The crux of my issue with Milo is that he would have barely been outrageous 41 yrs ago. My grandfather was more outrageous than Milo and my 86yr old great aunt is more outspoken than him. Are we really doomed to have every alternate generation repeat the same debates over and over again ad infinitum? It's tedious and he's tedious.

I am with you on a lot of this, I (personally) don't think people have a right to not be offended, especially when it is incredibly easy to avoid things likely to offend you (don't go to the Milo talk, for example).

However, like it or not, the USA despite it's much trumpeted (no pun intended) Free Speech / 1st Amendment, has many areas of speech which are not protected. Racial/etc incitement for example. It may have just been a pragmatic approach by the uni (and in the end saving Federal taxpayers money) as people offended presumably could have quite easily taken out lawsuits against the uni for permitting discrimination, etc and demanded solatium.

I wouldn't mind wearing a kilt myself on occasions.

Maybe it helps if you are Scottish, have direct Scottish ancestry, or at least have a military connection that justifies wearing one. But I have none of these. It just wouldn't be right.

I don't go around wearing an Appenzeller costume either, just because I like their cheese.

So physically I could go and buy a kilt tomorrow. But I would feel difficulty justifying it or defending my choice.

Adele is over exposed so it is not fair nor useful to take her as an example of a trend that is recently so productive. You can't take one over exposed girl with other talents than slim figure (I guess it is not a talent) and say - Adele is chubby but sings beautifully hence it is ok to be chubby. There are really seriously unhealthy people who could not come up with Adele's talent, so it is irrelevant. Army of people cried against Trump revising Obamacare. I see a big extremely expensive healthcare problem - that large portion of American society lets themselves go. Expensive healthcare! I think women wanting to put a dress on might have a burger less than women waking up to sweatpants routine. They shouldn't want to do that for Mr. President, lol, but for themselves. But I also think - with selfcare comes confidence, dresses are ultimately a friendly thing to sport and - most of all, whatever little thing helps is a good thing, imho. I know this might be annoying to read, sends evidently some girls talk to their dogs, lol - but let some controversy air the cliche and stale stereotypes, for a change. Women libs did not really seem so efficient.

As per argument of us women needing to feel gratitude to Western feminists..What? I am not from there, why should I. Chicks make fun of the butch over zealous freedom fighters there. It is comical to claim progress that cannot be contributed to them. Symptomatic.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

As a Scot who wears kilts to formal events, I can wholeheartedly say I wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered if you did the same.

I have to say, the best reactions I ever get to wearing it come at non-Scottish events - I wore it to a Taiwanese friend's wedding and felt like a celeb as all his family over from Taiwan had never seen this before (and I was probably a good half foot to a foot bigger than most of them!) and were queueing up to get a photo!

So, in summary, if you want to wear a kilt and promote the virtues of Scotland in your spare time, be our guest. Beware the English though, they'll always try and lift it up after a few Carlings.

And I think I would rather see your 86yr old aunt do the necessary troll tour instead (or with, she could use a charming man's hand, respect to elderly!) of Milo on the US campuses.

Let me know when she goes, I am in the audience!

And just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, UC Berkeley ultimately called off Milo's event for safety reasons. I am not laying any blame on the university for making the decision to cancel; it was not safe for anyone and part of the venue had been destroyed. The protesters who started rioting (most likely NOT students), caused the event to be cancelled. I do find it quite odd that the police present during the rioting/violence, were not doing anything to stop it nor making any arrests, but that is another topic and I expect the truth to come out eventually.

WRT free speech in the US, there are a few limitations, but not many. I think what has changed somewhat recently, is the notion that "hate speech" should not be tolerated. This is NOT in the Constitution (nor the First Amendment), and is a relatively recent interpretation of First Amendment rights. Many groups (often but not always Leftist), are using their own interpretation of the First Amendment.

this is a fair interpretation of what is happening today...
"The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized very few exceptions to the First Amendment," says Robert Richards, founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State, which was established in 1992 to promote awareness and understanding of the principles of free expression to the scholarly community, the media and the general public.

