Self-Proclaimed Antifascists Shut Down 'Alt-Right' Speech At Kings College London

[Insouciant Western People]

A lot of the speakers whose ideas generate controversy are given attention specifically because their ideas are controversial. They aren’t always the best ideas - sometimes they are simply the most divisive. Take all the fracas around Milo Yiannopoulos. Does anyone believe that he was possessed of an important perspective that college students truly needed to debate? I submit to you that everyone learned more from the debate around whether he should be heard than anyone ever learned from one of his speeches.

We live in a time in which it isn’t hard to be heard if one has something controversial to say. It’s no great victory for free speech to assure that the most novel opinions are always allowed to dominate the larger conversation. Ultimately these protests end up bringing more debate and awareness of the supposedly censored speaker anyhow. So what is the big fucking deal?

It's starting, oddly enough, to sound like we have common ground here. Yiannopoulo is a ridiculous idiot, no more than a silly, pompous and deeply unpleasant self-aggrandiser and bully. Anyone with a grain of sense can see that. However, there wouldn't have been a debate about his right to speak if he hadn't been invited to speak on campuses, and in some cases banned, in others protested against, I'll grant you that. My preference though would have been that he was allowed to speak, and then made to look foolish by someone debating him. His arguments are not difficult to challenge. It would have been far more effective in terms of embarrassing him and showing him up as the prick he is.

There's also the fact that banning or trying to ban people from speaking allows them to pose as free speech martyrs. Stop someone from speaking, and people will start to wonder why, what does this person have to say that is so dangerous? And your final point there seems to indicate that creating too much of a furore about controversial speakers simply allows them more time in the media spotlight - counterproductive, no?

Because we’d be denying our kids any meaningful engagement on the whole issue. How do they develop a sophisticated understanding of the issue without participating in these battles?

Wouldn’t you rather that a kid fall for all of the arguments you disagree with in a big battle over a college speaker and have to defend their actions when someone in the school paper accuses them of censorship, than to have them fall for those arguments as an adult when the stakes are a lot higher?

You seem to be making my point for me. How do students develop a sophisticated understanding of any issue without hearing all sides of the debate? Which rather reinforces my proposition that speakers should be allowed to be heard, and to be debated. A student unsure about what they think on the issues of trans identity and how it affects womens' issues would surely only benefit from being able to go and hear Greer and Bindel speak, and to be able to question them in person, no?

Despite the widespread fashionable cliché, I don't think most students or young people are delicate snowflakes. I suspect they're far more able to deal with rigorous debate and challenging ideas than many give them credit for. So let them.

[Insouciant Western People]

Let’s stop pretending that all protest is violent protest.

It isn't, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

But Yomp is right to point out that the recent high profile cases reported* of university protests against speakers have involved at the very least physical intimidation of the speakers and the attendees by people invading those events. And it is happening more frequently.

*Indeed, the occurrence of this sort of thing is usually why these fracas have been reported. Let's not pretend that any news organisation would be very keen on simply reporting a protest of people politely waving placards and chanting outside a university building, unless it was an extremely slow news day.

So let’s debate the tactics rather than the goal.

Do we need to? Violence in these instances is wrong, I don't think any of us would disagree on that. Would we?

[Insouciant Western People]

There isn't really a lot of protest involved. What the " action " involves is shutting down the debate. Intimidation and aggressive behaviour are the tools.

Indeed. Smoke bombs, masks, hoods and intimidation.

I have to admit, I found it hard to suppress a smile when I saw the footage from KCL of the masked and black-clad Antifa idiot bully being giving a drubbing and sent packing by a bloke in a suit.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

His point, however, that if you allow all minorities to speak without discrimination then you risk violent clashes is a fair one, you would agree?

I think yomp’s point is that violence is used a means to shut down debate. But your point is also correct ...let the person speak and violence is still possible.

That’s why it’s silly for this debate to be about violence. Controversial opinions will likely always incite violence. Violence isn’t okay, and I think we can all agree that it shouldn’t be tolerated. But the notion that protest and violence ought to be regarded as the same thing is silly.

There isn't really a lot of protest involved. What the " action " involves is shutting down the debate. Intimidation and aggressive behaviour are the tools.

Are you talking specifically about this King’s College incident, or more generally?

The Antifa aren’t going to show up to violently shut down a feminist speaker with unpopular views. They show up against the alt-right because of the violence that undergirds the alt-right’s agenda.

Let’s be clear about the conversations we are having. I am pushing back at the general accusation that college protests against speakers with controversial views are something we should all be getting the vapors over.

