Milo Gets His March and His Speech After All

Share:
Milo smiles as he addresses the 200 or so people who gathered at the UC Davis quad

Less than a full day after Milo Yiannopoulos had his speech cancelled at UC Davis, he was back on campus, this time surrounded by 200 of his supporters and very few in the way of protesters.  The outspoken symbol of the alt-right was decked out in flamboyant attire, with a bouquet of yellow roses.

While his brief speech was mostly tame by comparison to others, he pulled no punches calling the university administration “liars” in describing what happened and the events that led to the cancellation.

As he told the crowd and after that clarified to the Vanguard, it is true that the College Republicans had cancelled the speech, but that was because “they were told by police that they would be responsible for property damage.”

He told the Vanguard he was hoping with the march, “I want the university to admit that they intimidated those students into cancelling the event in violation of their First Amendment responsibilities.”

The few protesters who showed up this time. The Vanguard was told the left intentionally stayed away from this march.

In his brief talk he accused the administration of pandering to the social justice community, “no matter how hateful and divisive they are.

“I don’t have opinions that are particularly outrageous,” he said, but added, “I like to say them in an outrageous way of course.  I would never claim otherwise.”

He told the crowd, “One of the things I was going to talk about last night was sort of this weird language that the progressive left use…”  At this point he was interrupted by a heckler and the crowd drowned out the heckler with a chant of “USA.”  He stated again, “One of things I was going to talk about last night was the peculiar sort of strategy that the left now uses to legitimize their own violent response to your ideas.”

He continued, “This new language of student safety – the idea that someone’s physical safety could be endangered by some sassy gay brit with the wrong opinions – ridiculous.  They use the language of physical safety to try to scare you into not speaking up for your values.

“I’m happy to say, and this event demonstrates, it ain’t gonna work anymore,” he said.  “There is no threat to student safety from someone with the wrong political opinions.

Counter-protests

“The event was shut down last night because the people you’re so happy and proud about were smashing windows,” he told a heckler who again was shouted down.  The crowd started shouting “fascist.”

Milo Yiannopoulos would tell the crowd that they were going to have a march and show the university that they would not be able to shut people up “because you have the wrong opinions.”

He would quip, “They like diversity, except diversity of opinion.”

In his comments, he foreshadowed that they would, as he put it, “recreate some of UC Davis’ theatrical highlights” by recreating the Pepper Spray incident from 2011.

The march proceeded – which could only be described as unlike any march that most have ever witnessed.  It meandered through campus out through the freshman dorms and then eventually circling back.

Whereas a normal march would have a relatively long straight and narrow line proceeding through campus, this one at times more resembled a mosh pit.  Milo Yiannopoulos walked, surrounded by a camera crew, and was being literally dragged backwards by his backpack.  Media members pushed into the fray to grab photos or conduct interviews – all as the march moved forward.

Fans and curious members of the public would push in to grab photos and selfies with the man.

Large crowd gathers along the way

“My event at UC Davis tonight has been cancelled after violence from left-wing protesters,” read a post on Yiannopoulos’ Facebook page. “There are reports of hammers, smashed windows and barricades being torn away. The campus police can’t guarantee anyone’s safety so I’m not being allowed anywhere near the building. Stay safe, everyone.”

On Saturday, Mr. Yiannopoulos  posted, “I’ll be marching through the UC Davis campus from 1 pm today, with Martin Shkreli and the College Republicans, to protest the cancellation of my event last night.”

The College Republicans added, “We will not stand for the repressive left perpetuating violence, censoring speech, and spreading hate.”

The university claimed, however, that despite some reports to the contrary, “there were no broken windows or other property damage during the protest. Earlier in the evening, one person was arrested inside the venue. No further arrests were made. ”

Local news grabs an interview during the march

In a statement on Friday, the UC Davis news service said, “After consulting with UC Davis Police Department and UC Davis Student Affairs officials, the Davis College Republicans canceled tonight’s event featuring Breitbart columnist Milo Yiannopoulos. The decision was made at about 7:00 pm, 30 minutes prior to the scheduled start of the event, after a large number of protesters blocked access to the venue, and it was determined that it was no longer feasible to continue with the event safely.”

