We have new evidence that when it comes to free speech, the University of California, Berkeley, is a quite idiotic and pathetic place.

The evidence came last week, when Berkeley released a video of a Jan. 22 "free speech commission" hearing. This commission has been set up to contemplate last September's "Free Speech Week," which featured Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, and others.

Proceedings began with a predictable pledge to provide more support for students who have suffered negative "impact" from free speech. Next, administrators read out letters from those impacted by Free Speech Week, the first being from a university management services officer.

Written by Malla Hadley, the letter lamented that Free Speech Week was held at the start of the academic year. This was a bad thing, Hadley says, because students hadn't yet established the necessary support networks to deal with hearing words. Then came this gem of a claim: "As a higher academic institution, I expected us to have the backbone to say no in firm and succinct terms to these proposed speakers."

Yes, because academic institutions exist to restrict speech.

Hadley then pulled out my favorite of all social justice warrior claims, "Free speech is not hate speech, regardless of how much you wish it were."

It's my favorite, because it is both patently false and the speaker knows it to be so. However, because they know but cannot change the reality of law, they must resort to the emotive demand that unreality is actually reality. It's basically a more eloquent way of having a temper tantrum.

The next letter was from a student who tried to carve out a subjective approach to what should and what should not be regarded as acceptable speech on campus. He failed.

Then came the speakers.

The first was a student who actually spoke quite eloquently and expressed concerns about the expensive costs of security during Free Speech Week. In my opinion, this is a legitimate point, but one best addressed by ensuring security protocols are more realistic and not excessive. It shouldn't cost, and does not need to cost, more than a million dollars to secure an event.

The second speaker was boring.

Then came someone called Ty Decker. With ardent voice, Decker ripped into the assembled SJWs. He described more speech as the best answer to ignorance and referenced the nation's cultural heritage of freedom. Decker was conspiratorial with some of his claims, but he was also quite amusing in his unapologetic commitment to Berkeley-unwelcome views.

Another boring speaker followed. The next speaker was slightly better but not by much.

A student came next and actually made some good points about the need for students to be able to get to class during speaking events.

Then another boring speaker.

Next up was Elisa Diana Huerta, head of the university's multicultural community center. Huerta first complained that a poster responding to a Shapiro event was removed from her community center's wall. That seems like a logical complaint. What was not a terribly logical complaint, however, was Huerta's next assertion that students had suffered "stress-induced illness" due to the presence of police officers on campus. Presumably, Huerta would be happy for police officers to be restricted from campus and thus for speakers to be attacked and forced out?

A Black Lives Matter activist came next. He spoke well and offered some interesting takes.

The next speaker was an administrator who started crying because of the pain of having to cater for free speech events. I would fire him.

The following speaker made some good points about the need for the campus to continue operating effectively while free speech events are going on.

Then came a discussion among those in attendance. It was focused on administrative issues and quite boring.

Following this, an administrator read out another letter. The writer offered an excellent historical context as to why "social progress" requires giving expansive latitude to speakers.

Another administrator offered ideas for ensuring campus accessibility during future events.

Back to the discussion, but only more administrative stuff.

Fortunately, the best speaker was the last. An international student from India, he eloquently explained why the intrinsic value of free speech meant the commission was "profoundly unnecessary." The student added that he himself had received racist emails in response to his conservative activism on campus. But, he said, he had the "ideological maturity" to move on without imploding into a pathetic bundle of emotion.

He finished on a moving note. "Nothing is worth sacrificing the ideal of free speech. ... It is why I came to the U.S."

Indeed. After all, what is America without free speech?

Nothing. Except the dream of many at Berkeley.