Support NeoGAF

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

And you said you agree with him. So that makes the two of you, I guess.

Wow. SMH.

 

[B-Dubs]

what if I want people to hear about it so that they'll be opposed to Trump/Bannon/Breitbart/underlings instead of being another didn't-bother-to-vote or voted-for-trump-what-could-go-wrong statistic in the next elections?

ignoring them might work before they are on anyone's radar, but not after they've taken over the executive branch and have more than enough venues to get their messages across. once things get that far, you can't shelter people from their views anymore. you have to start contradicting them.

whether or not to do it live depends on the show & audience, but ignore-them-they'll-go-away stopped being a good strategy on nov 9th.

the point of public debate isn't to convince the people you're debating against - it's to convince the people watching the debate.

not enough people know about bannon's agenda (and therefore the executive branch's partial agenda). one way to address that is by demonstrating how ridiculous and/or unamerican a breitbart editor's viewpoint is

That didn't work out so well during the campaign. We literally just came off two years of Trump spewing racial hate wrapped in populism. Clinton bitch slapped him in three straight debates where he imploded on top of all the damage she dealt and we still wound up in the darkest timeline.

People know what's going on, that's why there's been constant protesting. People didn't show up because everyone assumed we were better than we turned out to be, not because they didn't know what Trump and his ilk were about.

 

[ant_]

Going back on your comment on Milo having a right to a platform (he doesn't) even if it's hate speech, do you consider Milo to have the right to use speech to cause direct harm to individuals and invite harassment against them? Because that is what he did the last time he was given the platform you say he is entitled to, and that is what he is purported to have been going to do with the platform Berkeley was going to give him.

First of all, your presupposing the consequence of direct harm. Second of all, hateful speech is free speech. For more on this, I encourage you to read the (1) thoughts (2) of (3) the (4) ACLU (5) and (6) the (7) courts.

The ACLU are fascist enablers.

Annnndddddd this is where I check out. Jesus.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

First of all, your presupposing the consequence of direct harm. Second of all, hateful speech is free speech. For more on this, I encourage you to read the (1) thoughts (2) of (3) the (4) ACLU (5) and (6) the (7) courts.

The ACLU are fascist enablers.

 

[plagiarize]

Glad you stayed home then.

What would have happened if the airport protests had turned violent?

How many immigrants do you think would have been arrested and deported?

It's not as if we didn't stop that first travel ban.

Pepper spraying that girl sure showed the troll what was what. I bet you he was glad that someone got pepper sprayed. I bet you he relished it. I am 100% convinced that he is glad the antifas turned up.

So no, I won't stand by the stupidity of such actions.

We wouldn't even be having this conversation if Berkeley hadn't turned violent. He wouldn't have been given this platform. He wasn't discouraged. He wasn't stopped. He wasn't beaten. On one night, he didn't get to talk to 300 people. It didn't stop his speaking tour. It didn't stop his book sales. It didn't stop him hurting people. It only brought him a larger platform, and it only made more people sympathetic to him.

 

[Breads]

John Stuart MIll was recently quoted in a book I am reading. I found the quote appropriate to this issue.



I think it poses a fine argument. In order to ingrain a firm belief against an idea, you must engage that idea and their believers directly.

Most people - "Bigotry is wrong"

Bigots - "We know"

...

We've moved passed this before. The conclusion hasn't changed. Genocide/ Civil War/ WW2 is what happens when you let this spread.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

So no, I won't stand by the stupidity of such actions.

The only thing stupid are crypto fascists and their enablers like yourself.

Fuck Milo. Put a brick in his face every time he leaves his house.

I'm glad you stayed home. You're no friend to the victims of right wing extremism. Your type are more interested in your feel good smug self importance and are willing to let scores of people die over and over again.

 

[A Link to the Past]

First of all, your presupposing the consequence of direct harm. Second of all, hateful speech is free speech. For more on this, I encourage you to read the (1) thoughts (2) of (3) the (4) ACLU (5) and (6) the (7) courts.

