Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

mfceiling · 03-02-2018 08:57PM

boombang wrote: »

Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point.

I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.

If you are protesting at Farage speaking then you are an idiot. At least listen to what he says and challenge the viewpoints you don't agree with.
Don't just stand there crying because someone you don't like is talking.

Manach · 03-02-2018 09:31PM

Overheal wrote: »

Shapiro has exercised his free speech quite a bit - the freedom of speech isn't a blanket protection against the people he pisses off through homophobia and intellectual-bashing though. Again there, you have the problem with a viewpoint that is not based on rationality, robust facts, or critical thinking nearly as much as it is about feelings and emotions and cherry picked information and biases - so it is very difficult to respond to such by using said tools of rationality. Hate for the sake of hate will often be met in kind.

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

sameoldname · 03-02-2018 10:42PM

Manach wrote: »

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

Isn't this the problem with all these discussions though... We're slowly drifting the conversation away from Ireland and into other countries.

I often wonder is this done on purpose. Drag in happenings in other countries and then conflate what's happening there as if it's just as bad here. Whether it is or isn't. Though I'm not accusing you of that Manach, just to be clear.

Jcarroll07 · 04-02-2018 02:18AM

boombang wrote: »

Farage spoke at TCD yesterday. On Thursday evening I noticed posters around the college calling for a protest at his address. I was passing the speaking venue sometime before he arrived, but I didn't see any of the protesters at that point.

I was curious to see who would turn out to protest Farage's address. I know this isn't college-endorsed protest, but it does indicate that the narrow-minded instinct to censor exists within the student body.

Ten people showed up for the protest. They simple made a lot of historical noise rather then actually representing a large sections of societies views.

Overheal · 04-02-2018 07:45AM

Manach wrote: »

Are we talking about Ben Shapiro the notorious Neo-Nazi leader of the alt-right or Ben Shapiro the observant Jew, moderate conservative and holder of traditional views on most matters. The progressive attempts to define the new morality and declaring anyone a X-phobe and then seeking to restrict speech is rather lazy.

Delving deeper and leaving aside the ECHR Article's 10 on Freedom of speech, readings of the US 1st amendment interpretation of it mean that the hoary chestnut of all rights not being absolute completely ignore the centuries of legal support for Political discussion (leaving aside the period of the Wilson presidency) that makes this right (for political speech) the foundational of the democratic state (source AFAIR from book Scalia Dissents). To sum up, there is absolutely no right not to be emotionally offended, the best that progressives who accuse all others of hate is to peaceable protest - as is their right.

I never asserted anyone be had a right not to be offended. In turn however you don’t have immunity from people who become offended. That’s generally when they will try to use their speech to counter yours. For reference see the fundamental concept of boycotts.

Put this in another frame; the Westboro Baptist Church needs no introduction. They have the same speech rights as other Americans. Was it wrong of counter-protestors to protest their protests? Is that liberalism gone mad, to create human shields between said protestors and events such as vigils for the Orlando shooting, the memorial of a 9 year old girl shot dead in Tucson, and countless other examples?

It’s the same concept. People don’t like what you have to say and they have a right to tell people how they feel about it. Everything past that is extracurricular: vandalism at UC Berkeley for instance doesn’t invalidate the right to free speech of others who want to protest against that which they disagree with or invalidate the right to ask those responsible for hosting such events to reconsider.

The right to free speech is not Protection to say what you want wherever you want. People can still show you the door and exercise their speech right back at you. This website itself serves as a testament to that core tenet of the extent of the law. Universities are afforded a similar degree of autonomy to decide how to run their campuses.

What Shapiro and Milo and others are upset at is not their right to free speech being infringed but the willingness of others to listen to their quasi-carefully packaged diatribe.

Havockk · 04-02-2018 11:27AM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ten people showed up for the protest. They simple made a lot of historical noise rather then actually representing a large sections of societies views.

I'm confused now. You are posting in support, now, of those ten students who decided to freely express their right to speech in protest?

Jcarroll07 · 04-02-2018 11:46AM

Havockk wrote: »

I'm confused now. You are posting in support, now, of those ten students who decided to freely express their right to speech in protest?

No I am simply stating ten people showed up to the protest. Prior to that many had called for Farage to be no platformed. Members and former members wrote and open letter and the auditor came under a lot of pressure from some to disinvite Farage. They can protest all they like I would be a hypocrite if I said they could not, how ever that does not mean i can't criticise them or their actions. But like I said in my first post on this trend this issue in general is not really one that effects Ireland there is little support for the idea of blocking and disinviting speakers because the vast majority of people thankfully see it as idiotic. It might be a different story in the UK and the US and maybe it may even change here, but at the moment I don't think it is that big an issue, as other recent examples which i pointed out in a previous posts show, the college administration don't just not support the idea of no platooning ect, thats have actively come out against it which is a very health position to be in I think.

