PDA

View Full Version : cons say free speech shouldn't apply equally to everyone



del
02-20-2017, 09:33 PM
Milo Yiannopoulos lost his keynote speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference after tapes surfaced of the right wing provocateur and senior Breitbart editor advocating for sexual relationships between “younger boys and older men.”


The decision to disinvite Yiannopoulos was unanimous and did not even need to be deliberated, the person said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204

you can't make this stuff up

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 09:35 PM
I thought there was something funny about that guy, but... Politico

resister
02-20-2017, 09:36 PM
Tell it to your lefty rioters! LOL, try again, just as futile!!!!

Chris
02-20-2017, 09:40 PM
This is the establishment right, and likely remnants of the religious right. It was easy to see listening to Milo and his flamboyant gayness, it would be shunned.

Of course if he said what they say it will be the end of him. He denies what he said many years ago had anything of a sexual nature intended.

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 09:42 PM
This is the establishment right, and likely remnants of the religious right. It was easy to see listening to Milo and his flamboyant gayness, it would be shunned.

Of course if he said what they say it will be the end of him. He denies what he said many years ago had anything of a sexual nature intended.

As the OP stated "you can't make this stuff up" but Politico can, so I'll wait until the MSM is broiling with it.

I don't even know who this guy is btw. I only recognize his name because I see threads on him here. Peter posted a video of Maher interviewing him. I watched about 10 seconds of it, he seemed a bit off to me so the story could be true.

del
02-20-2017, 09:43 PM
lawlz

i'm sure a source you find acceptable will cover it

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 09:46 PM
lawlz

i'm sure a source you find acceptable will cover it

Politico is a tabloid.

Faux is biased but if they cover it, the fat lady can go home for the night.

del
02-20-2017, 09:47 PM
Politico is a tabloid.

Faux is biased but if they cover it, the fat lady can go home for the night.

thanks for sharing your keen analysis


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/20/cpac-disinvites-milo-yiannopoulos-from-conservative-conference.html

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 09:50 PM
thanks for sharing your keen analysis

I should charge for it.

Safety
02-20-2017, 09:55 PM
Milo was doing whatever he could to get his 15 minutes. I believe they were up 16 minutes ago.

del
02-20-2017, 10:06 PM
I should charge for it.

right now you're getting full value for it.

Subdermal
02-20-2017, 10:14 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204

you can't make this stuff up

And yet you did. CPAC is under no obligation to be required to allow Milo to speak.


You seem bent upon intentionally conflating terms. You see, reversing a decision to have a speaker at your own event isn't suppression of free speech. It's a decision to decline to pay them for a speech, and/or a decision to not include something at your own private event.

They've done nothing to stop him from voicing his opinions. Please learn your Constitution. You're not dead yet, so there's still time.

Tahuyaman
02-20-2017, 10:17 PM
cons say free speech shouldn't apply equally to everyone
It seems that today, the biggest enemy of free speech would be our students in an average state college or university. I wouldn't consider them especially conservative.

They might be when they grow up and get some real world experience though.

rcfieldz
02-20-2017, 10:21 PM
They should have let the crowd get him at Berkeley. That would have made that show(night) better.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/20/media/milo-yiannopoulos-cpac/index.html
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/170220143923-milo-yiannopoulos-022017-780x439.jpg
flamer.

Crepitus
02-20-2017, 10:30 PM
And yet you did. CPAC is under no obligation to be required to allow Milo to speak.


You seem bent upon intentionally conflating terms. You see, reversing a decision to have a speaker at your own event isn't suppression of free speech. It's a decision to decline to pay them for a speech, and/or a decision to not include something at your own private event.

They've done nothing to stop him from voicing his opinions. Please learn your Constitution. You're not dead yet, so there's still time.


cons say free speech shouldn't apply equally to everyone
It seems that today, the biggest enemy of free speech would be our students in an average state college or university. I wouldn't consider them especially conservative.

They might be when they grow up and get some real world experience though.

Lol, it's fine as long as he's just spewing hate against people you don't like, but the second he says something you don't like, off with his head!

Tahuyaman
02-20-2017, 10:33 PM
Lol, it's fine as long as he's just spewing hate against people you don't like, but the second he says something you don't like, off with his head!

Ahem......

Dr. Who
02-20-2017, 10:42 PM
The video:
https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg

Newpublius
02-20-2017, 10:46 PM
Prior to February 2017 I had never heard of this guy. Now all of a sudden......

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 10:48 PM
Prior to February 2017 I had never heard of this guy. Now all of a sudden......

Bingo

Like the partisan political Gods sprung him out of a waterfall somewhere recently.

Dr. Who
02-20-2017, 10:51 PM
Bingo

Like the partisan political Gods sprung him out of a waterfall somewhere recently.

Actually, he's been around for a while. We were discussing him on this forum at different times last year and perhaps even in 2015.

