How about quote the specific language which you claim "was intended to incite violence". Or, at least, cite it with sufficient specificity so that we know what you are talking about. So far, we don't. Cite the website, show the text.

Also, you said, " Hate Speech isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence."

I'm glad to see you so brazenly invent foolish legal claims. I am unaware that the term "hate speech" has ANY consistent definition, let alone a legal definition sufficiently specific to be able to conclude that it "isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment".

Actually, whatever you think "hate speech" is, it's almost certainly protected by the 1st Amendment. See the Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

"Per curiam opinion[edit]

The per curiam majority opinion overturned the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute, overruled Whitney v. California,^[3] and articulated a new test – the "imminent lawless action" test – for judging what was then referred to as "seditious speech" under the First Amendment:

…Whitney has been thoroughly discredited by later decisions. See Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, at 507 (1951). These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

If you genuinely believe " it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence.", you need to cite specific precedent which applies your choice of terms, "incite violence" to a 1st-Amendment guaranteed speech. As per Brandenburg v. Ohio, you are on very thin rhetorical ice.

Jim Bell

From: Razer <g2s@riseup.net>

His planned talk was intended to incite violence against so-called "undocumented" students, as stated on his own website. Hate Speech isn't protected by any constitutional provision or amendment and it's a federal crime to cross state lines to incite violence. Go fish for some other bullshit rationale "Libertarian".

On 02/02/2017 03:14 PM, jim bell wrote:

From: Joshua Case <jwcase@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