyfoot around his feelings instead of calling them what they are.

  • BYODB||

    I'm wondering if your contention here is that you need to call someone a racist. It should be clear from their position and preferred policies if they are indeed a racist, or you should be able to make a logical argument that illustrates it in a specific or general case.

    Generally speaking you shouldn't need to use a label in a debate as you should be able to illustrate their racism from their points without ever actually using the word at all.

    If you need to call them a racist the odd's are good that they are not, in fact, a racist at all.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I was taking it as him commenting on those who shout it down at anyone in order to end a conversation.

  • Texasmotiv||

    "Racist" and "xenophobe" are epithets, not discriptors. They speak to your interpretation of the other speakers motives not the validity of their argument. It is a shortcut to try to undermine the credibility of the other person's argument. It doesn't do anything to persuade people who may be sympathetic to the other person's argument and in fact it might galvanize them against you.

    It's like calling someone's argument "dumb" then never refuting it.

  • JuanQPublic||

    "Racist" and "xenophobe" are epithets, not discriptors.

    Epithets and descriptions aren't always mutually exclusive. Sorry, but some only see the world as a collection of ethnicities that should be corralled into their respective tribe. If someone can't see that for some, "race" (ethnicity) is the guiding metric for everything else to fall under with less importance, then maybe they need to look around and accept reality.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    When you're not sure why you don't want to hear the other person speak beyond "nazi-esque", you're better off not trying to engage in debate.

    Ironically, I think Crazy Joe is known for starting and finishing his share of shouting matches.

  • Ron||

    Obama did say allow free speech but he never called for a stoppage to the violence of the left

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Biden is pretty much confused and frustrated by everything, so...

  • DarwinP||

    And the lefty's taken under his skin.

  • Sugarsail||

    Is this the same Biden parading the "science is settled and the debate is over" mantra and now he's saying let opposing viewpoints have a voice? Odd, did someone reprogram him?

  • Tony||

    Total intellectual relativism... the most convenient thing ever for people who believe in absolute bullshit.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|10.19.17 @ 4:05PM|#
    "Total intellectual relativism.."'

    By an expert in the field.
    Fuck off.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Creepy Backrub Uncle Joe is just trying to avoid winding up on the wrong side of a #metoo list and needs to change the topic quickly.

  • timbo||

    No shit. He and trump and bill and weinstein probably did some nasty stuff with that Epstein guy.

  • timbo||

    Funny how pols become arbiters of rights and rule of law once they no longer have their hands on the levers of power.

    And to be perfectly clear Mr. Soave, while Mr. Obama might have often paid lip service to people rights, he used the power of the pulpit and the media to quell almost all critical speech of him and his administration under the veil of racism. Many people were ruined during his tenure for simply criticizing him.
    In fact, the more accurate the criticism, the more vitriolic the attacks came upon the person that dared call him out for being such a fantastic fraud. Obama just had the unrivaled support of a subservient media that did his bidding for him so it appeared that public support was behind him.
    Point being that free speech was in no way a cherished amercian value under Obama. The difference is most likely in the fact that none of the fascists antifa nuts bothered to be as destructive under Obama because they were not as frothy with craziness until trump got in. Now trump is simply taking the mega-state threat of censorship and violence to new levels.

  • Praveen R.||

    It didnt stop Trump from using his free speech to outright lie about the President's birth place multiple times. And Obama did not feel the need to keep bashing Trump on a daily basis other than a couple of sarcastic remarks. Imagine if someone did that to Trump. You would get a tweet about it everyday and how he has proof blah blah and how he would look into revoking their license or lobbying his employer ifor firing him

  • H. Farnham||

    So, I know that Biden is the focal point of this post, but can we acknowledge that Kasich seems likely to be on ecstasy in that video... or just really into molesting chairs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    A little o' one, a little o' t'other.

  • Uncle Jay||

    RE: Joe Biden Slams Campus Leftists Who Shut Down Speakers: 'It's Simply Wrong'
    "Liberals have very short memories."

    Kudos to Jumpin' Joe.
    Too bad he didn't say this during the past eight years.

  • ||

    I was going to say this.

    They made half-hearted attempts but not more than that.

    The time to do these things is WHILE YOU'RE IN POWER.

    But Obama wasn't exactly principled where liberty is concerned.

  • Curt2004||

    "But Obama wasn't exactly principled." FTFY

  • Think It Through||

    Well, good for Joe. However, it's awfully difficult to logic or persuade your way past SJW's closed loop logic of "if you're not with us you're evil, evil must not be tolerated, shut it down." It's really that simple. So I don't think persuasion will eventually win the day, only victory will.

  • harryborten||

    Maybe if conservatives had ideas other than "white lives matter" and tax cuts for the rich we wouldn't have to shout them down?

    Just an idea.

  • ||

    Re: "Let's hope young people on the left will listen to Obama and Biden, if they aren't listening to anybody else."
    Are you aware of (1) how weak this statement is and (2) how inappropriate weakness is for this current moment in history?
    Consider ...
    Hard times create strong men.
    Strong men create good times.
    Good times create weak men.
    Weak men create hard times.
    We have already hit maximum weakness in the current cycle and have entered into a new heroic age. Reason is being left behind as libertarians line up behind more courageous and uncomprimising leaders like Milo, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux, Lauren Southern, etc.
    If you see the truth in this, you might want to make the case to your Koch brother sponsors that moderation is not the appropriate strategy for this moment in history.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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