Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant

jim bell jdb10987 at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 2 15:54:42 PST 2017


Since the rules (the laws) cover the usage by people of what you call "communistically shared space", then it appears that Milo Y (and the people who want to listen to what he has to say) have a right to the benefit of such laws, too.  Property and a location which is offered to one person, has to be offered to all, at least not discriminating on the basis on the content of that speech.    See "time, place, and manner".
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12993   
To deny Milo Y that same space, simply on the basis of the content of that speech, violates the Constitution.
×   

              Jim Bell

      From: Joshua Case <jwcase at gmail.com>
 To: jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> 
Cc: "cypherpunks at cpunks.org" <cypherpunks at cpunks.org>
 Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:26 PM
 Subject: Re: Statement from a Berkely Antifa FashBash participant
   
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 at yahoo.com> wrote:




 From: Joshua Case <jwcase at 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
   


   
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 9036 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20170202/8950f55b/attachment.txt>


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list