Havockk · 04-02-2018 12:03PM

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

No I am simply stating ten people showed up to the protest. Prior to that many had called for Farage to be no platformed. Members and former members wrote and open letter and the auditor came under a lot of pressure from some to disinvite Farage. They can protest all they like I would be a hypocrite if I said they could not, how ever that does not mean i can't criticise them or their actions. But like I said in my first post on this trend this issue in general is not really one that effects Ireland there is little support for the idea of blocking and disinviting speakers because the vast majority of people thankfully see it as idiotic. It might be a different story in the UK and the US and maybe it may even change here, but at the moment I don't think it is that big an issue, as other recent examples which i pointed out in a previous posts show, the college administration don't just not support the idea of no platooning ect, thats have actively come out against it which is a very health position to be in I think.

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

Jcarroll07 · 04-02-2018 12:23PM

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

So me saying they are allowed to protest as they have a right to protest as well as saying people should be allowed to speak due to free speech is hypocritical how exactly?

I never said they could not do it (the protestors)? I did criticise the basis for them doing it but also said this is thankfully a non issue in ireland compared to other countries. You will need to exercise the brain a little and break you point down. Or maybe you find the idea of me disagreeing with people but defending their right to say things a bit strange?

Overheal · 04-02-2018 05:20PM

Havockk wrote: »

Jesus, you really don't have a notion that your whole position is utterly hypocritical do you?

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

Jcarroll07 · 04-02-2018 06:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

If someone invited them in, then fine. I don't agree with them i know they cant be reasoned with so i wouldn't go to this hypothetical lecture in fact few if any would go (not going is different to actively shutting down). But equally I'm not a nazi and i don't believe in silencing or using threats of violence to silence people, so I would not advocate that it be shut down.

In addition i don't have a paternalistic mind set towards other people, I believe they can observe and reach their own conclusions and don't need me or others to decide what they are and are not capable of hearing. That how i feel if someone tried to tell me "for my own sake" what i should or should not listen to, in case i was incapable of handling it and reaching logical conclusions i would give them a mouth full and tell them where to go. And i would expect the same reaction if i was obnoxious enough to do that to someone else.

So to answer if some one wants to host them then they have every right to do that. The whole point of "freedom of expression/speech/opinion" is that it cant be limited otherwise you have licensed speech, and you are leaving the door open as history has shown time and time again to political abuse which is far more damaging then this theory that free speech is harmful. There are no examples in history of free speech damaging society ect but their are numerous examples of how limiting speech leads to exactly that. Which makes the arguments of the anti free speech brigade all the more ludicrous.

Eric Cartman · 04-02-2018 06:54PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ugh. The absolute freedom of speech brigade are out again - there. is. no. such. thing.

true, but there should be, or as a society we should strive to get as close to it as physically possible.

Eric Cartman · 04-02-2018 08:14PM

Overheal wrote: »

Would you demand that Westboro Baptist Church got a platform to go to TCD and lecture an auditorium of academics on how God hates fags? Honest question in the pursuit of free speech. Should anyone have unfettered access to that platform or should there be reasonable moderation thereof?

Yes, I would give them a platform. Id give the KKK a platform at trinity, id give anyone a platform.
Stopping people from giving a point of view or expressing an opinion is fascism.

I don't care if its the KKK, communists, feminists or the Green Party, its not up to me to decide that the radical, frankly irrational views of many groups are 'not ok' while others are.

Overheal · 04-02-2018 08:34PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Yes, I would give them a platform. Id give the KKK a platform at trinity, id give anyone a platform.
Stopping people from giving a point of view or expressing an opinion is fascism.

I don't care if its the KKK, communists, feminists or the Green Party, its not up to me to decide that the radical, frankly irrational views of many groups are 'not ok' while others are.

Would you give them the platform over others that had more merit? Given that these venues have limited resources of time and space. Would a god hates fags lecture be a more worthy use of these finite resources than a TED talk series on the latest discoveries in the sciences for instance?

Varik · 04-02-2018 08:53PM

Overheal wrote: »

Would you give them the platform over others that had more merit? Given that these venues have limited resources of time and space. Would a god hates fags lecture be a more worthy use of these finite resources than a TED talk series on the latest discoveries in the sciences for instance?