Newpublius
02-20-2017, 10:54 PM
Actually, he's been around for a while. We were discussing him on this forum at different times last year and perhaps even in 2015.

If possible can you find me that thread, its not that I don't believe you, but I'd love to see what this board was saying about this character then.

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 10:59 PM
Actually, he's been around for a while. We were discussing him on this forum at different times last year and perhaps even in 2015.

He wasn't on my radar until a couple of weeks ago so as far as I'm concerned he never existed prior to lately.

:biglaugh:

Dr. Who
02-20-2017, 11:01 PM
If possible can you find me that thread, its not that I don't believe you, but I'd love to see what this board was saying about this character then.
Here are a couple:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/58807-Milo-Yiannopoulos-is-my-fucking-hero?p=1448645&viewfull=1#post1448645
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/66707-Milo-Yiannopoulos-Proposed-a-Gay-Conservative-Alliance-and-the-Pro-Trump-Crowd-Loved?p=1643556&viewfull=1#post1643556

birddog
02-20-2017, 11:09 PM
When you refer to "con" that usually means "convict" IMHO. In that more honest reference, you are usually referring to dimocrats.

del
02-20-2017, 11:14 PM
When you refer to "con" that usually means "convict" IMHO. In that more honest reference, you are usually referring to dimocrats.
whatever you say, con

AeonPax
02-20-2017, 11:29 PM
`







Milo Yiannopoulos lost his keynote speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference after tapes surfaced of the right wing provocateur and senior Breitbart editor advocating for sexual relationships between “younger boys and older men.”

“Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation,” said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the group which sponsors CPAC, in a statement Monday afternoon. The group called Yiannopoulos to “further address these disturbing comments,” but defended its original decision to invite him as a nod to “the free speech issue on college campuses.” - Source (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204)

`

`
If it's any consultation to Milo, the gays are rejecting him too. Milo Yiannopoulos resurrected a dangerous old myth about gay men and pedophilia. (http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/2/20/14668372/milo-yiannopoulos-gay-pedophilia-myth) This looks like Milo's Limbaugh–Fluke controversy.

Captain Obvious
02-20-2017, 11:30 PM
dupe

Subdermal
02-20-2017, 11:34 PM
Lol, it's fine as long as he's just spewing hate against people you don't like, but the second he says something you don't like, off with his head!

:thinking:

Why did you include my quote in your response? It has nothing to do with what I said.

Subdermal
02-20-2017, 11:37 PM
I think Milo is one of the most interesting political pundits to come around in quite awhile. I'm at least fairly confident that his comment had nothing to do with pedophilia. I'm sure he'll be coming out (sic) with a statement of clarification in the very immediate future.

But we'll see. He's been known to say some extremely brash things that tests lines. Last speech I heard him give he was talking about having cops "inside of him". Blugh lol

Dr. Who
02-20-2017, 11:50 PM
Threads merged.

del
02-20-2017, 11:54 PM
In a recently resurfaced episode of "The Drunken Peasants" podcast, the right-wing provocateur recalled his own sexual abuse as a teen and did not condemn similar relationships between children and men.
Yiannopoulos, in fact, said young boys "discover who they are" through such relationships, even when they're sexual in nature, and can "give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable rock where they can't speak to their parents."
KING: Trump and Milo have turned the GOP into a party of perverts (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-trump-milo-turned-gop-party-perverts-article-1.2977403)
A host with the popular podcast fired back at Yiannopoulos and said, "Sounds like Catholic priest molestation to me."
"I'm grateful for Father Michael," Yiannopoulos replied. "I wouldn't give nearly such good head if it wasn't for him.

milo's having a tough day


Later Monday, Yiannopoulos also saw his book deal with Simon & Schuster canceled due to the comments.
Larry Wilmore tells Milo Yiannopoulos to ‘go f--k' himself (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/larry-wilmore-tells-milo-yiannopoulos-f-k-article-1.2975977)
On Monday night, Simon & Schuster canceled the publication of “Dangerous” an autobiography of and by Yiannopoulos that was due out in June, Publishers Weekly reported.
At one time just a fringe character with a penchant for hate speech, Yiannopoulos has gained enormous notoriety in recent months as his former boss at Breitbart, Stephen Bannon, now Trump's chief White House strategist, gained influence in the President's orbit.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/milo-yiannopoulos-disinvited-cpac-pedophilia-comments-article-1.2977414

right turn, clyde

Bethere
02-20-2017, 11:57 PM
milo's having a tough day



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/milo-yiannopoulos-disinvited-cpac-pedophilia-comments-article-1.2977414

right turn, clyde

Onward!

Hal Jordan
02-21-2017, 01:14 AM
Let's be honest. None of what Milo says is free speech, it's paid speech. Don't be foolish enough to think he believes what he says.

patrickt
02-21-2017, 02:38 AM
Poor Del. He knows he's a troll, a hypocrite, and a liar defending a lost cause but he's doing the best he can, poor thing.