"The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains. "Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak."

In the United States, several states have had laws against blasphemy even though such laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

"Many people are mistaken in their belief that offensive speech or hate speech is not protected," says Richards. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the notion that unpopular speech enjoys full First Amendment protection. As the late Justice William Brennan put it, in a case involving flag burning, 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"

Understood, the police cancelled it, but in theory the uni and others could do the same for many reasons.

As you say above there, obscenity (vague i guess) and defamation aren't protected.

For example, in previous talks he has said many transexuals are retarded and have made up their own gender.

I could imagine giving this a platform could open up universities to a whole world of trouble on many levels.

Perhaps, whoever is in charge of booking just thinks his content is unpalatable. It is a judgment call that I suppose someone gets paid to make. Would it be acceptable to ban David Duke, as his opinion is that black people are inferior to whites? Surely that's also an opinion protected by free speech, but I think more people would be understanding if his schtick caught short shrift.

BBC has now been through the White House list of 78 "Under-reported" incidents point by point and gave details of the BBC reporting.

There are only four that were not reported;
two incidents on the White House list do not seem to exist in the real world,
two others were never claimed to be linked to Islam extremists and were anyway minor.

Source

We truly come from very different upbringings based upon what you've written.
Dresses are my worst nightmare to buy and I can count on my fingers the number I've ever owned. My wedding dress was made to measure because at the time, I was UK size 8 jeans and size 16 top, and every dress I tried in the shops hung like a tent. Now I get that you enjoy wearing dresses, but to many of us more buxom ladies, they're the stuff of nightmares. There's nothing al all 'women's lib' (sooo 1960's) about not wishing to surgically alter your attributes for the sake of fitting into an off the peg dress.

Nigel has come over all a quiver

My aunt wouldn't tolerate the likes of him for two moments. Neither would any of her seven daughters.

Was being the operative word. I was 29 then and am almost 52 now. Haven't been able to get in my size 8 jeans since I was 39 and got a desk job. Nigel can keep his powder dry.

Probably a bit late for that!!

US courts are very open, if you are interested to hear the Appeal Court deliberations live then go to this link at 3pm Pacific time!

If you want to read all the submissions then go here.

I do not envy the Justices; I had not realised how many groups (from both sides) had filed documents!

If it were as simple as not eating a burger, it would not be a problem. But it's not and it is. Maybe I do take this personally - I take it personally because these sorts of judgments are flippant and not informed.

Moreover, I am grateful to women who marched for the right to vote in the early part of the 20th century, and for women who protested for autonomy, so that women could not only vote but have their own businesses, property, bank accounts and the freedom to use birth control.

I was raised by a mother who emphasized education above all else and really pushed for me to get a good job. She also instilled in me the belief that I was worthy of the same salary as a man for the same job. At the same time, she was a good person, wife and mother. She always told me to define myself before defining myself through a man. Which I did. That's a feminist, and that's what I'm thankful for. The rest is mostly bullshit.

My mother would have called Milo a "pipsqueak". Highly appropriate.

Trump and his merry band are not exemplars of fashion, which makes it laughable that he should tell anyone how to dress.

Thats past my bedtime. And Trump will lose anyhow

If you take this to its ultimate conclusion, if you cannot filter guest speakers on their political opinion, and you cannot ban certain speakers, then ypu need to ban all visits and talks by guest speakers that could have a political component.

Maybe even say, no politics on campus.

This would be quite sad.

Yeah, right

Christopher Street Day is about 40 years old, look up the causing event, I think it's actually the root of all gay pride events worldwide. Up until the early '60ies sodomy was a felony in every US state, as recently as the turn of the millenium only two thirds of the states had removed that illegality. In Austria certain age-related forms of homosexual relations were criminalized until the new millenium, in Germany until 1994, Switzerland 1990.

Fourty years ago Milo would have developed into vastly a different person. His public persona of today would have been bludgeoned into obliviion, quite probably literally.

Blueangel, please tone it down! You know what Tom's like when he gets over-excited!