Ann Coulter,they can't stop me. I'm an American

[Phil1111 910]

Berkeley cancels Ann Coulter’s speech over security concerns

"Given current active security threats, it is not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully," the letter read.

But Coulter told The Hollywood Reporter that she plans to speak anyway.

"Yes, it was officially banned," Coulter said, according to the report. "But they can't stop me. I'm an American. I have Constitutional rights."
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/329608-berkeley-cancels-ann-coulters-speech-over-security-concerns

Ah!, the right to spread lies, hate and misinformation. What was the name of that organization that beat up the protestors last week in California, "freedom fighters?? The ones from Idaho??

[GeorgiaDon 340]

She's welcome to a piece of lawn right beside the nutjob preachers screaming at the students that they are all going to hell.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[TriGirl 268]

I don't see where the university says she was "banned," but she seems to think that is the case. They simply cancelled her appearance.


ETA -- though she seemed to have a problem with the school scheduling her presentation so it was clearly for students. Um... isn't that who guest speakers are supposedly speaking to? How is it that she gets invited to speak at a university, then gets upset that another audience might not be able to attend?

See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

[tonyhays 86]

Quote

What was the name of that organization that beat up the protestors last week in California, "freedom fighters?? The ones from Idaho??

Got a link to the story?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[chutem 0]

Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

chutem

Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

Speaking at a university isn't speaking publicly.

Nobody is stopping Ann Coulter from reaching billions on the internet, or to stand on a corner and preach to the locals.

[billvon 2,396]

Quote

Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

I am. I'm more concerned when this happens with public speeches as opposed to speeches at private functions, but both are concerning. Better to let her (or him) speak. If you don't like it, you can boo.

[chutem 0]

SkyDekker

***Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

Speaking at a university isn't speaking publicly.

Nobody is stopping Ann Coulter from reaching billions on the internet, or to stand on a corner and preach to the locals.

Does it concern you that violent protesters are able to shut down people invited to speak at a university by a group of students whose views are in the minority there?

[rushmc 18]

chutem

Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

The left likes this.

Cause they can not compete in the arena of ideas, which is free speech

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

billvon

Quote

Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

I am. I'm more concerned when this happens with public speeches as opposed to speeches at private functions, but both are concerning. Better to let her (or him) speak. If you don't like it, you can boo.

For the most part, you and I agree here.

BTW
Speaking at a college that gets public money can not, by law, stop freedom of speech.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,121]

And how exactly does this "stop freedom of speech"?

To chutem, violent protest is always a concern, regardless of the reason behind it. Like when ranchers put snipers in place to take aim at federal officers, that is a concern.

You guys have created a violent society, too late to complain about the violence IMHO.

[billvon 2,396]

>Speaking at a college that gets public money can not, by law, stop freedom of speech.

Correct. Speaking at a college does not stop freedom of speech.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Apparently there is even a law that says speaking does not stop freedom of speech.

Thankfully those libtards haven't found a way to take that law away yet!

[billvon 2,396]

Using my RushMC decoder I suspect he's claiming that it is illegal to "stop freedom of speech" at schools that accept public money. Which is true - in fact, it's illegal to stop it anywhere. Fortunately they are not saying she can't speak there; they are just saying she can't use that auditorium because they can't guarantee her safety. (Coulter knows this; she said she was going to come and speak anyway, knowing that they weren't going to stop her.)

[gowlerk 1,911]

The right in general, and in this instance Coulter in particular have a strong point here. It is not acceptable to just use the excuse "we can't provide security to ensure your safety". That's bullshit. It's bullshit that the part of the student body who opposes her for political reasons is allowed to run amok and deny those who do want to hear her.

Berkley needs to do whatever it takes to ensure her security and make the principle of freedom of speech practical. The right is correct about this.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[Phil1111 910]

tonyhays

Quote

What was the name of that organization that beat up the protestors last week in California, "freedom fighters?? The ones from Idaho??

Got a link to the story?

"Oath keepers" from Montana. Oh well.