I wonder if he sees the irony in a leftist even mentioning free speech?

Safety
02-21-2017, 05:01 AM
And yet you did. CPAC is under no obligation to be required to allow Milo to speak.


You seem bent upon intentionally conflating terms. You see, reversing a decision to have a speaker at your own event isn't suppression of free speech. It's a decision to decline to pay them for a speech, and/or a decision to not include something at your own private event.

They've done nothing to stop him from voicing his opinions. Please learn your Constitution. You're not dead yet, so there's still time.

No, you don't get it. The OP was highlighting the hypocrisy the right has when it comes to certain things. E.g. When you and your ilk bitch and whine about 2nd amendment violations with "Gun free" zones in schools and malls, but have nothing but crickets sounding when the RNC says no guns allowed at the convention. Or how much noise y'all make when a venue decides to not to hire someone to speak because they are too controversial, but suddendly forget the noise when it is someone you agree with. Even when that person you agree with, is only doing so because they're looking for emotional reaction or fame.

Safety
02-21-2017, 05:14 AM
Here are a couple:
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/58807-Milo-Yiannopoulos-is-my-fucking-hero?p=1448645&viewfull=1#post1448645
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/66707-Milo-Yiannopoulos-Proposed-a-Gay-Conservative-Alliance-and-the-Pro-Trump-Crowd-Loved?p=1643556&viewfull=1#post1643556

Yup, I remember those, according to the logic used in other threads towards liberals, does that mean those whom support Milo, support pedophilia also?

I mean, I remember the Lena Dunham references when she spoke about her early childhood.

Adelaide
02-21-2017, 05:37 AM
Poor Del. He knows he's a troll, a hypocrite, and a liar defending a lost cause but he's doing the best he can, poor thing.

I wonder if he sees the irony in a leftist even mentioning free speech?

Do not discuss members or insult them.

Peter1469
02-21-2017, 05:54 AM
The articles about Milo are interesting in that they use hedge words like may, perhaps. Many of the players like Salon actually protect pedophiles while Milo has been one of the most outspoken against it. Classic hard left character assassination.

And it shows that the mainstream conservative movement in the US is going the way of the democratic party because of it has no spine and bends to attacks such as these. But that is why the Alt-Right refers to them as cuckservatives.

Milo will be fine and old institutions will die off.


http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204

you can't make this stuff up

Chris
02-21-2017, 08:30 AM
As the OP stated "you can't make this stuff up" but Politico can, so I'll wait until the MSM is broiling with it.

I don't even know who this guy is btw. I only recognize his name because I see threads on him here. Peter posted a video of Maher interviewing him. I watched about 10 seconds of it, he seemed a bit off to me so the story could be true.


He's alt-right and, despite being a gay Jew, called a nazi by the left because he trolls PC and SJW.

Here's an interview by a lefty that decent:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImHh7fqrQo


I expect establishment right and left to gang up against him.

Chris
02-21-2017, 08:36 AM
Yup, I remember those, according to the logic used in other threads towards liberals, does that mean those whom support Milo, support pedophilia also?

I mean, I remember the Lena Dunham references when she spoke about her early childhood.


Always the argument from hypocrisy. First you need to establish that Milo meant what establishment righties say he meant. It's like interpreting the Koran the way terrorists do.

Subdermal
02-21-2017, 09:08 AM
The video:
https://youtu.be/oJhHwspZGcg

What he says here puts him in a totally different and very disgusting light. He's clearly been psychologically damaged by his own experiences as a youth, and seems to be suffering a version of Stockholm Syndrome.

NAMBLA sicko. Disgusting.

Subdermal
02-21-2017, 09:09 AM
`






Milo Yiannopoulos lost his keynote speaking slot at the Conservative Political Action Conference after tapes surfaced of the right wing provocateur and senior Breitbart editor advocating for sexual relationships between “younger boys and older men.”

“Due to the revelation of an offensive video in the past 24 hours condoning pedophilia, the American Conservative Union has decided to rescind the invitation,” said Matt Schlapp, chairman of the group which sponsors CPAC, in a statement Monday afternoon. The group called Yiannopoulos to “further address these disturbing comments,” but defended its original decision to invite him as a nod to “the free speech issue on college campuses.” - Source (http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-cpac-milo-yiannopoulos-tape-235204)







`

`
If it's any consultation to Milo, the gays are rejecting him too. Milo Yiannopoulos resurrected a dangerous old myth about gay men and pedophilia. (http://www.vox.com/identities/2017/2/20/14668372/milo-yiannopoulos-gay-pedophilia-myth) This looks like Milo's Limbaugh–Fluke controversy.

That's not a legit comparison. Limbaugh is and was totally correct on Fluke. Milo just appears ill.

hanger4
02-21-2017, 09:13 AM
whatever you say, con

Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people."

