tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

---

Thems thar fightin words!

socaltownie said:

---

2) The whole "riot" thing was, again, not necessarily a crime of STUDENTS. As most (all?) of know - most of the riots on telegraph avenue (seemingly endless like the Sparrows at San Juan Capistrano) are not instigated or promoted by STUDENTS but, again, by the hangers on that reside in Berkeley and Oakland.

---

It's swallows at San Juan Capistrano, not sparrows.

okaydo said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

okaydo said:

---

The "liberal media" gave more coverage to the "liberal embarrassing" Jussie Smollett story than to the "conservative embarrassing" Coast Guard story. Even though the Coast Guard was planning to kill prominent Democratic leaders.

Even CNN was more interested in the Jussie than the Coast Guard story.

Oh, and CNN just hired a recent Trump administration official and GOP operative, with no journalism experience, to serve as a political editor, overseeing 2020 campaign coverage ... of Trump. (This is different than hiring a former Trump official as a pundit. This is highly unusual.)

---

A political editor selects stories and direct news coverage - they don't write stories. It seems to me having a different (conservative) point of view at a place like CNN is appropriate - certainly not unusual. If CNN wants to cover the republican side of 2020, it probably makes sense to have someone on staff who understands that side.

If you're upset about this, then you must be really upset about

Stepanopuoulos, a leading adviser to both clintons and a highly partisan dem, heading the ENTIRE news department at ABC, including moderating presidential debates.

Or Jim Sciutto worked in the Obama administration and then became a "reporter" for CNN covering Trump.

Jeff Greenfield was a speechwriter for Bobby Kennedy

David Shipley (political editor at bloomberg) left a position as special assistant to President Clinton to join The New York Times as an Op Ed Editor.

Tim Russert was an aide to Pat Moynihan and Mario Cuomo

Pierre Salinger was a White House press secretary for both JFK and LBJ before becoming an ABC News correspondent.

Jake Tapper, once served as press secretary to former Dem Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky

Chris Cuomo is an lead anchor at CNN. Remind me, who are his father and brother?

All of these people are/were "reporters" or editors, not pundits. Amazing that the left can't tolerate having one editor/reporter they disagree with.

---

A political editor is a behind-the-scenes gatekeeper. Their work isn't transparent.

Sarah Isgur has worked as a GOP operative her entire career who recently worked for the Trump administration and who will help decide how CNN covers Trump, the very guy she pledged loyalty, too. She also has zero journalism experience. Do you not understand the difference?

George Stephanpoulous didn't oversee coverage of the Clinton administration or Bill Clinton's campaign. He started out as a political analyst and had to work his way up over *years* to be put in the position where he could be influential and trustworthy to ABC News executives and to its audience.

Jim Schiutto didn't oversee coverage of the Obama presidential campaign.

All those people are irrelevant. They didn't go from politics to managers/gatekeepers overnight.

It's not unusual for people to go from the political world to the journalism world.

It is, however, unusual to oversee coverage and serve as a gatekeeper to coverage of an administration that you ***recently*** worked in, to a boss you ***recently*** pledged loyalty to, without any prior journalism experience.

It's fine if she's a CNN reporter, analyst, expert, pundit -- all of which are clear and transparent roles.

But she'll help decide what CNN reports about Trump and his rivals over the next two years without scrutiny.

---

She is one of many gatekeepers. And that is the point, you want gatekeepers who will pursue different angles and different stories. Maybe if CNN had someone like her on staff in 2016, they might have had coverage in Michigan, Minnesota, and and Pennsylvania and more accurate polling?

The close parallel with Stephanpoulous is undeniable. He was about as partisan a political operative as there was - he and Carville literally invented (perhaps made famous and celebrated) the spin concept. He has "overseen" (your word) and directed more coverage that Isgur ever will.

The claim that political actors need to work their way up to being an editor is just silly. Are you suggesting that time erodes their political views or bias.