“I am deeply disappointed with the events of this evening,” said Interim Chancellor Ralph J. Hexter. “Our community is founded on principles of respect for all views, even those that we personally find repellent. As I have stated repeatedly, a university is at its best when it listens to and critically engages opposing views, especially ones that many of us find upsetting or even offensive.”

Milo Yiannopoulos clearly felt that the university was trying to have their cake and eat it too.  In his view, they were covering their rears to cater to the radical left.

Here is a video of the Pepper Spray reenactment.

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

49 thoughts on “Milo Gets His March and His Speech After All”

  1. Ols Keith

    Nice classy signs from the protesters that showed up.  It shows that just as much hate if not more flows from the left than ever was exhibited by Milo.

  2. Tia Will

    “they were told by police that they would be responsible for property damage.”

    An example of the Republican student group not being willing to accept the foreseeable consequences of the action of inviting a well known provocateur who thrives on and profits from spreading hateful ideas and then disclaiming the impact of those ideas. This was no more “intimidation” of the group who were given a clear choice, than a shopkeeper putting up a sign saying “you break it, you buy it”. In both cases, there is free choice…..and a need for acceptance of the consequences.

     

    the idea that someone’s physical safety could be endangered by some sassy gay brit with the wrong opinions – ridiculous.”

    I suspect that Leslie Jones and the women involved in the direct physical threats stemming from GamerGate would disagree.

    “We will not stand for the repressive left perpetuating violence, censoring speech, and spreading hate.”

    But we are fine with all of these as long as they are coming from our side:

    Violence – Shkreli on tape pushing a protestor

    Censoring speech – MY using a megaphone and his supporters using chants and heard repeatedly telling a heckler to “shut up” because they did not like his ideas.

    Spreading hate – MY’s constant use of derogatory terms, insults and lies about those whose ideas he does not like – for support, see almost any of his articles or talks which are readily available on line.

    To be fair, I do not like the messages on the signs carried by the protesters at MY’s march any better than I like MY and his minions. Hate is hate regardless of which ideology one adheres to and should be called out where ever it is occurring.

    1. Howard P

      Please keep the perspective that pretty much all behaved badly on Friday night… no heroes, many acting somewhat less so…

      I take that back… there were heroes… those of law enforcement who kept their “cool” despite numerous provocations… I saw nothing but professional behavior in the videos/other accounts.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            No. I was not out there on Friday, but yesterday, there was plenty of blame to go around.

        1. Howard P

          If you don’t like”badly”, how about ‘robotically’, or ‘immaturely’, or ‘unproductively’… to say the behaviors were the penultimate for good behavior, rational discourse… I would categorically reject that…

        2. Howard P

          Ols… really almost no footage of the folk who were there to hear the presentation… what little there is, reflects they were no “angels”… apparently, they were not “newsworthy”… and, they were greatly outnumbered…  from what I saw (videos to date), the only ones I’d say were behaving maturely were the law enforcement and security folk.

    2. Ols Keith

      Watch the videos of the protest with an open mind and then tell us where almost all of the hate was coming from on Friday night.

      The protesters shut down free speech, that was there goal as evidenced by their chants of “Shut it down” and when the event was canceled they then shouted “Who shut it down, we shut it down”.

      As for the Republicans being responsible for any actions of violence that the protesters might have perpetuated that’s just B.S.  The protesters should be held responsible for any damages that they caused.

      So in the future are all events going to have to be okayed by the activists on campus to ensure they won’t cause any damage if someone wants to invite a speaker?

      Don’t you think that Democrats and left leaning groups have events that might offend conservatives on campus.  What if they threatened to do damage if they didn’t like the speakers the left were inviting?  Should those events be shut down too, should they be held responsible for the damages that conservative protesters might inflict?

      1. darelldd

        >> The protesters shut down free speech, that was there goal as evidenced by their chants of “Shut it down” <<

        And Milo’s goal was to achieve this very scenario, as evidenced by his explicit claim that he purposefully uses language that incites and provokes.

        Even if you will not admit that MY’s purpose was served in at UCD, MY certainly understands it, and is smiling all the way to the bank.

