According to ABC News:

Oh, so because conservatives do it we should too? Additionally, it has nothing to do with “whining”. Everyone can whine as much as they want. To their hearts content. This is about violently shutting down events that they disagree with. Which is the part that is unacceptable.

I agree. Speech limitations are and in the long run will be applied more often and more forcefully by the right against the left. That’s one reason why it’s important to defend freedom of expression as a principle--which includes criticizing attempts on the left to curtail it.

If you resort to physically attacking people as part of protesting, you don’t have a leg to stand on if they in turn beat you within an inch of your life. That is the point of his post.

I wasn’t saying it’s not a free speech concern. I was saying that if you’re going to argue that the marketplace of ideas view of free speech has failed, then the campus protests haven’t fared much better in their purpose.

So its not a free speech concern for a university to permit a violent mob to shut down speech because the speaker is free to speak elsewhere? Interesting theory. Now apply it to something like the BDS movement and tell me your thoughts.

Yeah, ok, you made a pithy comment and got called on it, at this point if you want to ignore the subject of the piece, or change the argument to “why should we care?” that’s fine, but that original comment doesn’t represent that intent.

Who is saying this is about Middelbury specifically? It’s one example among many. The concern that “freedom of speech” is being redefined in an illiberal manner on college campuses is a valid one.

“This movement currently holds power at nearly every level of American government, and Murray’s ideas are as influential now as they’ve ever been.”

Well it’s right here in this article. If you didn’t want to talk about Middlebury as an example, maybe you should comment elsewhere.

Free speech absolutism is an eminently defensible position, but if your case for it depends on assuming the efficiency of the “marketplace of ideas,” perhaps you shouldn’t make an example of someone whom the market has rewarded handsomely for being wrong in a politically useful way.

Mr. Chait doesn’t propose we shut down the free speech of protesters. Rather he suggests that through reason, we learn to acknowledge that these particular protesters are willingly painting their own sets of freedoms into a proverbial corner. In the long run, no-one wins at that game. And now a snippet for your…

Left-wing critics of liberalism instead see the free-speech rights of the oppressed and the oppressors set in zero-sum conflict, so that the expansion of one inevitably comes at the cost of the other.

The hardest job for any ESPN employee is pretending to respect that clown SAS.

“Now on 5 hours a day, it’s ‘Shouty and Squinty’, where Stephen A. shouts, and Darren squints blankly into the abyss!”

Barry Melrose is an odd hill to die on.

So will Stephen A. Smith

please...

Headline should read:

Don’t argue with stupid. It’s never fulfilling