And regarding Schiutto, if he was covering the dems, that would be better than covering Trump where his bias is at its worst. You actually made my point. Isgur is being brought in to cover her own side and its perspective - something that is sorely missed on CNN (which I watch).

Face it - you perceive CNN as property of the left and don't want any interlopers. There are no conservatives - particularly MAGA supporters - you would approve for Isgur's position. And in fact, you haven't even given Isgur a chance to see if she can add value - you just want her her gone.

sycasey said:

---

But are they African or European swallows?

---

Neither. They're from Goya, Argentina. African swallows don't migrate.

Golden One said:

---

sycasey said:

---

But are they African or European swallows?

---

Neither. They're from Goya, Argentina. African swallows don't migrate.

---

Yes, but supposing we wanted to get one to carry a one-pound coconut . . .

Golden One said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

2) The whole "riot" thing was, again, not necessarily a crime of STUDENTS. As most (all?) of know - most of the riots on telegraph avenue (seemingly endless like the Sparrows at San Juan Capistrano) are not instigated or promoted by STUDENTS but, again, by the hangers on that reside in Berkeley and Oakland.

---

It's swallows at San Juan Capistrano, not sparrows.

---

Uh, no. It's the SALMON of Capistrano.







And the beer flows like wine.

Golden One said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

2) The whole "riot" thing was, again, not necessarily a crime of STUDENTS. As most (all?) of know - most of the riots on telegraph avenue (seemingly endless like the Sparrows at San Juan Capistrano) are not instigated or promoted by STUDENTS but, again, by the hangers on that reside in Berkeley and Oakland.

---

It's swallows at San Juan Capistrano, not sparrows.

---

Maybe he's not a fellow Jack Benny fan:

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

Bear19 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

---

Thems thar fightin words!

---

Nope...that's jackass lawyer stuff.

BTW, definitely not a lawyer and zero law school.

Rushinbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

bearlyamazing said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Goobear said:

---

Well if roles were reversed would it not be all over?

---

It is all over the news.

---

Where? CNN has 90 stories on their site and 20 videos and none of them are of this story. MSNBC has 36 and none of them are this incident. They'd be the lead story if the student punched were a Dem and the perpetrator a guy in a MAGA hat.

Let's be real here.

And a massive LOL to 71bear's, "A couple of kids get into a disagreement" nonsense. In what world? Two punches to the face will get you jail time in most situations, especially violently delivered with lots of witnesses.

---

Not sure, I haven't looked everywhere. I know when I came home and the local news was on (ABC 7), it was one of the lead stories. It certainly came to this board quickly enough. It's not as though it isn't being reported.

If you're wondering why it's not national news on the level of Jussie Smollett, it's probably because he was an actor on a popular network show and this is one attack on an unknown college student. The levels of fame are not comparable. Maybe give it more than six hours to percolate through the news cycle though.

---

It is on google news and other internet news sites. I don't think it will have legs, though the administration and police probably will go after the kid who threw the punches because that is what they do these days. '71 is right, in the old days this would be considered a scrap between two college kids and forgotten.

---

This is far from the old days. And, even in the old days, this would not have been considered a beef between two students. It would have been ignored, as well. If the tables were turned, it would have been considered major Right on Left violence.

Those who try to diminish this event forget having played up the sucker punch that a member of the audience threw at the heckler who was being ushered out of a Trump event.

---

I disagree. Saw plenty of fights between students in the old days and the Berkeley police just broke it up and as long as the belligerence stopped, sent everyone on their way. I'm sure hecklers in the old days got roughed up on occasion, and no one gave a rat's behind.

One thing I know for sure, none of this would be national headlines and receiving the attention it now gets.

GMP said:

---

Golden One said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

2) The whole "riot" thing was, again, not necessarily a crime of STUDENTS. As most (all?) of know - most of the riots on telegraph avenue (seemingly endless like the Sparrows at San Juan Capistrano) are not instigated or promoted by STUDENTS but, again, by the hangers on that reside in Berkeley and Oakland.

---

It's swallows at San Juan Capistrano, not sparrows.

---

Uh, no. It's the SALMON of Capistrano.







