The actual value being upheled, that of free speech, is a good thing.

Which you know you can’t refute on it’s actual merits, which is always why you change it to a support of Nazi’s instead. Ignoring important distinctions is the crutch of every argument you make here.

You are completely ignoring important differences between known and unknown,  and direct and indirect consequences.

You don’t stop someone from speaking because a separate person might decide to get angry about it and take violent action.

I’m not suggesting that people who say “hey, Nazis are bad” should be oppressed. They should not, as they are objectively correct. You’re arguing against something I’m not saying should be done. In fact, you’re arguing against very nearly the exact opposite of what I’m saying.-You

It’s being pointed out to you that restriction of speech can work both ways, which is WHY we don’t do it and WHY it’s a bad idea.

When you say speech can be restricted, you open up the possibility that will include speech you agree with and think is acceptable.

Would you like to know how dumb you sound? “You cannot know the outcome of a murder before it takes place. Blocking it is, therefore, not permissible.”-You

If you already know it’s a MURDER then yes you DO know the outcome! Do YOU know how dumb you sound?

I never even said anything about that in relation to the senior center question. It sounds like you are just blustering because you don’t understand simple concepts that have to be explained to you over and over because you are not getting them.

What is true of Nazi’s is that they espouse racial superiority and segregation. The point that is trying to be made to you is that white people are not the only people that can espouse racial superiority and segregation.

I think if you only think white people can be Nazi’s, then yes, you are wrong about them. If you…

Like I said, my believe on that is based on your words, which I provided an example of. It makes zero sense for you to have said most of what you have said here if that’s not true. I don’t think it makes any sense for you to have gotten into this thread in the first place if that’s not true. And I will point out yet…

Do you work at some university, or have some relevant experience to assert that?

I’m asking whether a senior center owned by the government needs to host every type of free-speech event,

Wait, so you are saying it’s only possible for white people to act like Nazi’s and any other race saying the same things is somehow different?

It is true that the average yahoo with a bad opinion doesn’t get to invite himself anywhere onto campus to address a group.

I gave an example of a way they could restrict access to venues, by making it invitation-only. That doesn’t mean I WANT them to do this or that I wanted them to do it in this case

I’m not lying. Your own words demonstrate that I am not

I’m attributing things to you based on the words you have said. You clearly think the university should have found some way to prevent this person from speaking because of the content of his speech. Yes, you want them to have found another reason but ultimately you don’t think he should have been allowed to say what…

You said there were ways of preventing him from speaking that had nothing to do with content. You also claim these ways will not impede good speakers. That’s what I asked for an example of. No straw man there.

Please include yourself in that count. And no, it’s more than that.

Asking for an example is part of a friendly conversation. If that’s too hard for you, don’t take it out on me.

OMG, you can’t see the 100 posts by You. Yes, you? Istari rises? Are you even reading this thread?