    3. Leanna Sweha

      Tia,

      Do we not create a ‘slippery slope’ when claiming that a sponsoring group should have to accept the “foreseeable consequences of inviting a well know provocateur…”  This kind of risk-shifting may only lead to more violent protest.

      I think it would be instructive to pin down UCD risk management policy on this issue. Then we can understand whether what MY claims about UCD’s obligations to protect free speech has any merit.  David, will you be looking into this?

      1. Ols Keith

        I agree with Leanna on this.  If true, for UCD to be putting it out there that the College Republicans would’ve been held responsible for any damages just emboldens groups to act up even more in order to shut down events they don’t agree with.

        1. Howard P

          Two edged sword… lack of responsibility for provoking confrontations isn’t that good either… the normal arrangement is to provide ~ 1-2 Million in liability insurance, and indemnification/hold harmless of the facility owner… usually beyond the normal ‘aggie host’ thing, I feel event sponsors should arrange for, or pay the institution for additional security, particularly the overtime probably paid for much of the professional law enforcement staff…

          The costs of  “security” Friday night would be another thing that should be ‘investigated’ and then disclosed.  If one was a true “reporter”… am suspecting the taxpayers, tuition paying parents would like to know… “republicans” increasing public costs… looking for more “government” to protect them… now there is a story!

      2. Don Shor

        It seems that they needed a bigger venue where the crowds could have been managed better. I wonder what the process is for reserving space and covering the costs of these events.

        1. Howard P

          Good questions… hope we (and/or the UCD folk) get  the answers… but I’d criticise Admin for ‘management’ rather than UC police and other law enforcement… what the latter had to deal with were decisions made by others…

        2. Howard P

          Ols… I believe you are correct… when tickets were available, tho’, it flew under media radar… by the time the VG started to “promote” it, there were no other tickets available, based on the postings of others.  The media “fed” the gremlins after midnight, as it were…

          There is some truth in the contention that the media feeds more on controversy than information.. the prez-elect recognized that, and without much money invested, “out-spent” all his opponents together as far as media coverage… worked… probably won him the nomination…

        3. darelldd

          “They were only there to cause trouble”

          And the reason that MY was there? To cause happiness, peace and harmony? He was there – pretty much by his own, multiple admissions – to do nothing more than cause this response. To “cause trouble.”

        4. darelldd

          I thought we were talking about being there only to cause trouble.

          From my perspective, and MY’s implicit acknowledgement, he was there for a single purpose: To encourage “them” to shut down his message. The lingering message then becomes: “They were only there to cause trouble and shut it down.” I guess that worked pretty well.

          Do you see it differently? Is doing everything he can to encourage a negative response not causing trouble? MY is asking for the freedom to cause this response. The message he wishes to share with the world IS this response. So, oddly enough, what he came to do was not “shut down.” It was perfectly orchestrated and achieved.

          He came to cause the trouble. And got exactly what he came for. Had his speech been given without resistance, he would have failed.

        5. Ols Keith

          The College Republicans invited Milo to speak.  They offered tickets for free to those that wanted to attend the event.  If the event had occurred and people had respectfully attended there would’ve been no trouble.  Even his detractors could’ve attended and respectfully voiced their opinions.  That didn’t happen, the people that wanted to shut down free speech caused all of the trouble.  It’s really very simple.

        6. darelldd

          It almost sounds as if  “free speech” of the protestors should be limited to being respectful.

          Should we require our speakers to be respectful as well?

          MY got exactly what he’s been working toward. His message was flashed up on every headline and article after he was (and I love this concept) “shut down.”

          I’ll ask again: What was MY’s purpose to be there? He admits it, so why ignore it? He was there to cause trouble. And got it. He wins, and still gets the moral high ground somehow. Pretty good trick. I give him full credit for achieving his goal with style and ease.

      3. Tia Will

        Leanna

        I think that you make a fair point. However, I am not sure what you mean by “risk shifting”. If there is a known risk, who should bear the risk ?  I do not know the answer and so agree with your suggestion that it would be good to know what the official risk policy is .

        1. Ols Keith

          Tia Will, if Black Lives Matter or some other left leaning organization on campus wants to hold an event should they be held responsible for any damages that might occur and be charged for any added security because of that event?

