Australian police to bill Milo $50k over protests

[Total Crica]

What the actual fuck are you talking about? I didn't say anything about retracting speech, I said a bunch of people who are actively crapping on other people and exploiting fault lines in the social order should really reconsider doing so just because they can. Notice the bold part. Read it as many times as it takes for it to sink in for you.

You don't have freedom of speech, so you still haven't said anything I can actually be informed of, sorry!

[RapBreon]

Absolutely not. Because, as I already said, violence is NEVER OK. It's never, ever, EVER OK to use violence to silence someone. No matter what that person says. No matter how mean or "offensive", words never justify violence. I also don't see you condemning the people on the left who use equally vial and "offensive" language when they bash people on the right. Is it OK for people to violently protest the taping of The Late Show because Stephen Colbert calls Trump "Putin's c**k holster"???

The answer is no, and since that answer is no that means it's also not OK to use violence to try and stop Milo from speaking.

That thread isn't about that though. If I was participating in said thread and didn't, then sure. Additionally, I never condoned violence, or even talked about it with you specifically.

Ideally, I'd like to see everyone involved in transitioning from 'peaceful' to 'violent' appropriately reprimanded. Good luck with that though.

You were very quick to turn this into a partisan battle.

[Post]

Consider it a fine for trolling in this case.

I consider it stupid because it rewards people for rioting.

[Slicer299]

That thread isn't about that though. If I was participating in said thread and didn't, then sure. Additionally, I never condoned violence, or even talked about it with you specifically.

You were very quick to turn this into a partisan battle.

Yes, you absolutely condoned violence. Don't try to quote a post you made that's different than the reply to made directly to me to try and make that false claim. This is what I replied to

While I'm not in disagreement with your overall message; Milo distinctly relies on his delivery for effect. If what he says is true, he could always deliver it in a less abrasive manner. Rabble rousing is his preferred tool (or disruption was you called it), he's 1000% aware of what he's doing. Thus he bears, at minimum, partial responsibility.

That right there is condoning the violence against Milo by trying to victim blame him. No matter what he says, using violence because of his words is 100% wrong, yet you say he's partially responsible for the violence used against him. That is you literally saying the violence is somewhat justified by putting even 1% of the blame on him for the violence against him. You trying to quote a complete different post you made doesn't change that. I didn't read every single post in this thread, no one ever does. I was only replying to the statement you made directly to me.

You also must not have read the original post, or even some of the posts on the first page, like the one I originally responded to. Because this thread is absolutely about what I talked about. It's about people, specifically liberals, using violence to enforce a hecklers veto. I didn't make it partisan, the violent liberals did that. Conservatives aren't setting entire towns on fire to stop someone from speaking at a university. Like liberals did in Berkeley to stop Milo.

[Soeroah]

I consider it stupid because it rewards people for rioting.

No it doesn't, it prevents the public purse having to pay for some non-citizen stirring shit up. It prevents Australians being punished, not reward them.

[s_bushido]

Yes, you absolutely condoned violence. Don't try to quote a post you made that's different than the reply to made directly to me to try and make that false claim. This is what I replied to

That right there is condoning the violence against Milo by trying to victim blame him. No matter what he says, using violence because of his words is 100% wrong, yet you say he's partially responsible for the violence used against him. That is you literally saying the violence is somewhat justified by putting even 1% of the blame on him for the violence against him.

lol

It's cute that people have managed to convince themselves that the world has no nuance.

If you leave your car door unlocked, you bear partial responsibility if something happens to either the car or your possessions inside the car. It doesn't mean that the person who steals something from you isn't "100% wrong" for doing it, it simply means that you played a role in or facilitated this bad thing happening to you. The irony, of course, is that I heard this exact same argument applied to sexual assault/rape when the whole "battling SJWs on the internet" thing (that's literally the only reason anyone knows or cares who this dipshit is) started.

If someone shows up and commits a crime because of who Milo is or what he says, they will (or should) be punished for it. But a city is well within their rights to not want to shoulder the costs of having to allocate extra resources because a known shit-stirrer is coming into town to stir some shit. The same exact thing happens with sporting events.

[RapBreon]

Yes, you absolutely condoned violence. Don't try to quote a post you made that's different than the reply to made directly to me to try and make that false claim.

Wait, so under that burden, I'd have to repeat every single statement I've ever made to a new interlocutor. I'd get to the point where my posts would be 3000 words long full of clauses. I agree that you shouldn't have to read my prior posts, but when you assume things about me and my position based on your perception, the burden shifts to you to make sure you know I haven't already contradicted your central point already. And if you're not willing to, then just accept your initial judgement as incorrect when you're shown.

