Ann Coulter Speech Canceled at UC Berkeley Again Amid Fears For Safety

[BoomerD]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/27/politics/first-amendment-explainer-trnd/index.html?ref=yfp

And, of course, that filthy communist group called the ACLU defends Coulter...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/aclu-defends-coulter-berkeley-speech-cancellation-134612157.html

 

[senseamp]

Coulter isn't so much a republican as she is an angry, loudmouthed seabass .... She isn't a policy person...

Is this the part where we pretend that other Republicans are different?

 

[mikeymikec]

Has anyone pointed out that it wasn't UCB that canceled? It was the group/Coulter.

Yep, looks like:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html?_r=0
http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/ann-coulter-cancels-official-berkeley-appearance
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-coulter-idUSKBN17S2D8

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Both sides whine. No one would win that pissing contest. It's just that the conservative opinions are wrong. But I support their right to publicly and privately be wrong all they want.

Thank you.

This is not so much a matter of who says what but that the event was cancelled because of violence. For the cartoon there needs to be a bit of a change to match the circumstance. Perhaps the stickman should be exiting the door with a club saying "And now I'll teach you what 'consequences' means". the idea that harming people or destroying property in a fit of pique.

There is no absolute freedom of speech but there ought to be a right of safety when speaking, even if the subject is unpopular. The cartoon would have been best ended with the character leaving through the door with a club saying "So I'm off to Berkeley to show people what consequences mean".

OP this isn't about freedom of speech. This is about violence, something you omitted.

 

[Jaskalas]

What kind of world do we live in when
Ann Coulter
can't express her viewpoint....

/s

Not just one person. One group is fighting the existence of another group.

 

[desura]

They must have gotten a mother of a death threat. Im sure we'll be hearing its contents soon.

 

[Commodus]

They must have gotten a mother of a death threat. Im sure we'll be hearing its contents soon.

They probably didn't. Odds are they just thought violence was a real possibility and decided that they could not only avoid trouble by cancelling, but milk the cancellation to make it seem like the xenophobic troll was the one facing oppression.

 

[Vic]

They must have gotten a mother of a death threat. Im sure we'll be hearing its contents soon.

Or maybe Ann thought she could generate more publicity by canceling.

 

[Younigue]

The violence or potential violence is truly upsetting. I don't care who is perpetrating it. I think the woman is vile, the party she identifies with matters little to me. Her safety while spouting her filth should not even be in question. People who oppose her have the same right to speak as Coulter does. If her message is something you want to combat and you worry about the people open to her message hold your own talk in hopes to reach them and educate them. That is the only reasonable and true weapon against the likes of her.

As for venues paid for by tax dollars... well the tax dollars of her fans and supporters also pays toward those venues. If she breaks the law with her smut speak then she will pay the price and should. Though she is hardly responsible for the actions of the individuals bringing violence, they are responsible for their own damn selves. If she is worried for her safety I do believe the onus is on her to pay for security. No venue should go above and beyond their own policy and standard of protection to meet her perceived idea of protection required

 

[Jhhnn]

They probably didn't. Odds are they just thought violence was a real possibility and decided that they could not only avoid trouble by cancelling, but milk the cancellation to make it seem like the xenophobic troll was the one facing oppression.

Well, yeh, of course. Coulter's intent is to troll for attention & to provoke discord & violence if possible.

It's not like she's being denied free speech at all. She sprays venom like a spitting cobra all over the country & the world via the internet & the media.

 

[Thebobo]

I think guys is totally wrong but interesting read. And check out the comments! it was 222 when I left folks are in a posting frenzy.

I invited Ann Coulter to speak at UC Berkeley. Here’s why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ey-heres-why/?utm_term=.8f6651ec51cf#comments

 

[Amused]

Thank you.

This is not so much a matter of who says what but that the event was cancelled because of violence. For the cartoon there needs to be a bit of a change to match the circumstance. Perhaps the stickman should be exiting the door with a club saying "And now I'll teach you what 'consequences' means". the idea that harming people or destroying property in a fit of pique.

There is no absolute freedom of speech but there ought to be a right of safety when speaking, even if the subject is unpopular. The cartoon would have been best ended with the character leaving through the door with a club saying "So I'm off to Berkeley to show people what consequences mean".

OP this isn't about freedom of speech. This is about violence, something you omitted.

The cartoon covered this with the third and fourth frame completely.

This is the social consequences of free speech. Something you are not protected from in the first amendment.

Now if the government shut her down or prosecuted her, I would stand up and fight that without a second thought.

