I guess I would draw the line at violence. Anytime someone uses violence to suppress speech no matter the type that's a problem. If the government fails to protect the speaker from violence and again fails to punish the violent offenders then the government is defacto suppressing speech. That's the problem with that milo guy. Guy maybe a total ahole but allowing violent protesters to deny him his right to speech, and the right of those attending to listen sets a really bad precedent. Because in many cases the local police choose not to press charges they basically complicit in the suppress of speech. The comic misses big picture of one group of people using violence to denying another group their legal rights. Clearly somebody wanted to listen to milo and they were not allowed to. He wasn't shown the door he was made to leave by an intruder at gunpoint.
That precedent had already been set. Ever heard of Selma, Alabama? Or MLK? And he wasn't denied his right to speak. He spoke. People didn't like what he said, and they drove him away. So what? You are missing the point of the comic: Milo is a dick. Nobody has to give him a stage to be a dick from. Nobody has to listen to him being a dick. If he had any balls or integrity, he'd go to Speakers Corner and make use of the rights provided to him. But he's just a troll. Having integrity and engaging honestly doesn't interest him. He just pokes the beehive so he can complain about getting stung. Same model as the Westboro Baptist Church. They are all lawyers who have found the simplest way to make money is to be a dick in public, and when someone reacts, you sue them. That's their entire reason for existence: to be such colossal dicks that people get upset, and then use the legal system to threaten them until they pay up. Simple extortion wrapped in the sheep's clothing of "free speech." Guy maybe a total ahole but allowing violent protesters to deny him his right to speech, and the right of those attending to listen sets a really bad precedent.
They didnt have to but for some reason they did. Once people showed up to listen others violated not only the rights of that Milo (who i dont really care about) but also the right of any of those that showed up to listen. I think all those people that were busy infringing on others rights should have been appropriately punished, given a night in jail, and made to pay for any property damage they caused.That precedent had already been set. Ever heard of Selma, Alabama? Or MLK?
And we should be diligent to not accept that again. By allowing suppression to happen we set ourselves up for future failure where the speaker actually has something meaningful to say. Nobody has to give him a stage to be a dick from. Nobody has to listen to him being a dick. If he had any balls or integrity, he'd go to Speakers Corner and make use of the rights provided to him.
If your ideas cannot withstand the court of public opinion, then your ideas are bad and do not deserve a public stage. This has always been, and always will be, simply due to common sense. His "rights" were not violated. He took a public stage, and the public didn't like what he had to say, and he ran away. Comedians get heckled. That's not violating their "rights". And the skilled comedians who actually have talent and strong ideas, can turn the tables on hecklers. Milo doesn't have that intellectual skill or integrity in actually believing what he says, so he turned tail and ran like a little bitch instead of inviting his hecklers on stage to debate on equal footing with him.
So according to that statement gay rights are bad idea in Russia and women's rights are a bad idea in the Middle East. I disagree. I think the court of public opinion can be wrong quite often and should not be used to judge what speech can be said.If your ideas cannot withstand the court of public opinion, then your ideas are bad and do not deserve a public stage. This has always been, and always will be, simply due to common sense.
Can you link to a source that he was forced to leave by an armed intruder please? I have not heard about that. My understanding is that the event was opened and Milo took the stage. People were there to listen and he spoke. Outside, a socialist protester was shot by a Milo, Trump and NRA supporter who claimed on FB that he was punched and his MAGA hat was stolen an entire hour before he shot someone. And he has not been charged. Yet. I am not convinced that the shooter was even really there to listen as, like may others, he could have spent that time inside the hall instead of outside protesting and posting to FB about being assaulted and asking Milos for a new MAGA hat. I am also pretty sure there was no governmental restriction on MY's right to speak. He spoke. He chose to end it at the time of his choosing. No governmental authority prevented or forced that. If the "tough guy" instigator can not handle the consequences when he intentionally foments the foreseeable backlash (for the sole purpose of attention whoring IMO) , he has no one to blame but himself. He is a "tough guy" that likes to play the victim.
I was thinking of the UC berkly violence but I guess something similar happend in Davis https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/14/us/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-davis-speech-canceled/index.html?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html?client=safari In both cases protesters use violence to shut down speech. If we accept that as normal and acceptable without punishment of the violent individuals it sets a horrible precedent. Today it might be some alt right wignut in Berkeley but tomorrow it might be a BLM speaker, Muslim speaker or an abortion clinic in Alabama. The point is protecion of speech should be grey and only in cases of clear and immediate danger should it be allowed to be suppress.
A lot of Milo's rhetoric calls for action that leads to the mistreatment of a lot of different people. While I don't agree that violence is the answer to things. Milo is openly racist, sexist, and xenophobic. That wouldn't be a problem if he wasn't using his speech as a call to action for those who follow him. Same with Spencer, who actively looks to uproot my life, and my family with his rhetoric. Milo, Spencer, and people like him are looking to incite violence against me. In the same way the riots should have been stopped, I don't think they should be given a platform to share their ideals because they are helping in normalizing violence, aggression, and mistreatment of minority groups.