Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So what happens if she accepts an alternative date and THIS happens again?:

"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."

...and again, it gets postponed so she she accepts the alternative date...
...and again, this happens:

"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."

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Noting how I am?

Oh .. you mean like a psychologist would???

You just can't help yourself can you? The pomposity just bleeds out of your posts.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

what i like about unfettered freedom of speech is it makes it easier for me to identify assholes that i'd rather not waste precious time with.

It really was easier to do when I was a kid. Now its like walking through a sea of used car salesmen, at least until you come online where people aren't afraid to speak a little more freely.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

Interesting.

Seen it here too often.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
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

So your argument is that Coulter should have showed up and taken a beating, then you would think she did the right thing?

You can spin all you want. I am not saying you are a bad person, but if you can't see that your blaming of Coulter for not capitulating to threats of violence is suggesting to everyone that this sort of violence and threats is an effective strategy, then I don't know what to say to you.

originally posted by: Annee

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.

You mean like when Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University? All the students were required to attend that one as opposed to these events which are strictly voluntary.

Vermont senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders spoke Monday at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, the conservative Christian campus founded by Jerry Falwell and now headed by his son Jerry Falwell Jr. Ten thousand students filled the arena, because their attendance is essentially mandatory for all university convocations twice a week — they are allowed one absence each semester only — and their applause was largely polite rather than passionate.

Don't see many, if any, hecklers in that crowd. And it would have made national news had Bernie been chased off the stage like he was by BLM protestors in Seattle.

Guess you weren't referring to that incident.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Coulter didn't decide not to accept .. her hosts the YAL did.

Just one of those facts.

a reply to: Grambler

Eventually, someone is going to have to let the mob lynch them.

Then we'll see what this crowd has to say about it.

a reply to: introvert

This university has two non-negotiable commitments, one to free speech, the other to the safety of our campus community members, their guests, and the public. In that context, we cannot ignore or deny what is a new reality. Groups and individuals from the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley. In early February, a speaker’s presence on campus ignited violent conflict and significant damage to campus property. In March, political violence erupted on the streets of Berkeley. In April opposing groups again violently clashed on the edge of our campus. While some seem inclined to use these events and circumstances to draw attention to themselves, we remain focused on the needs, rights, and interests of our students and our community. We cannot wish away or pretend that these threats do not exist.

The strategies necessary to address these evolving threats are also evolving, but the simplistic view of some – that our police department can simply step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur – ignores reality. Protecting public safety in these circumstances requires a multifaceted approach. This approach must take into account the use of “time, place, and manner” guidelines, devised according to the specific threats presented. Because threats or strategic concerns may differ, so must our approach. In all cases, however, we only seek to ensure the successful staging of free speech rights; we make no effort to control or restrict the content of expression, regardless of differing political views.

Source

originally posted by: neo96
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.

LOL tell it to the poster of the quote dude.

a reply to: Grambler

I wonder if the anti-speech crowd would encourage fire hoses on Coulter, et al.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

what i like about unfettered freedom of speech is it makes it easier for me to identify assholes that i'd rather not waste precious time with.

It really was easier to do when I was a kid. Now its like walking through a sea of used car salesmen, at least until you come online where people aren't afraid to speak a little more freely.

Exactly right. Imagine if we weren't allowed to know what racists, Nazis and ISIS thought.

originally posted by: introvert

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.

In other words, discriminating against race is bad, discriminating against political ideology is acceptable.

I feel like I am damn near alone trying to stop a civil war!

Well again, to you and all of the others on this thread downplaying this capitulation to violence, you have know credibility when actual right wing fascists start beating people and making threats to impede left wing speakers. These threats are perfectly acceptable, as long as the venue provides an alternative time and place.

If this means liberal speakers have to pay incredible amounts of money for security, and must speak at times and places where there will not be large crowds, that is fine by you.

This is going to happen, and yet you still blindly downplay the current situation because you think it benefits your team.

a reply to: neo96

It isn't?

In the video, an instantly-recognizable Damigo can be seen attacking 20-year-old Louise Rosealma, a member of the Oak Roots anarchist collective. The video went viral over the weekend, leading to calls for Damigo's arrest and his expulsion from CSU Stanislaus.

"They attacked with the intent to kill (and) I paid the price for being ill-prepared but I have no regrets that I showed up," the young woman said.

Don't tell me they're unaware of this fanbase whilst igniting the block. Dialogue with a straight Neo-Nazi, right... ask Damigo why he chose to be a Dick Cheney instead?

I mean... there's a pic, but after reading your comments I'm convinced that it's just about free speech, which obviously includes punching women in the face during the public foreplay. But hey - don't blame the white supremacy talking heads, how dare you!

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sounds about in line with what all us Commies are saying in the thread.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well let's see ... or it could be that Liberty University (ironically named) discourages independent thought and encourages obedience to authority, could it?

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you realize that students at Liberty University would get kicked out for even the slightest infraction?

a reply to: Grambler

So your argument is that Coulter should have showed up and taken a beating, then you would think she did the right thing?

I wish she did. Give these censors an inch they'll take a mile. Not speaking in the face of threat only incentivizes it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Groups and individuals from the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley.

Thanks. Very interesting.

But this means that people on the Right were also threatening violence and protest if their demands were not met.

That sort of trashes the narrative of the "violent Left".

Cool. Narratives suck.

a reply to: Grambler

No.

Then it'll be against free speech.

And they'll scream and shout and die to defend the rights of the speaker.