You literally deciphered the opposite meaning of both what I said AND mean (which I know what I mean, cause I'm saying it). Especially when I laid the groundwork to to even prevent this from occurring. It's all a bit...eh mate.

That right there is condoning the violence against Milo by trying to victim blame him. No matter what he says, using violence because of his words is 100% wrong, yet you say he's partially responsible for the violence used against him. That is you literally saying the violence is somewhat justified by putting even 1% of the blame on him for the violence against him. You trying to quote a complete different post you made doesn't change that. I didn't read every single post in this thread, no one ever does. I was only replying to the statement you made directly to me.

Milo wasn't the victim of violence. I wasn't condoning any violence, let alone violence on Milo's personage. Milo wasn't the victim of violence (maybe in a financial sense, but he's going to gain far more than 50K AUD out of this).

I said he's partiality responsible for inciting the violence. Which he is, he stirred shit. If it was his first time I'd say "ah, yeah, I suppose, can't really foresee it", but this is like the Xth time, he does it to rile people up. Which the problem, he intends something to happen, maybe not violence, but definitely something.

lol

It's cute that people have managed to convince themselves that the world has no nuance.

If you leave your car door unlocked, you bear partial responsibility if something happens to either the car or your possessions inside the car. It doesn't mean that the person who steals something from you isn't "100% wrong" for doing it, it simply means that you played a role in or facilitated this bad thing happening to you. The irony, of course, is that I heard this exact same argument applied to sexual assault/rape when the whole "battling SJWs on the internet" thing (that's literally the only reason anyone knows or cares who this dipshit is) started.

If someone shows up and commits a crime because of who Milo is or what he says, they will (or should) be punished for it. But a city is well within their rights to not want to shoulder the costs of having to allocate extra resources because a known shit-stirrer is coming into town to stir some shit. The same exact thing happens with sporting events.

This is essentially what I'm saying, yet I apparently condone violence despite direct statements claiming the opposite.

[Slicer299]

lol

It's cute that people have managed to convince themselves that the world has no nuance.

If you leave your car door unlocked, you bear partial responsibility if something happens to either the car or your possessions inside the car. It doesn't mean that the person who steals something from you isn't "100% wrong" for doing it, it simply means that you played a role in or facilitated this bad thing happening to you. The irony, of course, is that I heard this exact same argument applied to sexual assault/rape when the whole "battling SJWs on the internet" thing (that's literally the only reason anyone knows or cares who this dipshit is) started.

If someone shows up and commits a crime because of who Milo is or what he says, they will (or should) be punished for it. But a city is well within their rights to not want to shoulder the costs of having to allocate extra resources because a known shit-stirrer is coming into town to stir some shit. The same exact thing happens with sporting events.

Not how the world works, so it's laughable that you think I have the world view wrong. The law says you are 100% wrong that you are responsible if you stuff gets stolen because you don't lock your doors. The law says the complete opposite. There is literally nothing in the law that reduces the punishment of the criminal who steals your stuff just because you left your door unlocked.

You are just victim blaming, saying Milo is responsible for the violence against him for what he says is literally no different than saying a girl is responsible for being raped because of the clothes she wears. It's obvious by your post that you're just a Milo hater who wouldn't know facts or commonsense if it bit you.

Edit: Before you try and make another false statement, the says it's still breaking and entering even if your doors are unlocked. The act of pushing open and unlocked door is still breaking and entering. "the criminal act of entering a residence or other enclosed property through the slightest amount of force (even pushing open a door), without authorization." And even if the door is wide open, it's still burglary if you steal anything.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.as...px?selected=98
- - - Updated - - -

Wait, so under that burden, I'd have to repeat every single statement I've ever made to a new interlocutor. I'd get to the point where my posts would be 3000 words long full of clauses. I agree that you shouldn't have to read my prior posts, but when you assume things about me and my position based on your perception, the burden shifts to you to make sure you know I haven't already contradicted your central point already. And if you're not willing to, then just accept your initial judgement as incorrect when you're shown.

You literally deciphered the opposite meaning of both what I said AND mean (which I know what I mean, cause I'm saying it). Especially when I laid the groundwork to to even prevent this from occurring. It's all a bit...eh mate.



Milo wasn't the victim of violence. I wasn't condoning any violence, let alone violence on Milo's personage. Milo wasn't the victim of violence (maybe in a financial sense, but he's going to gain far more than 50K AUD out of this).

