0
Phil1111

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

Recommended Posts

muff528

******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.

Coulter's rights are not being violated.

The baker was breaking the law.

Indeed a very clear comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Coulter's rights are not being violated.

The baker was breaking the law.

Indeed a very clear comparison.

You couldn't be more wrong.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lawndarter

***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.



Who TF is Tammy Larsen?


She's a 24-year-old provocateur that gets around. Seen on FOX, CNN and across the internet...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomi_Lahren

In the news: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/10/tomi-lahren-sues-glenn-beck-alleging-retaliation-over-abortion-views.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Coulter's rights are not being violated.

The baker was breaking the law.

Indeed a very clear comparison.

....and there we have the fundamental (maybe even irreconcilable) difference between left and right here.

BTW, the left's "breaking the law" argument might carry a little more weight if the concept was applied a little more consistently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


BTW, the left's "breaking the law" argument might carry a little more weight if the concept was applied a little more consistently.





You mean like how the right reacted to the ranchers? You mean consistent like that? Or maybe how Republicans feel about Russia? You mean consistency like that? Or how about the consistency of family values, anti gay republicans get caught sucking dick, having affairs or hosting pedophiles at the white house?

Yeah makes perfect sense for somebody on the right to complain about those on the left not being consistent. :S

And please do explain exactly which one of Ann Coulter's rights are being violated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this a 'free speech' issue really? The government is not stopping her. People on campus are.

Isn't the real issue one of simple crime?

1 - they are using physical violence against others - arrest them

2 - they are blocking individuals from getting around - arrest them - this is another form of violence - if a gang of men were doing this to a woman, it would be very serious. Frankly, If any group does this to any individual, it should be just as serious

3 - it is very likely that these people would physically attack Miss Coulter if she arrived. why isn't the university, and the city law enforcement concerned about that

the specific actions are what should be addressed. it really is shameful that a college, and law enforcement won't protect it's own members from violence - nor a visitor to their campus.



the actual crimes being committed are being ignored because idiots are trying to make this into a social issue. stop it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muff528

******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.

The two situations are totally different.

The first is discrimination, pure and simple. In Oregon, sexual orientation and identity are protected classes, the same as race or religion. The bakery was a business 'open to the public' and as such has to follow certain laws. Heath & safety, employment and various other things.

By refusing to serve the gay couple, when they serve straight couples in the exact same way, they were discriminating. The same way as if they refused to serve blacks or Muslims.

You may or may not agree that "gay" should be a protected class. But it's the law and it's pretty clearly stated.

In the Coulter situation, there is a pretty clear and valid threat to security and safety.

They aren't cancelling (and apparently have reversed the decision and are going to have her speak) because they don't want her to speak, they are concerned about having to deal with the violence and destruction.

I personally think that it's a cop out, and that they should have her speak, and arrest those who beak the law (while allowing those who wish to exercise their free speech to protest peacefully).
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

it is very likely that these people would physically attack Miss Coulter if she arrived. why isn't the university, and the city law enforcement concerned about that



They are concerned about that. It is that concern that has people like Rush screaming how her right to free speech is being violated.

Quote

they are blocking individuals from getting around - arrest them - this is another form of violence - if a gang of men were doing this to a woman, it would be very serious. Frankly, If any group does this to any individual, it should be just as serious



I agree. But some of it is common sense. Walking into some parts of most cities alone at night in a KKK outfit is going to have consequences. That isn't right, but telling somebody the risks and not helping them is not a violation of rights. Actually most would likely say that is common sense.

The fact that Ann Coulter has this reaction shows that she has been free to be as divisive as she wants to be.

Quote

the actual crimes being committed are being ignored



What crimes have been committed in relation to Ann Coulter and the university?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post. If people (in Oregon) disagree with Oregon's law establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, then that's what they should work on. But it does establish what's required of businesses.

And I think that establishments that are designed for free speech (which should definitely include fora at universities) have some responsibility to provide for the security of even hateful free speech.

Texas A&M did the right thing when it didn't do anything to stop that jackass Richard Spencer from speaking. Much of his audience was there in protest, but he still spoke. And the furor went away.

Opening things to the light of day and analysis is generally more powerful in combating them than trying to suppress and hide them. Yeah, the web gives jackasses new ways to meet and reinforce each other. But, ya know -- the web isn't what's trying to be controlled, it's public speech.

Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote


BTW, the left's "breaking the law" argument might carry a little more weight if the concept was applied a little more consistently.





You mean like how the right reacted to the ranchers? You mean consistent like that? Or maybe how Republicans feel about Russia? You mean consistency like that? Or how about the consistency of family values, anti gay republicans get caught sucking dick, having affairs or hosting pedophiles at the white house?

Yeah makes perfect sense for somebody on the right to complain about those on the left not being consistent. :S


^^ all irrelevant nonsense WRT this discussion. But in another thread we might find some agreement with some of those points.

Quote

And please do explain exactly which one of Ann Coulter's rights are being violated?



Berkeley is a Government institution. Preventing her from speaking (or unreasonable suppressing her ability to speak), especially at a place that ostensibly espouses the free flow of ideas is, IMO, the definition of Government suppression of the 1st Amendment.

The latest I heard is that UCB has rescheduled her speech to May 2 between 1 and 3 pm, at an "undisclosed location". My understanding is that this is during "...'dead week,' when students aren't even in class". So, apparently they are allowing her to exercise her Constitutional 1st Amendment rights as long as no one can hear her. Apparently, this is not acceptable to the hosting student group, or their lawyer who is claiming that Berkeley "has a habit of shutting out Conservative speakers."