Seems it works both ways, amirite del ??

Subdermal
02-21-2017, 09:15 AM
No, you don't get it. The OP was highlighting the hypocrisy the right has when it comes to certain things. E.g. When you and your ilk bitch and whine about 2nd amendment violations with "Gun free" zones in schools and malls, but have nothing but crickets sounding when the RNC says no guns allowed at the convention.


And yet the OP didn't mention any such comparison at all, nor am I required to defend anyone who "crickets" at any RNC gun free zone (which I not only didn't comment upon, but I didn't see to comment on).



Or how much noise y'all make when a venue decides to not to hire someone to speak because they are too controversial, but suddendly forget the noise when it is someone you agree with.


Yeah? So? I'm supposed to condemn CPAC for changing their mind on a guy who his clearly taking a position that it, IMO, indefensible?

Are you taking this pro-pedophilia position with Milo or something?



Even when that person you agree with, is only doing so because they're looking for emotional reaction or fame.


What?

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 09:28 AM
Is someone claiming that a private political action committee is violating the right of free speech guaranteed in the US Constitution by disinviting a speaker who they believe holds some objectionable views?

Is CPAC a branch of government?

Chris
02-21-2017, 09:33 AM
Free speech shouldn't be an issue here as CPAC is private, not public like Berkeley University. The argument from hypocrisy fails on that score.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 09:36 AM
Free speech shouldn't be an issue here as CPAC is private, not public like Berkeley University. The argument from hypocrisy fails on that score.

It's not a legitamate complaint.

del
02-21-2017, 09:42 AM
Great minds discuss ideas;
average minds discuss events;
small minds discuss people."

Seems it works both ways, amirite del ??

free speech is an idea

cpac is an event, as is being disinvited from it

hop back up on the porch

DGUtley
02-21-2017, 09:45 AM
free speech is an idea. cpac is an event, as is being disinvited from it. hop back up on the porch

Free speech is a protected right from government intrusion. You have no free speech 'right' at a private event.

del
02-21-2017, 10:12 AM
Free speech is a protected right from government intrusion. You have no free speech 'right' at a private event.
i've never argued otherwise, but one would think that with all the bitching and moaning about how milo was deprived of the opportunity to speak at berkley, protectors and true believers like cpac would bend over backwards to facilitate mr yiannopoulos' ability to spread his message of conservatism.

after all, it is speech that we find offensive that should be protected most. cpac had no problem with his beliefs on muslims, transgenders and gays although some would call it hate speech that was calculated to be hurtful and outrageous. they had no problem with his attacks on individuals for no reason other than their sexual identity. why should his defense of pedophilia be any different?

put up or shut up, cpac

Safety
02-21-2017, 10:18 AM
Always the argument from hypocrisy. First you need to establish that Milo meant what establishment righties say he meant. It's like interpreting the Koran the way terrorists do.

No, actually I don't need to establish anything. Your appeal to hypocrisy is summarily dismissed.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 10:18 AM
Del just wants to start a food fight. Her comments should not be given any serious consideration.

del
02-21-2017, 10:24 AM
Always the argument from hypocrisy. First you need to establish that Milo meant what establishment righties say he meant. It's like interpreting the Koran the way terrorists do.
well, why don't you pretend you're an imam and interpret this for us:

“Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

thanks in advance

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:25 AM
i've never argued otherwise, but one would think that with all the bitching and moaning about how milo was deprived of the opportunity to speak at berkley, protectors and true believers like cpac would bend over backwards to facilitate mr yiannopoulos' ability to spread his message of conservatism.

after all, it is speech that we find offensive that should be protected most. cpac had no problem with his beliefs on muslims, transgenders and gays although some would call it hate speech that was calculated to be hurtful and outrageous. they had no problem with his attacks on individuals for no reason other than their sexual identity. why should his defense of pedophilia be any different?

put up or shut up, cpac



I would agree that it is hypocritical to denounce the left for shutting out something offensive and then turn around and praise the right for shutting out something offense, all the clearer when it's the same person, albeit for different reasons, even though both unproven allegations are for crimes, hate speech and pederasty. Etc etc.

But, and I think this is Utley's point, the right's rejection here doesn't involve protected free speech as the OP contends. It doesn't compare with the left's violently shutting down speech in the public square.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:29 AM
well, why don't you pretend you're an imam and interpret this for us:

“Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

thanks in advance


Like much of the media you're confusing pederasty with pedophilia, and have no evidence even for that other than an interpretation of ambiguous speech.

Alas, it's the court of public opinion where suspicions and mockery matter even more than fake news.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:30 AM
No, actually I don't need to establish anything. Your appeal to hypocrisy is summarily dismissed.

You're the one appealing to hypocrisy, lol, though the OP does as well.

del
02-21-2017, 10:32 AM
Like much of the media you're confusing pederasty with pedophilia, and have no evidence even for that other than an interpretation of ambiguous speech.

