Last night a peaceful protest turned violent at UC Berkely.source
I have two thoughts on this and the fallout from it.
One, there was no need for the protests to turn violent and the fact that they did so is ultimately counter productive. I think it is quite possible that peaceful protests would get the message to the university. The violence gives the other side more ammunition in their hateful crusade. Also, there has been an article circulating of late (though written in 2013) that makes the case that non violent protest is actually more effective in forcing change.source
My second thought is to look at what Trump said about the whole thing and point out his errors, which should be pointed out to everyone. He made threats to UC Berkeley almost as if they were responsible for the violence. It was actually their property that was harmed by the bad acting protestors who broke with the peaceful ones. In the article that was the source for my first paragraph, Trump says that Berkeley “practices violence on innocent people” when, once again, it was Berkeley whose property was damaged.
To sum up, similar to how someone phrased it on FB:
UCB allows MY to come speak=protected free speech
peaceful protest=protected free speech
violent protest=not protected free speech
what Trump said=free speech, but muddled as hell and making no sense, seems to indicate he doesn’t actually understand what happened