Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

a reply to: DBCowboy

No. I'm sick of your ridiculous accusations. Unless you're willing to buy my airfare and accommodations so that I can go admonish Antifa in person, I suggest you get yourself in check just a little bit. Every step of the way in these endless free speech rantings of yours, I and others have defended free speech and denounced violence.

I think what you really want is for these situations to turn us rightward and that is never going to happen. They have the right to say they don't want Coulter there, they have the right, if she shows, to stand outside with signs and chanting, they don't have the right to violence. No other concession is required in order to defend free speech. Free speech she hasn't even been denied.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: DBCowboy

38 pages in, and i think I've seen ONE person say that.

That means there are about 37 pages of face palm.

So many trying to weasel out of defending someone's speech that they ideologically despise.

That's like them being Saudi Arabia and being put on the human rights council.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Nah! Coming up with a deflection to justify violence is the RIGHT thing to do here.

We're good and I'm still smiling.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

There is still no reason to lose faith in the left; The ACLU, Bill Maher and even the socialist Bernie Sanders supported her right publicly.

Absolutely!

While most of this censorship is coming from people on the left, by no means do the speak for everyone on the left. Its important to point this out and show many on the left are disgusted by this.

Of course that doesn't sto[ some resident ATSers on the left here from saying this is no big deal.

a reply to: Grambler

I haven't seen anyone here say that someone has the right to be violent in these situations.

I don't get why Berkely is so horrible for wanting to change the time when the crowd will be easier to control. You think they should allow it to happen when the crowd will be much harder to control? That sounds like you are sort of in favor of the violence that's bound to happen.

a reply to: Grambler

To you MLK is as responsible as the racists that attacked him for the violence. His refusal to back down from them lead to violence.

Your thoughts on this are very disturbing.

Do you honestly believe MLK was upset because he wasn't going to get a speaking fee or a stage? Are you saying that Ann Coulter is as brave as he was, and her cause is as noble?

You trivialize Dr. King and all he stood for with this garbage. Worse - you're willing to do this in order to win an argument

a reply to: Kali74

I think you're actually right. He does seem to want this to happen. He kept ignoring our posts and accuse us of cheering them on, trying to make it fit his worldview and in turn make it happen. Like how the right-wing media does.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I think you're actually right. He does seem to want this to happen. He kept ignoring our posts and accuse us of cheering them on, trying to make it fit his worldview and in turn make it happen. Like how the right-wing media does.

Some people aren't as interested in a worthy argument as they are in trolling

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

To you MLK is as responsible as the racists that attacked him for the violence. His refusal to back down from them lead to violence.

Your thoughts on this are very disturbing.

Do you think honestly believe MLK was upset because he wasn't going to get a speaking fee or a stage? Are you saying that Ann Coulter is as brave as he was, and her cause is as noble?

You trivialize Dr. King and all he stood for with this garbage. Worse - you're willing to do this in order to win an argument

I think MLK was a hero; I would not say that about Coulter at all.

Yet strangely, I would condemn anyone threatening violence to keep either of them from speaking.

And unlike you, I would not suggest that either of them capitulate to the threats from the people trying to silence them.

To me, my opinion of the speaker or what they want to say does not change my defense of their ability to speak without having to change their venue, time or have monetary and other restrictions placed on them.

I am sorry you disagree.

a reply to: Grambler

To me, my opinion of the speaker or what they want to say does not change my defense of their ability to speak without having to change their venue, time or have monetary and other restrictions placed on them.

I am sorry you disagree.

I don't disagree. You are being dishonest. Again. I always thought you were better than this

Violence changes everything about this situation. I'm sorry that you can't see this

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: DBCowboy
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.

There is still no reason to lose faith in the left; The ACLU, Bill Maher and even the socialist Bernie Sanders supported her right publicly.

Absolutely!

While most of this censorship is coming from people on the left, by no means do the speak for everyone on the left. Its important to point this out and show many on the left are disgusted by this.

Of course that doesn't sto[ some resident ATSers on the left here from saying this is no big deal.

That's because some on the left are smart enough to realize how dangerous this actually is.

They get that when you let the forces of the mob rule instead of the law, you are starting to witness the unraveling of what holds society together.

The left relies on the law as much as anyone of the right does ... more in fact as so many of their preferred policies are statist. If there is no respect for the rule of law, then you have anarchy, not the rule of the state. And you are set up for the strongman totalitarian, not the utopian socialist commune they all think they are ushering in because that's the only type who will be able to reign then back into order and subdue them, and many will die in the process, killed by the very harbinger of the system they think they want.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The protestors have a right to protest. This is also freedom of speech

Anytime they want, anywhere they want?

What if the University told the "protestors" that the University, due to security concerns, wouldn't be able to accommodate their protest just now, but would like to discuss the possibility of rescheduling it at some later date and alternate location?

Would you consider that scenario an infringement of the protestors right to free speech? Do you envision the protestors taking this well?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Good for Berkeley, it would have been embarrassing to have that kind of person and what she stands for, tarnish such a prestige school.Score a point for the good side.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't seen anyone here say that someone has the right to be violent in these situations.

I don't get why Berkely is so horrible for wanting to change the time when the crowd will be easier to control. You think they should allow it to happen when the crowd will be much harder to control? That sounds like you are sort of in favor of the violence that's bound to happen.

There have been others saying violence was a right on other Berke;ly threads. And they are posting on this thread.

I believe calling this out may be against T and C, but if not I can gladly find it for you all to see.

I fully acknowledge that most on here are saying the violence is bad, but they are also implicitly admitting it is a successful strategy by saying Coulter and Berkely should have caved in to this violence, or saying it is not a big deal.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The protestors have a right to protest. This is also freedom of speech

That's not true. The right to protest is a manifestation of a number of human rights, and is not explicitly recognized as absolute or without limitation. The right to protest isn't a right when it is used to tread on the rights of others.

a reply to: imwilliam

Anytime they want, anywhere they want?

Peacefully? Yes - though for many protests you do have to make arrangements ahead of time - and most peaceful protests comply

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler

To me, my opinion of the speaker or what they want to say does not change my defense of their ability to speak without having to change their venue, time or have monetary and other restrictions placed on them.

I am sorry you disagree.

I don't disagree. You are being dishonest. Again. I always thought you were better than this

Violence changes everything about this situation. I'm sorry that you can't see this

Look we are beating around the bush.

Simple question, do you think that the civil rights leaders, who were asked by authorities to speak at different times or places to avoid violence, were responsible when they and their followers got attacked because they refused to capitulate to that violence?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Grambler

I haven't seen anyone here say that someone has the right to be violent in these situations.

I don't get why Berkely is so horrible for wanting to change the time when the crowd will be easier to control. You think they should allow it to happen when the crowd will be much harder to control? That sounds like you are sort of in favor of the violence that's bound to happen.

There should be no "time" when free speech is safer, and speakers should be able to speak at normal speech giving times, which are usually weekday evenings at colleges. Makes no sense to give a speech aimed at college students when no students are available. Kind of like stating all big name music concerts must take place at 8 a.m. only on Tuesday mornings since the audience will be easier to control.

As I understand my Constitutional rights, they apply 24/7, whether speech, guns, or religion. If we start boxing free speech in to "safer" time blocks, what's next?

originally posted by: ImmortalLegend527
a reply to: DBCowboy

Good for Berkeley, it would have been embarrassing to have that kind of person and what she stands for, tarnish such a prestige school.Score a point for the good side.

And right on cue to all of those saying no one is excusing this violence.

Thanks.

a reply to: Lab4Us

The First Amendment only protects you from government.