Alas, it's the court of public opinion where suspicions and mockery matter even more than fake news.

so you're okay with adults having sex with 13 year olds?

Safety
02-21-2017, 10:34 AM
You're the one appealing to hypocrisy, lol, though the OP does as well.

Sure, Chris. I know all too well how objective your ability to see fallacies are. Anything else you wish to add to the topic of how Milo condones pedophilia or do you wish to throw some google search examples of arguments?

Safety
02-21-2017, 10:36 AM
so you're okay with adults having sex with 13 year olds?

Only when they share the same disdain for SJWs. What is hypocritical about that, right?

del
02-21-2017, 10:38 AM
Only when they share the same disdain for SJWs. What is hypocritical about that, right?
i'm trying to get my mind around the crucial difference between pederasty and pedophilia.

Safety
02-21-2017, 10:40 AM
i'm trying to get my mind around the crucial difference between pederasty and pedophilia.

A distinction without a difference.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:41 AM
so you're okay with adults having sex with 13 year olds?

Why do you have the need to make things up, del? Recall I said just above unproven allegation.

DGUtley
02-21-2017, 10:41 AM
i've never argued otherwise, but one would think that with all the $#@!ing and moaning about how milo was deprived of the opportunity to speak at berkley, protectors and true believers like cpac would bend over backwards to facilitate mr yiannopoulos' ability to spread his message of conservatism. after all, it is speech that we find offensive that should be protected most. cpac had no problem with his beliefs on muslims, transgenders and gays although some would call it hate speech that was calculated to be hurtful and outrageous. they had no problem with his attacks on individuals for no reason other than their sexual identity. why should his defense of pedophilia be any different? put up or shut up, cpac

I do agree that it's the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. However, we know that there's limits to such speech and the world has decided that pedophilia is one of those limits. We know that child pornography / pedophilia is universally illegal and cannot anywhere in the world be considered acceptable or an art form. I can't speak for CPAC but it wouldn't invite him to speak on things that disagree with their agenda. It's not a put-up or shut-up issue. IMHO.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:41 AM
Sure, Chris. I know all too well how objective your ability to see fallacies are. Anything else you wish to add to the topic of how Milo condones pedophilia or do you wish to throw some google search examples of arguments?

I'm not the topic, safety, dismissed.

del
02-21-2017, 10:41 AM
A distinction without a difference.

that's certainly my belief, but chris appears to feel otherwise.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:43 AM
i'm trying to get my mind around the crucial difference between pederasty and pedophilia.


A distinction without a difference.


that's certainly my belief, but chris appears to feel otherwise.


pe·do·phil·i·a
ˌpēdəˈfilēə,ˌpedəˈfilēə/
noun
sexual feelings directed toward children.

ped·er·as·ty
ˈpedəˌrastē/Submit
noun
sexual activity involving a man and a boy.


Sexual feelings vs sexual activity. The dictionary begs to differ with you two conflationists.


And, btw, both are interpreted from ambiguous speech. Unproven allegations.


Not that it matters in a post-truth, fake-news world.

del
02-21-2017, 10:44 AM
lol

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:47 AM
I do agree that it's the most offensive of speech that is the most deserving of protection. However, we know that there's limits to such speech and the world has decided that pedophilia is one of those limits. We know that child pornography / pedophilia is universally illegal and cannot anywhere in the world be considered acceptable or an art form. I can't speak for CPAC but it wouldn't invite him to speak on things that disagree with their agenda. It's not a put-up or shut-up issue. IMHO.


From what I've read and listened to the grounds for this accusation is weak. But a private organization needs no reasons to shut him out.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 10:49 AM
Well. It been established that in spite of the OP, there is no freedom of speech issue in this case.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 10:53 AM
From what I've read and listened to the grounds for this accusation is weak. But a private organization needs no reasons to shut him out.


Especially a private organization which is in business to promote particular views.

It's not like CPAC is posing as an institution where they claim to promote critical thinking and challenging establishment norms.

Cannons Front
02-21-2017, 10:58 AM
In order to have true free speech, you must allow speech that you may find offensive. I do not agree with the statement “Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,” I think adults being attracted to Children is a sickness, I do not have an age limit where it makes it ok.
With that said, he has the right to say it though not the right to practice it. At the same time any group has the right to allow or not allow such speech, they do not have to invite him but if they do then no one has the right to riot to prevent it.

In order to have free speech you can not limit speech to topics that you agree with.

Chris
02-21-2017, 10:59 AM
Especially a private organization which is in business to promote particular views.

It's not like CPAC is posing as an institution where they claim to promote critical thinking and challenging establishment norms.


Agree, CPAC can shun for any reason. Same with the publisher that cancelled his book contract. There's no need to prove the allegations.