 

[desura]

Or maybe Ann thought she could generate more publicity by canceling.

Too clever by half.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The cartoon covered this with the third and fourth frame completely.

This is the social consequences of free speech. Something you are not protected from in the first amendment.

Now if the government shut her down or prosecuted her, I would stand up and fight that without a second thought.

So beating is an acceptable consequence? It's a good thing I've been trained in weapons.

 

[desura]

The cartoon covered this with the third and fourth frame completely.

This is the social consequences of free speech. Something you are not protected from in the first amendment.

Now if the government shut her down or prosecuted her, I would stand up and fight that without a second thought.

You're basically an old crusader.

 

[Amused]

So beating is an acceptable consequence? It's a good thing I've been trained in weapons.

If your intolerant speech threatens and angers people to the point of riots, maybe, just maybe, you;re an asshole and your intolerance is intolerable if a free society.

I've created a thread to discuss the paradox of tolerance. Feel free to join in. Basically, the tolerance of intolerance has one end result in history, the end of tolerance itself.

 

[Jhhnn]

OP this isn't about freedom of speech. This is about violence, something you omitted.

And what is Coulter's intent, other than to provoke violence?

Coulter is a member of the right wing pantheon of rhetorical bomb throwers. If what she said last time didn't evoke outrage, she'll try harder next time. As a celebrity, she doesn't read her press- she weighs it & the more the merrier regardless of the consequences.

She & the rest don't actually believe in anything other than their ability to sell crap.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If your intolerant speech threatens and angers people to the point of riots, maybe, just maybe, you;re an asshole and your intolerance is intolerable if a free society.

I've created a thread to discuss the paradox of tolerance. Feel free to join in. Basically, the tolerance of intolerance has one end result in history, the end of tolerance itself.

Then hope we never meet and you decide that we disagree. I would defend myself, MLK, or a clan member if someone decided violence was the answer.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

And what is Coulter's intent, other than to provoke violence?

Coulter is a member of the right wing pantheon of rhetorical bomb throwers. If what she said last time didn't evoke outrage, she'll try harder next time. As a celebrity, she doesn't read her press- she weighs it & the more the merrier regardless of the consequences.

She & the rest don't actually believe in anything other than their ability to sell crap.

The violent left. It seems it exists.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think guys is totally wrong but interesting read. And check out the comments! it was 222 when I left folks are in a posting frenzy.

I invited Ann Coulter to speak at UC Berkeley. Here’s why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...ey-heres-why/?utm_term=.8f6651ec51cf#comments

Our organization hopes to create a future in which our campus and our country are venues for free and fair political discussion and debate from all sides. We stand for the preservation of spaces where political ideas can be shared and challenged without fear of violence.

Sounds like progressive values as I see them. I would stand for this group.

 

[ElFenix]

The violent left. It seems it exists.

Are you not paying attention? It's right-wing agent provocateurs inciting the violence against counter protestors:

Yep. At UW it's Milo fans who are facing charges for intentionally inciting the violence there. At Berkeley it's mysterious hooligans in black masks. In Portland, it was a Trumper who was convicted of throwing a Molotov cocktail into the crowd. While the vandals there told the police that they weren't part of the protests. The whole thing stinks. And who's profiting from this? Not the left.

Cui bono, indeed.

 

[Amused]

Then hope we never meet and you decide that we disagree. I would defend myself, MLK, or a clan member if someone decided violence was the answer.

I did not say disagreement. I said intolerant speech.

If you advocate for the subjugation or marginalization of a people due to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc in front of me, I will tell you to shut the fuck up and I've done it before. I do not tolerate hate, bigotry and prejudice bullying in my presence. And no one ever should. It is a direct threat to, and violation of the human rights of others.

 

[Jhhnn]

Are you not paying attention? It's right-wing agent provocateurs inciting the violence against counter protestors:




Cui bono, indeed.

Muricuh! Hell Yeah! Let's go to Berkeley & start some shit! Cuz we's persecuted!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I did not say disagreement. I said intolerant speech.

If you advocate for the subjugation or marginalization of a people due to race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc in front of me, I will tell you to shut the fuck up and I've done it before. I do not tolerate hate, bigotry and prejudice bullying in my presence. And no one ever should. It is a direct threat to, and violation of the human rights of others.

I don't care for it either. Now will you physically attack someone over it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you not paying attention? It's right-wing agent provocateurs inciting the violence against counter protestors:




Cui bono, indeed.

The last violence I saw was done to more than the left. No one should be harmed period. As far as what is permitted there are laws about inciting violence. Enforce them.