Milo literally drove someone to quit school due to harassment after giving her name, details, and using slurs against her on stage. I'm not "presupposing" anything, I'm making a factual declaration of what happened to hurt someone as a direct, intended result of Milo's speech when he was given a platform, and part of why people were so strongly opposed to him being given a platform again - especially when he planned to out undocumented students at Berkeley on stage in a time where undocumented immigrants were at incredible risk to their safety and well-being.

Seriously, these are human lives at risk. It may be easy to talk about free speech when you have nothing at stake, but consider all of the people whose lives could essentially be ended because we gave Milo a chance.

 

[Toxi]

Why are we even talking about freedom of speech.

It's a complete nonissue here. Maher had no moral or legal obligation to invite Milo on his show.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

It may be easy to talk about free speech when you have nothing at stake, but consider all of the people whose lives could essentially be ended because we gave Milo a chance.

Bourgie Berkeley Liberals have nothing to lose.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Why are we even talking about freedom of speech.

It's a complete nonissue here. Maher had no moral or legal obligation to invite Milo on his show.

And absurd too. People who invite a person onto their show with a history of using platforms to cause direct harm to people are not protecting free speech, they're protecting oppression.

Bourgie Berkeley Liberals have nothing to lose.

What are you talking about? The protest was about the people who DID have something to lose, ie the undocumented immigrants that he reportedly plan to cause harm to if given a platform at Berkeley. Do you really think that protesters are all people who have something to lose if their protest fails, that perhaps maybe it's also empathetic people?

 

[StrategyFan]

That didn't work out so well during the campaign. We literally just came off two years of Trump spewing racial hate wrapped in populism. Clinton bitch slapped him in three straight debates where he imploded on top of all the damage she dealt and we still wound up in the darkest timeline.

People know what's going on, that's why there's been constant protesting. People didn't show up because everyone assumed we were better than we turned out to be, not because they didn't know what Trump and his ilk were about.

not enough people know about bannon

constant protesting? that's probably not even 1% of the population. and those 1% probably already voted against trump (or knew enough to know their vote didn't matter due to electoral math)

my point is that you somehow need to reach the 50% who didn't vote or voted for trump without understanding who he'd bring along for his reign

calling the american electorate informed is a new take though. i haven't heard that one too much

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I wonder if people in this thread would protest Manson being in jail.

He never physically touched anyone, he just hyped up a bunch of people into doing it for him. Free speech, right?

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

What are you talking about? The protest was about the people who DID have something to lose, ie the undocumented immigrants that he reportedly plan to cause harm to if given a platform at Berkeley. Do you really think that protesters are all people who have something to lose if their protest fails, that perhaps maybe it's also empathetic people?

You misunderstood me.

The person you were responding to claims to be a student at Berkeley and that, had they had the balls to even be at the protest to begin with, they would have physically confronted the people who physically confronted Milo. In essence, they're anti violence but are more than happy to be violent when it comes to protecting Milo.

 

[plagiarize]

The only thing stupid are crypto fascists and their enablers like yourself.

Fuck Milo. Put a brick in his face every time he leaves his house.

I haven't done a single thing to enable him. He is exploiting the justifiable anger of people like you. He relishes it. He outright admits this. It has only brought him more fame and fortune.

He is not the same kind of evil as Richard Spencer. He is a very different kind of evil. He needs to be handled differently.

Your anger, and your empathy, are not the negative he would portray them as. They do not make your opinions wrong.

But he will use them to convince people that they are.

If you want to see him physically suffer, I can understand that. Like I said earlier in the thread, I'm not even sure I would be able to restrain myself if locked in a room with him. But he'd be the one smiling about it on the news afterwards.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You misunderstood me.

The person you were responding to claims to be a student at Berkeley and that, had they had the balls to even be at the protest to begin with, they would have physically confronted the people who physically confronted Milo. In essence, they're anti violence but are more than happy to be violent when it comes to protecting Milo.

