I'm paying attention, just not to rural simply list if tripe like that. Some people hold views that are not the same as yours. Unilateral selection of policy by a vocal or violent minority is a) our status quo- what got us into this mess in the first place b) stupid and destined to fail for lack of self awareness.

On Feb 2, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

...

On 02/02/2017 02:33 PM, Joshua Case wrote: 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.

You aren't paying attention...

"Fascists get no platform, no free speech, no quarter, no mercy. It's that simple."

https://twitter.com/BlackAutonomist/status/827136749633732609

A prog-Lib, Murtaza Hussain from The Intercept, FINALLY gets something right

"Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being punched." https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827266793039278080

"Liberals crying out to defend this guys ability to target most vulnerable people in society should consider deporting themselves to Mars." https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827262611649556480

"ICYMI this guy was going to Berkeley to target undocumented students, not engage in some kind of Socratic dialogue (link to sheitbart article)" https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827260921915461633

Rr

...

...

On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

Image gleaned from twitter

<C3pFZWjVcAAU5BF.jpg:large.jpeg>

On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 03:11:28PM -0800, Razer wrote:

On 02/02/2017 03:04 PM, Joshua Case wrote:

...

I'm paying attention, just not to rural simply list if tripe like that. Some people hold views that are not the same as yours. Unilateral selection of policy by a vocal or violent minority is a) our status quo- what got us into this mess in the first place b) stupid and destined to fail for lack of self awareness.

You're still not paying attention "Unilateral selection of policy by a vocal or violent minority" is what people like Milo and Richard Spencer are seeking,

So you say.

and denying them the platform to accomplish that is a public service.

As I've said before, you are acting and speaking in ways which I interpret as maximally effective to catalyze your "feared" "final solution" - you are proposing the final solution, to solve your fear of the appearance of some "final solution". Of course, you don't see that this is what you are doing.

Maybe this will get your attention. You'd be a "'Good' German".

Rr

Of course only "good" people don't ask for facts in support of the holohoax - and the fact seekers need Razer's final solution. What a "rational" discussion you got going Razer ...

...

On Feb 2, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net <mailto:g2s@riseup.net>> wrote:

...

On 02/02/2017 02:33 PM, Joshua Case wrote:

...

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.

You aren't paying attention...

"Fascists get no platform, no free speech, no quarter, no mercy. It's that simple."

https://twitter.com/BlackAutonomist/status/827136749633732609

A prog-Lib, Murtaza Hussain from The Intercept, FINALLY gets something right

"Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being punched." https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827266793039278080

"Liberals crying out to defend this guys ability to target most vulnerable people in society should consider deporting themselves to Mars." https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827262611649556480

"ICYMI this guy was going to Berkeley to target undocumented students, not engage in some kind of Socratic dialogue (link to sheitbart article)" https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827260921915461633

Rr

...

...

On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:30 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

Image gleaned from twitter

<C3pFZWjVcAAU5BF.jpg:large.jpeg>

From: Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com> Paper Chase - Leave thinking like a lawyer | | | | | | | | | | | Paper Chase - Leave thinking like a lawyer In Paper Chase, Kingsfield tells his students, "You come into here with a skull full off mush and leave thi... | | | | ×

Moreover this is what I just said, and you took issue with - when this person says it it's getting something right? Maybe you're just being a dick because you like the attention. 

A prog-Lib, Murtaza Hussain from The Intercept, FINALLY gets something right

"Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being punched." https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827266793039278080 VERY poor reasoning.  It is not mere "free speech" which gives a person "entitlement to huge public platform".  Instead, "free speech" guarantees the public right to speak, in private and in public locations.  But it is the regular offering by officialdom to all comers to a given ("huge public platform") venue, that gives yet another a would-be speaker the right to also seek, and use, that venue to speak, without discrimination based on the content of their proposed speech.   The people who advocate shutting down Milo Y's speech are not merely advocating violating his First Amendment right to speak, but also are advocating the government violating his 14th Amendment right to equal protection of the laws:  They want other people to continue be allowed to speak at the UC Berkeley campus, but not Milo Y.

"ICYMI this guy was going to Berkeley to target undocumented students, not engage in some kind of Socratic dialogue (link to sheitbart article)" https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/827260921915461633 "Undocumented" makes it sound like these people just left their driver's licenses back in Mexico.              Jim Bell

On 02/02/2017 04:15 PM, Mark Steward wrote:

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:34 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com <mailto:jdb10987@yahoo.com>> wrote:

...

"Undocumented" makes it sound like these people just left their driver's licenses back in Mexico.

Jim Bell

Fuck off jim.

