It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

page: 35
86
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Whoa! Settle down...





posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Exactly

If I was in her position, I wouldn't look at this so much as someone denying me the freedom to speak as a situation making it impossible for me to speak

But, there's no points scored for your team by being reasonable



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Again we are dealing with facts, some here are pretending that they suddenly care about free speech.

/shrug



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Her political rivals.

Its how she makes money.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Open question...
WHO is Ann Coulter intending to intentionally offend...and HOW is she intentionally intending to offend them?


No takers?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler


I will defend anyone right to speak, even liberal speakers I dislike like the Antifa leaders or Al Sharpton.

I wish that you would do the same.

I have. If you were being honest - you would admit as much

Now we've established how you want to argue, how about explaining how this situation is the same as Dr. King's

Did a university prevent him from speaking? Did a University fail to protect him? Did a University promise him something and then deny it to him at the last minute? Did a University try to find another venue at a better time, while simultaneously working with the police to try and diffuse a situation that was rapidly spiraling out of control?


You can pretend you are for free speech all you want, but the fact that you are placing blame on Coulter shows this is not true.

It is similar to Kings situation in that authorities told King all of the time you can't speak at this place or at this time, and he told them to shove it.

He, along with many other civil rights leaders, bravely and correctly told those authorities they had the right to free speech, and that included not having to beg the authorities for times and places to speak because racists would attack people to keep them from listening.

We saw what happened with Milos speech at Berkely. Innocents beaten, half a million in property destroyed, all the while the police did nothing.

The fact that you are suggesting that Coulter or any speaker should be forced to change venues, pay huge sums of money, or other things all because people have threatened violence against her proves that you think that these terrorists strategies of threats and violence are actually effective.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




...and you don't know that any of the people who are allegedly threatening violence are going to do that either.

Yet, that has not kept you from arguing that they are.

Again the core hypocrisy of your arguments is revealed.


I am going off the specific intelligence of the Berkley Police. You're going off your feelings.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: IAMTAT

Her political rivals.

Its how she makes money.


By what means will she be intentionally offending them?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Kali74

Exactly

If I was in her position, I wouldn't look at this so much as someone denying me the freedom to speak as a situation making it impossible for me to speak

But, there's no points scored for your team by being reasonable


To - MAY - to ... To - MAH - to.

Whether or not a Constitutional right is being denied is all in how you phrase things these days.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?


We've been asking that for pages.

The answer is "but people said things we don't like."

I don't think any of them have picked up on the irony yet.



I can imagine that question has been asked many times.

The OP states that she was offered the chance to speak at Berkely, so it seems illogical to say she was silenced.


Yep makes sense.

Oh and remember that jerk Rosa Parks?

No one said she couldn't ride the bus, they just told here where should could ride when on it. Why did she have to make a big deal out of nothing?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66




...and you don't know that any of the people who are allegedly threatening violence are going to do that either.

Yet, that has not kept you from arguing that they are.

Again the core hypocrisy of your arguments is revealed.


I am going off the specific intelligence of the Berkley Police. You're going off your feelings.


But your argument is based on predicting the future which is what you're feebly attempting to cite me for.

Again, hypocrisy.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?


Berkley allowed violence and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.


In the OP it states that Berkely offered her a different date and time to speak.


They're ignoring that.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: underwerks




I believe the YAF would label anyone protesting that disagrees with them as "violent agitators" if it serves their purpose at the moment.


Then why would why would the Berkley Chancellor say this:

"Our police department has made it clear that they have very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker, attendees and those who may wish to lawfully protest the event. "

I don't think anyone is doubting there were threats made. I couldn't find what you quoted in the chancellors statement, but I did find this:


Contrary to some press reports and circulating narratives, the UC Berkeley administration did not cancel the Coulter event and has never prohibited Ms. Coulter from coming on campus. Instead, we received a request to provide a venue on one single day, chosen unilaterally by a student group without any prior consultation with campus administration or law enforcement. After substantial evaluation and planning by our law enforcement professionals, we were forced to inform the group that, in light of specific and serious security threats that UCPD’s intelligence had identified, there was no campus venue available at a time on that date where the event could be held safely and without disruption. We offered an alternative date for the event (which was rejected) and offered to work with the group to find dates in the future when the event could occur



If UCPD believes there is a significant security threat attendant to a particular event, we cannot allow it to be held in a venue with a limited number of exits; in a hall that cannot be cordoned off; in an auditorium with floor to ceiling glass; in any space that does not meet basic safety criteria established by UCPD. This is the sole reason we could not accommodate Ms. Coulter on April 27th, and the very reason we offered her alternative dates in early May and September, when venues that satisfy safety requirements are available.

news.berkeley.edu...

Of course at any event of this size there are serious security questions.

When offered an alternative date and venue where the police could have more control over the situation if something bad did happen, the YAF turned it down. Instead choosing to release a statement blaming the cancelation on violent agitators. While the real reason for the cancelation is their lack of compromise with the school who owns the venues in question.

The truth isn't as newsworthy as outrage though.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




In the OP it states that Berkely offered her a different date and time to speak.


Indeed they did, but only because they capitulated to threat and coercion.


Whom threatened and coerced Berkely if they did not offer Coulter a different date/time? Forgive me, I'm just now getting up to date on this thread.



Again, Berkley allowed violence and coercion to dictate who can speak, and where and when they can do it.


Berkely has that right. Coulter has the right to free speech, but that does not mean any and all venues/universities/halls/etc have to allow them to speak at any date or time the speaker chooses.

Let's not forget that an individuals right ends where another's begins.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
“The unacceptable threats of violence that have led to the ‘hecklers’ veto’ of Ann Coulter’s speech at Berkeley are inconsistent with free speech principles that protect us all from government overreach. Hateful speech has consequences, particularly for people of color, LGBTQ people, immigrants, and others who have been historically marginalized. But if the government gets to decide which speech counts as hate speech, the powers that be may later feel free to censor any speech they don’t like.

“For the future of our democracy, we must protect bigoted speech from government censorship. On college campuses, that means that the best way to combat hateful speech is through counter-speech, vigorous and creative protest, and debate, not threats of violence or censorship.”

-National Legal Director of ACLU, David Cole



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




But your argument is based on predicting the future which is what you're feebly attempting to cite me for.

Again, hypocrisy.


Actually a called you out on your mind-reading abilities.

I specifically mentioned coercion, threat and violence, but oddly enough, the other words are missing from your strawman.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

Whether or not a Constitutional right is being denied is all in how you phrase things these days.


But, it wasn't.

They never told her she couldn't speak. They did tell her you can't speak in this situation - - - here's another option.

Which SHE declined.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: introvert
How was Coulter silenced when it was her decision to cancel the speech after her sponsors bailed on her?


We've been asking that for pages.

The answer is "but people said things we don't like."

I don't think any of them have picked up on the irony yet.



I can imagine that question has been asked many times.

The OP states that she was offered the chance to speak at Berkely, so it seems illogical to say she was silenced.


Yep makes sense.

Oh and remember that jerk Rosa Parks?

No one said she couldn't ride the bus, they just told here where should could ride when on it. Why did she have to make a big deal out of nothing?


Very odd comparison.

I don't think we can compare them at all.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: IAMTAT

Her political rivals.

Its how she makes money.


Then above all, her brand of speech should be protected shouldn't it? The first was set up specifically to protect political speech more than any other because the Founders understand the effects it can have. They had just gotten done effecting enormous change using political speech that I am very sure the UK would have preferred to have controlled using these very means.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Whoa! Settle down...




I'll file that under things Berkeley students should be told.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join