And the beer flows like wine.

---

Sparrows?

Animal House: Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor via @YouTube

Another Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

---

Thems thar fightin words!

---

Nope...that's jackass lawyer stuff.

BTW, definitely not a lawyer and zero law school.

---

You're right. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you attended law school. I should've realized you were someone who was throwing out random facts in a vain (and ultimately fruitless) endeavor to prove how smart he is by referencing a case that was not on point to the issue at hand.

I guess I was a jack ass for trying to meet you halfway by discussing your Chaplinsky reference as one colleague to another. I must've been a real jerk to even try to soften the blow by suggesting another case that wasn't germane to my original point either, just so my initial comments wouldn't seem as dismissive nor curt.

Mea culpa. Next time, I'll know better and treat you as the poseur you are.

santacruzbear said:

---

---

How unsporting. The attacking perp (and his servile friend) is a dumb-a_z.

The episode could not have been staged much better even if they tried (unless weapons were involved): pick a visible venue at a University constantly in the free speech spotlght -- Sproul Plaza on a weekday at noon; add two+ derogatory words -- "c__t", "a_z-ho_e" -- from the clueless idiot and his toady, and finish with a cowardly sucker punch or two.

Good grief, who needs normative politics? Just arrest and prosecute the perp for assault. If guilty, ban him (them) from campus for an indefinite period of time.

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

Bear19 said:

---

01Bear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Violence is never justified against mere speech.

---

I'm pretty sure almost everyone in this thread, CRBear included, has already agreed with this statement. He said the guy shouldn't have thrown a punch. Why the continued repeating of this talking point?

---

I may have to disagree with this point. Violence is rarely justified against speech, but there may be times when it is justified (and I don't necessarily mean in response to "Yo mama" jokes). A call to arms against one's loved ones by a demagogue in front of a rabid crowd, for instance, strikes me as a time when violence may be justified.

---

The terminology is FIGHT WORDS.


fighting words
Dictionary result for fighting words
noun INFORMAL
[ol]

words indicating a willingness to fight or challenge someone.

• US
  words expressing an insult, especially of an ethnic, racial, or sexist nature.

[/ol]

Quote:

---

Fighting Words

Overview

Fighting words are, as first defined by the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Further, as seen below, the scope of the fighting words doctrine has between its creation in Chaplinsky and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it today.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words

---

---

I'm familiar with Chaplinsky but actually had Brandenburg in mind. While Chaplinsky dealt with fighting words (e.g., insults), a demagogue need not resort to them to lather up a crowd and incite them to violence. However, by inciting a crowd to violence, that demagogue may fall afoul of the imminent lawless action test.

Of course, since you're throwing caselaw at me, I assume this means you've attended law school to some extent and understand that these cases address whether the state has a right to criminalize speech. Whereas, in my hypothetical, the state's right to restrict speech is not at issue. Rather, I posited an instance where a person may be justified (perhaps extra-legally) in the use of violence in response to speech. As such, I'm sure you understand how neither Chaplinsky nor Brandenburg really apply.

---

Thems thar fightin words!

---

Nope...that's jackass lawyer stuff.

BTW, definitely not a lawyer and zero law school.

---

You're right. I shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you attended law school. I should've realized you were someone who was throwing out random facts in a vain (and ultimately fruitless) endeavor to prove how smart he is by referencing a case that was not on point to the issue at hand.

I guess I was a jack ass for trying to meet you halfway by discussing your Chaplinsky reference as one colleague to another. I must've been a real jerk to even try to soften the blow by suggesting another case that wasn't getmane to my original point either, just so my initial comments wouldn't seem as curt.

Mea culpa.

---

Nope you're a jackass for acting like a lawyer. And assuming...how freakin' lawyerly of you! And right on queue! Overall a great demonstration of lawyers acting like lawyers. And people wonder how lawyers get a bad rep.

But no worries, some of my best friends are lawyers. REALLY!

joe amos yaks said:

---

santacruzbear said:

---

---

How unsporting. The attacking perp (and his servile friend) is a dumb-a_z.