+1! Further, (mostly boilerpated from offlist) What makes you think it's about Mexicans Jim? I know at least three El Salvadorians and five Canadians ":illegally" in the US and ZERO 'illegal' Mexicans. And I know LOTS of Mexicans. I live with one of the Salvadorians. He's been in-country since 13. He's 60 now, and has most likely been a more useful member of US society than most Americans. Although Americans seem to think their value to society is measured by the size of their paycheck so they might disagree. Ps I understand Driscoll Berry is hiring in Watsonville right now. Work sunup to sundown 7 days a week until the harvest is finished for minimum wage and all the strawberries you can eat. Oh, and unless you can 'get along' and share space you WILL NEVER be indoors at those wages. You'll be sleeping in a cardboard box in the field. Rr

On 02/02/2017 03:47 PM, juan wrote:

a wild dangerous animal.

Thank you!

If you are claiming that it is okay for an agent of the State of California (University of California at Berkeley is such an agent) to discriminatorally deny a person the right to use a venue which is regularly offered to others, discrimination which is on the basis of the content of that speech,  then I feel free to cite the U.S. Constitution to challenge that assertion.  The State employees are legally required to adhere to their own rules, and that includes letting Milo Y. have access to the location which was already commonly offered to many others for public assembly and speeches.           Jim Bell From: Joshua Case <jwcase@gmail.com> Jim- come on It's only confusing or vague if you're pretending to be in a court. I know you did your time in the system, as did I, but out here you don't have to defend your opinion from statute. -Joshua

On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:47 PM, juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 14:47:49 -0800 Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

...

"Free speech means you have legal right to expression; not entitlement to huge public platform or to be a racist in public w/o being punched."

    LMAO at the sick piece of shit being quoted and the sick piece     of shit who quotes him..Notice also 'anarcho' turd rayzer     invoking yet again US government doctrine.

    Here's the deal though : rayzer IS a fully fledged national     socialist or national communist or fascist, who promotes the     existence of concentration camps like cuba. He's an apologist     of slavey and the murdering of dissenters.

    Following his own lunatic (fascist) views regarding free speech,     he should be shot on sight. If rayzer wants to enslave millions     of people in commie concentration camps he should be treated     like a wild dangerous animal.

That's right. Schools have BROAD authority, and hate speech... ESPECIALLY the sort that might lead to BULLYING, surely can be limited. On 02/02/2017 04:32 PM, jim bell wrote:

I will add: http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993

May schools limit the time, place, and manner of student expression? Yes, as long as the time, place, and manner regulations are reasonable and nondiscriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that "laws regulating the time, place or manner of speech stand on a different footing than laws prohibiting speech altogether."^1 <http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993#foot1>First Amendment jurisprudence provides that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutional if (1) they are content neutral (i.e., they do not treat speech differently based on content); (2) they are narrowly tailored to serve a governmental interest; and (3) they leave open ample alternative means of expression. Courts will generally grant even more deference to time, place, and manner restrictions in public schools because students do not possess the same level of rights as adults in a public forum. However, the time, place, and manner regulations must still be reasonable. This means that school officials could limit student distribution of material to certain locations and at certain times, but those regulations would need to be both reasonable and nondiscriminatory. Notes ^1 /Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro/, 431 U.S. 85 (1977).

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

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". Rr 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

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.

On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:14 PM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> 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

Dear rzor, The only moderate thing about me is my annoyance with hypocrisy on the leftern front. Antifa disruption is basically aligned with my sentiment - but violence outside of defense doesn't work for me. I'm ok with burning property, vandalism is sensual, but violence meretricious. We have to strive for a world of cooperation. If I take your tracts and replace nazi with Jew what we have is very familiar. I was young once though, and I thought violence sucked then too.

On Feb 2, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Razer <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:

...

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 <jdb10987@yahoo.com> 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

On 02/02/2017 03:26 PM, Joshua Case wrote:

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.

War is easy to start, hard to stop. To avoid war, you have to communicate with your adversaries all the time. Your refuse to listen, refuse to understand, refuse to comprehend. This results in demented demonization and maniacal hatred. We conclude that you are evil, crazy and dangerous. You think we are planning to kill you, so you plan to kill us, so indeed we do plan to kill you, confirming your paranoid suspicions and maniacal hatred. A vicious spiral that will pretty soon result in both side's plans being put into force. We said this was the flight 93 election, meaning that if we lost it, you would destroy us, and if we won it, we might still be destroyed. Your behavior in the leadup to the election, and after the election, confirms that this was indeed the flight 93 election. This implies that having gained power democratically, we should never let it go democratically, because if we yield, you will destroy us. So you quite correctly see plans to use power in ways that make sure we remain in power come what may, so seeing these plans, you indeed plan to destroy us. All this could have been avoided by talking and listening, but we are now on the road to civil war.