The student-run paper of UC Berkeley ran five op-eds defending the riots on campus, arguing that violence was an acceptable response to a speech from Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos.
Which I’m sure they’ll run again after ProMilos come and smash their presses and firebomb their office.
Can anyone rationalize for me how these protesters, who will probably still be on their parents teat for another 10 years or so, have the right to destroy property which they do not own in the name of Freedom of Speech specifically in order to deny that same Freedom of Speech to others? How do they then compare anyone else to Nazis, Fascists, Dictators or any who suppressed dissenting opinions by intimidation, while doing the same thing in their “safe zones”?