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: 76
86
<< 73  74  75    77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I may have come to the party late when it comes to respecting and understanding the value of free speech.

It's a pity when just as I'm realizing it's importance, it is dissolving before my eyes.




posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I have to say this.

The only people that have problems with free speech take American politics too damn seriously.

Since it's all a con to begin with.

The entire aim of practical politics is two sides trying to convince a majority that one side is better than the other.

It's the false choice fallacy.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Shut down the Dixie Chicks. Shut down Anne Coulter. Shut down...? Who's next on the list to be shut down because of the crime of saying something you (the royal you, many of you...) disagree with? Who's next to get veiled, or not so veiled, threats of harm if you dare show up?

The Dixie Chicks were boycotted and humiliated publicly. Same for Coulter. That's not a free speech issue - it just feels like one. What we're all really mad about is the fact that other people want certain people to shut up, and it's hypocritical when we're only mad when it happens to people we support. I'm guilty of that myself. Wanting some people to shut up about wanting other people to shut up is all the same thing. It might be anti-intellectual and beneath us - but it's not denying anyone their rights

I see the violent protestors as being separate form the regular run of the mill protestors. They're not the government, so it's not a first amendment issue. They're like a hurricane - and so they shut the whole thing down. Berkley can't control them any more than the cops can

However it comes out later on (with actual timelines and facts - and signed or unsigned contracts) we'll see then whether or not Berkeley really did renege on a deal - on purpose to deny her a place to speak. But even then - I don't see it as Berkeley denying her her rights. They're not in charge of her rights, and she was as free to speak then as she is now

If she was arrested by the government for her opinion that would be different

I think it's kind of hilarious how all of this is to make it look like the left is for censorship, when essentially the left just hates Ann Coulter and they don't think Berkley should let her speak. Is that censorship - or is that an opinion?

:-)

Anyhow - they're still free to say so as long as they're peaceful an obey the law. Even if they sound like idiots

edit on 4/29/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Shutting Coulter down?

Opinion, if you want to shut her down, but allow her to speak, anyway. It's also free speech. Sweetness, all round.

Censorship, if you want to, and make threats that there is no reason to believe won't be carried out. That's censorship, and not sweetness, at all.

You and I disagree on many, many things. None of which are horribly important at the end of the day...but, irregardless, we disagree with great enthusiasm on both our parts. Yet at the end of the day? I'd no sooner prevent you from voicing those opinions than I would the Cowboys with whom I agree much more often...

Why, you may ask? ((go ahead, you know you want to...)) Because I might actually be wrong, and you right...how am I to know this, if you're not allowed to express those thoughts?

That's what all of us, in our righteous fury, need to remember. No one is ever right, or wrong, I suppose, all the time.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

See? I agree with you :-)

Lately I think we're all on opinion overload anyway. The internet equals: too much saying

Wanting people to just shut up I think is a very normal response to a not so normal situation

None of it matters. Protest, get angry, write your congressman, troll your neighbor... I have a problem with this only when someone tries to use a universal human reaction to vilify a specific group. Seems we're maybe lacking the ability to be objective lately, and it's only going to get worse if we don't start calling it what it is
edit on 4/29/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Xtrozero

To make them look bad.
There are rumors that they are actually from the right but then they're just rumors. It's just like in 60's where there are paid rioters designed to divide us.


What was done was a typical Berkeley stunt, so I do not see how it makes them look bad if it was faked. We are talking San Fran area too, extreme left and aggressive pretty much all the time lol.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Shutting Coulter down?

Because I might actually be wrong, and you right...how am I to know this, if you're not allowed to express those thoughts?


But, but Coulter is 100% wrong so they are justified, just ask them....



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Berkeley students who were interviewed said that they support her right to speak at Berkeley.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

That is a good thing...

Also lends some strength to the argument that the Morons making the threats are a minority. Which should have been obvious from the start.

No one says you have to agree.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull


Something that Antifa group doesn't understand.



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: User1138
a reply to: Deaf Alien

2nd ammendment only allows for Small arms which are nothing compared to what the military has, thing is most of them are conservative countrymen and would not likely slaughter an uprising of their own Americans. But the elite and the deep state would buy an army of PMC's that would be a good hard complicated fight. basically a fantasy to think all of this would play out in our favor since fence sitters do not organize.


Actually no the second does not limit to small arms. it says ARMS not small arms. it means arms in general.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis


At least make a fair comparison if you want to compare what's happening at these universities with your experiences, say, on ATS:

You are in your favourite section of ATS, about to type your opening post, after spending 1 hour you are finally ready to press POST, and then suddenly the button greys out and you get a popup message saying:

ATS Admin: "your opening post is considered hate speech. Your views are not welcome here. We cannot allow you to post this because you provide a platform to voice the views of haters!"
You: I'll call ATS staff: "please help! I cannot post my thread! What are they on about? What is hateful about anything I have said?
ATS staff: "We are a diverse and multicultural community who supports the rights of all people regardless of sex, gender or sexual orientation. We must listen and take carefully complaints our community finds offensive. We can not let you express your opening post unless you remove the hateful content or you redraft a new opening post. Our decision is final and will not change.
You: OK, this is some serious BS! What the hell about my opening post is hateful?

