Yesterday, rabid leftist zombies (known among their own as “protesters”) crawled out from under their slimy rocks to stop Milo Yiannopoulos (my favorite free speech provocateur & general SJW-agitator)  from giving his speech (on free speech, ironically) at UC Berkeley last night.

What a disaster.

They broke stuff.  They hurt people.  And they succeeded in shutting him up—Milo left the campus, escorted off the premises by his security detail.

The riot was obviously a disgrace—that we can all agree on.  People should be able to voice their political opinions, contrarian though they may be.  Free speech is the lifeblood of democracy.

That being said, I’d like to point out two elements no one’s talking about.

First, the rioters were the heavy cavalry, but they weren’t the first line of attack on Milo’s “Dangerous Faggot” tour.  In fact, UC Berkeley itself levied significant “security costs” on the student groups whom invited Milo to speak (somewhere around $6,000) just days before his arrival.

The university did this in an attempt to shut the event down through procedural means—$6,000 is a hell of a lot of money to spring on a few students on a few day’s notice.  Luckily an anonymous donor stepped up & paid.

This strategy isn’t unique to Berkeley—other colleges have used similar tactics to bar right-wing speakers from campuses.  Milo himself said this has been a running problem throughout his tour.

The second issue is how the mainstream media framed the events after the fact.

Look at CNN’s initial response:

cnn

Rather than reporting that leftist protesters rioted & broke stuff in an attempt to silence someone they disagree with, CNN tried to justify their actions by demonizing Milo as a white supremacist who’s fomenting hate speech.

In effect, they shift the blame from the rioters & delicate snowflakes, to Milo.

The Independent did something similar to Donald Trump, by mischaracterizing his remarks & implicitly linking Trump & Breitbart.

fake-news

Notice how it’s phrased: Milo’s described as a “Breitbart editor”, which although true, is nevertheless misleading.

Milo wasn’t going to Berkeley in his capacity as a Breitbart editor—he went their as a free speech advocate, in his personal capacity.

The Independent knows this, but that’s not the narrative they’re trying to spin.

They want to make it seem like Donald Trump’s actions were motivated by some noxious connection to Breitbart, as opposed to them being a principled stance defending law & order, and free speech. This makes it seem like Trump has a conflict of interest & is acting  to preserve his personal interests.

It’s disingenuous.

There is more than one way to tell a lie.  Be vigilant.

 

Advertisements

Posted by Spencer P Morrison

JD candidate, writer, and independent intellectual with a focus on applied philosophy, empirical history, and practical economics. Author of "America Betrayed" and Editor-In-Chief of the National Economics Editorial. Say hi on Twitter @SPMorrison_

One Comment

  1. The brown shirts were unleashed last night in Berkeley. It could have been Germany back in November, 1938 on Kristallnacht.

    The left cannot tolerate dissent or dissenters. Folks better wake up soon!

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s