I said he's partiality responsible for inciting the violence. Which he is, he stirred shit. If it was his first time I'd say "ah, yeah, I suppose, can't really foresee it", but this is like the Xth time, he does it to rile people up. Which the problem, he intends something to happen, maybe not violence, but definitely something.



This is essentially what I'm saying, yet I apparently condone violence despite direct statements claiming the opposite.

You're a lost cause at this point, making nonsensical statements to justify your absurd position. Blaming Milo for the violence is condoning the violence. Milo also NEVER incited the violence, saying that he did is defamation and libel. Inciting violence is someone saying "Go out and commit 'X' act of violence". Saying things that people find offensive is not, under any legal or commonsense definition, "inciting violence". Inciting violence requires the person to tell or encourage others to commit acts of violence through direct words or actions. You lack of basic understanding of the English language and the law explains pretty clearly why you can't get this concept through your head.

If I saying something like "All people with purple skin are raging shebeasts", and someone uses violence to either attack me, attack my supporters or in an attempt to prevent me from visiting speaking at an event, my words were not "inciting" that violence.

Inciting violence would require me to say something like "Go out and punch everyone with purple skin." THAT'S inciting violence. Which is what the left does every single day by declaring everyone they dislike, including Jews like Milo and Ben Shapiro to be "Nazis" then going around and telling everyone to "Punch Nazis". THAT'S inciting violence. If you can't grasp that basic legal concept, you have no business in a civilized society. And yes, people using violence to try and stop Milo from speaking absolutely means Milo was the victim of violence. I guess you also missed the part where someone at his talk threw a shoe at him. So not only did they use violence to try and shut him down, he was physically assaulted on stage.

People have a right to say the most nasty, vile and disgusting things about other people without violence being used against them. Mean words NEVER justifiy violence and those mean words are NEVER to blame for the violence. Only the people committing that acts of violence are to blame. Kids learn this before first grade "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

[Worvon]

Inciting violence would require me to say something like "Go out and punch everyone with purple skin." THAT'S inciting violence.

Yet the current potus literally said go attack a certain group at his rally and was praised by the reich wing. The right said it was their own fault for being in a position like that and the attackers had no responsibility. Hell the cheeto still gets praised today for telling his thugs to attack people.

[RapBreon]

You're a lost cause at this point

Well, I'm flattered you'd spend so much time repeating yourself to me then. Even though my statements are direct and void of logical leaps (unlike yours), I am the one who doesn't understand how to communicate. Alrighty then, have a swell day my dude.

Just another point real quick because you love to fight boogeymen. I didn't say Milo incited violence, I said he takes actions that he knows will incite a reaction. Bit of a distinction.

[callipygoustp]

Just because you yell fire in a packed theater doesn't mean you should be held responsible for the resulting actions of the other people in the theater. Free speech mother fuckers!

[Mormolyce]

I consider it stupid because it rewards people for rioting.

a) There was no riot, and
b) This doesn't reward the protesters, it's paid to Victoria police.

- - - Updated - - -

You also must not have read the original post, or even some of the posts on the first page, like the one I originally responded to. Because this thread is absolutely about what I talked about. It's about people, specifically liberals, using violence to enforce a hecklers veto. I didn't make it partisan, the violent liberals did that. Conservatives aren't setting entire towns on fire to stop someone from speaking at a university. Like liberals did in Berkeley to stop Milo.

That's a picture of an "entire town" on fire, is it?

[Utinil]

b) This doesn't reward the protesters, it's paid to Victoria police.

It absolutely rewards the protesters. Because of the actions of the protesters it is now more prohibitive on people with opposing view points from being able to speak there. Milo can easily afford the $50k fine, not that I feel he should have to pay it, but how about a lesser known (less wealthy) speaker? Having to shell out money to do something keeps people from being able to do it. That is why most (if not all) civilized countries have abolished things like poll taxes. Making someone pay to exercise a right is wrong.

[Masark]

Conservatives aren't setting entire towns on fire to stop someone from speaking at a university.

No, conservatives set entire towns on fire when they think black people are getting too uppity.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

You don't have freedom of speech, so you still haven't said anything I can actually be informed of, sorry!

And herein lies what happens when you advocate for ratcheting down tension with the "freeze peach" crowd. Thanks for the example.

What you do should always be tempered with wisdom, folks.

[Kraenen]

Not just a free speech issue, but this also sets the precedent that if people are rioting or causing trouble they are justified if a speaker is disliked by the establishment. It's not our fault if we became animals, that man caused us to with his discomforting words!