You are apparently talking about the battle over rising fascism. Again...let’s not conflate these things.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

It's starting, oddly enough, to sound like we have common ground here. Yiannopoulo is a ridiculous idiot, no more than a silly, pompous and deeply unpleasant self-aggrandiser and bully. Anyone with a grain of sense can see that. However, there wouldn't have been a debate about his right to speak if he hadn't been invited to speak on campuses, and in some cases banned, in others protested against, I'll grant you that. My preference though would have been that he was allowed to speak, and then made to look foolish by someone debating him. His arguments are not difficult to challenge. It would have been far more effective in terms of embarrassing him and showing him up as the prick he is.

There's also the fact that banning or trying to ban people from speaking allows them to pose as free speech martyrs. Stop someone from speaking, and people will start to wonder why, what does this person have to say that is so dangerous? And your final point there seems to indicate that creating too much of a furore about controversial speakers simply allows them more time in the media spotlight - counterproductive, no?

Of course we have common ground. We both value the same things here. I just think there isn’t a problem with these protests most of the time - unless they get violent (in which case, I am much less forgiving).

The thing is - a guy like Milo isn’t going to allow himself to be properly debated. He’s going to control the context in which he’s presented as a condition of coming. More crucially- the very act of providing him with a platform to speak lends him credibility. It is entirely justifiable to protest against your school using your tuition fees to give him that.

There’s nothing much that can be done about letting a guy like that frame himself as a free speech martyr. But we could all collectively stop falling for that act if we ever decide to stop buying into it. Threads like this are a good place to start.

Because we’d be denying our kids any meaningful engagement on the whole issue. How do they develop a sophisticated understanding of the issue without participating in these battles?

Wouldn’t you rather that a kid fall for all of the arguments you disagree with in a big battle over a college speaker and have to defend their actions when someone in the school paper accuses them of censorship, than to have them fall for those arguments as an adult when the stakes are a lot higher?

You seem to be making my point for me. How do students develop a sophisticated understanding of any issue without hearing all sides of the debate? Which rather reinforces my proposition that speakers should be allowed to be heard, and to be debated. A student unsure about what they think on the issues of trans identity and how it affects womens' issues would surely only benefit from being able to go and hear Greer and Bindel speak, and to be able to question them in person, no?

Despite the widespread fashionable cliché, I don't think most students or young people are delicate snowflakes. I suspect they're far more able to deal with rigorous debate and challenging ideas than many give them credit for. So let them.

I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be exposed to the ideas of these speakers. But I think you overvalue the utility of these speaking engagements.

Greer and Bindel are only invited and protested because their positions are already basically known. The entire mechanitions of a protest actually ensures some measure of debate over their ideas. But the protest expands the debate to the larger question of how the ideas in question impact the larger society.

Let me ask you...what would you like to see happen? Greer and Bindel come and speak. Nobody protests. When and where does this edifying debate you imagine happen?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

It isn't, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

But Yomp is right to point out that the recent high profile cases reported* of university protests against speakers have involved at the very least physical intimidation of the speakers and the attendees by people invading those events. And it is happening more frequently.

*Indeed, the occurrence of this sort of thing is usually why these fracas have been reported. Let's not pretend that any news organisation would be very keen on simply reporting a protest of people politely waving placards and chanting outside a university building, unless it was an extremely slow news day.

So let’s debate the tactics rather than the goal.

Do we need to? Violence in these instances is wrong, I don't think any of us would disagree on that. Would we?

We don’t need to debate that violence is bad. We should discuss what is acceptable protest and what isn’t.

It’s wrong to pretend that all college speakers are shut down by the equivalent of the antifa. But the rhetoric on this thread keeps slipping into that assumption.

[Copehead]

Theoretically that 300 person majority would make their feelings about those twenty kids known and everyone would learn from the incident.

That isn't what happens. Furniture is thrown, abuse is hurled and the debates are cancelled. There is a word I am looking for for but just cannot reach...

Fantasy?

[Copehead]

His point, however, that if you allow all minorities to speak without discrimination then you risk violent clashes is a fair one, you would agree?

I think yomp’s point is that violence is used a means to shut down debate. But your point is also correct ...let the person speak and violence is still possible.

That’s why it’s silly for this debate to be about violence. Controversial opinions will likely always incite violence. Violence isn’t okay, and I think we can all agree that it shouldn’t be tolerated. But the notion that protest and violence ought to be regarded as the same thing is silly.

