B-Man Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 CHANGE: Advertisers move away from using pictures of white, straight customers for fear of being seen as racist or gay-hating. Prediction: Ads grow less effective on average consumers, ad revenue for media outlets drops. The GOP’s political-correctness Screwfly Solution for the left continues to work! https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/273975/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 27, 2017 Share Posted August 27, 2017 An article about prime time TV ads last month said that they were surprisingly well within normalcy despite expectation they would be otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) UC Berkley has agreed to let Ben Shapiro speak on campus, but first they need a $15,000 security "fee" UC: That will be $15,000 For what? UC: For security Security against what? UC: Violence Violence by whom? UC: Us RICHARD EPSTEIN: Free Speech In The Crosshairs. Edited August 29, 2017 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 UC Berkley has agreed to let Ben Shapiro speak on campus, but first they need a $15,000 security "fee" UC: That will be $15,000 For what? UC: For security Security against what? UC: Violence Violence by whom? UC: Us RICHARD EPSTEIN: Free Speech In The Crosshairs. Free speech isn't free. I have no problem with this as long as it's not mandatory. If someone wants to go to North Korea, the travel agency doesn't force them to hire bodyguards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 (edited) Free speech isn't free. I have no problem with this as long as it's not mandatory. If someone wants to go to North Korea, the travel agency doesn't force them to hire bodyguards. You do realize then that you're supporting a climate that allows certain points of view to be expressed freely while those expressing opposing points of view must pay what many consider to be an onerous fee in order to have the same freedom? That's not a question of "free speech isn't free" but rather approved speech is free, everyone else pays. Edited August 29, 2017 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 You do realize then that you're supporting a climate that allows certain points of view to be expressed freely while those expressing opposing points of view must pay what many consider to be an onerous fee in order to have the same freedom? That's not a question of "free speech isn't free" but rather approved speech is free, everyone else pays. It's a protection racket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 It's a protection racket. it's boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 it's boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 (edited) You do realize then that you're supporting a climate that allows certain points of view to be expressed freely while those expressing opposing points of view must pay what many consider to be an onerous fee in order to have the same freedom? That's not a question of "free speech isn't free" but rather approved speech is free, everyone else pays. It's not ideal, but it's reality. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of the university; which is getting heat) You have one side willing to commit crimes and the other who wants protection. The University needs the money to separate the two. The ultimate solution would be for law enforcement t to break up the criminal organization threatening citizens, but california can't provide police protection because the criminals are their base. So we have to wait for the federal government to do it.... and military intervention isn't acceptable... yet. So what's a reasonable compromise in the meantime? Shapiro can cover costs for security because he's a paid speaker. It would be no different than Ariana Grande holding a concert in Afganistan. Some locations cost more than others. When I said "free speech isn't free", I didn't just mean $$$. We have that right because we're protected by a military force keeping others from taking it from us. In this instance, the threat is from our own citizens, so it's a little complicated. The price of providing that freedom is targeting our own (misguided) people. We paid that price before to force desegregation... are we at that point again? Edited August 30, 2017 by unbillievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It's not ideal, but it's reality. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of the university; which is getting heat) You have one side willing to commit crimes and the other who wants protection. The University needs the money to separate the two. The ultimate solution would be for law enforcement t to break up the criminal organization threatening citizens, but california can't provide police protection because the criminals are their base. So we have to wait for the federal government to do it.... and military intervention isn't acceptable... yet. So what's a reasonable compromise in the meantime? Shapiro can cover costs for security because he's a paid speaker. It would be no different than Ariana Grande holding a concert in Afganistan. When I said "free speech isn't free", I didn't just mean $$$. We have that right because we're protected by a military force keeping others from taking it from us. In this instance, the threat is from our own citizens, so it's a little complicated. The price of providing that freedom is targeting our own (misguided) people. We paid that price before to force desegregation... are we at that point again? so who gets that money? who determines who pays how much for security? who figures it all out? why does hillary pay $5k and bill o'rielly pay $50k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 so who gets that money? who determines who pays how much for security? who figures it all out? why does hillary pay $5k and bill o'rielly pay $50k? The money goes to the security company, which should be picked by the speaker. I clarified that the university should not make their "fee" mandatory for this reason. The guards charge how much they want depending on the risks and equipment involved. The cost depends on the profile of the celebrity. Beyonce will pay more than Carrie Underwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 The money goes to the security company, which should be picked by the speaker. I clarified that the university should not make their "fee" mandatory for this reason. The guards charge how much they want depending on the risks and equipment involved. The cost depends on the profile of the celebrity. Beyonce will pay more than Carrie Underwood. so. why not just say hey, dude, you are responsible for your own security outside of the venue. you pay for that. we protect you inside. we have insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 