Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

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

Turn it into a wet tee-shirt contest?
Wouldn't that offend some people?

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?

No - I'm surprised this is so difficult for you to understand. I think it must mean you don't want to understand

Ms. Coulter was never going to be beaten. We both know that

And no - I don't think she should have put herself in that position

I think she should have bowed out of this one, accepted better arrangements that put fewer people at risk - and given her very special, inspirational speech to anyone that was interested in hearing it

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.

I'm not the one that's spinning things. You do imply that I'm a bad person. I believe this is what you enjoy doing most of all. So, at least be honest about it

Capitulated? This situation is out of control. Perhaps you believe she should have spoken while there were riots in the street, and people were being killed

that would have been very righteous and very brave of her

:-)

a reply to: Kali74

Bullsh#t.

You all are just looking for each and any loophole to deny free speech.

To say I'm disappointed in many here would be a gross understatement.

a reply to: introvert

Yeah they don't care that Berkeley police warned against both far-right and far-left extremists ...

... that doesn't fit the faux righteous indignation on display.

a reply to: introvert

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.

It's a sad turn of events. None of this would have happened if people were allowed to speak, and to hear said speeches, without threats of violence, threat and coercion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

I would say I am on the right and conservative.

I see people on "my side" getting pissed about this, and gearing up for violence. I am trying my best to shout not to seek out violence, to only use it to defend yourself.

But people like those on this thread and in academia and the media that are making what these violent left wingers are doing into a legitimate strategy are making more violence inevitable.

Mark my words, people will die over this, and it breaks my heart that even members on ATS are cheering for (or making arguments that will lead to) this conflict to escalate.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Now I wouldn't call Damingo a 'patriot'.



But I do have a problem is improvised explosive devices with illegal fireworks.

She deserve to get punched for it ?

When the action could have made someone lose an eye or worse.

I honestly can't say WHAT i would have done.

Regardless of political leanings.

It's pretty clear some people can't let go of their partisanship, even though this isn't a partisan issue. it's like you just have to be against the other side no matter what. Deep down I know some of you are totally against the actions of Berkeley (because any rational human being would be), but you just can't admit it, and need to deflect as much as possible to stay in denial.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.

These same people saying it was Coulters fault for not showing up to speak would be on hear shouting if she did, saying that she knew there were threats of violence and yet she still selfishly spoke which got people hurt.

But you are right, she should have not backed down.

a reply to: Grambler

Who are cheering for this here? I swear you guys are seeing things are not there.

a reply to: Grambler

If people can see riots and excuse them and their purpose by saying that the speaker was to blame and that their right to speak was not denied, then that is where we are headed.

Portland canceled a parade over ANTIFA threats. Why? Because the local Republican Party was marching in the parade ... as they always do. But they're Republicans and the enemy now, so ANTIFA emailed threats, and Portland canceled the entire parade over this.

By contrast, two high school students in my local area made a racial threat over snapchat, and it's amazing how quickly LEO were all over them.

What happened to letting people of different political opinions speak on campus...with those wanting to hear the speaker being allowed to attend...and those not interested in hearing the speaker simply not attending.

Isn't that how it is supposed to be?

a reply to: Grambler

These same people saying it was Coulters fault for not showing up to speak would be on hear shouting if she did, saying that she knew there were threats of violence and yet she still selfishly spoke which got people hurt.

But you are right, she should have not backed down.

To be fair, it would be foolish to expect anyone to risk life and limb to give a speech. But since no one wishes to defend their rights, I see no other choice. Catch-22.

a reply to: neo96

That's a photoshop FYI

There is no such thing as “hate speech” nor are there any Federal laws against it in this country. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against plaintiffs in “hate speech” cases, upholding the First Amendment right to free speech granted by the U.S. Constitution.

The fact is, the term is used by the Alt-Left to shut down speech they don’t like. That speech is overwhelmingly contradictory to their radical far left agenda of wealth confiscation, a socialist economic system, and cradle-to-grave government control over the Individual.

Not only is there no allowance for the legal enforcement of any kind of “hate speech” prohibition in this country, it is not illegal to engage in speech that some might consider “hateful”.

There is no law that can force a person to accept the race, religion, gender-preference, sexual identity, culture, or any other aspect of any individual or group an person might find objectionable for whatever reason.

No one in the United States can be arrested for “hate speech” because there is no governing legal code or judicial precedent to define the term.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Turning a blind eye and defending/deflecting is no different than supporting the cause. Might as well be cheering.

a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

To be honest, when I created this thread, I thought most people would say, "Yeah, I hate her but she has a right to speak" and be done with it. And some did.

Didn't realize how many would fight so much for censorship.

a reply to: Grambler

Mark my words, people will die over this, and it breaks my heart that even members on ATS are cheering for (or making arguments that will lead to) this conflict to escalate.

They probably will, but you're not interested in deescalating anything. You've already said as much:

No I wouldn't have!!!

I will not let terrorists tell me where and when I can speak!
You're more about escalating. Pride and ego are one thing, but nobody wins in this situation by grandstanding

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: neo96

That's a photoshop FYI

If you say so.

Damingo just went around punching people for no reason at all.

I mean all 'nazis' are like that right ?

a reply to: neo96

Thanks for nailing my point.

I hope it feels good to justify violence, at least we're all free to see how free your 'free speech' is going to be, when the ladyknockers are finished with this ... dialogue.

Progress!