There isn't really a lot of protest involved. What the " action " involves is shutting down the debate. Intimidation and aggressive behaviour are the tools.

This really is bed wetting hysteria, you say this as if this was the rule rather than a handful of isolated cases throughout the Anglophone world over years.

Cases which still appear to be largely fantasy as you haven't posted evidence of this large scale intimidation that you imply is going on.

Davey is right your are simply angry about students not doing what you would like them to - basically sit down and debate rightwing ideas and come to the conclusion that you are right - how dare they?

These students are having the most important debate it is possible to have - which ideas should we entertain and which ideas should we reject - and you don't like it because a lot of what they are rejecting are dogmas you hold dear.

It is you and Nick who want to shut down a debate on campuses here not students and rather dishonestly under a spurious flag of freedom of speech.

[Sneelock]

Why was that guy invited to a debate on objectivism in the first place? Sure, they can invite who they want but this is not what he is known for. He is known for the unapologetic and intolerant views he posts on You Tube. You Tube is currently in the process of shutting down these types of websites. You invite someone with openly intolerant views then you are mainstreaming intolerance. I’m no fan of how this went down but it is my opinion that these sorts of “free speech” controversies are carefully plotted stunts to make these people more famous. People who are well aware of his controversial positions show up madder than hornets and viola! you’ve got a “free speech” hero & his unapologetic, intolerant views are more famous than they were the day before.

I know I’m not about to change any minds but that’s the way I see it. I’m not against free speech and I don’t support violence. You Invite a bull to a china shop then things are gonna get broke.

[Copehead]

Why was that guy invited to a debate on objectivism in the first place? Sure, they can invite who they want but this is not what he is known for. He is known for the unapologetic and intolerant views he posts on You Tube. You Tube is currently in the process of shutting down these types of websites. You invite someone with openly intolerant views then you are mainstreaming intolerance. I’m no fan of how this went down but it is my opinion that these sorts of “free speech” controversies and carefully plotted stunts to make these people more famous. People who are well aware of his controversial positions show up and viola! you’ve got a “free speech” hero & his unapologetic, intolerant views are more famous than they were the day before.

I know I’m not about to change any minds but that’s the way I see it. I’m not against free speech and I don’t support violence. You are nvite a bull to a china shop then things are gonna get broke.

You are right people like Yiannopoulos do not hold important views that need to be debated by students

You could argue that students shouldn't protest him, they should let him come along give a speech to 30 broflakes and leave.

But why should they do that, why shouldn't they make their disgust at his views known, why should they suppress their own freedom of speech?

They still can't get their heads around telling him he can't come to a college campus is not an infringement of his freedom of speech.

I am not sure if they are fundamentally thick but it isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

It is like they believe that all ideas hold equal worth, all ideas must be given equal space and anyone not given a platform is having their freedoms infringed. It is infantile.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Why was that guy invited to a debate on objectivism in the first place? Sure, they can invite who they want but this is not what he is known for. He is known for the unapologetic and intolerant views he posts on You Tube. You Tube is currently in the process of shutting down these types of websites. You invite someone with openly intolerant views then you are mainstreaming intolerance. I’m no fan of how this went down but it is my opinion that these sorts of “free speech” controversies and carefully plotted stunts to make these people more famous. People who are well aware of his controversial positions show up and viola! you’ve got a “free speech” hero & his unapologetic, intolerant views are more famous than they were the day before.

I know I’m not about to change any minds but that’s the way I see it. I’m not against free speech and I don’t support violence. You are nvite a bull to a china shop then things are gonna get broke.

You are right people like Yiannopoulos do not hold important views that need to be debated by students

You could argue that students shouldn't protest him, they should let him come along give a speech to 30 broflakes and leave.

But why should they do that, why shouldn't they make their disgust at his views known, why should they suppress their own freedom of speech?

They still can't get their heads around telling him he can't come to a college campus is not an infringement of his freedom of speech.

I am not sure if they are fundamentally thick but it isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

It is like they believe that all ideas hold equal worth, all ideas must be given equal space and anyone not given a platform is having their freedoms infringed. It is infantile.

Yes to all of the above.

Ultimately I’d be all for ignoring guys like this. But “free speech hero” or not, I do think there’s a value to openly beating back fascists. While it may give them a vehicle to play victim, it also makes it abundantly clear that these guys exist and remain an ongoing threat.

What WOULD help is if folks like Nick, Toby and Markus didn’t accept their victim claims as legitimate.

[yomptepi]

I think yomp’s point is that violence is used a means to shut down debate. But your point is also correct ...let the person speak and violence is still possible.

