Milo Yiannopoulos, a right-wing social commentator, was invited to speak at UC Berkeley recently by a student group. However, violent protests erupted in opposition. This involved 150 rioters assaulting other students and causing $100,000 worth of property damage.
You would think that “progressives” would by now be beyond the point of endorsing the use of violence as a tool to suppress opposing opinions, but you’d be wrong. While the University itself condemned the violence, many students openly supported it. A Berkeley student newspaper, for example, published five articles arguing that the violent protests were actually a form of self-defense… Here are some truly disturbing excerpts:
“I put my safety and my freedom on the line because letting Yiannopoulos speak was more terrifying to me than potential injury or arrest.” — Desmond Meagley
“The principle of freedom of speech should not be extended to envelop freedom of hate speech, for the unchecked normalization of hate speech will have real consequences.” — Josh Hardman
“Violence helped ensure the safety of students,” is the headline of an op-ed by Juan Prieto. And “To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege,” writes Nisa Dang.
These people are so deluded that they believe that Milo merely expressing his beliefs is an act of violence worth responding violently to. And just as economic Marxists portray economic freedom as an obstacle to economic “justice,” these cultural Marxists see freedom of speech as an obstacle to ‘social justice.’ This is truly worrying.
It is also worth pointing out that Robert Reich, the left-wing “economist,” has promoted a conspiracy theory that the riots were actually orchestrated by the Trump administration in order to cut off UC Berkeley’s federal funding. Truly, the response of some leftists to the Berkeley riots has been nothing short of batshit crazy.