The argument of this article is that we should not leave it up to the government on how to handle hate speech. The author of the article supports that businesses should be able to hold their employees accountable for how they act. For example, if a person wants to speak the same ideals as a neo-nazi, their employer should be able to let them go, since they do not agree with those ideals. I understand where the author is coming from, because I for one would not want someone like that representing my company or be my colleague. Yet, it is so difficult to change an amendment and I do not see our government, courts, etc. changing the way they feel about people expressing themselves through the free speech.
The argument in this article is that the Berkeley mayor feels that it does not seem fit that a strong voice of the alt-right were to speak at Cal. Mayor Jesse Arreguin believes the appearance made by Milo Yiannopoulos will bring about violence, but the group bringing Yiannopoulos has the right to keep the appearance without any interference of legal action. I agree with the mayor that the appearance by Milo Yiannopoulos could bring about harm, because of prior protests against those from the alt-right, but since the group bring Yiannopoulos is independent from the school, they do not have to follow the rules.
The argument in this article is whether or not the police took the correct actions to prevent a riot breaking out at right wing protest at Berkeley. When a group on the far-left, Antifa, showed up to the protest, police did not arrest or tell them to leave. They thought it would be better to leave them be, because doing something about it could have invoked violence. Violence proceeded to break out anyways, and many are baffled as to why the police did not step in sooner rather than later. I can understand why the police did not step in right away, because the counter protesters do have their freedom of speech. The problem starts to become more prominent when both sides are able to wield weapons, which can lead to violence. And both sides were wielding weapons...
The argument in this article is deciding if the United States should adopt Europe's laws on hate speech. Many left wingers would prefer to follow Europe's law, because it bans any racism, homophobia, etc. Left wingers believe this would be great, because that is the type of speech used by right wingers. Yet, the laws in Europe have been known to "backfire" on left wingers, such as a group of protesters who were boycotting. Under these European laws, all types of hate speech regarding someone's origin, etc., can punish both sides. I find it difficult to agree or disagree with the hate speech laws in Europe. I agree with them, because hate speech should not be tolerated from anyone. Yet, I disagree, because something simple as boycotting "neo nazis", could get people fined or put in jail.