The episode could not have been staged much better even if they tried (unless weapons were involved): pick a visible venue at a University constantly in the free speech spotlght -- Sproul Plaza on a weekday at noon; add two+ derogatory words -- "c__t", "a_z-ho_e" -- from the clueless idiot and his toady, and finish with a cowardly sucker punch or two.

Good grief, who needs normative politics? Just arrest and prosecute the perp for assault. If guilty, ban him (them) from campus for an indefinite period of time.

---

I'm guessing bone of this was an accident. Rather, the Trumpian provocateur probably intentionally picked Cal, which is indelibly linked to "liberal" or "liberalism" in the minds of many who have no affiliation with the school, with the hope that it would spark some sort of confrontation.

To his credit, it worked. Even better, the guy he provoked was short-tempered but a poor fighter. not only was he able to get out his message, but he earned 15 minutes of fame in exchange for a little love tap.

01Bear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

santacruzbear said:

---

---

How unsporting. The attacking perp (and his servile friend) is a dumb-a_z.

The episode could not have been staged much better even if they tried (unless weapons were involved): pick a visible venue at a University constantly in the free speech spotlght -- Sproul Plaza on a weekday at noon; add two+ derogatory words -- "c__t", "a_z-ho_e" -- from the clueless idiot and his toady, and finish with a cowardly sucker punch or two.

Good grief, who needs normative politics? Just arrest and prosecute the perp for assault. If guilty, ban him (them) from campus for an indefinite period of time.

---

I'm guessing bone of this was an accident. Rather, the Trumpian provocateur probably intentionally picked Cal, which is indelibly linked to "liberal" or "liberalism" in the minds of many who have no affiliation with the school, with the hope that it would spark some sort of confrontation.

No

---

I urge those of open mind to review the opinions expressed in this thread. Notice the minimization of the confrontation. "I'm guessing..." Probably..." "Staged..." "(if guilty) ban them from campus for a period of time."

Doesn't matter what the smaller guy said, the big guy clocked him twice. Did the little guy hit the big guy first? No speculation, please, or wishful thinking.

As to Sproul as an isolated venue picked out by conservatives to provoke national attention, recall the Antifa attacks, riots and burning on Sproul. Were those ginned up by conservatives to hoodwink the Left and the press?

Rushinbear said:

---

As to Sproul as an isolated venue picked out by conservatives to provoke national attention, recall the Antifa attacks, riots and burning on Sproul. Were those ginned up by conservatives to hoodwink the Left and the press?

---

Yes, I think Milo Yiannopoulos probably did want to speak at Berkeley to anger the left and provoke a reaction, so as to draw more attention to himself. I don't like that the Antifa types gave him what he wanted. I would prefer that his event went on as planned and was lightly attended.

Rushinbear said:

---

I urge those of open mind to review the opinions expressed in this thread. Notice the minimization of the confrontation. "I'm guessing..." Probably..." "Staged..." "(if guilty) ban them from campus for a period of time."

Doesn't matter what the smaller guy said, the big guy clocked him twice. Did the little guy hit the big guy first? No speculation, please, or wishful thinking.

---

No one thinks that MAGA deserved that punch. Btw, I only saw one action I would define as a punch. The first "clocking" (an overstatement) while MAGA was grabbing onto the guys's hoodie was borderline. MAGA was not pummeled, beat to a pulp, struck with a knockout punch, etc. He was hit by a clean punch by a guy with anger management issues that he was not braced for, but the punch was not so hard that he was knocked to the ground. It is reasonable for BI posters to have a range of opinions about the seriousness of one punch when the result of that punch is a black eye and not busted teeth, being knocked unconscious, or paralysis.

ps. Can't wait till fall when we get to watch actual students violently attack each other on grass.

Rushinbear said:

---

01Bear said:

---

joe amos yaks said:

---

santacruzbear said:

---

---

How unsporting. The attacking perp (and his servile friend) is a dumb-a_z.