Oh, my apologies.

 

[Jebusman]

Annnndddddd this is where I check out. Jesus.

I mean, if you're arguing the ACLU are supporters of free speech in all forms, and someone wishes to speak out in support of fascism, then yes, by extension they are enabling fascism.

They're the hot shit right now because of their position in the muslim ban controversy, but overall the idea of "All speech is free speech/speech should be protected/everyone should be free to speak as they wish" is more harmful than good.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I mean, if you're arguing the ACLU are supporters of free speech in all forms, and someone wishes to speak out in support of fascism, then yes, by extension they are enabling fascism.

The ACLU actually disagrees with ant on this. They said that speech that seeks to cause harm to individuals, they do not consider protected - ie, what Milo frequently does when given a platform.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

Milo literally drove someone to quit school due to harassment after giving her name, details, and using slurs against her on stage. I'm not "presupposing" anything, I'm making a factual declaration of what happened to hurt someone as a direct, intended result of Milo's speech when he was given a platform, and part of why people were so strongly opposed to him being given a platform again - especially when he planned to out undocumented students at Berkeley on stage in a time where undocumented immigrants were at incredible risk to their safety and well-being.

Seriously, these are human lives at risk. It may be easy to talk about free speech when you have nothing at stake, but consider all of the people whose lives could essentially be ended because we gave Milo a chance.

Nah, they'll rather let innocent people get hurt or die as long as their radical ideology stays intact.

Tbh I don't see much difference in "hate speech is free speech" and similar radical ideologies like sharia law or fascism. They all hurt innocent people for the sake of keeping an ideology pure.

 

[JP_]

what if I want people to hear about it so that they'll be opposed to Trump/Bannon/Breitbart/underlings instead of being another didn't-bother-to-vote or voted-for-trump-what-could-go-wrong statistic in the next elections?

ignoring them might work before they are on anyone's radar, but not after they've taken over the executive branch and have more than enough venues to get their messages across. once things get that far, you can't shelter people from their views anymore. you have to start contradicting them.

whether or not to do it live depends on the show & audience, but ignore-them-they'll-go-away stopped being a good strategy on nov 9th.

the point of public debate isn't to convince the people you're debating against - it's to convince the people watching the debate.

not enough people know about bannon's agenda (and therefore the executive branch's partial agenda). one way to address that is by demonstrating how ridiculous and/or unamerican a breitbart editor's viewpoint is

I've edited that post to clarify, because I can see how it'd be misinterpreted. People in this thread, as far as I can tell, are not advocating pretending Milo or the damage he causes doesn't exist. People are suggesting we don't give Milo additional platforms to spew his hate.

Bringing attention to people with power and demonstrating the dangers they impose on society is not the same as inviting them on your talk show and being friendly. The former is responsible, the latter is irresponsible. It gets tricky with stuff like the Berkeley protests, but that's mostly beyond the scope of this thread.

But "with power" is an important distinction. Too often, people with no power are irresponsibly given more attention, which then leads to power. Trump got all the media attention in the primary -- it was mostly negative, but it was still extra attention and if he'd been ignored, he would have probably never gained traction. Of course, it's too late now. We have to draw attention to the damage he is causing and can cause in the future. But we can still choose the more responsible path at this point.

Inviting Milo to talk shows? Inviting Conway to news panels? Irresponsible. Exposing Milo, Bannon, Conway, et al by tearing down their falsehoods and giving attention to their victims? Responsible.

 

[entremet]

I mean, if you're arguing the ACLU are supporters of free speech in all forms, and someone wishes to speak out in support of fascism, then yes, by extension they are enabling fascism.

Ridiculous.

The same Constitutional apparatus that protects hate speech from prosecution allows its opposition.

Fellow liberals have gone mad if they want to throw the ACLU under the bus now.

 

[plagiarize]

You misunderstood me.