Do you think that's something that comes up, does the whoever is in charge of theatre bookings in a university have that choice. That they double booked or had to choose.

None of the past protest and speaker bans were due to an alternative being denied.

Overheal · 04-02-2018 09:24PM

Varik wrote: »

Do you think that's something that comes up, does the whoever is in charge of theatre bookings in a university have that choice. That they double booked or had to choose.

None of the past protest and speaker bans were due to an alternative being denied.

That you're aware of.

In another frame, look at the short lived Keurig boycott last year in the US. This was brought about because Keurig customers complained to the company that they were sponsoring Sean Hannity's program while he was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, against the reporting of his own network. So, they pulled the ads. In response, pro-Hannity viewers staged a boycott of Keurig and were seen on the twitterverse destroying many a coffee pod machine. Keurig ultimately decided to resume sponsorship.

Who was wrong in this situation? I would argue nobody violated the free speech of anyone else. Again, I don't see the injustice of protesting the accommodation of controversial speakers to have a platform. Nobody can silence Farage, Hannity, WBC, Milo, Shapiro, or anyone else. They don't have to give them a microphone for it to be free speech. They can all run their own blogs and write their own statements, nobody is compelled to listen nor are they barred from making their opposition known to others.

Eric Cartman · 04-02-2018 09:54PM

Overheal wrote: »

That you're aware of.

In another frame, look at the short lived Keurig boycott last year in the US. This was brought about because Keurig customers complained to the company that they were sponsoring Sean Hannity's program while he was pushing the Seth Rich conspiracy, against the reporting of his own network. So, they pulled the ads. In response, pro-Hannity viewers staged a boycott of Keurig and were seen on the twitterverse destroying many a coffee pod machine. Keurig ultimately decided to resume sponsorship.

Who was wrong in this situation? I would argue nobody violated the free speech of anyone else. Again, I don't see the injustice of protesting the accommodation of controversial speakers to have a platform. Nobody can silence Farage, Hannity, WBC, Milo, Shapiro, or anyone else. They don't have to give them a microphone for it to be free speech. They can all run their own blogs and write their own statements, nobody is compelled to listen nor are they barred from making their opposition known to others.

I notice you picked a bunch of people on the same side of the aisle.
What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints. I wouldn't dare take away their platform , but in your mind you may not see their right to speak as the same as Farage say...

Overheal · 05-02-2018 01:14AM

That doesn’t address my question. I pick those people because that’s what I’m familiar with. As it is I don’t even recognize the names you mentioned off hand. But yes insert whatever more fitting examples you feel like depending on your leanings and please answer the question.

Eric Cartman · 05-02-2018 01:50AM

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn’t address my question. I pick those people because that’s what I’m familiar with. As it is I don’t even recognize the names you mentioned off hand. But yes insert whatever more fitting examples you feel like depending on your leanings and please answer the question.

Who was wrong - the advertiser for pulling the ad's , that was done to influence an agenda in the media, its the reason that journalism has become so populist , every title is afraid of advertisers pulling out.

If trinity or another venue feel that they should invite people to speak, then who are antifa or anyone else to deny them a platform.

Overheal · 05-02-2018 03:05AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Who was wrong - the advertiser for pulling the ad's , that was done to influence an agenda in the media, its the reason that journalism has become so populist , every title is afraid of advertisers pulling out.

If trinity or another venue feel that they should invite people to speak, then who are antifa or anyone else to deny them a platform.

but would you try and argue the advertiser violates anyone’s right to free speech? I should hope not.

Protesters can use their speech in counter to that of another if they wish. Protest is a fundamental form of the right to free speech. If Trinity subsequently sides with the protests and cancels a speaking event that’s not a violation of the speakers right to free speech. I would wager in the 21st century we could have a teleconference with a controversial speaker to avoid an aside security issue.

Chips Lovell · 05-02-2018 11:55AM

Two things:

People tend to get far too exercised by what happens on US campuses (probably because of reading about it on the internet).

Secondly, and more importantly, what a lot of people of people fail to realise that all of this isn't new. Student politics has always been like this. Students are young, idealistic, prone to zealotry, and fond of a bit of drama (hence all the protests).