The episode could not have been staged much better even if they tried (unless weapons were involved): pick a visible venue at a University constantly in the free speech spotlght -- Sproul Plaza on a weekday at noon; add two+ derogatory words -- "c__t", "a_z-ho_e" -- from the clueless idiot and his toady, and finish with a cowardly sucker punch or two.

Good grief, who needs normative politics? Just arrest and prosecute the perp for assault. If guilty, ban him (them) from campus for an indefinite period of time.

---

I'm guessing bone of this was an accident. Rather, the Trumpian provocateur probably intentionally picked Cal, which is indelibly linked to "liberal" or "liberalism" in the minds of many who have no affiliation with the school, with the hope that it would spark some sort of confrontation.

No

---

I urge those of open mind to review the opinions expressed in this thread. Notice the minimization of the confrontation. "I'm guessing..." Probably..." "Staged..." "(if guilty) ban them from campus for a period of time."

Doesn't matter what the smaller guy said, the big guy clocked him twice. Did the little guy hit the big guy first? No speculation, please, or wishful thinking.

As to Sproul as an isolated venue picked out by conservatives to provoke national attention, recall the Antifa attacks, riots and burning on Sproul. Were those ginned up by conservatives to hoodwink the Left and the press?

---

How does my use of the phrase "I'm guessing" to acknowledge that I do not know for certain that this went as planned minimize the confrontation? That's some faulty reasoning there.

Also, you realize I stated the Trumpian provocateur chose Cal to stage his event, I never limited it to Sproul Plaza. There's a reason for that; it's the same reason the right-wing media doesn't report the events as haopening on Sproul Plaza, but rather state that they took place at Cal: right-wing radicals have a hate boner for Cal. They know that if they say publish that something happened at "Berkeley," it'll capture eyeballs and confirm the biases of their readers. On the other hand, substituting "Sproul Plaza" for "Berkeley" will not have the same impact, since not all of their readers connect "Sproul Plaza" to "Berkeley."

Also, the Antifa attacks you feferenced did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, they were a response (albeit disturbing and started by outsiders to the Cal community) to the presence of another radical right-wing provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos, who also saw the benefit of using the Cal campus to burnish his credibility with his audience. It was a win-win-win situation for Mr. Yiannopoulos, as he would either (1) denounce Cal at Cal (and thereby show how badass he is to his hatemongering followers), (2) be stopped from speaking (thereby giving him an opportunity to play victim and pretend to be an champion of free speech while portraying Cal as anti-free spech), or (3) incite a riot (thereby showing Cal is some radical anarchist paradise).

So while I wouldn't say the riots were "ginned up," they certainly were what the radical right-wing provicateurs hoped would or expected to happen.

NVBear78 said:

---

MSaviolives said:

---

One post is about actual calls to a crowd to engage in violence. The other post quotes "divisive statements." Can you tell the difference?

---

Libs and progressives continue to be (willfully?) blind to the fact that they are the intolerant ones in ACTIONS. Here is a link to just the latest example and I could give you a list of dozens and dozens of similar occurrences: https://www.boston25news.com/news/woman-arrested-for-assaulting-man-wearing-maga-hat-on-cape-cod/923965262

---

We can play tit for tat all day, and I'm fairly certain I'll find more violent and dangerous examples of conservatives who target democrats and liberals than you will find liberals who target conservatives and democrats. Case in point: https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/696470366/arrested-coast-guard-officer-planned-mass-terrorist-attack-on-a-scale-rarely-see

and

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/07/neo-nazi-convicted-murder-charlottesville-car-assault-killed-heather-heyer/2243848002/

of course, we can always let the data speak for itself, as in this report:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/28/right-wing-warnings-pose-far-more-danger-america-than-left-wing-violence/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5474f56bee57

or better yet, in this article:
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/

Here's example number one you guys always forget and never really even acknowledged except the press you own allowed it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/06/congressional-baseball-shooter-hated-republicans-has-died-of-injuries.amp


This guy set out on a mission to assasinate Republicans. But for the incredible bravery of the Capitol police he would have done so on an incredible scale.