The person you were responding to claims to be a student at Berkeley and that, had they had the balls to even be at the protest to begin with, they would have physically confronted the people who physically confronted Milo. In essence, they're anti violence but are more than happy to be violent when it comes to protecting Milo.

If you're talking about me, I do not claim to be a Berkeley student, nor do I claim to be anti violence.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Your anger

It has nothing to do with anger, so stop trying to portray opposition to your fascism enabling platform as one wrought in emotion and not logic.

It has everything to do with protecting people.

People like Milo, Spencer, and everyone like them deserve nothing but physical suppression. This is the case time and time and time and time again.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

I support the ACLU, and they are not fascist enablers.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I support the ACLU, and they are not fascist enablers.

You also agree with Milo and think he's a shitty person. So you're full of nonsensical contradictions.

But yes, if the ACLU says someone has the right of free speech to call for targeted violence against someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, then fuck the ACLU and their fascist enabling platform.

 

[plagiarize]

It has nothing to do with anger, so stop trying to portray opposition to your fascism enabling platform as one wrought in emotion and not logic.

It has everything to do with protecting people.

People like Milo, Spencer, and everyone like them deserve nothing but physical suppression. This is the case time and time and time and time again.

Equating those two people is where you trip up. One is a true believer. One is only interested in himself. What they say is equally harmful, but there is a clear need to handle them differently.

I am trying to ensure the troll doesn't have a platform. I am completely fine with the Nazi getting punched in the face.

How do you justify saying I have a 'fascism enabling platform'?

 

[entremet]

You also agree with Milo and think he's a shitty person. So you're full of nonsensical contradictions.

But yes, if the ACLU says someone has the right of free speech to call for targeted violence against someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, then fuck the ACLU and their fascist enabling platform.

All the ACLU is defending is freedom from criminal prosecution from hate speech. That's the essence of it.

It's not freedom from criticisms or opposition.

You can still protest and oppose Milo and his ilk.

 

[Arthr2ShdsJcksn]

You also agree with Milo and think he's a shitty person. So you're full of nonsensical contradictions.

But yes, if the ACLU says someone has the right of free speech to call for targeted violence against someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, then fuck the ACLU and their fascist enabling platform.

I said I agree with the idea of Liberals taking the bait too easily and nothing else. If Hitler liked hamburgers, I'd have to say that I agree with Hitler on the issue of hamburgers, and I could also think he's a shitty person. That's not a nonsensical contradiction.

 

[Jebusman]

Also given the John Stuart Mill quote previously, I've got another one here. I found it on Wikipedia, I know, amazing source. Line breaks/emphasis are by me:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion.

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

That certain sounds like a "At some point free speech has a limit" kind of reading there. Not "We need to debate those opinions we disagree with". When that opinion is advocating harm to someone else, it crosses the line. That's Milo's entire shtick.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I said I agree with the idea of Liberals taking the bait too easily and nothing else. If Hitler liked hamburgers, I'd have to say that I agree with Hitler on the issue of hamburgers, and I could also think he's a shitty person. That's not a nonsensical contradiction.

But the bait was "I'm going to harm people if I get a platform."

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

Equating those two people is where you trip up. One is a true believer. One is only interested in himself. What they say is equally harmful, but there is a clear need to handle them differently.

I am trying to ensure the troll doesn't have a platform. I am completely fine with the Nazi getting punched in the face.

I don't care if one of them is a "true believer" and the other is just one who will ride the coattails because of fame and fortune. "Ironic" fascism is still fascism.

How do you justify saying I have a 'fascism enabling platform'?

If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

You can still protest and oppose Milo and his ilk.

My response is more or less the same as anyone else: If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

People like to point at the ACLU as some hallowed institution that is untouchable. if what they think lines up with the above, then I don't care about their opinions.

I said I agree with the idea of Liberals taking the bait too easily and nothing else. If Hitler liked hamburgers, I'd have to say that I agree with Hitler on the issue of hamburgers, and I could also think he's a shitty person. That's not a nonsensical contradiction.

