Free Speech

I saw an article with one Milo Yiannopoulos and for lack of a better word a riot that shut him down from speaking.

Here are some of the quotes from protesters

But UC Berkeley sophomore Jonathan Gow, 19, rejected Yiannopoulos’ insistence that free speech took a hit.

“The whole reason we’re here is for free speech,” Gow said. “Milo’s hate speech is not allowed here. When it’s hate speech, our free speech is to shut him down.”

UC Berkeley junior Fatima Ibrahim, 20, who clutched a “resist fear” sign with a red fist, said the timing of Yiannopoulos’ scheduled appearance stung.

“As a black Muslim woman, all three of those identities have been targeted throughout (Trump’s) campaign,” Ibrahim said. “To have someone like (Yiannopoulos) come into my campus and affirm those people’s beliefs, it’s very, very hurtful.”

I am saddened that these students from a prestigious university do not grasp the concept of free speech. This disturbing view of both Gow and Ibrahim sadly seems to be more the norm than outliers.

How did we get to this point? Now Breitbart and their alternating facts is not news and a good example of shock journalism in my view. Let me elaborate I don't think it's Journalism at all nor is it good reading. I put occupy democrats in the same class. Both are terrible diatribes of mixing fact and fiction under the pretence of news and heavy on agenda. I find both offensive and an insult to my intelligence.

But free speech allows them both to publish. It gives us a chance to examine views not of our own. To provide a window if you will to a world we might find offensive and even hurtful to broaden our own perspective. Free speech is not free it comes with a price. You have to be accepting of letting those that you do not agree with express thier views. If you want to shut yourself in a bubble you are welcome to do so. Dictators love a populous in a bubble.

These freedoms in the past have allowed many far more offensive than  Milo Yiannopoulos speak at universities across United States and time to express their opinions. This is healthy for free thought. It can be offensive and hurtful but allows all of us to enjoy the same freedom and right to express our opinions in public.

I do not disagree with Ms or Mrs  Ibrahim assessment of Milo and Breitbart. I find Milo offensive or even extremely offensive. I do not disagree with her right to protest peacefully. In fact I encourage it. Very much part of free speech.

But when you come to a point that you want to censor that person from speaking at a place of learning I must disagree. That is exactly the type of voice you should hear. Offence can be taken but recognising that they have the right to speak. It can hurt to be free at times and a price I am willing to pay.

Mr Gow certainly gets none of the concept of free speech. Shouting over someone so they cannot speak is juvenile and dangerous for our society. We must allow the opposition in so we might understand them. If you disagree engage them in debate and if they refuse point out their shortcomings. Or even try to find some common ground and explore it. Find the point that your differences and try to overcome them. Or agree to disagree and move on if their is no common ground.

I would urge if I could Mr Gow and Ms or Mrs Ibrahim and any who hold their views to reexamine their position. Free Speech is a pillar of our Constitution and a value that predates it. It is one of the greatest rights for the Human race. Sequestering speech will never make the world a better place. What can be said what can be thought should not be constrained. Buck up and pay the price that has been fought for by greater men than me. Defend free speach by listening to someone offensive to you and accept their right to be heard.