It was like that when I was in college. It was like that in the sixties, seventies and eighties. Indeed, it was like that long beforehand, e.g. VE Day in Dublin

As the news filtered through, a group of around 50 Trinity students celebrated wildly, hanging Union Jack flags from college buildings. This display didn't go down well with students at University College Dublin, the Catholic-Nationalist rival to Trinity. Legend has it that a band of students, led by a young Haughey, rushed to the scene in time to witness a "tired and emotional" Trinity student set fire to an Irish Tricolour. According to the same legend, Haughey got himself a Union Jack and set it alight in response.

The only difference today is that we'd have furious debate about it online, with words like "free speech", "fascists" and "justice warriors" lobbed around with abandon.

The Legend Of Kira · 06-02-2018 11:05PM

Id support the idea of fining colleges/unis if they cancel a speakers appearance once the a meeting or debate has being booked to take place, this opinion article was written last friday on the day Nigel Farage came to Trinity.

"" Yes we want to shut down debate ""

Im against the idea that self appointed left wing students should be able to try dictate what political issues can & can,t be publicly debated in a public forum, if you don,t want to attend a debate or a meeting at your local college/uni fine by all means just don,t go - or if you want to protest peacefully outside with placards fine no issue with peaceful protest- but don,t but try dictate to everyone else what we can debate & which speakers we can & can,t listen to .

Jcarroll07 · 07-02-2018 01:15AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Im against the idea that self appointed left wing students should be able to try dictate what political issues can & can,t be publicly debated in a public forum,

Well I think you will find that the ideological basis of the left or far left is that they believe they are perfectly entitled to do that as history clearly shows. Best thing is to ignore them. Or if you really want to p*ss them off, act really calm and attempt to debate the in front of a camera, they hate that hence the reason they felt the need to take a swing at Jacob Rees Mogg recently. If they really felt that they could stand by their beliefs they would feel so embarrass to the point of needing to cover their faces as is often the case. But the most recent examples Mogg in the UK and Farage here clearly show this is not much of an issue in Ireland and hopefully will never be.

CruelCoin · 09-02-2018 01:52PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Free speech is not absolute; if the UK wants to fine public universities for denying certain platforms, I'd argue there is a slippery-slope there to open up to anti-Islam

Can there be hate speech towards a religion?

Not all whites are Christians, just as not all Arabs are Muslims.
If I were to say "Christianity is stupid in some respects and at times dangerous" then true as that is, am I being hateful towards white people? Absolutely not, and it would be ridiculous to say so.

This is just the SJW's enacting their own version of socialist fascism.

Overheal · 11-02-2018 12:09AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Id support the idea of fining colleges/unis if they cancel a speakers appearance once the a meeting or debate has being booked to take place,

Surely that is entirely up to the two parties contracting to such an event?

Brian? · 11-02-2018 01:45PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I notice you picked a bunch of people on the same side of the aisle.
What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints. I wouldn't dare take away their platform , but in your mind you may not see their right to speak as the same as Farage say...

I’m sorry but that’s absolute nonsense. What “hateful, dangerous viewpoints” do they hold that compare with the Westboro Baptist Church?

This post is typical of the whataboutery that goes on here. It’s the same whataboutery that’s used to defend Neo Nazi marches as paragons of free speech. It’s like you’ve picked a team “the right” and will refuse to hear any criticism or even slightly implied criticism of your team.

As to the major question. Let everyone speak. Let everyone air their ideas peacefully. The Nazis didn’t take over Germany by peacefully speaking, they violent attacked counter protests and used violence against socialist rallies. Everyone should be allowed to protest and counter protest. Talk themselves to death, the line should never be drawn at speech it should be drawn at violence.

Eric Cartman · 11-02-2018 10:04PM

Brian? wrote: »

I’m sorry but that’s absolute nonsense. What “hateful, dangerous viewpoints” do they hold that compare with the Westboro Baptist Church?

This post is typical of the whataboutery that goes on here. It’s the same whataboutery that’s used to defend Neo Nazi marches as paragons of free speech. It’s like you’ve picked a team “the right” and will refuse to hear any criticism or even slightly implied criticism of your team.

As to the major question. Let everyone speak. Let everyone air their ideas peacefully. The Nazis didn’t take over Germany by peacefully speaking, they violent attacked counter protests and used violence against socialist rallies. Everyone should be allowed to protest and counter protest. Talk themselves to death, the line should never be drawn at speech it should be drawn at violence.

The Nazi party were socialists.... One of the largest examples of left wing authoritarianism re-branded as 'far right' by academics.

