Yeah, pretty much covers it.
This is truly remarkable. At this point, Bernie Sanders has essentially surrendered his campaign to a group of protesters. He has
now twice been driven from his own stage. At the first event, the
candidate apparently was part of a scheduled event where all the proper
permits were obtained and the rules were followed. But as soon as he
arrived at the podium he allowed someone with no scheduled access to the
facilities to physically take the microphone away from him, change the
agenda to include a moment of silence and then berate him. In response
he fled the scene.
The Black Lives Matter arm of the SJW is successfully performing like
a small pack of wolves who have found the weak bison in the herd. They
have learned that Sanders has a weak team and no stomach for a
confrontation and can be bullied into silence as they advance their
agenda. Sanders had a huge crowd at the first event who were obviously
there to see and hear him and were disgruntled when he was denied the
chance to speak. Yet he let them down and ran away from a confrontation
with a few agitators. This is a leader? This is what inspires a nation
to follow you into the future?
Wonder if he realizes what this actually means? If he thinks it's being 'sensitive and caring toward the protesters' issues'? Or if he's hoping he can spin it that way instead of "I can't tell these people to sit down and shut up! They're colored people, it'll look terrible and I can't deal with it!" ?
Article on speech from which I'll borrow one paragraph:
Speech nuts, like gun nuts, have amassed plenty of arguments, but they—we—are driven, too, by a shared sensibility that can seem irrational by European standards.
Exactly why we're supposed to give a rats ass about 'European standards' isn't explained(possibly due to "Because they're EUROPEAN and more advanced!" wouldn't go over well.)
And, just as good-faith gun-rights advocates don’t pretend that every gun owner is a third-generation hunter, free-speech advocates need not pretend that every provocative utterance is a valuable contribution to a robust debate, or that it is impossible to make any distinctions between various kinds of speech.
1. Had to bring in 'hunting' as a limiter.
2. A basic right varies somehow depending upon how long you've been exercising it?
3. When I start hearing 'distinctions' and 'valuable contribution' in something like this I get an itch from wondering just how they'll divide things up, and what they'll decide should be allowed.
In the case of online harassment, that instinctive preference for “free speech” may already be shaping the kinds of discussions we have, possibly by discouraging the participation of women, racial and sexual minorities, and anyone else likely to be singled out for ad-hominem abuse. Some kinds of free speech really can be harmful, and people who want to defend it anyway should be willing to say so.
1. We DO say so, dumbass.
2. So you think the listed groups are such whiny, incapable pussies that they have to be protected from words that might disturb them? And you're on THEIR side?
3. You get the feeling that the author is on the line of 'if it makes a protected species feel bad/uncomfortable/put upon in some way it's not speech, it's harassment.' Which is utter bullshit used to try to make people shut up.
In the next paragraph, a warning of what it appears they actually want:
We are outsourcing some of our most important free-speech decisions to
these sites, which must do what the First Amendment often prevents
government from doing, at least explicitly: balance the value of free
speech against other, competing values.
So even private sites and forums should be policed by the .gov, because THAT will ensure 'fairness'. And free speech 'must be balanced against other values'. Like somebody being butthurt at being disagreed with, or not being able to demand and get a 'safe space'.
They do cover some of both sides pretty well, but to me you get that "There really should be some limits on free speech, in the name of encouraging free speech" feeling. Because apparently you have to make special accommodations in speech for it to be actually 'free'.
The author reveals how in 1996 Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who founded the
depraved terror group which eventually became ISIS, described a
seven-step programme that would lead the organisation to victory by
Hosken said: "We were so close to destroying them back in
2010-11. 80% of their leaders had been captured or killed and they ended
up as a little rump.
"We didn't finish them off and like a cancer they came back."
Yep. With the aid of Obama helping clear the path*.
He notes the problem of actually going after them("Some muslims will see it as an attack on all muslims!"). Problem is there's no win on that matter: if you go after the bastards the idiots will think that; if you don't, the cancer keeps spreading.
*No, I don't think he looks on it as him clearing the way. The problem is I don't think he really THINKS about it beyond "Those poor muslim people are so put-upon by us", etc., therefore we should just be more lay-down-and-take-it and they'll calm down or something. Because he says it'll work.