Congratulations! Ann Coulter finally silenced on Berkeley Campus

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well if they threatened Coulter ,and stopped her from speaking I prolly would have.

But hey nice strawman.

The YAL did keep her from speaking; they rescinded their invitation.

a reply to: Grambler

Again, I am sorry you are only for rights of people you agree with.

I am absolutely for Ms. Coulter's right to speak. You can say I'm not as often as you like, but it only shows you won't really argue the points I'm making - because you can't

She is no MLK, she isn't Rosa Parks. You think she is as noble as they are? I can't help that

I'm sorry you feel the need to use other people's struggles, their battles, the injury they suffered and the things they had to endure to defend this harpy's rabble rousing diva dance when she hasn't suffered anything more than a breach of contract

If that

a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't leave out the why part.

There G.

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: kaylaluv

I never said it would cause them to calm down. Having an indoor venue at a time when less people would be there will allow Berkeley to better manage any issues.

You know what would be really safe? If they let Ann speak while contained within a broom closet, during Spring Break, when no one was on campus. That way no one would get hurt and Ann's right to free speech wouldn't be violated.

Thanks for the hyperbole. Berkeley offered a balance between security and allowing her to speak that was much more accommodating then what you described.

a reply to: geezlouise

You are getting caught up in micro details. The point is, the venue/time that the student group chose was one that Berkeley said was too hard to guarantee everyone's safety. Berkeley offered an alternative that was easier to manage and the student group refused.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Don't leave out the why part.

There G.

The "why" part is they cancelled the event because YAL didn't get their way.

They discovered that they are subject to the published policies of UC Berkeley.

Coulter doesn't have a "right" to appear at Berkeley without the approval of the administration.

200. Regulations Concerning the Use of University Facilities and Services

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.

Ibid.

a reply to: introvert

Conservatives threatened to kill Coulter?

Sources?

a reply to: kaylaluv

So, allow it to happen so it can get prosecuted? Allow innocent people to get hurt or worse, just so we can prosecute? So, if a guy has a gun and he announces that he is going to be at a certain place and a certain time to kill people, we should let him do it so we can prosecute him? We shouldn't try to stop him from doing it in the first place?

Free speech is at stake here. It's one of the foundations of this country, without it the US would be unrecognizable. Its one of the things we claim to send young men over seas to die for.

There is a reason for adopting a policy against negotiating with terrorists. If you negotiate with them, if you pay ransoms and the like, you send a message that terrorism and the like are an effective means of securing their aims. This is a similar situation. You can't allow people to succeed in shutting down these types of events through the threat, or certainly not the actual use of, violence.

Those people that are being rewarded for their threats and violence by having speakers cancelled or even re-located/rescheduled are going to keep testing to see how far they can go.

The truth is, this isn't going to be resolved until "some heads are cracked" The sooner the better, in part because the sooner it happens the less heads will have to be cracked and those heads cracked, less severely.

originally posted by: imwilliam

The truth is, this isn't going to be resolved until "some heads are cracked" The sooner the better, in part because the sooner it happens the less heads will have to be cracked and those heads cracked, less severely.

Governor Ronald Reagan, 1969.

a reply to: Gryphon66

BULLSNIP!

The university sent a message to the campus community Wednesday in the midst of uncertainty over whether, or when, Coulter might come to campus. After the university originally canceled her speech for Thursdayand instead invited her to speak there next week, Coulter had vowed to speak anyway; with the university not offering a venue, campus Republican groups had been discussing her possibly appearing on a public plaza, where security would have been challenging.

www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: imwilliam

Just let it be known that you are the one advocating violence here, not 'ole "lefty" me.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yeah but I would feel a bit stifled tbh if what you're saying is true and I was in that situation.

And the violent threats should not dictate our schedules. That's just accommodating criminal behavior by making the people who are breaking the law a higher priority... and putting the peaceful speaker second. It's definitely offensive on various levels.

Seems like Berkly just didn't want to deal with all the fuss.

a reply to: neo96

200. Regulations Concerning the Use of University Facilities and Services

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.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Oh. So Berkly didn't originally agree to the first venue?

I considered that.

a reply to: neo96

Also:

Coulter said in an email that the Young America’s Foundation canceled her appearance scheduled for Thursday, ordering her not to go to the Berkeley campus.

From your source.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Because they didn't want her to get hurt because of ### on campus.

Geezus.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Just let it be known that you are the one advocating violence here, not 'ole "lefty" me.

As I've already said, I think there are many occasions when violence is the appropriate response. I can sympathize, even admire, an individual who refuses to engage in violence as a matter of principle. However, the notion that a society, particularly one as large and diverse as the US, can function without engaging in violence or at least the threat of it, is just naive, and a dangerous naiveté at that.

So the tolerant left has threatened violence to stop someone they disagree with from speaking. That's like feminist complaining about how awful men are, but trying to force a man to rap so they can scam him out of money from a record deal.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The "why" part is they cancelled the event because YAL didn't get their way.

Could you enlighten me on what your acronym means? It seems to be a VERY disparaging term against Latinas, but I don't think that's what you mean?

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Gryphon66

The "why" part is they cancelled the event because YAL didn't get their way.

Could you enlighten me on what your acronym means? It seems to be a VERY disparaging term against Latinas, but I don't think that's what you mean?

Young Americans for Liberty was the group that initially invited Coulter to speak (in tandem with the College Republicans.)