so. why not just say hey, dude, you are responsible for your own security outside of the venue. you pay for that. we protect you inside. we have insurance. Probably because they are teachers stuck inside a bubble and have no clue how to handle real world situations except to ask for more money. As I have said, I have no problem when venues charge speakers for security fees, it only becomes a problem if the university starts telling the speaker what he is allowed to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 Probably because they are teachers stuck inside a bubble and have no clue how to handle real world situations except to ask for more money. As I have said, I have no problem when venues charge speakers for security fees, it only becomes a problem if the university starts telling the speaker what he is allowed to say. these are public owned entities though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 The cost depends on the profile of the celebrity. Beyonce will pay more than Carrie Underwood. The members of this board have all gotten along so well for so long and you go and bring up Beyoncé vs. Carrie? Thanks for ruling the cordiality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 these are public owned entities though That is a big debate that hits a grey area since there are percentages involved between public and private funding. The logical solution is to defund them, which is starting to happen. If this was held in a city park, it would be an easy answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It's not ideal, but it's reality. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of the university; which is getting heat) You have one side willing to commit crimes and the other who wants protection. The University needs the money to separate the two. The ultimate solution would be for law enforcement t to break up the criminal organization threatening citizens, but california can't provide police protection because the criminals are their base. So we have to wait for the federal government to do it.... and military intervention isn't acceptable... yet. So what's a reasonable compromise in the meantime? Shapiro can cover costs for security because he's a paid speaker. It would be no different than Ariana Grande holding a concert in Afganistan. Some locations cost more than others. When I said "free speech isn't free", I didn't just mean $$$. We have that right because we're protected by a military force keeping others from taking it from us. In this instance, the threat is from our own citizens, so it's a little complicated. The price of providing that freedom is targeting our own (misguided) people. We paid that price before to force desegregation... are we at that point again? This is a good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It's not ideal, but it's reality. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of the university; which is getting heat) You have one side willing to commit crimes and the other who wants protection. The University needs the money to separate the two. The ultimate solution would be for law enforcement t to break up the criminal organization threatening citizens, but california can't provide police protection because the criminals are their base. So we have to wait for the federal government to do it.... and military intervention isn't acceptable... yet. So what's a reasonable compromise in the meantime? Shapiro can cover costs for security because he's a paid speaker. It would be no different than Ariana Grande holding a concert in Afganistan. Some locations cost more than others. When I said "free speech isn't free", I didn't just mean $$$. We have that right because we're protected by a military force keeping others from taking it from us. In this instance, the threat is from our own citizens, so it's a little complicated. The price of providing that freedom is targeting our own (misguided) people. We paid that price before to force desegregation... are we at that point again? This is a school that has fashioned it's legacy, at least in part, as a champion of free speech. Forget for a moment how ridiculous it is to consider the core concepts and mechanics of American freedom (like for example, free speech itself) as being an incendiary or controversial topic, and consider for a moment why there is a necessity to post a fifteen thousand dollar fee for security just to have such notions discussed in a public forum. You may feel differently, TYTT may feel differently, but I believe that is complete bullcrap. Sure, the school can charge Shapiro whatever they deem necessary to maintain security, order, and civility. But guess what - no amount of money will keep the fascist left from rioting, burning, and attacking people who support Shapiro. There will be no civility, there will be no security. They are a joke. They are not about equality, they are not about diversity, and they don't give a flying crap about constitutional liberties or freedom of speech. To be honest, as far as I'm concerned, they can all go $#%@ themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 these are public owned entities though Which further enforces unbillievable's assertion below Probably because they are teachers stuck inside a bubble and have no clue how to handle real world situations except to ask for more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2017 Share Posted August 30, 2017 It's not ideal, but it's reality. (I'm looking at this from the perspective of the university; which is getting heat) You have one side willing to commit crimes and the other who wants protection. The University needs the money to separate the two. The ultimate solution would be for law enforcement t to break up the criminal organization threatening citizens, but california can't provide police protection because the criminals are their base. So we have to wait for the federal government to do it.... and military intervention isn't acceptable... yet. So what's a reasonable compromise in the meantime? Shapiro can cover costs for security because he's a paid speaker. It would be no different than Ariana Grande holding a concert in Afganistan. Some locations cost more than others. When I said "free speech isn't free", I didn't just mean $$$. We have that right because we're protected by a military force keeping others from taking it from us. In this instance, the threat is from our own citizens, so it's a little complicated. The price of providing that freedom is targeting our own (misguided) people. We paid that price before to force desegregation... are we at that point again? This would be well and good, but Berkeley is a taxpayer-funded organization with a prior history of allowing thuggery on its campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts