This is an argument that has never made much sense to me. The central disagreement with abortion seems to be over how do we define life.

As President he is bound by the constitution in ways that private citizens aren’t. That is what I mean. of course whether he is bound by law is entirely another matter. I was talking more about the principle of the matter than the specific context of Donald Trump

People should be punished for their actions, the intent behind them, and the consequences of those acts. They shouldn’t be punished for “thoughtcrime.”

Shorter Version:

Well the handle is supposed to be ironic.

Well we would probably agree that Nazi propaganda was hate speech. I am not against defining certain things as hate speech. What I am against is legal punishment of what someone classifies as hate speech. I do not trust the people in power to define hate speech in the narrow and consistent way. I don’t trust the…

A private event is under the control of the private entity that organized the event. At this private event, the private entity can do as he/she pleases with regards to who gets to attend, who gets thrown out for whatever infractions, who gets how much time to speak, etc.

Sure, if a group withdraws its invitation due to protests, that is not a violation of free speech. But there have been countless cases, besides this one, where the invitation was not withdrawn and the event was shut down because of disruption. When that happens at a public university, that is a violation of free…

If a speech falls into one of the very extremely narrow category that is not protected by the Constitution, then it is illegal. If that is the case, there should be a criminal or civil case against him.

This liberal is ready for a fight

Disruption =/= free speech.

If a group at a college wants to hear from a speaker, and they invite this speaker to give a speech to their group, then they have a right to listen to this speech.

Disrupting an event is not “exercising free speech.”

Like I said to you in a previous comment, what happens when somebody decides that this meme is hate speech.

What is hate speech? Who gets to define it? Is there any evidence to support your claim that banning hate speech will reduce hatred in society?

One of the reasons why he has grown in influence is the attempts to have him banned, which have stirred up controversy and inflamed his fame.

You can’t fight hatred by banning speech you deem to be hateful.

Milo advocated for very repugnant ideas. But, if somebody at a college would like to hear him speak, it is their right to listen to him.

A nuanced analysis to explain the Lefts views on this. Shame that the same nuance and generosity would not be extended to people who are politically different from you.

“That white people hold most, if not all, of the power in this society is obvious and undisputed.”