Conservative Celebrity Yiannopoulos Now Barred From Speaking At His Grammar School

milo_yiannopoulos_journalist_broadcaster_and_entrepreneur-1441_8961808556_cropped200px-langton_lion-svg We have followed the actions of various universities and colleges to bar conservative speech either by declaring their positions as hate speech or claiming a campus security risk. One of the targets of this content-based censorship has been conservative British commentator Milo Yiannopoulos. Now, Yiannopoulos, 32, has been barred from speaking at his own former grammar school in the United Kingdom: Simon Langton Grammar School for Boys in Canterbury.

Yiannopoulos was to speak at the Simon Langton Grammar School and one would think that the school would be happy to associate with a person who has become an international sensation in speaking for those on the right. One can disagree with his views while celebrating his success in advocating for his views on a global scale.

Notably, with only 24 hours of advertising the event, more than 220 Langton students signed up, with parental consent, for the event. Opposition reportedly came largely from outside of the school.

The talk was cancelled after the Department for Education’s Counter Extremism Unit consulted with the school over safety concerns and the “threat of demonstrations at the school.” The justification found familiar to the spin used by universities like DePaul to deny censoring conservative speech while barring certain speaker. DePaul even threatened to arrest a conservative speaker recently if he tried to enter the campus to address students.

Once again, I have never attended a speech by Yiannopoulos and do not know a great deal about his view. However, he is clearly popular with many young conservatives and his views are part of a rich mosaic of opposing, passionate viewpoints. The effort to prevent him from speaking should be anathema for educational institutions.

64 thoughts on “Conservative Celebrity Yiannopoulos Now Barred From Speaking At His Grammar School”

  1. Milo is hilarious and engaging and totally, purposefully, over-the-top. The right is starting to pile up some very entertaining personalities. Every banning just makes him stronger and every mischaracterization only serves to pique someone else’s interest. Keep it up, everyone!

  2. Milo is roman catholic and very anti Islam. Think his career has probably peaked and we wont hear much from him now that his “daddy” has been elected.

    1. now I am laughing out loud cause a friend just called – a totally evangelical Christian who discovered Milo and is passing him on. So, go away sad Harrison!

  3. If one actually cares to hear what Yiannopoulos says, as opposed to hearing what others have to say about what he has to say, you would see he is not racist, homophobic or anti Semitic, he is in fact and enigma to the progressive left, since he is the trifecta of gay, loves black men, and is Jewish.

    He certainly is a provocateur, but has a brilliant delivery with an information packed retort to back up what he says. He is very much a modern day Oscar Wilde.

  4. I think you’re missing a few key facts here. The UK has different standards for what is acceptable speech – if I’m not mistaken hate speech is outlawed. I would encourage you to look into Milo’s views. His positions are truly noxious. It’s one thing to point out the hypocrisies of the left and the awfulness of political correctness run amok, but it’s another to try to make overt racism and sexism “cool” by making it seem transgressive. Also if I’m not mistaken, the students involved here are actually rather young. It’s not a case of 18-22 year olds in the US not being able to confront opposing ideas. It’s more about not exposing impressionable youngsters to an utterly heinous world view.

    1. Larry, how many MILO shows have you watched? He is certainly not racist – actually loves black men – but he is against playing the race card for special privelages. And as a woman I think he’s spot on calling out the 3rd wave feminists on their strident conformist drivel. As far as “exposing impressionable youngsters to an utterly heinous world view” – don’t you think they get that already from video games, online porn and other “acceptable” advert venues?

      Milo is a provocateur which seems to escape most of his critics who take him literally.

      From the British dictionary

      1.a person who deliberately behaves controversially in order to provoke argument or other strong reactions

      Throughout history provocateurs and comedians have played an important role in society. Milo’s immense popularity proves that he is needed during this trying period.

      1. Don’t need any more white nationalists or misogynists acting out. There are quite enough, thank you.

        1. harrison: I feel the same way about the SJWs lying about fake assaults by Trumpsters and alleged Berniebros. This is not a “white nationalist” thang. take your safety pins and create a shelter where the rest of us don’t have to deal with your insanity. You people with all your “isms” are a cancer on this nation!

          1. These new Nazis are a cancer on this nation and they and their sympathizers should be condemned and not rewarded.

        2. Sure harrison, if you cannot debate them then the next logical step is to close your eyes and ears and hope they go away.

      2. I fully support his right to self expression, and I do not believe that he should be banned from American universities, BUT the point of my post was that this was not the case here. Of course, it’s very easy to distinguish between him speaking at a grammar school and kids playing video games or watching porn at home. Your retort actually undermines your position considering that here in the US we actually do try to regulate and restrict minors’ access to violent video games and porn – admittedly the internet makes it much more difficult nowadays but still an adult who furnishes lewd materials to a minor is committing a criminal offense, and a minor cannot purchase certain games without parental consent.

