Contains many opinions.
When descriptive terms become derogatory, debate becomes impossible, and for as long this strand of the Right demonises opinions with which they do not agree rather than actively and intelligently engaging with them, it will prevent debate and it will stamp out free speech.
Brookes ends his article reminding the reader that 'This isn't about 'banning people we don't like, it's about keeping fascists off campus'. This sounds an awful lot like it's about banning people you don't like. Overall, his view is discouraging. The nonsense of safe spaces is becoming exhausting. Students are more than capable of listening to a fascist and defeating their arguments publically. Give students more credit, you're underrating them.
If, as Milo believes, he has been unverified for his comments online, this is a victory for anyone who has watched social media descend into a cesspit of vulgar misogyny and savage provocation. It's a hugely positive step towards dealing with online trolls by making a conscious decision to refuse to legitimise them.
I've had a terrific view of the free speech versus regulated speech on campuses controversy because I'm chronologically proximate
If our Dear Leaders want to argue that they have a unique right to not hear views that offend them - a right which they will not extend to their opponents, and indeed cannot or else all speech would stop - then they should at least be honest about it, rather than deceiving your audience by pretending that (legal) free speech has not been replaced by speech subject to conditions...
A deal brokered between content providers and internet companies suggests that online music piracy is to be targeted, with
The Kernel is back...Kernel has no rivals since no other tech mag tackles the facetious, devious side of the net. Gawker tried it once here but the Kernel invented it.