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: 52
86
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

Ah ok. I suppose they took the threats more seriously this time due to what happened to Milo.
edit on 4/27/2017 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.


I think we can also all agree that Berkeley made an offer to accommodate Coulter and her backers while still being able to guarantee everyone's safety, and that her backers refused the offer.


Her backers backed down because of threats.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




No. I have better things to do.


Like posting asinine memes like this ?



Herp Derp.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy



When I'm right, I'm right.


Well, you were wrong. Threats did not stop her from speaking freely. She made her own choice not to.



And yet, you will sit and state that you are for free speech and against violence.


I am for free expression and against violence. I'm also against chick# people that want to cry about her rights being violated, when she was offered the opportunity to speak and chose not to do so.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.


I think we can also all agree that Berkeley made an offer to accommodate Coulter and her backers while still being able to guarantee everyone's safety, and that her backers refused the offer.


Her backers backed down because of threats.


Her backers refused to change the venue/time, as Berkeley suggested. Had they done that, the threats wouldn't have mattered because Berkeley could have handled them.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Your comprehension of the 1st is atrocious.


I know.

I mean the gaul I have to begin reading at the beginning of paragraphs.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Ann should have the right to speak. Berkeley should have the right to control the violence that might occur when she speaks. Berkeley has not said that Ann doesn't have the right to speak. Berkeley has said that the venue/time originally chosen will not allow them to guarantee everyone's safety. Berkeley has offered alternatives that will allow Ann to speak AND guarantee everyone's safety.

What the hell is wrong with that?



A "right to control the violence"?

How about a DUTY to control the violence?

Alternatives? How about the classic deflection that is so in vogue from the left?

I think someone from antifa has to take one for the team to really legitimize them.

Maybe 4 or 5 actually.




posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   


210. Scope and Purpose

211. These regulations authorize the use of University facilities and services and establish procedures for such uses. The use of University facilities and services not authorized herein or pursuant to other University policies are prohibited. The rights, obligations and liabilities of authorized users and of other persons seeking to use the Berkeley campus are also governed by provisions of the Berkeley campus and University Policies and by state and federal law. All persons on campus property must abide by University policies and campus regulations and must identify themselves upon request to University officials acting in the performance of their duties.

212. The purpose of these regulations is to facilitate the effective use and enjoyment of the facilities and services of the Berkeley campus as an educational institution. Orderly procedures are necessary to promote the use of facilities and services by students and University personnel, to conserve and protect facilities and services for educational use, and to prevent interference with University functions.

220. Reservation of Facilities and Requests for Services for Non- Instructional Meetings or Other Activities

221. Not all University facilities and services are available for reservation or request for non-instructional purposes. Information concerning reservation and request procedures for designated facilities and services available for non-instructional use may be obtained from the Center for Student Leadership in 102 Sproul Hall.

225. The University may charge recognized campus organizations and other groups for the use of its facilities or services in accordance with established fee schedules. Information concerning the fee schedules may be obtained from the office at which the reservation is made or from which the service is requested. Users of facilities and services must pay the University directly for the facilities or services provided.

226. All campus health and safety standards must be met and special security provisions may be required depending upon the nature of the proposed use.

227. Security, performance, and/or liability bonds may be required. Consistent with University policy, and depending upon the nature of the proposed event, the user may be required to provide its own public liability and other insurance naming The Regents of the University of California as additionally insured for any public events to be held in University facilities.


Berkeley Campus Regulations Implementing University Policies



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

There was a point in posting that meme, Neo. It helps illustrate the level of understanding you have of the constitution and how idiotic your line of reasoning is.

Herp Derp indeed.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

And Berkeley suggested because of the violence of weak leftists who can't stand different opinions.


Why would a date change cause violent leftists to calm down?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Your comprehension of the 1st is atrocious.


I know.

I mean the gaul I have to begin reading at the beginning of paragraphs.



Are you divided into three parts?



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Berkeley should have the right to control the venue so they can control the violence.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Berkeley should have the right to control the venue so they can control the violence.


See the published policies of UC Berkeley above.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Your comprehension of the 1st is atrocious.


I know.

I mean the gaul I have to begin reading at the beginning of paragraphs.



Are you divided into three parts?



Sure am.

Just like you are.

Id,Ego, and Super Ego.

Everyone is.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Far-right and far-left protesters have clashed at Berkeley in recent months.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: kaylaluv

And Berkeley suggested because of the violence of weak leftists who can't stand different opinions.


Why would a date change cause violent leftists to calm down?


Threats were also made by those on the Right.

LesMis provided that info earlier.

So it's not just the Left at fault here. It would be nice if we put everything in proper context.
edit on 27-4-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: neo96

Your comprehension of the 1st is atrocious.


I know.

I mean the gaul I have to begin reading at the beginning of paragraphs.



Are you divided into three parts?



Sure am.

Just like you are.

Id,Ego, and Super Ego.

Everyone is.


Aww ... a Freudian attempt to deflect from the fact that you don't know the difference between Gaul and gall.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

That's very curious though, like how! did Berkly decide that they could handle the protesters on X day at X venue, but not at Y venue? What would have made the difference? I wonder. Less promotion? A venue in a more remote area, less populated? What would have made it safer???

I'm honestly just curious.
edit on 27-4-2017 by geezlouise because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I think we can all agree that the threats made to Coulter and her backers infringed on her rights to speak freely.

But, of course, the usual crowd will find a way to even disagree with this.


I think we can also all agree that Berkeley made an offer to accommodate Coulter and her backers while still being able to guarantee everyone's safety, and that her backers refused the offer.


Her backers backed down because of threats.


They can also be sued if people are hurt at their events. It is clear the police refused to defend the civil liberties of the speaker and guarantee the safety of those who wanted to listen.



posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 08:08 PM
link   


Berkeley should have the right to control the venue so they can control the violence.


Not really. The violence shouldn't be controlled, it should be prosecuted. And the safety of the violent "protestors" should be a secondary consideration to the protection of the right to free speech.

If a few heads have to be cracked in order to protect free speech, then so be it.



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join