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            That’s the standard policy of the university – and frankly any entity. When we rent a facility whether it is on campus or in the city, we have to take out a million insurance policy. Now fortunately, that’s covered under our standard insurance, but yes, we would be liable if something happened because of the event. And you have to pay for security. For reasons I don’t fully understand and never got to the bottom of, the College Republicans apparently were not required to do so.

        2. Leanna Sweha

          What I am trying to understand is what would be covered by the university’s insurance versus what would be the responsibility of a student group that is hosting an event. It makes perfect sense that a host should be responsible for damages caused by its event activities. The issue is whether a host group should be responsible for damages caused by protestors before the event even begins.

        3. Keith O

           The issue is whether a host group should be responsible for damages caused by protestors before the event even begins.

          Totally agree.

          Also if event planners are to be held responsible for damages at campuses like UCD we would never hear conservative voices.  Conservatives are so outnumbered that the threat of the masses acting violently and destroying property could in essence shut down all conservative events.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            THe other possibility is that the College Republicans could have counter-sued both the university and the protesters.

        4. Keith O

          Yes, but kind of hard to do when a lot of the perpetrators are wearing bandanas and covering their faces with sweatshirt hoods.

          As for suing the university would anyone really want to take the chance of doing that and still losing?

          The costs could be outrageous.

          I still say rules in place like that and the university telling the College Republicans that they would’ve been held responsible for leftist violence is and will be nothing more than shutting down conservative voices on campus.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            My point is just because the university believes that the College Reps are liable for damage, doesn’t make it so. And there are alternatives.

  3. Tia Will

    Ols

    Tia Will, if Black Lives Matter or some other left leaning organization on campus wants to hold an event should they be held responsible for any damages that might occur and be charged for any added security because of that event?”

    Everyone should be held to the same standard.

     

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      And that’s precisely the point. In the end, I think all sides ended up winning. The protesters made their case and shut down the protest. The university protected its interests. And Milo got to speak and make the statement he wanted.

        1. Keith O

          I don’t get this line of thinking.

          I see that as the backup plan.

          Milo has spoke at other universities and even though they had protesters wedging themselves in the doorway the events still went on.  If that was the plan many of those other events would’ve been cancelled too.

        2. darelldd

          >>  If that was the plan many of those other events would’ve been cancelled too. <<

          Equally logical: He was successful with his message at UCD by being shut down. He failed previously, but those events built up his reputation enough for it to have worked at UCD.

        3. Keith O

          It’s also equally logical that he wanted to give the speech and the people attending wanted to hear him speak.  I find it curious that somehow people on the left knew what his master plan was.

  4. Tia Will

    Keith

    Milo has spoke at other universities and even though they had protesters wedging themselves in the doorway the events still went on.”

    I am not sure that I am understanding your overall reasoning. If other events had protesters “wedging themselves in the doorway, and the event still went on, what do you see as the difference here since it was not the police or the administration that called off the event, but rather the Republican group. Presumably, other groups who issued the invitation were either willing to take the risk, since they also had protesters, or were not informed that they would be held financially responsible.  Your thoughts ?

    1. Howard P

      it was not the police or the administration that called off the event, but rather the Republican group.

      First, I’ll reiterate that to me the speaker is a jerk/clown/manipulator/opportunist…

      Yet, in your medical field, is a choice for a procedure, or declining a procedure, ENTIRELY the patients’s own?  At the end of the day, yes… but … do doctors have “influence” in those decisions?  Do some physicians, based on their beliefs, tend towards ‘undue’ influence?

      Alan M said it best Friday… we’ll not soon know what’s really going on…

        1. Howard P

          And I’ll look forward to seeing the response from UCD (thank you for that)… too bad the speaker’s stuff is not subject to PRA.  I do not think it is ‘simple’ as some would want, and is probably not as complex as some ‘conspiracy theory folk’ would alledge…

        2. Howard P

          BTW… strongly suspect no recordings were made, and no ‘writings’…there may well be no discoverable ‘records’… at least as to the ‘consultation’ between the hosts, UCDPD, and Student Affairs…

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for