Gotcha. If that was the point you were trying to make, then my apologies.

 

[entremet]

I don't care if one of them is a "true believer" and the other is just one who will ride the coattails because of fame and fortune. "Ironic" fascism is still fascism.



If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.




My response is more or less the same as anyone else: If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

People like to point at the ACLU as some hallowed institution that is untouchable. if what they think lines up with the above, then I don't care about their opinions.




Gotcha. If that was the point you were trying to make, then my apologies.

ACLU are defenders of The Constitution and their consistency frustrates many from both sides of the spectrum.

At least they're not cherry picking.

 

[Breads]

I can play this game too!

If you support the constitution you are a fascist.

Spoiler

Fuck this thread I'm out.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

ugh obviously couldn't handle this

walked into bait over and over

inviting this guy was a huge mistake as anyone should have predicted

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

Some of you need to come to terms with the fact that you care more about the concept of absolute free speech than the people targeted by hate speech. If you could just be honest about that instead of pretending otherwise the conversations would be a lot less muddled.

Milo and Maher are just checking their bank accounts laughing at you.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Except for the people on the last page saying we should ignore Milo.

Denying someone a national platform isn't ignoring them. How you people constantly arrive at such a conclusion is mind boggling.

Milo holding the views he does does not mean he's owed a TV interview to "defend" them.

 

[wildfire]

Well I'll admit I was wrong. Maher did bring up topics about Milo being horrible but he only pressed the issue once.

I thought Milo would be exposed by Bill but instead it simply was Milo hanging himself with his own comments some of which were unsolicited.


First time exposure to Milo and I hope Maher never considers having him come back again.

For the first 10 seconds he seemed sociable but it was really apparrent he's the type of person you can't stand being around. He goes straight for insults on people he met 2 minutes ago, and he keeps fishing for anger.

Forget about his opinions for a moment. He's a straight up douchebag. He's very unpleasant.


Now factor in his opinions and lies and he becomes an all around terrible human being.

 

[entremet]

Some of you need to come to terms with the fact that you care more about the concept of absolute free speech than the people targeted by hate speech. If you could just be honest about that instead of pretending otherwise the conversations would be a lot less muddled.

Milo and Maher are just checking their bank accounts laughing at you.

I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist. There are restrictions already there. Death threats and the like.

I just don't want the government getting involved here. That's all free speech protection is. It's protection from criminal prosecution.

As much as I think Milo is scum, I absolutely don't believe he should be jailed for his words.

 

[Rushersauce]

Fuck off with this "different opinion" excuse to defend bigotry/racism/fascism.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist. There are restrictions already there. Death threats and the like.

I just don't want the government getting involved here. That's all free speech protection is. It's protection from criminal prosecution.

As much as I think Milo is scum, I absolutely don't believe he should be jailed for his words.

I don't either, but people saying not giving him yet another platform to spew shit is infringing on his free speech are jokes, just as those who think having him on tv will somehow debunk him. People just want to profit from his notoriety and the boy himself just wants to hurt people for fun, as he himself has stated.

 

[plagiarize]

I don't care if one of them is a "true believer" and the other is just one who will ride the coattails because of fame and fortune. "Ironic" fascism is still fascism.

If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

He can do this anytime he has a platform. Including when he is live on TV. Nothing that happened in Berkeley took away his ability to out specific people in a way that encourages violence against them. And I don't care any less when he says things that encourage violence against entire groups as he did last night. I think it's actually worse for him to attack an entire group like the transgender community. What he has done in the past is abhorrent.

You're mistaking me trying to convince you that you need to use a different approach against this one specific individual as somehow aiding fascism. It's ludicrous.

My response is more or less the same as anyone else: If you think Fascists like Milo have the right to make speeches that will detail specific people and call for violence, like he has done in the past and was planning on doing in Berkeley, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

People like to point at the ACLU as some hallowed institution that is untouchable. if what they think lines up with the above, then I don't care about their opinions.

