Hundreds of Yale Law Students Disrupt Bipartisan Free Speech Event

You do realize both sides do this sort of thing. For conservatives, it's about disrupting school board meetings so that the school board cannot discuss or even vote for a item on the agenda. In other words, they are denying free speech by those who don't agree with the disruptors.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-increasingly-wild-world-of-school-board-meetings

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/so...ing-activists-to-swarm-school-board-meetings-

https://unicornriot.ninja/2021/school-board-disruptions-escalate-funded-by-conservative-dark-money/

 

I don't disagree with the article but it does nothing to refute what I said. Here is the major factor in criminal behavior, "A child raised without a father is five times more likely to commit crime and be poor, nine-times more likely to drop out of school, and 20 times more likely to end up in jail or prison."

There is a reason liberals want felons to vote. "Currently incarcerated felons are more than three times as likely to be registered Democrats (1.7:1) or unaffiliated (1.4:1) than Republicans. Ex-felons are four times as likely to be Democrats (2.7:1) or unaffiliated (1.3:1)." To suggest, as the previous poster did, that those on the right are far more violent is just flat out not true and prison statistics demonstrate that.

 

There is a right way and a wrong way for protesters to be heard. They could have asked very pointed questions to the conservative speaker, who they were protesting specifically, instead of shouting at her for her not say a word. What they did was stupid and ignorant. That's why. It was not civil. It was barbaric in my opinion.

I may not agree with the conservative speaker but at least allow the speaker to speak, then ask questions or then boo the person after they speak. But don't dirupt the person while they are speaking.

 

For those who don't know, the two speakers were discussing this case, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 964 F.3d 170 (2020). It was a free speech case that involved a then high school student which the school district who discplined her for making social media posts outside school grounds, not using school property, and after school hours. The social media posts, shall we say, were not very flattering towards the school and school district. Anyway, the one lone dissenter in the case was Justice Clarence Thomas.

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/u... granted the,the student's free speech rights.

 

Well murder rates are higher in red states.

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/...em-trump-states-have-the-highest-murder-rates

 

Among Democrat voters in blue cities. Do you have a point?

 

And the extreme left doesn't?

 

Your circular argument is cheap. Those red states cities have populations that are minor compared to other major metropolitan areas.

Your argument is clearly politically hate based.

 

This is kind of funny actually. Conservatives hate it when people hate their hate. The left: Intolerance will not be tolerated. Caring about people's rights is not being totalitarian. Being against applying pseudo-Christian morals to a secular country is not totalitarian. Hell shouting somebody down is not related to free speech at all - it's not a government action. The only free speech question is whether the right to free speech is sufficient to allow such shouting down and when.

 

That depended on which link I read but I am not here to debate the facts of the event. Assuming for the sake of discussion that there was a planned event involving the communication of ideas anticipated, and there were specific expectations of performance based on that plan, insofar as that plan was compromised to the point that neither the promoters, the venue nor the audience could not get what they bargained for, it was a failure because disruptive protesters did not like what was being communicated or who was doing the communication. Disruptive speech cannot be equated with speaking. Hijacking a forum is not to be equated with the forum itself. .

 

Or drive a vehicle into a crowd!

 

Hate based? Oh please. No matter what games you want to play, prison statistics clearly demonstrate that Democrats are far more likely to be incarcerated for violent crimes. Statistical science is not your friend.

 

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

Liberalism is dead.

 

'Rights' indeed. Just as the point I was making about how these code phrases are meaningless 99% of the time due to leftist misapplication, so too has the word 'right' become nearly equally as meaningless. And its so convenient how intertwined the two plays become. Any time the left wants something it proclaims it a 'right' and then whenever someone objects they are labeled with the corresponding 'hate' term.

Meanwhile leftist hate for Whites, Christians, Republicans, cops, the military, the wealthy, the business owning, the fossil fuel producing, and so on and so on, surges uncontrollably and can be found at every level of our society because these types of hate are the only times you'll find leftists actually supporting free speech.

 

Absolutely. Our liberal democracy is dying. The only choices for the future are right authoritarianism or left totalitarianism. I know which you prefer.

 

And soon free speech will be only for those who have the most guns.

 

Well I provided links that had the data. If you are under the notion that rural areas don't have high crime rates, then by all means. I suggest you don't stumble across a still or a meth lab. Drug use in rural areas is high.

 

When did I ever suggest anything like that. What I did is demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt, is that the poster who accused the right of being more violent is factually false. If you want to give reasons as to why you believe Democrats are more violent than the general population then I don't have any problem with that.

 

The argument about who is more violent due to political affiliation is not a valid one. Yet you are making the same invalid argument from the other political side when you point out blue states vs red states.

 

And you have a history of partisan lies...

 

I have never suggested that one's political affiliation makes one more violent. And I'm glad we agree that the red state/blue state argument is completely bogus. All I've done is refute the falsehood that those on the right are more violent. Statistical studies of those incarcerated for violent crimes demonstrate that they tend much more toward the Dem party than the general population, therefore the claim that those on the right are more violent is objectively false.

 

You are doing it again by stating democrats commit more crime. FYI, more people identity as democrat. Might as well say there are more blondes in CA, since that is the most populous state.

 

if that is true, then the answer to my original question woudl be no

 

If you look at the prison stats, a higher percentage of those incarcerated for violent crimes identify as Dem than those in the general population who identify as Dems. Therefore this argument fails.