"Coulter had been booked for April 27, but Berkeley administrators abruptly canceled her engagement on Wednesday, citing security concerns. After massive publicity, they reversed course but reset the event for May 2, when students will be taking finals and therefore will be less likely to attend, according to lawyers representing the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America's Foundation." ~The Hollywood Reporter.

"Late Thursday, Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer and the Republican National committeewoman from California, released a letter sent to UC Berkeley that indicates a lawsuit will be filed if the university does not allow Coulter's speech to go forward on April 27.

The letter says that the sponsoring groups 'meticulously followed university protocol' in setting up Coulter's appearance, and that administrators' 'actions violate fundamental principles of free speech, equal protection and due process guaranteed by the United States Constitution.'

Dhillon writes that the university’s counteroffer of May 2 was not good enough, in part because it would be in the middle of the day during a week when classes are not in session." ~ LATimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Wendy,

Quote

Texas A&M did the right thing



And the ACLU did the right thing when they backed the neo-nazis in their wanting to march in Skokie, IL.

At first, I thought the ACLU was nuts. Then I thought more about it and agreed with them.

Bring the hatefulness into the light of day; a very good way to educate people.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe

....

The two situations are totally different.

The first is discrimination, pure and simple. In Oregon, sexual orientation and identity are protected classes, the same as race or religion. The bakery was a business 'open to the public' and as such has to follow certain laws. Heath & safety, employment and various other things.

By refusing to serve the gay couple, when they serve straight couples in the exact same way, they were discriminating. The same way as if they refused to serve blacks or Muslims.

You may or may not agree that "gay" should be a protected class. But it's the law and it's pretty clearly stated.

In the Coulter situation, there is a pretty clear and valid threat to security and safety.

They aren't cancelling (and apparently have reversed the decision and are going to have her speak) because they don't want her to speak, they are concerned about having to deal with the violence and destruction.

I personally think that it's a cop out, and that they should have her speak, and arrest those who beak the law (while allowing those who wish to exercise their free speech to protest peacefully).



We actually share some common ground here. But, notwithstanding the Oregon law, my specific point was that, while the bakery's actions *might* be interpreted by some as a violation of the gay couple's civil rights (I do not agree), I do agree that the actions of the University definitely *are* a violation of Coulter's Constitutional rights, and maybe the rights of the Conservative student group, too. Obviously, all my opinion. The "fine line" is whether discrimination (whether it is or is not unlawful) is a violation of rights. Also, whether the baker's civil rights are being violated. Getting deep in the weeds here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Berkeley is a Government institution. Preventing her from speaking (or unreasonable suppressing her ability to speak), especially at a place that ostensibly espouses the free flow of ideas is, IMO, the definition of Government suppression of the 1st Amendment.



Are you saying she isn't allowed on their property to speak?

Are they restricting access to her online content? Are her books not allowed on campus?

The event is specifically being allowed.

Indeed sounds like her freedom to speak is being very much violated.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

... even hateful free speech. ...
Wendy P.



Is Coulter considered hateful? ..or just opposed to "Progressive, Liberal" ideology. Does her Conservatism automatically make her (or anyone else) hateful? Or has she spewed actual "hate speech" (racism, etc.) IOW, for example, I don't consider opposition to a particular government spending program or some other initiative to automatically be "hateful" or racist. I don't follow her so I don't really know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

Berkeley is a Government institution. Preventing her from speaking (or unreasonable suppressing her ability to speak), especially at a place that ostensibly espouses the free flow of ideas is, IMO, the definition of Government suppression of the 1st Amendment.



Are you saying she isn't allowed on their property to speak? .....No

Are they restricting access to her online content? Are her books not allowed on campus? .....No, but irrelevant

The event is specifically being allowed. .....Not denying that

Indeed sounds like her freedom to speak is being very much violated..... .....IMO, yep. Let's say you have the right to vote, but the Government is requiring you to get an ID first. It's worse than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

.....IMO, yep. Let's say you have the right to vote, but the Government is requiring you to get an ID first. It's worse than that.



That is how it is in Canada. And yet we are not oppressed and have free elections.



I agree, ...but try advocating that down here and you're branded a hateful racist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen


Bring the hatefulness into the light of day; a very good way to educate people.



Here is an outstanding example of doing just that.
They simply put the subjects in front of the camera, and asked them non-confrontational questions;
Then let the subjects dig their own holes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101479/

BTW If you look through the cast, you will see a familiar name.
You never see him on camera, but hear his voice in some of the interviews.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
muff528

***

Quote

.....IMO, yep. Let's say you have the right to vote, but the Government is requiring you to get an ID first. It's worse than that.



That is how it is in Canada. And yet we are not oppressed and have free elections.



I agree, ...but try advocating that down here and you're branded a hateful racist.

That is because motivation does matter. Election fraud is statistically non-existent in your current system. So why decide that now is the time that this is required?

And if it is shown that there is no security threat related to Ann Coulter speaking and the University is using that as an excuse to block her from speaking, then I am in agreement that it would be a violation of her 1sy Amendment right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******

Quote

.....IMO, yep. Let's say you have the right to vote, but the Government is requiring you to get an ID first. It's worse than that.



That is how it is in Canada. And yet we are not oppressed and have free elections.



I agree, ...but try advocating that down here and you're branded a hateful racist.

That is because motivation does matter. Election fraud is statistically non-existent in your current system. So why decide that now is the time that this is required?

Didn't realize that Canada had such a problem with election fraud. Who knew!

Quote

And if it is shown that there is no security threat related to Ann Coulter speaking and the University is using that as an excuse to block her from speaking, then I am in agreement that it would be a violation of her 1sy Amendment right.



Uncanny how there are security threats only when Conservatives are booked to speak. Convenient, too. No ulterior motivation at Berkeley!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0