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: 42
86
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I know the thread is moving really fast, so I'll post this one last time for the people who missed it. In hopes that someone can see the facts through their partisanship.

The real reason for them being denied the venue has nothing to do with any type of speech being silenced. The YAF chose a venue without talking to the school about it, when the venue wasn't available on that day the school offered to switch the date and venue to a suitable one.

Instead of compromising and holding the event at a suitable venue for an event of this size where the police could offer better control of the situation if something bad did happen, the YAF releases a statement saying they are pulling out because of violent agitators.


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...

If this is really about having Coulter spread her ideas to a new audience, why turn down the venue offered, that would have been safer for everyone given the protests that would undoubtedly occur?

Continue your hyper-partisan BS if you want, but right there is the truth. You only show how little this is actually about free speech to you by carrying on with this BS narrative.

"I disagree with you! You're violating my free speech!

"I disagree with you! You're racist!"

Same thing from the snowflakes on both sides.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler




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?


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

Yes, they knew. Gandhi knew. Most people who are involved in anything like this know. They were prepared. They trained for it - ahead of time. As did many other protestors against the Vietnam War

So, I'll say this again. Ann Coulter is no Dr. King. She is no Gandhi. Her cause is not being fought in the streets, she's not fighting for her own human rights or the right's of anyone else. She isn't putting herself at risk, and her entire desire is to be free to speak - where she wants, when she wants, how she wants

So - a simple question: how were her rights denied?




So basically, you are saying that someone who is conservative *is* going to have to be lynched by the mob before you are going to acknowledge that the intent of this is to deny them rights?

Until then, you're all




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
And for the record.



The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute.




The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendmen


www.loc.gov...

One more to grow on.



In the United States, the organizer of a public assembly must typically apply for and obtain a permit in advance from the local police department or other local governmental body.[


Since assembly is conditional.

For better or worse.

The only thing Berkeley had to do is refuse to permit those 'crybabies' permits.

And Coutler could have spoken without fear of reprisal.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler




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?


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

Yes, they knew. Gandhi knew. Most people who are involved in anything like this know. They were prepared. They trained for it - ahead of time. As did many other protestors against the Vietnam War

So, I'll say this again. Ann Coulter is no Dr. King. She is no Gandhi. Her cause is not being fought in the streets, she's not fighting for her own human rights or the right's of anyone else. She isn't putting herself at risk, and her entire desire is to be free to speak - where she wants, when she wants, how she wants





Your spinning of this is incredible. How is King being on the street himself and being prepared make it ok for him to speak knowing violence would happen (given that authorities gave him alternatives) but makes Coulter responsible? Its totally arbitrary

And guess what, you are going to get your wish. Her cause is going to be fought in the street, and people like you that suggested she was in the wrong for not capitulating to threats are helping force people like her and her supporters into having to fight.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Kali74
Free speech she hasn't even been denied.


And there we disagree.


You see it as Berkeley should move other speakers and do whatever they have to do to give Coulter the safest place they can on the day that she wants otherwise they are censoring her free speech.

I'm sorry but that's idiotic. And my opinion that it's idiotic doesn't make me a hater of free speech.



hahahahahaha

Bernie, Warren, Bill Mahr, the ACLU thinks it's a violation of free speech.

But you don't, so you can feel justified in supporting censorship.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Well if anybody cares, Gavin McInnes just showed up and read the speech Coulter was going to give.

The university is still standing, Starbucks is still open, and nobody has chucked any M-80s at anybody.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLY.

Is a constitutionally protect right.

Protest isn't,

Especially over a private individual that has no authority over someone else.

Like a gal named Coulter.


You can peacefully assemble in protest of a cause.

Do you think people have the right to assemble to exchange cooking recipes?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

There are so many contradictions in your post.

So the fact that they felt threatened and had to pull out has nothing to do with this?

What came first, the chicken or the egg?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


So - a simple question: how were her rights denied?




Her rights were denied because she was forced to change the venue and time of her event to ensure less people could show up, and to spend large sums on security, all as a capitulation to violence.

Just like Rosa Parks had her rights violated by being forced to sit in the back of the bus even though she had alternatives all in a capitulation to violence.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Do you actually believe this is what I'm trying to say?