        As far as the content of Milo views, congrats, I am convinced by “the British dictionary” that he is merely a provocateur! Alas, all I needed this whole time to understand the world was a dictionary from across the pond! I have had seen and read enough to know that he draws followers in with his over-the-top persona, “humor” (you compared him to a comedian but if he decided to become a comedian he would fail miserably), a dash of nihilism, and yes, even occasionally valid critiques of political correctness. He himself self exposes the contradictions and flaws within the left and its political correctness – according to regressive leftists he is an openly gay man who tweets about having sex with minorities so in the PC world he should be beyond reproach! You accidentally hit the nail on the head though when you complained about political correctness and conformists. All of these things that I have mentioned about him are just window dressing and marketing to make a rotten underlying belief system attractive to younger people. Racism used to be something for “the man” and the stereotypical “uncool, boring old white guy,” but now he has taken the same product, replaced some of the terminology, and packaged it for young people to make it look like something rebellious and cool. I do wonder, though, how have minorities here or there used their race for special privileges? I am genuinely curious.

        It’s telling that those defending him tend to focus on form – how he presents himself and his ideas – rather than the substance and content of his beliefs. Using this fall-back argument of him merely being a provocateur is not a wise way for one of his supporters to argue on his behalf. So you support his views, but you think he is just saying things to arouse a response…are you implying therefore he doesn’t believe what he is actually saying? Do you think he has any sincerely held beliefs? You certainly seem to deny the allegation that his world view is vile by arguing implicitly that he doesn’t even have a world view. This is nakedly disingenuous.

        This whole non-sense of “he doesn’t mean what he says/you should not take him seriously or literally” certainly brings to mind Trump’s old “clown nose on, clown nose off” routine. He said that he would throw Hillary in jail if he won the election, and his surrogates immediately played it down as a joke. Well, up until today Trump twice stated since the election that he had not ruled out the possibility of prosecuting her. Ah yes, this certainly had all of the tell tale signs of a joke. This type of humor-coated double-speak must have George Orwell spinning in his grave.

        And it should go without saying that characterizing Milo as a merely provocateur is reductionist to the point of being mendacious. You could characterize wide array of political commentators, politicians, social activists, revolutionaries, and damned dictators as being provocateurs at various points in their careers. Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher, Colin Kaepernick, Ann Coulter, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Anjem Choudary and hell even Mussolini and Hitler in their early years could in some sense be described as provocateurs. It’s a judgment free descriptor, like merely calling David Duke “controversial” without elaboration, and it seems to reflect either a really pathetic type of moral relativism or an approval for the person without actually owning up to everything that your support entails. At least say what you mean and what you actually believe.

        As to some of the other comments on here: 200 or so sixth form students received parental approval you say. Assuming that it was only sixth formers who would have listened to him speak, then I agree with you that he should have been allowed to speak, but it is certainly not for me to presume to dictate the bounds of free speech in the UK. It bothers me though that dull Americans will see this story and begin complaining about first amendment rights…in the UK!!
        Re: Milo is not a racist/sexist because of his sexual orientation, and he’s just misunderstood or slanderously portrayed by mainstream media: we’ve reached a fundamental disagreement that will not be resolved and there’s just too much to unpack here. Without getting into it all, it should be patently clear that much of the first defense is rooted in the same exact type of identity driven politics that conservatives criticize liberals for – being gay and tweeting about sleeping with black men does not have anything to do the virtuousness of his political views. This is hypocrisy in the extreme. That you can make such an argument without bursting out into laughter is itself an Academy Award worthy performance. What’s next – Hitler wasn’t that bad because he was a vegetarian? And yikes, you really need to re-read (or read) Oscar Wilde.

    2. Larry – they had 243 students with parental permission. It is like going to the museum.

  5. This one doesn’t bother me as much of a speech issue. This guy is more of a clown and charlatan who deliberately makes outrageous statements merely to remain a public figure which leads to more speaking fees and celebrity for himself. He is not a serious person, nor is he someone who really has anything to say. What he should do is get an agent and start booking venues where his fans can come pay to see him like a comedian would do. Because what this fellow offers is entertainment that is coarse, often simply false, and often quite deliberately and intentionally offensive primarily to create buzz and to use to claim he’s being denied 1st amendment rights.

    1. Horuss – if memory serves, MILO speaks for free, but has his expenses paid. Cheaper and more entertaining than Bill Clinton.

Comments are closed.