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: 77
86
<< 74  75  76    78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986




Did they infringe on her right to speak yet?


Nope - because it's not a right to speak at Berkely




posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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?


No Berkley doesnt have to ever allow her to speak there. What you should be asking is it right? no its not if students wish to hear her speak they should be able to invite her. But that is an issue students need to take up with the school since they pay to be there.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien


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


Hey Deaf, have you spent much time around that area? So back to my question what is there to gain if this is the narrative we expect from Berkeley in the first place? We could suggest it was a false flag from Coulter to keep her relevant, but I do not think she needs that, so what would be the reason? It's also not like the right needs to paint the left in a bad light anyway...they been doing just fine with that all on their own all starting about the time Trump hit 270 votes...

So what would be the reason other than the same pattern we have seen from the left since Trump got elected?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is the reason for anything? Why believe the right-wing narrative? What if the Antifa have won and made everyone look bad in our eyes? What was the reason for paid rioters in the 60's? Making both sides look bad is nothing new.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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?


It's the Heckler's veto. Yes, it is a well known infringement of rights. It just happened to Ayan Hirsi Ali in Australia. It happened to Ann Coulter back in 2010-11 in Canada. The organization FIRE has a large database of it.

Every time the university disinvited the speaker, they are incentivizing threats of violence as a means of censorship. Sure it is their right to disinvite a speaker, but if the culture at large does not stand up to this form of censorship, the censors win. And those who pay lip-service to free speech while at the same time agreeing with the university are closet censors.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's interesting that you bring up disinviting.

Another member sent me some info about that very topic.

It appears to be a growing trend. . . .

www.businessinsider.com...

www.thefire.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

And by the looks of it, censorship is winning and will continue to do so.

It's too bad people can't even agree to what free speech is due to partisanship. How are we to move forward if we can't agree on the problem?



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's a huge trend. It is alarming.

And here is their version of free speech in action:




edit on 30-4-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Infringing free speech by using "your" right to free speech contradicts itself.



It's like vegans eating meat to protest eating animals.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's censorship disguised as free speech.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sees like if people decide something is hate speech they decided thats not free speech. Ironically free speech is meant to protect hate speech. Things people agree with doesn't need protection from the masses. You cant claim to be for free speech and decide certain types of speech they decide is hate must not be heard



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Xtrozero

What is the reason for anything? Why believe the right-wing narrative? What if the Antifa have won and made everyone look bad in our eyes? What was the reason for paid rioters in the 60's? Making both sides look bad is nothing new.


On the Portland Antifa website in their FAQ is has this in very large type and bold.


Free speech means protecting everyone’s right to speak, including people you don’t agree with. How would you like it if you had an unpopular opinion and other people were trying to silence you? Isn't that censorship?


It seems they are all about stopping freedom of speech when that speech is not theirs. How they justify it is they just need to "classify" anyone as a fascist and then their FAQ goes this way.


We oppose fascism by any means necessary.​



They say that Coulter threaten their community with violence and so it is self-defense....

There is the problem I have with your view that this is not only a far left movement. I went back 5 years in their articles and I fail to see a single one about anyone on the democratic side. One interesting thing I did noticed is they also hate Holocaust Deniers, and that is strange that they hate Trump, Coulter etc who are extremely supported of the Jews and in preserving the history of the Holocaust.

On a side note it is interesting how many teachers and professors actually support BAMN and Antifa. Even the Mayor of Berkeley supports BAMN.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Sees like if people decide something is hate speech they decided thats not free speech. Ironically free speech is meant to protect hate speech. Things people agree with doesn't need protection from the masses. You cant claim to be for free speech and decide certain types of speech they decide is hate must not be heard


And that's one of the difficult parts about defending free speech. We have to defend the Nazi's civil liberties as we would the under-represented and the marginalized, and for the exact same reasons. Consequently, that's why true free speech advocacy, as opposed to paying it simple lip-service for the sake of public relations, is very rare.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

My view? What are you talking about?
Anyway the point is Berkeley is not against Ann's free speech. The Antifa is making it look that way.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No, we are not, because we have nothing to do with The Berkeley Campus or Berkely.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Yeah. You and other guy has brought it to our attention that not all Antifa groups are that way.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No, we are not, because we have nothing to do with The Berkeley Campus or Berkely.



Wow that made no sense you tell him no than agree with him. Anti FA is just turning everyone against them by acting like that they claim to fight. You cant use Nazi tactics and claim your the good guys we have seen how that turns out.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That is like saying that all Christians are like the people at Westboro Baptist Church.



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Berkeley did nothing wrong. Exactly... Did they kow-tow to threats from actual wrong doers? Yes, yes, they did.

We can argue all day, or several days actually, whether that was the right thing to do... I'm betwixt and between on that. No college wants to see riots on their campus...bad press is almost a guarantee.

Coulter did nothing wrong, save have an opinion(s) that some find objectionable... Nothing.

The group(s) in the wrong are the anti-FA group, or groups, that sent threats that essentially blackmailed the Univ. and student organizations into doing what they wanted.

Last I heard, blackmail is a very bad thing. Not sure why Berkeley is being raked over the coals by so many here...they're victims, too. Coulter is. The organisations that invited her to speak are. We are.

We, you ask? Yes. If one of the local organizations should dare to invite, say, Anne Coulter, to speak--should we expect to receive threats, too? I think we all know the answer to that, deny it though some will. There's no one that isn't a victim here--assuming we all like having the right, and just as importantly, the venue/safety, to speak as we choose.

When that is infringed upon, for whatever reason, we all lose something incredibly valuable...and, by appearances, increasingly rare.

Excuse it, as you will. I won't stop you. She's a freak. He's a degenerate. They're evil. They're Republican/Democrat...the horror. You're incredibly wrong, incredibly short sighted, and will eventually be on the wrong end of it.


"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot
claim to be defenders of minorities."
- Ayn Rand



posted on Apr, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

You sure?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 74  75  76    78 >>

log in

join