AeonPax
02-21-2017, 11:09 AM
That's not a legit comparison. Limbaugh is and was totally correct on Fluke. Milo just appears ill.
`
I'm sorry you feel that way.

MisterVeritis
02-21-2017, 11:11 AM
so you're okay with adults having sex with 13 year olds?
Is this a post about Muslims and Islam?

MisterVeritis
02-21-2017, 11:14 AM
In order to have true free speech, you must allow speech that you may find offensive.
Really? I must allow speech I find offensive? The First Amendment holds no power over me. It holds power over government officials and government actions.

Bo-4
02-21-2017, 11:14 AM
I don't even think that clown is a conservative - merely a provocateur.

Advocating sex between 13 year old boys and older men cost him a book deal too.

Sad!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html?_r=0

MisterVeritis
02-21-2017, 11:17 AM
In order to have true free speech, you must allow speech that you may find offensive. I do not agree with the statement “Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,” I think adults being attracted to Children is a sickness, I do not have an age limit where it makes it ok.
With that said, he has the right to say it though not the right to practice it. At the same time any group has the right to allow or not allow such speech, they do not have to invite him but if they do then no one has the right to riot to prevent it.

In order to have free speech you can not limit speech to topics that you agree with.
Not that long ago many, possibly most adults believed men having sex with other men was a sickness. Now we know it is just another lifestyle choice. I believe the same amendment that protects the rights of gays will soon protect the rights of those who choose children.

Chris
02-21-2017, 11:35 AM
I don't even think that clown is a conservative - merely a provocateur.

Advocating sex between 13 year old boys and older men cost him a book deal too.

Sad!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/20/us/politics/cpac-milo-yiannopoulos.html?_r=0



He's alt-right.

What he said didn't explicitly advocate anything.


Before we circle back there, it's up to CPAc, as a private organization, to decide on any basis who they let in and who they shun.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 11:44 AM
In order to have true free speech, you must allow speech that you may find offensive. I do not agree with the statement “Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty,” I think adults being attracted to Children is a sickness, I do not have an age limit where it makes it ok.
With that said, he has the right to say it though not the right to practice it. At the same time any group has the right to allow or not allow such speech, they do not have to invite him but if they do then no one has the right to riot to prevent it.

In order to have free speech you can not limit speech to topics that you agree with.


Private organizations are are under no obligation to promote views they disagree with. This isn't a free speech issue.

Ravens Fan
02-21-2017, 11:49 AM
He's alt-right.

What he said didn't explicitly advocate anything.


Before we circle back there, it's up to CPAc, as a private organization, to decide on any basis who they let in and who they shun.
That's where I am at this point. If you listen to what he says in both video's, he is talking specifically about his personal experience being the "boy" in a "man and boy" relationship. He feels there was something special in that, I did not see that as a blanket defence of the issue, in fact when asked about a Hollywood producer facing charges for the same thing, he doubted the same relationship had occurred there. That tells me that he was not trying to defend anything other than his own, personal experience. I do have a problem with his refusal to name the Hollywood types that he later talks about having parties with much younger boys... but I suspect he is worried about his own survival.

He does specifically say that he is against pedophilia, and then explained the SCIENTIFIC definition of pedophilia vs. pederasty.

del
02-21-2017, 11:51 AM
so adults having sex with 13 year olds is okay.

wow

Subdermal
02-21-2017, 11:51 AM
`
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Perhaps I'm mistaken. What do you think Limbaugh said about Fluke which wasn't correct?

Cannons Front
02-21-2017, 12:00 PM
Really? I must allow speech I find offensive? The First Amendment holds no power over me. It holds power over government officials and government actions.

You don't have to allow it, you don't have to listen. But the Gov't must allow it and can not prevent it. As I said in the part you chose not to quote, a group does not have to hire a speaker, the same applies to individuals. Actually the 1st amendment does mean that you can not prevent free speech, if it on your property you can but otherwise they have the same right to speak as you.

Ravens Fan
02-21-2017, 12:04 PM
so adults having sex with 13 year olds is okay.

wow
Who said that?

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:06 PM
Who said that?

del

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:10 PM
That's where I am at this point. If you listen to what he says in both video's, he is talking specifically about his personal experience being the "boy" in a "man and boy" relationship. He feels there was something special in that, I did not see that as a blanket defence of the issue, in fact when asked about a Hollywood producer facing charges for the same thing, he doubted the same relationship had occurred there. That tells me that he was not trying to defend anything other than his own, personal experience. I do have a problem with his refusal to name the Hollywood types that he later talks about having parties with much younger boys... but I suspect he is worried about his own survival.

He does specifically say that he is against pedophilia, and then explained the SCIENTIFIC definition of pedophilia vs. pederasty.


I read too where "boy" doesn't mean boy in age but, as you're saying, in relationship.

But people will go with it and so are here.