So you go to a different forum and the same thing happens. Then you go to another one. And another. Eventually you have run out of online forums to join because you keep getting denied the opportunity to post.

Finally you have had enough, and go to the government.

Government: "How may I help? What is your issue?
You: "All these forums are preventing me from creating an opening post, calling my views which they haven't even seen as hate speech! How is this possible! Can you help me?
Government: This is not really a government issue so we cannot really help you. It's a decision made by private companies. We cannot do anything other than encourage you to change your views that are considered hate speech.
You: what about the constitution, what about Freedom Of Speech? Can't you at least send these forums a warning not to deny my right to even express my views?
Government: Unfortunately not. You will have to create your own online forum if you cannot abide by the rules of others.
You: And if I do? Will I get denied my freedom of speech then, too?
Government: Will you be the owner of the forum?
You: Obviously...
Government: then yes, you CAN be prevented from—
You: MOTHER******!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The end.

Think about it. The above is exactly what you are arguing in favour of, without any violence involved.


edit on 30/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

What I see (from reading your post) is someone that believes the first amendment guarantees you a venue

It doesn't

You also seem to think being a crybaby to the government about not getting something you wanted is legitimate - but it isn't. Free speech is not about every single American citizen being able to say whatever they want however they want whenever they want wherever they want. That sort of thing is for children - not grown up citizens

If the government (of the United States of America - in this case) prevented you or punished you for what you want to say that would be different

Berkeley is a public school, but I don't actually know that that means it has to allow anyone to speak there that wants to speak. If they're not required to allow everyone the opportunity, you should still feel free to criticize them for choosing to avoid letting individuals they don't like to speak. But, that's not a legal thing, that's just a cultural, philosophical thing. It's fair to argue about it and I think we should

Is that what happened here? Maybe Berkeley did deny Coulter an opportunity to speak. Maybe circumstances made that impossible. Maybe Coulter's backers didn't make proper arrangements

It looks like this is going to court (as I've now mentioned several times). We'll see in the end what's what


edit on 4/30/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
What I see (from reading your post) is someone that believes the first amendment guarantees you a venue
It doesn't

You read it wrong then. No, it was not meant to show freedom of speech guarantees you a venue. If you disagree, point out why. Don't just say NO and move on.


You also seem to think being a crybaby to the government about not getting something you wanted is legitimate - but it isn't. Free speech is not about every single American citizen being able to say whatever they want however they want whenever they want. That sort of thing is for children - not grown up citizens

I can see where this is going...are you sure it is me that doesn't understand the definition of Free Speech? Why don't you define it for me if you think I am wrong.


If the government (of the United States of America - in this case) prevented you or punished you for what you want to say that would be different

I challenge you to demonstrate that your above sentence is true in all cases of freedom of speech. You made the claim, now I am asking you to support that claim.


Berkeley is a public school, but I don't actually know that that means it has to allow anyone to speak there that wants to speak. If they're not required to allow everyone the opportunity, you should still feel free to criticize them for choosing to avoid letting individuals they don't like to speak there. But that's not a legal thing, that's just a cultural thing. It's fair to argue about it and I think we should

if you could only ALSO see what it is you actually arguing...here let me try: your response above indicates you are trying to deflect away from the real issue I raised before, as though what is NOW really important is establishing whether Berkeley is public or private institution when a quick search confirms it is public. Then you want me to consider whether freedom of speech is a "cultural" thing? Really? Think about what I have just typed.


Is that what happened here? Maybe Berkeley did deny Coulter an opportunity to speak. Maybe circumstances made that impossible. Maybe Coulter's backers didn't make proper arrangements

Dammit, I hate to have to do this because I am very much an anti-SJW, but: that sounds awfully similar to "blaming the victim". Seriously, I don't think the most stringent feminist would deny that (especially since Coulter is a woman)



It looks like this is going to court (as I've now mentioned several times). We'll see in the end what's what

It shouldn't need to even go to court, that's the sad thing you do not realise. How can an objective value be applied on subjective terms, based on individual cases where the need to so, is there?

edit on 30/4/2017 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm sorry you can't see that I answered all your questions. I did though

Maybe you should take your case to a mod and complain to them that I'm not taking you as seriously as you want to be taken :-)

I will say this: It should go to court. This is exactly what courts are for. If Ms. Coulter had her rights denied she deserves her day in court. If Berkeley did nothing wrong - we all deserve to know that too

ETA that I will answer this:


...as though what is NOW really important is establishing whether Berkeley is public or private institution when a quick search confirms it is public. Then you want me to consider whether freedom of speech is a "cultural" thing? Really? Think about what I have just typed.


