Home | About | Donate

How Could You Represent Someone Like Milo Yiannopoulos?


How Could You Represent Someone Like Milo Yiannopoulos?

James Esseks

Milo Yiannopoulos trades on outrage. He is a professional provocateur who has turned insulting different groups of people into a specialty.


In this post-post era where the time-space continuum belies centuries of reams of narcissistic claims for the sake of “power”, centuries of bevies of flocks of chickens are coming home to roost. And the consequences are not pretty. The tar and feathering is slowly establishing its true course.

Take just one smear attributed to this character: variations on defamation of LBGTQ persons. Whenever I see this, a series of observations come to mind. There has always been a gender spectrum among human beings. It is a systemic distortion of EXCLUSION FOR POWER PROFIT (and by definition irresponsible) used against any given identifiable group. Can you say ‘identity politics’?

Now there is an ancillary abuse following on the heels of the above. That is INDUSTRIAL strength abuse. Consider that reams of reports about toxic chemicals that scramble the human hormonal and endocrine among other biological systems. What more convenient way for the DuPonts, Monsantos, Kochs et al to grease the skids of irresponsibility for negligence and greed than to diddle people like this character, to scrape the wounds of generations of working people by exploding the narcissistic condemnation bombs in a mass media that gorges itself on their ad revenues at whatever cost to societal integrity. Oh, thats right, these interests MUST claim that society has no integrity as the very core of its systemic gorging on what they can ‘gain’ by the aggregate abuses.

How much of the hangman’s rope are they asking for?

Good on the ACLU for keeping the window open on yet another of the apparent paradoxes created by the system.
Alternately, Just one of the threads in the fabric of the future: The Next System Project


Defending Y’s hate speech is a monumental waste of time, energy, and money. He will sink to the lowest depths of depravity for show…he is SICK, perverted, and cruel. He should be banned (like the KKKrisitians have done with books over the ages with the Southern Baptists and Evang-evils leading the way). HATE SPEECH IS NOT FREE SPEECH. There must be limits to the harm and injury caused and elicited by the likes of Y. He must be silenced!


You cannot pick and choose who is deserving of free speech. I agree with the author.


i agree with the ACLU that free speech for natural persons must be defended as a universal human right.

But i DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY with ACLU support for Citizens United. “Corporate persons” are NOT natural persons, are NOT life forms, do NOT deserve, and should NOT receive such defense of their “rights.”


Huh? What are you trying to say?




It’s bad policy from a pragmatic perspective, and it’s highly questionable from an ethical perspective.

Trying to silence dissent or unpopular opinions, even when they are gross, canonizes the censored and compromisers the censors.


Balderdash. Were Y not paid by the college Repug groups across the nation for his rants, he would slink away quietly back to his wealthy parents home in the UK to drink/coke himself into oblivion. If he wants to spew his poison, then he may do so on any street corner he chooses. His vile invective has no place in civilized society ANYWHERE.


The First Amendment is the cornerstone of democracy. I applaud the ACLU’s defense of free speech. Censoring “hate speech” only gives it the aura of more importance. The best antidote to hate speech is more speech. Our problem is not with hate speech. That message is clearly understood and easily refuted. It is the speech of corporations whose only desire is to make profits and misleading speech and obfuscation for profits is anathema to democracy. Campaign contributions are defined and protected by the Supreme Court as speech, but we all know, including the Justices, that it is institutionalized and legal bribery. All campaigns should be publicly funded with private donations of any sort prohibited. The ACLU along with all concerned citizens should be working to institute public financing of elections.
On a personal note I was talking with friends at Sather Gate, the South entrance to Cal, in August of 1964. They were officers in Students for Goldwater and members of the John Birch Society. News arrived that students would no longer be allowed to distribute literature from tables at Sproul Plaza. Their immediate response was outrage and a call to picket. So the impetus for that famous rebellion of students at Cal The Free Speech Movement started with a full political spectrum participation that unfortunately 2 yeas later led to the election of Reagan as governor.


OK, the lawsuit kind of makes sense within the context presented, but there is a larger context. Yiannopolous is a right-wing prostitute who is being paid to speak in places like UC Berkeley just to create counter protests, which then get used in places like Briebart as proof of progressive intolerance and “violence.” It is a very calculated, deliberate campaign discredit all progressive politics.


Unfortunately, there is a faction that calls themselves “left” that has become enormously intolerant and disdainful of such “bourgeois”, “patriarchal” ideals as free speech and academic freedom. By allowing these people to have their way, we have opened ourselves to these right wing attacks. We’ve also allowed ourselves to be used - now, criticism of Israel is becoming anti-jewish “hate speech”, not to be allowed on campus. This is all very corrosive.


SPOT ON! Thank you.


Well that shows your blindspots, doesn’t it?

He self-published his book after getting booted by his publisher, and it was a best seller in the NYT, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.

So exactly how effective have the attempts been to silence him?


Well, it works! I was in Berkeley. The fucking leftist assholes were pepper spraying Trump supporters and sucker punching people simply for holding a different poltical viewpoint or wearing the wrong-coloured hat. You can blame the Campus Republicans for setting up the conditions for the conflict, but then you ALSO have to blame the leftist “nazi punching” ideologues for taking the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

Unprovoked attacks against Trump supporters by Antifa idiots in Berkeley led directly to the involvement of the Oath Keepers and other even less savoury fascists, who converged on Berkeley from all over the place, and who were able to legitimately project themselves as PROTECTORS of free speech! So the next time a big alt-right rally was planned, what happened? The vegan anarchists got their asses kicked by a bunch of real life thugs, and white supremacist banners flew victoriously in the streets of Berkeley.

You can blame Milo all you want, but it wasn’t him caught on camera fucking sucker punching and macing peaceful demonstrators.

It’s bad strategy.


Thanks for that lovely reminder that that the gap between left and right is not as wide as ideologues have made us all believe. Unfortunately I was in Berkeley in 2016, and the concept of a spectrum is now a Thought Crime.


I am very pro free speech and don’t have any issues with the ACLU defense of a less than admirable speaker. However, I wish the article had included a little legal background on the alternative view - that restrictions on advertising in a public transportation system are not a free speech hindrance. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know the precedence of what can be regulated and what can’t. Clearly they can have a different standard than free weekly magazines which have plenty of ads I’m not crazy about having to explain to my kid if it were on a poster that he saw. In general I’m for a lot more restrictions on advertising which I find very obtrusive in the form of billboards, planes flying banners, or video ads playing when I’m pumping gas (into one of the family’s two cars that takes gas).

I don’t donate to the ACLU so I’m in no position to complain, but I think they should explain better why their case has merit on some of the fundamental legal details as this does not look like a standard free speech lawsuit.


Who do you propose we appoint to decide who’s speech should be free or not?