The westboro baptist church stand on street corners with signs , its hateful and the worst of the worst end of hardline christianity but I think parallels can definitely be drawn with that sect of radical feminism that calls for the death of all men or those sections of movements like 'black lives matter' that call for the deaths of police. Both sides of the spectrum have awful actors that represent niche views that are dangerous. It just depends where you draw the line of 'dangerous'

for instance saying 'we need immigration controls especially from muslim countries to try stamp out extremism' , to me is a moderate sensible call, to a moderate person with left leaning ideals it might be seen as an over-reach, but then you have that person that calls you a nazi or a xenophobe for agreeing with that statement.

If antifa was protesting a guy literally showing up in an SS uniform to a meeting called 'kill all the non whites' id say yeah, have at it (however I still defend that groups right to speak) , however what we now have (with reese-mogg, farage, trump etc...) are guys showing up to say 'hey, lets put in border restrictions and kick out illegal migrants' and getting a response of antifa showing up throwing bottles, smashing windows, causing damage and calling the speaker a nazi

Brian? · 12-02-2018 12:23AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The Nazi party were socialists.... One of the largest examples of left wing authoritarianism re-branded as 'far right' by academics.

Absolutely untrue. Revisionist nonsense.

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

The westboro baptist church stand on street corners with signs , its hateful and the worst of the worst end of hardline christianity but I think parallels can definitely be drawn with that sect of radical feminism that calls for the death of all men or those sections of movements like 'black lives matter' that call for the deaths of police. Both sides of the spectrum have awful actors that represent niche views that are dangerous. It just depends where you draw the line of 'dangerous'

for instance saying 'we need immigration controls especially from muslim countries to try stamp out extremism' , to me is a moderate sensible call, to a moderate person with left leaning ideals it might be seen as an over-reach, but then you have that person that calls you a nazi or a xenophobe for agreeing with that statement.

If antifa was protesting a guy literally showing up in an SS uniform to a meeting called 'kill all the non whites' id say yeah, have at it (however I still defend that groups right to speak) , however what we now have (with reese-mogg, farage, trump etc...) are guys showing up to say 'hey, lets put in border restrictions and kick out illegal migrants' and getting a response of antifa showing up throwing bottles, smashing windows, causing damage and calling the speaker a nazi

More whataboutery. I ask you to qualify your statement about Una Mullaly etc. and you evade the question by bringing up Antifa.

This is what you said:

What if we. were to say the same for Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Murphy, Una Mullally - I believe they all have very hateful, dangerous viewpoints

Well? How can you compare any of these people to the Westboro Baptist Church?

ancapailldorcha · 12-02-2018 12:26AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The Nazi party were socialists.... One of the largest examples of left wing authoritarianism re-branded as 'far right' by academics.

The westboro baptist church stand on street corners with signs , its hateful and the worst of the worst end of hardline christianity but I think parallels can definitely be drawn with that sect of radical feminism that calls for the death of all men or those sections of movements like 'black lives matter' that call for the deaths of police. Both sides of the spectrum have awful actors that represent niche views that are dangerous. It just depends where you draw the line of 'dangerous'

for instance saying 'we need immigration controls especially from muslim countries to try stamp out extremism' , to me is a moderate sensible call, to a moderate person with left leaning ideals it might be seen as an over-reach, but then you have that person that calls you a nazi or a xenophobe for agreeing with that statement.

If antifa was protesting a guy literally showing up in an SS uniform to a meeting called 'kill all the non whites' id say yeah, have at it (however I still defend that groups right to speak) , however what we now have (with reese-mogg, farage, trump etc...) are guys showing up to say 'hey, lets put in border restrictions and kick out illegal migrants' and getting a response of antifa showing up throwing bottles, smashing windows, causing damage and calling the speaker a nazi

This is just cherrypicking and whataboutery to be honest. Your radical, man-hating feminists are a minority being afforded a platform because they generate clicks.

There's no way that the far right would be waving swastikas around if the Nazis were Socialists.

Eric Cartman · 12-02-2018 12:32AM

Brian? wrote: »

Absolutely untrue. Revisionist nonsense.

https://www.snopes.com/2017/09/05/were-nazis-socialists/

Snopes is not a reliable source.

More whataboutery. I ask you to qualify your statement about Una Mullaly etc. and you evade the question by bringing up Antifa.

This is what you said:

Well? How can you compare any of these people to the Westboro Baptist Church?

Jeremy Corbyn champions communism, a dangerous ideology which has killed millions, his economics are dangerous to society and would literally starve people to death.

Una Mullally hates men and is allowed to voice this through the irish times. She regularly posts hate soeech towards men on her twitter account.

Una is to men what westboro are to gay people.

Fine Universities that are denying free speech.

Comments