His career as an alt-right troll is washed up. Damn, he was funny, laughing at how easily PC libs are triggered. In video I posted much earlier.

del
02-21-2017, 12:14 PM
boy doesn't mean boy.

okay

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:18 PM
boy doesn't mean boy.

okay

Keep inventing things, del.

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:20 PM
For del edification:


He denied supporting pedophilia and said he was not addressing “anything illegal” during the “Drunken Peasants” interview and he misspoke by using the word “boy.”

“I shouldn't have used the word 'boy' when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men,” Yiannopoulos wrote. “I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16. That was a mistake.”

@ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-milo-yiannopoulos-speaking-fondly-pedophilia-article-1.2977071

Ravens Fan
02-21-2017, 12:20 PM
I read too where "boy" doesn't mean boy in age but, as you're saying, in relationship.

But people will go with it and so are here.

His career as an alt-right troll is washed up. Damn, he was funny, laughing at how easily PC libs are triggered. In video I posted much earlier.
Oh, I think boy means boy in this case too. He said he was 14 and had already been sexually active, but found the priest (kind of hints that the priest was mid-late 20's) to be attractive and so he instigated it.

Ravens Fan
02-21-2017, 12:22 PM
For del edification:



@ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-milo-yiannopoulos-speaking-fondly-pedophilia-article-1.2977071

Maybe I misheard the 14 part? I was going off the video Dr. Who posted and the interview referenced in the OP.

del
02-21-2017, 12:22 PM
boy doesn't mean boy.

okay


Keep inventing things, del.



I read too where "boy" doesn't mean boy in age but, as you're saying, in relationship.

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:23 PM
Oh, I think boy means boy in this case too. He said he was 14 and had already been sexually active, but found the priest (kind of hints that the priest was mid-late 20's) to be attractive and so he instigated it.

See above quotes on boy. As for the priest, same link:


He also clarified that his example of learning oral sex from a priest was a joke to make light of his own sexual abuse.

"I did joke about giving better head as a result of clerical sexual abuse committed against me when I was a teen. If I choose to deal in an edgy way on an internet livestream with a crime I was the victim of that's my prerogative," he said. "It's no different to gallows humor from AIDS sufferers."


It matters little, the establishment right will crucify him.

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:27 PM
boy doesn't mean boy.

okay


Keep inventing things, del.



I read too where "boy" doesn't mean boy in age but, as you're saying, in relationship.


Repeating:

For del edification:


He denied supporting pedophilia and said he was not addressing “anything illegal” during the “Drunken Peasants” interview and he misspoke by using the word “boy.”

“I shouldn't have used the word 'boy' when I talked about those relationships between older men and younger gay men,” Yiannopoulos wrote. “I was talking about my own relationship when I was 17 with a man who was 29. The age of consent in the UK is 16. That was a mistake.”

@ http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-milo-yiannopoulos-speaking-fondly-pedophilia-article-1.2977071


The establishment right goes after Milo, the establishment left here goes after other members. The plots and twists would make for a good comedy.



“A man may break a word with you, sir, and words are but wind;
Ay, and break it in your face, so he break it not behind.”
― William Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors

del
02-21-2017, 12:31 PM
gee, he denied meaning anything illegal.

totally didn't see that coming



gratuitous ad hom noted

Chris
02-21-2017, 12:53 PM
gee, he denied meaning anything illegal.

totally didn't see that coming



gratuitous ad hom noted


Still making things up, gee.

Cannons Front
02-21-2017, 03:15 PM
Private organizations are are under no obligation to promote views they disagree with. This isn't a free speech issue.
That is what I said
"At the same time any group has the right to allow or not allow such speech, they do not have to invite him but if they do then no one has the right to riot to prevent it."

MisterVeritis
02-21-2017, 03:18 PM
You don't have to allow it, you don't have to listen. But the Gov't must allow it and can not prevent it. As I said in the part you chose not to quote, a group does not have to hire a speaker, the same applies to individuals. Actually the 1st amendment does mean that you can not prevent free speech, if it on your property you can but otherwise they have the same right to speak as you.
The bill of rights is a limit on governments, not people. Do you agree?

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 03:48 PM
That is what I said
"At the same time any group has the right to allow or not allow such speech, they do not have to invite him but if they do then no one has the right to riot to prevent it."


I agree with that.

Cannons Front
02-21-2017, 03:59 PM
The bill of rights is a limit on governments, not people. Do you agree?
Yes in context, however you do not have the right to interfere with my rights. If I am not on your property or property that you have legal authorization, you can not prevent my free speech. Now you can use your free speech rights to protest me, but you can not bring harm or force me to not exercise my rights. You can counter protest, you can scream you can do many things but you can not prevent someone from exercising their rights.

Chris
02-21-2017, 04:09 PM
So then what was the violent protest in Berkeley that prevented Milo speaking? The government didn't interfere with his right to free speech or his right to freely assemble. Do rights then not only limit the government but also obligate it to protect rights in the public square? In a private venue, no, in a public one?