I wasn't trying to establish whether or not it's public. It is - you just didn't read it correctly, or chose to not understand what I'm saying. If Berkeley is public - it might be required to give equal time to all views. But, I don't know if that's true. If they're not required by law to allow everyone the opportunity - you would be right to question them just the same. That part is cultural, and philosophical - and it's something we should all be discussing. Just like we are now


edit on 4/30/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm sorry you can't see that I answered all your questions. I did though

Maybe you should take your case to a mod and complain to them that I'm not taking you as seriously as you want to be taken :-)

I will say this: It should go to court. This is exactly what courts are for. If Ms. Coulter had her rights denied she deserves her day in court. If Berkeley did nothing wrong - we all deserve to know that too

ETA that I will answer this:


...as though what is NOW really important is establishing whether Berkeley is public or private institution when a quick search confirms it is public. Then you want me to consider whether freedom of speech is a "cultural" thing? Really? Think about what I have just typed.


I wasn't trying to establish whether or not it's public. It is - you just didn't read it correctly, or chose to not understand what I'm saying. If Berkeley is public - it might be required to give equal time to all views. But, I don't know if that's true. If they're not required by law to allow everyone the opportunity - you would be right to question them just the same. That part is cultural, and philosophical - and it's something we should all be discussing. Just like we are now



Berkley didnt violate her rights they can decide who can and cant enter the campus.And yes can even retract prior permission. What is happening though is a group of people are threatening violence to alter the national debate. Id say that is incredibly dangerous for any democracy.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


Berkley didnt violate her rights they can decide who can and cant enter the campus.And yes can even retract prior permission.

It's a long and fast moving thread, and a lot of what we all say gets lost along the way. So, now I'm just repeating myself :-)

I agree this isn't on Berkeley. I think Coulter is just a bellyacher and is out of luck with all this. Some folk can cry about free speech as much as they want - they need that stick to club the left. I hope it does go to court so that we can either see her backers drop their case because they know they've got nothing, or - we get to discuss what free speech really means and everyone can then just shut up about it. Ms. Coulter being left with egg on her face would be a nice present

Or, we find that Berkeley was actually obligated to let her speak, and they violated her rights


What is happening though is a group of people are threatening violence to alter the national debate. Id say that is incredibly dangerous for any democracy.

Definitely. This is the real problem for all of us

This is how I see it. the peaceful protestors are within their rights to protest, same as Coulter should be allowed to speak - whether or not we agree with her or them. It's the same thing. Those peaceful protestors are split. Some people just don't like Coulter and want a chance to show up and speak out against her. Fair enough

The others are actually demanding that she not be allowed to speak. I personally think those people are idiots. However, they have the right to be peaceful idiots and have their say

The violent protestors - Antifa and the rest? I'm not sure they give a rat's ass about Coulter. I think they're just there to rumble. I get why, and I can even respect their reasons while I don't respect their methods. In the end, their need to handle things their way is going to create a situation that plays into their enemies hands - and screws everybody


edit on 4/30/2017 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I'm sorry you can't see that I answered all your questions. I did though

Maybe you should take your case to a mod and complain to them that I'm not taking you as seriously as you want to be taken :-)

I will say this: It should go to court. This is exactly what courts are for. If Ms. Coulter had her rights denied she deserves her day in court. If Berkeley did nothing wrong - we all deserve to know that too

ETA that I will answer this:


...as though what is NOW really important is establishing whether Berkeley is public or private institution when a quick search confirms it is public. Then you want me to consider whether freedom of speech is a "cultural" thing? Really? Think about what I have just typed.


I wasn't trying to establish whether or not it's public. It is - you just didn't read it correctly, or chose to not understand what I'm saying. If Berkeley is public - it might be required to give equal time to all views. But, I don't know if that's true. If they're not required by law to allow everyone the opportunity - you would be right to question them just the same. That part is cultural, and philosophical - and it's something we should all be discussing. Just like we are now



Berkley didnt violate her rights they can decide who can and cant enter the campus.And yes can even retract prior permission. What is happening though is a group of people are threatening violence to alter the national debate. Id say that is incredibly dangerous for any democracy.


They censored Ann Coulter. They may not have broken the law but they have surely violated her rights.

As you can see, others in this thread are mistaking the first amendment with the right of free speech.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I asked this before and I'll ask it again.

Hypothetically,

If they postponed her for eternity because of threats of violence,

Did they infringe on her right to speak yet?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 73  74  75    77  78 >>

log in

join