That’s why it’s silly for this debate to be about violence. Controversial opinions will likely always incite violence. Violence isn’t okay, and I think we can all agree that it shouldn’t be tolerated. But the notion that protest and violence ought to be regarded as the same thing is silly.

There isn't really a lot of protest involved. What the " action " involves is shutting down the debate. Intimidation and aggressive behaviour are the tools.

This really is bed wetting hysteria, you say this as if this was the rule rather than a handful of isolated cases throughout the Anglophone world over years.

Cases which still appear to be largely fantasy as you haven't posted evidence of this large scale intimidation that you imply is going on.

Davey is right your are simply angry about students not doing what you would like them to - basically sit down and debate rightwing ideas and come to the conclusion that you are right - how dare they?

These students are having the most important debate it is possible to have - which ideas should we entertain and which ideas should we reject - and you don't like it because a lot of what they are rejecting are dogmas you hold dear.

It is you and Nick who want to shut down a debate on campuses here not students and rather dishonestly under a spurious flag of freedom of speech.

Of course , the man from momentum wants to claim this is all fantasy. I only know what I saw on the film on Newsnight, where they said it was becoming much more of a problem, and more and more debates were being affected by left wing activists determined to shut down any debate which disapproved of. There have been follow up reports, but I am sure you know that. It is all part of the new activist led Labour movement. How could you possibly think they were doing anything wrong. after all, they are your people.

And I did not say it was large scale. It is a few people at a few debates. How many does it have to be for it to be wrong?

[yomptepi]

You are right people like Yiannopoulos do not hold important views that need to be debated by students

You could argue that students shouldn't protest him, they should let him come along give a speech to 30 broflakes and leave.

But why should they do that, why shouldn't they make their disgust at his views known, why should they suppress their own freedom of speech?
.

Because then maybe they might actually have a chance to listen to what he has to say, rather than depending on what Corbyn has said on a you tube video to members of the party. Or from some wretched meme the Canary has posted. Or some concocted story from 38 degrees. They could listen , and digest , and consider, and then reply. Yes reply. Something you cannot do to a leader who only communicates via you tube videos. But they don't want answers, they want action. They want violence. They want to dictate what is and what is not acceptable.

Which is not acceptable.

[Sneelock]

It is like they believe that all ideas hold equal worth, all ideas must be given equal space and anyone not given a platform is having their freedoms infringed. It is infantile.

I think it’s even worse than that. YEARS ago I went to a PTA meeting where religious fundamentalists made it clear that they fully expected to be calling the shots at our public school funded by tax dollars. They were no more than three out of a group of 12 or more. Luckily we had an administrator who made them feel important without actually implementing any of the outrageous things they were suggesting. They didn’t feel their views were equal to the majority of parents in that meeting- they felt they were superior.

We are seeing a lot of this in America right now. Take our gun debate. the NRA filed a suit against Florida’s new gun legislation. The very same day somebody shot some people up at a V.A.The very next day a lady from one of their bellicose testimonial ads got shot in the back of the head by her child. The NRA does not wobble one INCH that their position is the superior position.

We see this in anti-science bias, in all manner of equality issues, the minority opinion is the loudest and most strident opinion. The New York Times publishes a study that shows states with stricter gun laws have lower deaths from gun violence. The NRA runs an ad with Dana Loesch burning a copy of the New York Times. It’s worse than infantile. I think it’s pretty scary.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

You are right people like Yiannopoulos do not hold important views that need to be debated by students

You could argue that students shouldn't protest him, they should let him come along give a speech to 30 broflakes and leave.

But why should they do that, why shouldn't they make their disgust at his views known, why should they suppress their own freedom of speech?
.

Because then maybe they might actually have a chance to listen to what he has to say, rather than depending on what Corbyn has said on a you tube video to members of the party. Or from some wretched meme the Canary has posted. Or some concocted story from 38 degrees. They could listen , and digest , and consider, and then reply. Yes reply. Something you cannot do to a leader who only communicates via you tube videos. But they don't want answers, they want action. They want violence. They want to dictate what is and what is not acceptable.

Which is not acceptable.

Not everybody with a thought in their head is a teacher. Simply becoming famous for making controversial arguments doesn’t make a person’s views worthy of debate.

If you or I claimed that we deserve to have our views aired and debated, we’d be rejected as having no standing. Why can’t students reject a nothing like Milo too?

[yomptepi]

You are right people like Yiannopoulos do not hold important views that need to be debated by students

You could argue that students shouldn't protest him, they should let him come along give a speech to 30 broflakes and leave.

