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: 36
86
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So let's be clear here ... you are infull agreement with the concept of "hate speech."

Good to know.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




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.


According to the Berkley Chancellor, Berkley police had intelligence of specific threats:

"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. At the same time, we respect and support Ms. Coulter’s own First Amendment rights."

Source


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.



She is not inhibiting anyone else's rights. Berkley is.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

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.


And when the same groups pull the same stunts? What happens then?

Does the university cancel THAT venue and offer another one (oh and charge the College Republicans all over again for the new date) until there isn't anymore money for a speech at which point, they are off the hook?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define 'hate speech'.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




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.

I said she is responsible for forcing an issue that didn't need to be forced. She is not owed anything. Her first ammnedment rights weren't violated. She wasn't harmed in any way

She was however perfectly willing to let people do battle in the streets rather than make perfectly reasonable arrangements

If you want to compare Ann Coulter to Martin Luther King - OK :-)

But Dr. King was in the streets himself, personally. He was jailed. Both he and his followers knew what they were dealing with. They went in with their heads held high - resolved to stand up for their rights

Ms. Coulter, on the other hand - stands whimpering and kvetching behind a media circus. A ginormous pouting crybaby that couldn't care less about what happens to people in reality because she knows she'll be just fine

Better than fine - this whole thing just made her a whole bunch of money

You disagree with this and accuse me of being against freedom of speech?

The two things have nothing to so with each other

edit on 4/27/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You haven't called me out on mind reading. Precognition perhaps.

While doing it yourself.

How shocking that you cite someone and then turn around and do it.

Or It could be another day at the ATS rock.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


Right. As I read up on Free Speech.

They did not deny her the right to speak. They offered her an alternative Which SHE declined.

But, they also have the right to protect the students in a dangerous situation.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

So let's be clear here ... you are infull agreement with the concept of "hate speech."

Good to know.


Of course, I often read your posts as a reminder.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define 'hate speech'.



Ask Cowboy. He posted the quote.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



You haven't called me out on mind reading. Precognition perhaps.

While doing it yourself.

How shocking that you cite someone and then turn around and do it.

Or It could be another day at the ATS rock.


I'm not pretending to know your intentions and feelings, nor pretending how they are "blatantly obvious". Just noting how how you are.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Annee

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.


And when the same groups pull the same stunts? What happens then?


You mean like when a Liberal is scheduled to speak at a Conservative Fundamental event?

You all just want to make it all about Berkeley.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


Why? If Coulter is being unreasonable for refusing to change her event because of threats of violence, why isn't Rosa Parks unreasonable for refusing to just sit in the back of the bus because sitting up front could cause violence?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define 'hate speech'.



Ask Cowboy. He posted the quote.


I posted the quote from the director of the ACLU.

I didn't write it for him.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

So let's be clear here ... you are infull agreement with the concept of "hate speech."

Good to know.


Of course, I often read your posts as a reminder.



Ha!

Funny, I read yours to remind me that someone can make duplicitous arguments and still be an ok guy.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



According to the Berkley Chancellor, Berkley police had intelligence of specific threats:


I see no evidence in that statement that suggests Berkely was threatened if they did not offer her another time/date. Perhaps you should go back and read our short conversation. I said this:



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


This is how you responded:



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


So Berkely only offered her another date/time because they were threatened/coerced? Where is the evidence of that?



She is not inhibiting anyone else's rights. Berkley is.


Wait. She has the 1st amendment right that protects her from the government squashing her free expression. The 1st amendment does not say we Coulter has the right to speak anywhere she chooses at the time of her choosing. Bekely's property rights supersede her right to speak.

Her rights end where another's begin.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Define 'hate speech'.



Ask Cowboy. He posted the quote.


I posted the quote from the director of the ACLU.

I didn't write it for him.


But it must have relevance in your opinion right?

Explain how hate speech is wrong here (it is) but non-existent when you agree with it.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't have to.

Hate speech is nothing but a political neologism created because the left wing don't want to get their feelings hurt.

The punch line.

ALL political speech is protected under the first amendment.

The specific reason it was created in the first place.

People could not go around criticizing the British crown. King Georgie boy.

Which snipped off the Founding fathers.

So they created a protection set in stone.

That NO ONE could infringe.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Of course, I often read your posts as a reminder.


An easy way to weed out the closet censors is to see if they'll defend hate speech.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

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.


Why? If Coulter is being unreasonable for refusing to change her event because of threats of violence, why isn't Rosa Parks unreasonable for refusing to just sit in the back of the bus because sitting up front could cause violence?




One is a 1st amendment issue. The other is an discrimination issue.

No comparison.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

The same way people here on ATS do. We've all had a post or two removed for manners violations or ptrolling....that is the kind of stuff that incendiary editorialists use to hawk their wares.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join