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 04:23 PM
So then what was the violent protest in Berkeley that prevented Milo speaking? The government didn't interfere with his right to free speech or his right to freely assemble. Do rights then not only limit the government but also obligate it to protect rights in the public square? In a private venue, no, in a public one?


I have no issue with students protesting peacefully. I do have a problem with it when they turn violent and destructive and prevent unpopular speech from being heard.

The main problem I have is the adult leadership in charge seems to encourage the students in their efforts to silence unpopular views, then justifies the destructive and violent activity. The adults in charge place the blame on the speaker. For whatever reason they are afraid to condemn the actions of the student population.

It would also be beneficial if they actually had a factual grasp of the issues they are protesting about. But, they're mostly kids. You can't expect everything.

Dr. Who
02-21-2017, 05:57 PM
Like much of the media you're confusing pederasty with pedophilia, and have no evidence even for that other than an interpretation of ambiguous speech.

Alas, it's the court of public opinion where suspicions and mockery matter even more than fake news.
This is a distinction without a legal difference if the younger of the relationship is under the age of consent.

patrickt
02-21-2017, 08:28 PM
I have no issue with students protesting peacefully. I do have a problem with it when they turn violent and destructive and prevent unpopular speech from being heard.

The main problem I have is the adult leadership in charge seems to encourage the students in their efforts to silence unpopular views, then justifies the destructive and violent activity. The adults in charge place the blame on the speaker. For whatever reason they are afraid to condemn the actions of the student population.

It would also be beneficial if they actually had a factual grasp of the issues they are protesting about. But, they're mostly kids. You can't expect everything.
And I have a major problem when the police are ordered to stand down so the thugs can riot, loot, burn, and assault. Giving people room to riot is not a good idea but it is popular with the Democrats who encourage rioting. As President Obama said when we had riots in Ferguson, "Stay the course."

And the thread title is another lie.

Chris
02-21-2017, 08:40 PM
This is a distinction without a legal difference if the younger of the relationship is under the age of consent.

I just think people who make accusations should know what they're talking about. People so busy making things up probably don't have time for precision.

The real distinction is is that though, these interpretations versus the explanation of intention by Milo.

Chris
02-21-2017, 08:44 PM
And I have a major problem when the police are ordered to stand down so the thugs can riot, loot, burn, and assault. Giving people room to riot is not a good idea but it is popular with the Democrats who encourage rioting. As President Obama said when we had riots in Ferguson, "Stay the course."

And the thread title is another lie.



That's what I was trying to get at in post #101. Generally I agree, free speech, freedom of assembly, etc are freedoms from government interference. But do they not also impose some obligation on the government to in public places protect those rights against the violence of rioters?

I think though too we need to be very carefully place limits on that protection.

Tahuyaman
02-21-2017, 10:57 PM
And I have a major problem when the police are ordered to stand down so the thugs can riot, loot, burn, and assault. Giving people room to riot is not a good idea but it is popular with the Democrats who encourage rioting. As President Obama said when we had riots in Ferguson, "Stay the course."

And the thread title is another lie.

I agree.

Don't create laws you aren't willing to enforce.

Cannons Front
02-22-2017, 06:36 AM
So then what was the violent protest in Berkeley that prevented Milo speaking? The government didn't interfere with his right to free speech or his right to freely assemble. Do rights then not only limit the government but also obligate it to protect rights in the public square? In a private venue, no, in a public one?

Yes the Gov't has the responsibility to protect your rights. Public and private settings change the reason some but basic law and order would come into play.

Chris
02-22-2017, 06:45 AM
Yes the Gov't has the responsibility to protect your rights. Public and private settings change the reason some but basic law and order would come into play.

Agree. Else what are all the powers that fall under general welfare like common defense.

But I would raise a flag over the legal blurring of public and private. The police should protect a Milo speaking at public Berkeley but not at CPAC.

Cannons Front
02-22-2017, 07:09 AM
Agree. Else what are all the powers that fall under general welfare like common defense.
But I would raise a flag over the legal blurring of public and private. The police should protect a Milo speaking at public Berkeley but not at CPAC.

Not blurring public and private, what I meant is in a public place the Gov't is responsible to protect his rights, a Private place it would not be protecting his rights as much as preserving law and order. If CPAC has invited someone to speak and a group of people protests, riot, whatever to try to prevent said speech the LEO would be there to protect the rights of CPAC or the rights of the venue owner, property rights and such and preserve law and order.

Ransom
02-22-2017, 07:19 AM
And I have a major problem when the police are ordered to stand down so the thugs can riot, loot, burn, and assault. Giving people room to riot is not a good idea but it is popular with the Democrats who encourage rioting. As President Obama said when we had riots in Ferguson, "Stay the course."

And the thread title is another lie.

Hello. Look who its' author is.