On 02/02/2017 03:26 PM, Joshua Case wrote: > Have to know I'm doing the proper kind of thinking if libertarian and > antifa people are taking exception with my thoughts. Razor finds me > idiotic because I think violence as a matter policy is the same as the > crap he wants to fight, but what good is a rayz3r that does no > cutting? Jim thinks I'm taking away Milo's liberty unfairly because I > think it reasonable to deny him use of the communistically shared > space he finds so precious.
You think you're the "Voice of moderation" but you're the "Voice of Collaboration", with Fascists. Even stupid Prog-libs like Murtaza Hussain know better. Rr Ps. How many different ways can you spell my handle wrong in one paragraph? I'm not an egotist. I don't search for my handle in posts to decide what I read and respond to. > > On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:14 PM, jim bell <jdb10...@yahoo.com > <mailto:jdb10...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> *From:* Joshua Case <jwc...@gmail.com <mailto:jwc...@gmail.com>> >> >> More to the point he was seeking right to assembly, it wasn't his >> speech that was suppressed. His views are well know, his sentiment >> registers broadly. He was denied assembly. Seems reasonable. >> >> >> Your comment is confusing and vague. I assume you were talking about >> Milo Yiannopolis (sp?). >> University of California (including the Berkeley site) is presumably >> public property. The 1st Amendment likely applies, at least as >> strongly there as elsewhere. If you are saying it "seems reasonable" >> for him being "denied assembly", is there any other public property >> where you WOULDN'T agree that it would be "reasonable" for him being >> "denied assembly"? I think it's long-established that government >> officials generally cannot deny people the right to speak on public >> property (at a time and in a manner that anyone else would be allowed >> to speak). >> >> Somebody will probably argue that "public officials", per se, didn't >> attempt to obstruct Milo Y's right to be there, and speak. Well, no, >> the rioters did that. But I think that for the government to allow >> rioters to do things that would be illegal for government people to >> do, in itself would be a Constitutional problem. After all, the 14th >> Amendment guarantees "equal protection of the laws", and some of >> those laws deal with the right to "assemble" on "public property". >> Failure to use government police for to enforce Milo Y's right to >> assemble and speak would amount to a violation of his 14th Amendment >> rights. >> >> Jim Bell >>
