The assault on so-called "far-right firebrand" Milo Yiannopoulos (Milo) is very disturbing, if not damaging to proponents of the First Amendment.
As an antiwar activist I rely on free speech, so even though I strongly disagree with Milo on many issues, I appreciate him being an impactful promoter of open expression.
Milo, who is a fan of Donald Trump, has been accused of being a white supremacist and a supporter of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Due to the latest accusations, Milo lost a book deal with Simon & Schuster (the book was #1 on the Amazon best-seller list), as well as a speaking spot at last week's influential Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Milo also resigned from his employment at Breitbart.
A self-described "longtime critic of colleges shutting people up," Milo has created a stir on his popular nationwide tour of campuses where he lambasts political correctness. Opponents of Milo believe he is engaging in 'hate speech' and that such speech is not afforded Constitutional protection. (PolitiFact wrote otherwise, stating that 'hate speech' is not excluded from protection.)
Ironically, some students have resorted to saying that Milo is "a racist " misogynistic demagogue " twisted psychopath " neo-fascist " and defender of rape," without acknowledging that some people may consider their words as 'hate speech'.
And to go further, some students and groups believe that using physical violence to stop Milo from speaking is justified.
Such behavior affirms Milo's assertion that many of today's liberals and college campuses have become intolerant, bigoted, opposed to free speech, and perpetrators of hatred and violence. In addition to the aforementioned riots at UC Berkeley, recent months are littered with incidents to support Milo's claims.