TopDogChick

I don't think that we should be relying on millionaire and billionaire tech leaders to change their ideology enough that they won't be hostile to necessary societal change that may harm their fortunes. That's some pretty wishful thinking.

I think a lot of people misunderstand the meaning of free speech. Free speech means that you cannot be censored or prevented from speaking by the government. It does not mean you are entitled to a platform. I could walk in to Berkley, announce that I have something important to say, and demand a lecture room to do it in, but that does not mean that they are obligated to allow me use of their facilities.

What happened at Berkley with Milo's speech is that he was denied a platform, not that his free speech was infringed upon. He has not been punished or thrown in jail for what he has said, and has suffered no actual consequences other than a lack of ability to use a specific area (and possibly merchandising sales from the event?). The university has provided a clear reason why he was denied this platform which is unrelated to the actual content of what Milo has to say. Their concerns for the cost of keeping the peace during Milo's speech is a very real thing, as this institution would have limited budgets for security at events like these. It's possible they could have accommodated Milo's request to use their space, but it would have meant that they were out of security budget for other such events for months. To a certain extent, there are cost/benefit ratios for who they can allow to use their campus to speak at.