- - - Updated - - -

No, conservatives set entire towns on fire when they think black people are getting too uppity.

Taking an event from 100 years ago to represent the current group of all conservatives is pretty dishonest. Shall we do the same with other groups that you're allied to?

- - - Updated - - -

Are we back to pretending that what people say is shouted into a void and never has consequences for those they target?

Are you really going to argue that people are not responsible for their own actions? The displacement of physical responsibility based on speech is infantilizing and regressive.

[RyanEX]

What a load of shit. Milo is a a great example of a bunch of fools who have decided that screeching about free speech is far more important than considering that some things once said can't be unsaid. The US, in particular, is dividing itself up and actively looking to punish one another for perceived transgressions. There's a very real risk of illiberal democracy spreading in the "western world" due to social breaks these morons are actively exploiting.

America is dividing itself up? Excuse me, but as someone on the outside looking in, but I see is one side dividing it up as you're either with us or against us, such as in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywJW7eiA2s. Now I know that Tucker is biased, you'd be an idiot not to see it, but nonetheless this is pretty powerful stuff.

This was also done to Ben Shapiro during his last visit to Berkley, and Shapiro is no provocateur. This is simply another case of the "say what we want to hear or we'll shut you down" mentality that has become even more evident since the Laurier tapes went public. Some people won't like what Milo has to say, some will. But if people go there with the express purpose of shutting down the talk by any means necessary then the fault lies with them, not the speaker.

- - - Updated - - -

Not just a free speech issue, but this also sets the precedent that if people are rioting or causing trouble they are justified if a speaker is disliked by the establishment. It's not our fault if we became animals, that man caused us to with his discomforting words!

- - - Updated - - -



Taking an event from 100 years ago to represent the current group of all conservatives is pretty dishonest. Shall we do the same with other groups that you're allied to?

- - - Updated - - -



Are you really going to argue that people are not responsible for their own actions? The displacement of physical responsibility based on speech is infantilizing and regressive.

People already do. Isn't the major argument of groups like BLM, their affiliates and supporters is about how America owes them because of slavery and Jim Crowe? When I heard how much drama surrounded Halloween this year I, literally, faceplamed at how far these professional victims would go.

[GreenGoldSharpie]

America is dividing itself up? Excuse me, but as someone on the outside looking in, but I see is one side dividing it up as you're either with us or against us, such as in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xywJW7eiA2s. Now I know that Tucker is biased, you'd be an idiot not to see it, but nonetheless this is pretty powerful stuff.

This was also done to Ben Shapiro during his last visit to Berkley, and Shapiro is no provocateur. This is simply another case of the "say what we want to hear or we'll shut you down" mentality that has become even more evident since the Laurier tapes went public. Some people won't like what Milo has to say, some will. But if people go there with the express purpose of shutting down the talk by any means necessary then the fault lies with them, not the speaker.

Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. Thanks for evidence of why you're stating what you are.

Your side hates Democrats so much the most conservative state is likely to elect a twice removed judge who thinks Vladimir Putin has great ideas on the LGBT community, but it's all because of college campuses and the left is oh, so mean.

My advice would be to get out of your bubble for a while.

Edit: Also, Austin Ruse was at the conference in Hungary that was rabidly anti-LGBT and anti-woman and represents us on panels at the UN about women.

[nacixems]

Sounds like a great way to stifle free speech. Who's going to speak out when they can be fined tens of thousands of dollars?

this is how they stifle free speech. bad on the police, as long as ppl think they can bully ppl into not voicing is why it happens in the 1st place. its one thing to protest peaceful another to have the need for police around to keep riots and violent idiots at bay.

[RyanEX]

Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson. Thanks for evidence of why you're stating what you are.

Your side hates Democrats so much the most conservative state is likely to elect a twice removed judge who thinks Vladimir Putin has great ideas on the LGBT community, but it's all because of college campuses and the left is oh, so mean.

My advice would be to get out of your bubble for a while.

Edit: Also, Austin Ruse was at the conference in Hungary that was rabidly anti-LGBT and anti-woman and represents us on panels at the UN about women.

I also stated I'm on the outside looking in. In case that was to much for you to grasp it mean't I'm not a US citizen, nor am I an illegal. And you offered no rebuttal. Is what Tucker showed false? Is Ben actually a provocateur?

And last I checked, the "left" as you want to call them, are the one's known for defending groups that cause damage and riots and labels anyone that disagrees with them as "white supremacists" or "nazis" or "worse than Hitler".