I don’t disagree with Freedom for a moment about speaking out. There’s no battle line here. I simply don’t agree that high-profile speeches by highly controversial people in places like Berkeley are wise. There’s a huge difference. It actually detracts from “our” message because the focus is then on the revolutionaries. Now look what’s leading the news media (along with Trump this, Trump that, Trump Australia, Trump Iran, whatever Trump). Does ANYONE have any idea what Milo was going to even say last night? Nope. That word doesn’t get out. So what was won? If Milo wants to publish that stuff, great! But the “birthplace of the free speech movement” – as UC Berkeley is being called – was NEVER about free speech, and always using violence to back up their position. It started in the 1960s with Martin Meyerson and the Berkeley “unrest.” Then New York hired him to preside over the State University of NY at Buffalo, where that campus similarly erupted in violence. Berkeley has been the incubator of violent, far left protest for a half century. The current UC president is none other than Janet Napolitano (remember when the greatest threat to the United States was people like military veterans, according to DHS under her watch?). UCB is that last place anyone should expect to go to be allowed to speak freely – or convert anybody. How many know that they tried to charge the on-campus Young Republicans $10,000 for security coverage for Milo’s speech, but graciously lowered that to only $6,000? The State pays for security when left wing events happen, but they charge the right wing big bucks in their first line attempt to deter them from even bringing such speakers in to be heard. And they escorted him off post when it got terribly (and dangerously) ugly – yet arrested one single person following looting of a Starbucks, Molotov cocktails, massive glass breakage, and injuries to people wanting to hear the speech. That kind of stuff isn’t worth the faintly heard (if at all) cries for freedom of speech.