Stewart Rhodes, founder of the citizen militia group known as the Oath Keepers, said he came from Montana with about 50 others to protect Trump supporters. They were joined by bikers and others who vowed to fight members of an anti-fascist group if they crossed police barricades.

“I don’t mind hitting” the counter-demonstrators, Rhodes said. “In fact, I would kind of enjoy it.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-berkeley-trump-rally-20170415-story.html

'Shocking photos"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3340505/donald-trump-protests-berkeley-fight-video/

[RonD1120 58]

I find it interesting that the Berkeley administration declares that its Liberal students are dangerous.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[headoverheels 291]

RonD1120

I find it interesting that the Berkeley administration declares that its Liberal students are dangerous.

They said the same on September 16, 1964.

[muff528 3]

SkyDekker

***Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

Speaking at a university isn't speaking publicly.

Nobody is stopping Ann Coulter from reaching billions on the internet, or to stand on a corner and preach to the locals.

Arguments from the righties on here seem similar to the case made by lefties re: "the gay wedding cake", ...i.e., the gay couple's civil rights were violated by the baker (a private enterprise) who refused to bake their wedding cake. Of course, the couple had many other options for getting their cake made and were not prohibited from exercising one of those options.

So ...In this case, Coulter's rights are seemingly being violated by the school (a public institution) making it difficult for the students who invited her to meet certain "requirements" which might be unreasonable or unnecessary, and not required, for some other "acceptable" speaker. The argument from the left is that she could just pack up and go speak somewhere else. Therefore, no rights violated.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi muff,

Quote

the couple had many other options

Yes, they did. However, in the case cited, the baker ( who also had at least one option => provide the cake & keep the money ) was in violation of the laws of the State of Oregon.

In this case, it was not a case of: Go somewhere else

It was about violating the law.

Jerry Baumchen

[muff528 3]

JerryBaumchen

Hi muff,

Quote

the couple had many other options

Yes, they did. However, in the case cited, the baker ( who also had at least one option => provide the cake & keep the money ) was in violation of the laws of the State of Oregon.

In this case, it was not a case of: Go somewhere else

It was about violating the law.

Jerry Baumchen

Yes, a "violation of the laws of the State of Oregon". I suppose a case could be argued that those laws violate the civil rights of the baker. Obviously, opinions and interpretations differ either way.

On the other hand, it appears that UCB (a California State institution) may have actually attempted to violate the US Constitution and the Constitutional civil rights of Coulter and the students who invited her by requiring unreasonable and unusual conditions to be met.

I, personally, do not believe that private citizens, or entities, businesses, etc., can really actually violate a person's civil rights. My question would be whether the affected person can otherwise exercise his rights. A fine line there, and sometimes difficult to sort out individual cases. For an easy example, a person can be murdered and denied his Constitutional right to "life". Obviously, the disenfranchised person can't go somewhere else and not die after that. The killer then pays by losing his rights. The baker does not really have the power to prevent the wedding couple from getting a cake, just his cake. Any law forcing him to provide a cake is only as good as the prevailing interpretation of the Constitution (which may or may not change at some future time.)

OTOH, Government entities do have the power to do that and they have; one of the more egregious and extreme examples being members of the US Congress publicly and explicitly (and disgustingly) prejudging and subverting the due process guaranteed a private citizen.

UCB needs to permit the speaking engagement to proceed and to provide the necessary security and safety for the speaker and the sponsoring students, and whoever else wants to hear her. That would be to include arrests and prosecution of those who might violently dissent or otherwise commit violence. Civil penalties, too.

[normiss 622]

No, they don't.
No reason whatsoever to compel them to do that.

[muff528 3]

normiss

No, they don't.
No reason whatsoever to compel them to do that.

Do, too!

[BartsDaddy 4]

Well according to yahoo they are letting her talk.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[grimmie 173]

rushmc

***Is anyone concerned that violent protesters are more and more able to shut down people wishing to speak publicly when they do not agree with the views being presented?

The left likes this.

Cause they can not compete in the arena of ideas, which is free speech

Please. It goes both and all ways. Two words for your freedom of speech loving tolerant "the right".

Tomi Lahren

Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering.