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. Are liberals standing on such shakie ground that any speech from the conservative side frightens them into their safe space? I don’t understand why there is such a fear of speech that they are afraid to hear its mere utterance. Do they feel their speech is so weak and arguments so thin that the mere words of sense from a conservative speaker will turn the listener permanently and immediately away from liberalism in disgust? Are they afraid for people to think? This kind of thing makes one think so but then I’m not a liberal!

    1. Are conservatives so desperate to justify Trump that they’ll ignore the bigotry of the alt-right?

      1. What action by conservatives would satisfy liberals? What crime has been committed? What laws have been violated? Who are these alt-right folks and what specifically have they done other than hold views different than your own?

        1. Olly… The only “action” a conservative could take to satisfy a liberal is to become a liberal. Period.

          100% total capitulation to the liberal worldview is the only acceptable outcome.

          To have any different viewpoint IS seen as a violation of… something.

          1. USN420 – the problem is that liberals, as a group, do not have a viewpoint, they have a view of a thousand views point. It is like catching a rainbow.

            1. Paul,
              I believe a kind label that could describe this worldview is Utilitarianism. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of the greater good until it conflicts with constitutional order. The utilitarian pendulum will always swing but do we as a nation have the enlightenment necessary to keep it within the frame of the constitution? Within the principles of the DoI?

              This is where the kindness gives way to what clearly are not motivations limited by a constitutional worldview. IMHO, progressivism is where utilitarian motivations exceed constitutional limits. The call from the progressive is not one of constitutional means but rather of utilitarian ends. I have hope for this country that the swing of the pendulum is a reflection of a nation more concerned about the means than the ends.

              Time will tell.

        2. Who said anything about crimes? Dissociating yourselves from bigots like Bannon and Milo would be sufficient. If you continue to defend them, don’t whine when people assume the worst of you.

          1. DarkScholar82 – Prove that Bannon and MILO are bigots. And do so without proving yourself a bigot.

          2. Dark,
            Who said I’m associating with people you believe to be bigots? I defend free speech…period. I don’t have to like it to defend it. And seriously, there is no reason whatsoever to whine. I expect people to assume the worst when I defend the rights of others. However, that’s a reflection on their own ignorance, not mine.

      2. I’m not obligated to pay Richard Spencer any mind at all. Never heard of him before, and I don’t imagine will ever be hearing of him again.

  2. At some point the Left will recognize the Law of Holes is in play….or not. They’ve overplayed their SJW hand and they don’t realize yet all they need to do is wait to see IF this administration will fulfill their collective fears. Perhaps they are trying to establish the center of “constitutional” governance as anything actually done by this new President. They may succeed in the court of public opinion but fail miserably in a court of law; especially the SCOTUS, where Trump will find a majority that actually observe the rule of law.

    1. harrison – Milo, a out gay, was hired by Bannon. That is your first true statement today.

  3. Hopefully thinking conservativies don’t appreciate Bannon’s alt reich . Milo has associated himself with this group.

    1. harrison – MILO has NOT associated himself with the alt-right. At best, in one of his speeches, he tries to explain their movement.

        1. harrison – if, during the Q&A of a speech I was giving, a member of the audience asked me to to explain Communism, would that make me a Communist? No, of course not. And that is what happened with MILO.

          Quit painting with a broad brush. You are demeaning yourself.

            1. harrison,
              Membership? Surely that claim comes with some evidence. Where did he go to receive this membership? Is there a record you can cite to confirm he is an official member?

              1. Olly – maybe the alt-right is modeled on the old CPUSA. The card-carriers stayed above ground, marched, handed out leaflets, ets. while the underground CPUSA (non-card carriers) were Julius Rosenberg, David Greenglass, etc. No one knew about them until after the Venona decrypts, and the damage had already been done.

            2. harrison – the alt-right is not a club you join. How would they know if he was a member? They search his luggage?

  4. It’s not only Milo’s politics that angers the left, it’s the fact that he works for Breitbart as well.

  5. Autumn will like this post. I had read some of Milo, but she has educated me by posting videos of him. He is really not that outrageous, unless you find non PC truth outrageous. He is an anti PC, gay, conservative, making him a very dangerous man to the left orthodoxy.


    “Richard Spencer is one of the leading “intellectuals” of the alt-right movement. This was according the website Breitbart when it was being run by incoming White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon.

    “The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine,” the publication glowed in a March piece explaining the alt-right phenomenon. “In 2010, Spencer founded, which would become a center of alt-right thought.”
    Milo is also connected to the alt reich through Bannon.

          1. DarkScholar82 – Bannon and Milo are not alt-right. And the identification was not done by anyone with knowledge of the organization. Spencer runs his own organization, he holds positions that are antithetical to both Bannon and Milo. Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) was a member of the Democratic Party. He personally did not hold a prominent position in his party. Not every one in the South owned slaves and not every white belonged to the KKK.

  7. Being a member of the alt reich, I am sure Rchard Spencer would welcome Milo at one of his events.

    1. harrison – MILOs audience is really more college age. In another 30 years he can do Spencer’s group.

  8. Right now, MILO has plenty of places to speak, but like him I am surprised to learn the Education Dept has a Counter Extremism Dept.

  9. I fear he is another who just Makes Stuff Up. I won’t tolerate that from the left, right, or center.

  10. Foolish move on their part. Turns him into a martyr and leaves people with the impression that the University is afraid of what he says. Why be afraid of what he says? Let him talk. If you don’t agree with him, tell people why you think he is wrong. Don’t gag him. Don’t be like Trump was in the off the record meeting with the MSM.

    BTW, Professor, how many times have you done a blog post on this precise topic in the last 6 months? I think I’ve lost count. And how many times have you done a blog post on Trump’s efforts to intimidate the MSM?

    1. Don de Drain:

      Turley’s blog, Turley’s rules.

      Suggest that you write a couple of columns and submit them to Turley as a “guest commentator”.

      If they pass muster, you get to say your piece; if they don’t pass muster, at least you tried rather than just complaining about others.

      1. Turley’s blog, Turley’s rules.

        That may be, but only highlighting one side’s acts of censorship makes Turley seem, at best, biased, arguably even untrustworthy.

        1. Censorship? Untrustworthy? How long before the cries of racist, misogynist or any other “ists” are heard? This is ONE private blog of many. If you need to be spoon-fed stories you approve of I’m certain you know where they are. The challenge for you here is to actually learn to debate with those that don’t and won’t cater to your sensitivities.

          1. Who said anything about sensitivities? If you only report one side of the story, people will begin to distrust you, whether you like it or not.

  11. Milo is the personification of the banned book. Whenever someone bans him, everyone else wants to read him.

    I’m beginning to believe that due to ubiquitous over-use by the left, the significance of “offensive”, “misogynist”, and “hateful” is now diluted to a reduction meaning merely a slight affront worthy of only fleeting attention. Actual hatefulness, even that which is highly so, is now comingled with miniscule differences of opinion. Soon too many wolves will be cried and nobody will take an accusation of a hateful act seriously.

    Unfortunately to the SJW left, everything outside their opinion is hateful. Guess what is happening, many people are becoming tired of this act, hence Milo is well known and, like the banned book, more popular than ever. (and rewardingly wealthy)

    Too many need to just chill out and not be so controlling and pissed off all the time. They should get out into the real world and actually see those who are truly suffering in the world and not cloistered in the echo chamber of an academic circle griping about everything.

    It’s time these social justice warriors’ parents came and picked them up and tucked them safely into bed. (of course reading a nighttime story from one of Milo’s books.)

Comments are closed.