Gotcha. If that was the point you were trying to make, then my apologies.

If you defend violent protests that only ensure he gets a larger platform on which he can still detail specific people and call for violence, then you are nothing more than an enabler.

See how easy that is?

We share a goal, if that goal is ensuring he doesn't have a platform.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist. There are restrictions already there. Death threats and the like.

I just don't want the government getting involved here. That's all free speech protection is. It's protection from criminal prosecution.

As much as I think Milo is scum, I absolutely don't believe he should be jailed for his words.

What about when he invited harassment of and used slurs against an individual student on stage to such an extent that the student had to drop out of the school? I don't know that this is free speech, do you?

 

[LionPride]

Like here's my thing, despite my absolute hatred of Milo, if someone wants him to speak somewhere, aight. Let protestors drown his ass out though. That's two people enacting free speech for real, you can say yo shit and I have the right to tell you to shut the fuck up.

 

[Kurdel]

I think people who like Milo saw a meme for two and agreed with it.

Having him unfiltered like this makes him look like a troll and an attention whore, I don't think he came out of this lookong good at all.

Treating like the anti-christ confers him that position, and that is all he is looking for.

 

[Trident]

Guys, courts have grappled with the limits of free speech for centuries. You don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Do a bit of reading and come armed to the discussion with a deeper understanding and background knowledge.

 

[D i Z]

I wonder if people in this thread would protest Manson being in jail.

He never physically touched anyone, he just hyped up a bunch of people into doing it for him. Free speech, right?

This shit is conceptual and abstract to a lot of these people. Some absolutely would. Because bizarro nesting behind a screen logic. This isn't going to change until they have skin in the game.

 

[tearsintherain]

What about when he invited harassment of and used slurs against an individual student on stage to such an extent that the student had to drop out of the school? I don't know that this is free speech, do you?

At the beginning of the overtime video, Milo said the student dropped out of the university before his talk and "the news" kept misreporting that his talk caused her to drop out and thats why its all "fake news". Was he lying about that? Its been repeated a lot in this thread as well.

The link to the overtime panel, he says it in the first 20 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cDLflyQ8TA

 

[Angelus Errare]

I wouldn't say I'm a free speech absolutist. There are restrictions already there. Death threats and the like.

I just don't want the government getting involved here. That's all free speech protection is. It's protection from criminal prosecution.

As much as I think Milo is scum, I absolutely don't believe he should be jailed for his words.

I don't think I've seen a single person advocate for jailing the loser for his disgusting views. However I've seen way too many remedial people invoke the first amendment as an argument against people not wanting him on Maher's show. It's annoying because it's clear they don't understand the damn amendment yet they continue to cry freedom of speech over and over and over again. These being the same people who will turn around and look down on republican voters who don't have common sense or even a tenuous grasp on laws/rights. Not wanting Milo on Maher isn't jailing him but yet twats keep on invoking freedom of speech, like honestly and truly as a minority, I get tired of being lectured by folks who don't know what thee fuck they're talking about who have no shtick in this shit and while Milo's words don't personally affect me, I understand the issue and dangers he presents because he uses the same playbook as every white racist; moderates lap it up all the same. We tired of the shit.

No matter how many times it's explained that him not being given a TV interview isn't infringing on his freedom of speech, you still have idiots saying it at least once a page at this point. Or even worse that somehow not wanting him to have a platform is "ignoring him". Like jesus, some critical thinking is in order; and again these would be the same people who would think they're better than republican voters.

It's so frustrating

 

[spelen]

What a usless conversation that was. Bill Maher was dispointing talking about humor for half the time like anyone really cares about that.

 

[entremet]

What about when he invited harassment of and used slurs against an individual student on stage to such an extent that the student had to drop out of the school? I don't know that this is free speech, do you?

That's being an asshole. But technically not a crime.

Has he seen prosecution since then? He has not because he cannot legally.

Again, he's pond scum but it seems you're talking about free speech aspirationally.