NVBear78 said:

---

Here's example number one you guys always forget and never really even acknowledged except the press you own allowed it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/06/congressional-baseball-shooter-hated-republicans-has-died-of-injuries.amp


This guy set out on a mission to assasinate Republicans. But for the incredible bravery of the Capitol police he would have done so on an incredible scale.

---

Actually, that was mentioned in the Nation article Iinked. Or did you not bother to read the articles and opted to just google search for cherrypicked data in order to form a rebuttal?

Here's also another example of a registered republican carrying out a murder plot on democratic legislators: https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/1772055002

Like I said, we can play tit for tat all
day, but the data is clear that for the past 40 years or so, most of the politically motivated attacks by political extremists have come from the far right, not the far left. It is likely attributable to the language that rightwing speakers customarily employ, such as "war" or "enemy of the people" when discussing politics and their political opponents. Not to mention the fetishizing of the second amendment. Whereas, the left is too disorganized and "soft" to identify its opposition as "the enemy" or to suggest there's a "war" when mentioning political differences. The rhetoric is likely not as inflammatory on the left because liberals tend to be more relaxed and feel safe (but are more prone to identify and reaolve conflicts, such as inequality) whereas conservatives are wired to be more prone to anxiety and fear (see, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/ ; and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/). As a result, political partisans and pundits aiming to reach their bases will use different techniques: the conservatives and republicans will prey on their base's fears whereas democrats will play to their base's concerns for conflict monitoring.

NVBear78 said:

---

CRBear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

CRBear said:

---

I just hope the survivor can find the courage to come back to campus. Maybe with years of therapy and a large cash settlement from the university he'll be able to put his life back together. Is there a gofundme link I can contribute to? If not, I'll just send thoughts and prayers.

College guy punches other college guy. That requires national news coverage because we want to go back to when America was great and everyone wasn't such a snowflake. We need around the clock team coverage. When America was great they would find the aggressor and suspend him. It might make the local police blotter at most.

---

This is ridiculously simplistic. It isn't just that one college student hit another, it's why. Like if a KKK person was on campus and assaulted an African American it wouldn't just be a story of assault. Duh.

---

Oh won't someone please think of the children!?!

His sign said "This is MAGA country" and another one obviously about the Smollett incident. He wasn't trying to start a dialogue. He was trying to be a provocateur. A guy sits at a table with signs designed to piss people off and guess what? He pissed someone off! The guy shouldn't have hit him but if you poke the bear sometimes you get slapped.

Find the guy and see if there's more to the story. If there isn't, suspend him and move on. Just stop crying that some Milo wannabe got exactly what he wanted but with a little more force than he hoped for.

---

You realize you sound like someone suggesting a person deserved to be raped because of their attire.

---

Well, that escalated quickly.

I'm against violence like this. Political violence is more serious than a kid throwing a punch over a usual kid dispute. But now we've moved to rape?

Back in my day a punch was just a punch. I probably saw 50 fights like that in high school.

91Gypo said:

---

The puncher should be punished.
This does not make Cal look good (even if the campus administration is not to blame).

Does anyone remember any crazy liberals getting punched on campus?
Sproul Plaza was ( I assume still is) full of people spouting out ideas that are far from middle of the road or mainstream, often in a confrontational manner.

Part of being a part on a college campus is learning to respect alternative points of view.

Shame on the guy who decided that punching was the way to get his point across. if he is a student, I would think he might be expelled. The context of the punch makes this worse for him (in my mind) than if this was a bar fight or over a woman (or the last piece of pizza or whatever). This shows a lack of open respect to ideas - which is something the University has to protect since the free flow of ideas is central to the mission of the University.

EDIT:
Looks like the University's response is consistent with my points and that neither puncher nor puchee are students (good).

---

Does anybody remember an incident in the early 1990s when a football player was alleged to have punched a gay guy on Sproul? Was a long time ago and I'm not sure I trust my memory on this?