But why should they do that, why shouldn't they make their disgust at his views known, why should they suppress their own freedom of speech?
.

Because then maybe they might actually have a chance to listen to what he has to say, rather than depending on what Corbyn has said on a you tube video to members of the party. Or from some wretched meme the Canary has posted. Or some concocted story from 38 degrees. They could listen , and digest , and consider, and then reply. Yes reply. Something you cannot do to a leader who only communicates via you tube videos. But they don't want answers, they want action. They want violence. They want to dictate what is and what is not acceptable.

Which is not acceptable.

Not everybody with a thought in their head is a teacher. Simply becoming famous for making controversial arguments doesn’t make a person’s views worthy of debate.

If you or I claimed that we deserve to have our views aired and debated, we’d be rejected as having no standing. Why can’t students reject a nothing like Milo too?

So if 300 students want to hear him, and 20 do not, then you think the debate should be called off? By violent means if necessary?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

So if 300 students want to hear him, and 20 do not, then you think the debate should be called off? By violent means if necessary?

Pretty much every post I’ve made on this subject has made it clear that I don’t condone violence. So as long as you insist on pretending every instance of protest is carried out by the Joker and his crew as if it were all happening in a Batman movie - you and I are going to talk past each other.

[Copehead]

I do think there’s a value to openly beating back fascists. While it may give them a vehicle to play victim, it also makes it abundantly clear that these guys exist and remain an ongoing threat.

What WOULD help is if folks like Nick, Toby and Markus didn’t accept their victim claims as legitimate.

It is one of the clearest lessons from history that Fascism will use our freedoms against us if we let it.

I have no problem with demonstrating against Fascism when it organizes and I have no problem about organizing against it with violence when it brings violence, as it usually will. Debating is a waste of time they only use debate to give themselves political legitimacy there will be no exchange of ideas or tempering of their dogma that does not interest them, it interests those on the right less and less, they have become as rigidly dogmatic as the most hidebound Marxist ever was.

The winning formulae for Conservatism in the UK was its flexibility, that allowed it to survive and thrive after universal suffrage as, what would appear today to be, a left wing party of managed change. Today they are rapidly running themselves into a dogmatic cul de sac they cannot back out of because they are in hock to a cabal of true believers in a political dogma that has proven itself to be harmful to the majority.

Fascists use people like the ones you mentioned as useful fools every bit as much as Totalitarian Communism used idealistic Marxists in the West to be apologists for dictatorship.

[Copehead]

Of course , the man from momentum wants to claim this is all fantasy. I only know what I saw on the film on Newsnight, where they said it was becoming much more of a problem, and more and more debates were being affected by left wing activists determined to shut down any debate which disapproved of. There have been follow up reports, but I am sure you know that. It is all part of the new activist led Labour movement. How could you possibly think they were doing anything wrong. after all, they are your people.

And I did not say it was large scale. It is a few people at a few debates. How many does it have to be for it to be wrong?

So you admit what you have been posting is largely just fantasy, good, we are getting somewhere.

There are handful of cases of peaceful picketing of debates that did go ahead and a bit of shouting and a few people who either weren't invited or had invitations withdrawn, all of which has been going on for years in the rough and tumble of Student Union politics.

But now a pointy headed right wing ideologue at the Daily Mail has told you to get upset about it and like the good little drone you are you have dutifully got angry about it.

And your answer is to proscribe the freedom of speech of students so they have to debate what you and Mr Pointy Head want them to debate not what they wish to debate.

Well done you. Do you even think about what you are asking for here?

Your massive ignorance of Student Union politics over the last 50 years obviously shouldn't stop you having a view on this it just makes your view largely irrelevant and based on second hand spin from right wing extremists to whom you are simply a useful fool.

You would have hated the 70s and 80s it wasn't nice little Labour Students who were running Student Unions it was real fucking trots and revolutionary Marxists.

Students today are far more inclusive and liberal than they were in my day; you would have been tarred and feathered on most campuses up and down the country then rather than politely shown the door.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I have no problem with demonstrating against Fascism when it organizes and I have no problem about organizing against it with violence when it brings violence, as it usually will.

We are coming at this question from different angles. I’m talking about this from the POV of what’s appropriate for college campuses. I can’t condone violence there.

I’m not a big fan of violence anywhere, but I get why fascism can’t always be met with non-violence. But that can’t be allowed to become a feature of college life. As the parent of a college student, my daughter’s safety is more important than any other concern.