You've watched a lot of them, but you've never seen or heard of "kettling"? Odd. I have seen it and experienced it.
(I'm also curious what instances of protests-turned-riot you're referring to. The US hasn't had many riots, in any meaningful sense, recently. Do you mean someone smashing a window?)
There was one a couple of days ago at Berkeley where 150 or so masked people smashed windows and set things on fire in an attempt to block a conservative from speaking there. Causing $100k in damage to private property in order to curtail other's free speech isn't something that should be glossed over or minimized by calling it protesting.
There's the riot at NYU where more violent agitators showed up to prevent Gavin McInnes from speaking, where he was attacked with pepper spray.
On the night at Berkeley, a woman wearing a Trump hat was pepper sprayed while giving an interview for a news network.
These are the facts.
Call it what you want, but this is violence and destruction with the intent to silence people with an opposing point of view. It's not civil disobedience or protesting and more like terrorism.
As for your other question about whether or not I've heard of kettling, I have. The fact that it exists does not convince me that innocent bystanders need to fear that. In instances where you may have seen that, such as the inauguration of the president, charges were brought against some of those individuals. Which suggests the goal wasn't to arrest bystanders.
By the way, I don't know if you watched that one live or after it took place but there was a ton of chaos. People were throwing objects like glass bottles at the police in riot gear. Again, many of the people were dressed in all black with masks on. If you want a very real problem to attack, that's one to focus on.
Kettling is very typically used for mass arrests, even if charges are not filed against everyone arrested. This has happened in Oakland, where I live, multiple times in the last five years. And the fact that an arrest without a conviction can be reported to employers under this FBI program is one of the problems noted in the article.
Terrorism is quite a word for a situation in which nobody was seriously injured, as far as I know. And terrorism of the variety that involves killing people is already less likely to kill someone in the U.S. than a lightning strike. Picking the black bloc as the "very real problem... to focus on", in that context and with everything else going on in the world--including the serious damage done to many thousands of people by cruel and violent policies justified by reference to the threat of terrorism--strikes me as a very poor choice of priorities.
I was at that protest in Berkeley and your claims are exaggerated. I've written here extensively on what was objectionable about the speaker's visit there and why I think the protests were justified. You should consider that a supporter of that speaker shot someone at a similar event only days earlier. If you are concerned about violence as you claim then I think rather outranks some broken windows and a burnt-out generator.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't mean to downplay what actually happened, or to imply that two wrongs make a right, or to present your limited experience of the event as evidence that it was hardly worth bringing up in the first place. But at the same time, we both know arguing any other view point isn't going to matter. It is absolutely exhausting trying to have an effective debate about politics here. I'm wrong before I even hit reply.
It's important to listen to primary sources in this age of heavily propagandized events. Yes, some people acted illegally and dangerously, but to call it terrorism and the real threat to the united states smacks of partisan misdirection.
So, out of curiosity: why do you see this as a threat requiring immediate drop-everything intervention, as opposed to other things which -- even if we were to grant every single claim you've made -- still cause more deaths, injuries and property damage or pose greater threat to democratic processes and the rule of law? What causes it to jump immediately to the upper levels of your personal priority list?
Yes, I would say that. There are a lot of people who apply different labels to the man because of what he agrees with and disagrees with. I would imagine you already have your opinion on that. It is a small fraction of the argument I just presented and I don't think it should be the focus.
Which part of the conservative mindset does he represent? I suppose he could be some kind of nationalist/native sentiment, but he doesn't seem to speak about that much.
Hopefully you noticed that I didn't try to make my feelings on Mr Yiannopoulos obvious.
I appreciate your response but I want to respectfully decline to comment further. I don't feel comfortable expressing my political opinions here. That includes things that would be tangentially related.
Make no mistake, this was absolutely about shutting people up that they don't agree with. The harassment we're actually seeing in any tangible form is coming from the rioters.
Yes, but people are allowed to do that. I don't think "free speech" means what you think it means. It's a comforting idea that other people are too immature/emotional/dumb to consciously think about an opposing belief, but that wasn't the case here. There's no obligation to hear out a side that would do you harm given the choice. w/r/t letting people say unpopular things, the university did decide to host him in the first place, which represents the university's commitment to some form of free speech. Individual people should not be subject to scrutiny for protesting something they disagree with.
While I agree that protesting someone else's speech is protected speech, I'm not sure that hitting people with poles or pepper spraying them is the same.
No, they aren't. That's the point. We're not talking about yelling over someone while they're talking or even using a private publication to present only a set of opinions that fits with some agenda. The specific point being made was about using violence, destruction, hate, and fear as a means to silence people.
Calling me names (or other people) doesn't make what you're saying valid. It wasn't an effective tactic for the left during the election and it's not an effective tactic in this conversation.
At any rate, I don't think you're arguing against points that I've actually made. This sounds more like a response to some hypothetical response that you were anticipating before I responded.
Free speech is not the right to speak freely in any venue for any reason. Your comparison of Berkeley activists tactics to terrorists is weak; like comparing script kiddies to international bank hackers to drum up fear.
Is your intent here to justify the existence of this watch list?
The first amendment lists a specific purpose for free speech - for the public to redress grievances to the government.
Do you not think that this watch list will curtail free speech infinitely more than what you're complaining about? By monitoring protests and reporting legal political action to employees, you can implicit discourage political protest - which IS a legally protected form of free speech.
(I'm also curious what instances of protests-turned-riot you're referring to. The US hasn't had many riots, in any meaningful sense, recently. Do you mean someone smashing a window?)