Is that you ketsuko - or is it that other guy?
edit on 4/27/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps but the way I see it their main argument is safety. Maybe it's more of a ethical thing. If I plan to speak at a place where I know violence will happen and people will get hurt because of my speech, would I feel right to continue?

Ask the civil rights leaders.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

There's the truth?

here's the Statement from the YAF:



When Young America’s Foundation confirmed Ann Coulter would speak at UC-Berkeley as part of YAF’s nationwide campus lecture program on April 27, we assumed UC Berkeley would take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of students attending the educational event.

In the meantime we discovered that the University of California Police Department at Berkeley has an official “stand-down” policy for any situation that develops on campus as long as the situation doesn’t involve the imminent loss of life, allowing the leftist thugs who have terrorized Berkeley’s campus to do so without consequence.

In order to ensure safety of those involved and for the lecture to go forward, Young America’s Foundation requested that Berkeley adhere to the following equal access terms for the event:

Central location on the main campus

Room holding hundreds of participants

Afternoon/early evening timing

Ability to publicize event

University to announce that there will be zero tolerance at the event itself for masked agitators, disruption of the event; and sufficient security to ensure the safety of attendees; space for protest to be cordoned a reasonable and constitutionally permissible distance from event

University to confirm that it has communicated the event details to Berkeley City Police, and are coordinating security with them to ensure that any rioters/violent protestors/masked disruptors are appropriately contained and dealt with
As of 4:00 p.m. today, UC-Berkeley failed to meet our demands, after refusing to provide a proper venue for six weeks. Berkeley made it impossible to hold a lecture due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators.

Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.

“As a parent and a taxpayer, I want the next generation to learn in an educational environment, not a circus,” said Ron Robinson, President of Young America’s Foundation to the Washington Examiner. “I had the misfortune of being in a leftist riot as a student, and I wouldn’t want to put my children or anyone else’s children into that situation without assurances that law enforcement would protect them.”

YAF is pressing forward with its lawsuit against UC-Berkeley, and looks forward to the day when First Amendment freedoms are enjoyed by conservative students.

Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students. For information on Ms. Coulter’s plans, please contact her directly.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Just like Rosa Parks had her rights violated by being forced to sit in the back of the bus even though she had alternatives all in a capitulation to violence.


So Coulter is Rosa Parks now?

Sorry, I'm out of here for a while, but when I do get back - I hope you have something more thoughtful to say



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

How dare they try to reduce a security threat!!! Commie fascists.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I love how these allegedly "progressive" people can sit there and phone in threats of violence to disrupt a public speaking, and simultaneously need a "safe place" because "words hurt".

This is nothing short of a fatal toxin in our culture, and mark my words, it will lead to the ruination of this once great country.


Tough times create tough men
Tough men create easy times
Easy times create weak men
Weak men create tough times



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

They are free to protest... I agree, but is making violent threats really considered protest? What is the definition of protest? Cause that sounds more like harassment.

Just a gentle reminder to consider what "protest" really ensues.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Grambler



Just like Rosa Parks had her rights violated by being forced to sit in the back of the bus even though she had alternatives all in a capitulation to violence.


So Coulter is Rosa Parks now?

Sorry, I'm out of here for a while, but when I do get back - I hope you have something more thoughtful to say


Again, I am sorry you are only for rights of people you agree with. You don't think Coulter is as noble as Rosa Parks, so she should have to capitulate to threats on violence and just move quietly to the back of the bus.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Well if anybody cares, Gavin McInnes just showed up and read the speech Coulter was going to give.

The university is still standing, Starbucks is still open, and nobody has chucked any M-80s at anybody.



But what about people's feelings!!!!

Someone's "feelings" might have been injured!



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Get back to me when you understand what the words PEACEABLE assembly means,

Private individuals are not 'causes' by the way.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Well if anybody cares, Gavin McInnes just showed up and read the speech Coulter was going to give.

The university is still standing, Starbucks is still open, and nobody has chucked any M-80s at anybody.



But what about people's feelings!!!!

Someone's "feelings" might have been injured!


I think they make a cream for that now.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join