Ann Coulter..freedom of speech not infringed upon.

I have read comment after comment about how Coulter's freedom of speech has been infringed upon. Time and time again people have pointed out it was her who cancelled and she was not forced by our government or people,yet there are those of you who continue to argue about her freedoms being taken and are ignoring the posts where this was pointed out asd false.

She was allowed her freedom speak, but the protestors were also allowed thier freedom to protest.

She made the choice not to speak because of fear of the protestors(which by the way was unfounded as no one threatened her with violence at the protest) or her fear of going to jail(also if you actually believed in what you said...jail time would never stop you from being heard)....ONCE AGAIN..SHE MADE THE CHOICE NOT TO SPEAK.

Stop the ignorance and read up on the facts.

By the way if she had just simply answered the questioned asked by the muslim woman instead of being an ignorant little bimbo..none of this would have happened.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by kerazeesicko]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by kerazeesicko]

reply to post by kerazeesicko


She may have been forced to self-censor to avoid being charged with a hate crime.

That is infringing on her freedom.

You are not free to speak your mind if speaking your mind can result in legal penalties and a confrontation with the state.

Pretty simple.

The Soviet people understood that.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by kerazeesicko

 

She may have been forced to self-censor to avoid being charged with a hate crime.

That is infringing on her freedom.

No. Its not.

If she goes to Canada and can't speak without breaching their laws, then frankly shes either dumb stupid or simply has no respect whatsoever for the law there.

Either way round, its her decision on how she acts, and if she can't moderate herself then I suggest she has psychological and self control issues that she needs to address.

reply to post by neformore


Would you say that people who are forced to self-censor for fear of legal penalties are more or less free than those who do not have to fear such penalization?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by neformore

 

Would you say that people who are forced to self-censor for fear of legal penalties are more or less free than those who do not have to fear such penalization?

The law is not about speech. It is about hate speech. If she cannot say whatever she feels is so important for us to hear without resorting to hate speech then she does not deserve the same level of freedom as others.

That being said, there are all kinds of laws against expression in the US and Canada. If she wanted to simply give a speech, there is no law against that. It is the message and method that come into question. Are you defending the fact that she has nothing but hate speech to offer?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


Who would you say are more free to speak their minds without fear of legal penalization - Americans or Canadians?

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

Who would you say are more free to speak their minds without fear of legal penalization - Americans or Canadians?

So my question was just silly then?

reply to post by K J Gunderson


You intercepted a question which I addressed to neformore....

Then you did your best to not really answer it.

Please, pick one of the two questions (preferably the one addressed to you) and answer that.

Thanks Eh.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by K J Gunderson

 

You intercepted a question which I addressed to neformore....

Then you did your best to not really answer it.

Please, pick one of the two questions (preferably the one addressed to you) and answer that.

Thanks Eh.

I commented on your question. There was no need to answer it if you read my comment. If you do not like other people joining in, a public forum is not the place for you.

I do not understand your logic but I am not going to play games with you. I commented and asked you a question. I am free to comment on a public forum and that has no bearing on the fact that I actually did address your question in my comment and then offered one of my own. I thought it was an easy question but you have now wasted two posts NOT answering it.

Obviously discussion is not something you have much experience with and I just simply expect the same respect from people that they demand from me. I am sorry my question was too hard but I do not get walked past and then bullied into answering to people who cannot answer me first.

reply to post by Exuberant1


Simple answer...we both are free to say what we want. We just don't tolerant ignorance unlike America. So we will use our right to free speech to protest the ignorance of others. If she doesn't like it then maybe she should leave.

We even made a law to stop the spread of ignorance
[edit on 25-3-2010 by kerazeesicko]

[edit on 25-3-2010 by kerazeesicko]

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Simple answer...we both are free to say what we want.

So who would you say are more free to speak their minds without fear of legal penalization - Americans or Canadians?

*You must choose one. If you are unable to pick one, please admit that in your next post.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

So who would you say are more free to speak their minds without fear of legal penalization - Americans or Canadians?

*You must choose one. If you are unable to pick one, please admit that in your next post.

Americans...they allow any old idiot to spread ignorance. I am glad that we have a law to stop morons from spreading idiocy.

reply to post by kerazeesicko



glad you are watching out for us big bro!

half my family lives in canada and alot of my friends are from there.

nice place but what about the people that want to hear her?

she tells it like it is, so what?

you don't have bs meters in canada? give me a break, the provost is an idiot and should not be in charge of an institute of higher learning.



i like ann, i think she is over the top sometimes but that's just her!

In this case, I think that somebody should have just come out and practiced free speech the good old fashioned way and told Ann to shut the f&%k up because saying things that are waaaaaaaaaaaay out there simply to attract attention and sell a few more books is nothing more than intellectual prostitution.

In my opinion, folks such as Ann Coulter trot themselves out into the media every now and then simply for the wowzershazzzzammmalooo factor.

And, in this case, it worked as she's all over the headlines.

Desired effect achieved. End of story.

i don't know, as in the OP, does canada have free speech?

smells like sheeple, lol, think people, like it or not!

i hear all kinds of poop, what i digest is totally up to me.


listen to her! and not what i tell you!

Originally posted by fooks
nice place but what about the people that want to hear her?

Don't they need to take that up with her? No one told her that she could not speak, she bowed out on her own.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by neformore

 

Would you say that people who are forced to self-censor for fear of legal penalties are more or less free than those who do not have to fear such penalization?

I would say that you respect the laws of the country you are in, and any other argument to the contrary is made out of ignorance and arrogance.

What this boils down to is this - and its something that an awful lot of Americans can't seem to grasp;

The USA is part of the world. The USA is NOT the world

You can bang on about your constitutional right to free speech for as long as you like when discussing matters within your own borders because it is relevant there. Outside your borders different rules and customs apply and they should be respected.

If Coulter can't get her point across without falling foul of a countries law, its her problem, not theirs.

ok, given!

but and it's a big butt, i don't think you want to go there, neformore.

@KJ

she was threatened by the government, i guess she was trying to talk
about womens rights in saudi arabia?

death threats and arrest? you #tin me?


way to go. eh?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by fooks]

Originally posted by fooks
ok, given!

but and it's a big butt, i don't think you want to go there, neformore.

@KJ

she was threatened by the government, i guess she was trying to talk
about womens rights in saudi arabia?

death threats and arrest? you #tin me?


way to go. eh?




First off show me where she was threatened by the government?

Secondly, the letter that was sent by the University to her was only to remind her that the laws are a little different. It was a private letter that she leaked to the media and got the response she wanted by spinning it the way she did. She was never told what to say or what she can't say, only a reminder of our laws. Those laws I believe are simillar to the "inciting a riot" type laws in the States whereby your words could lead to violence or hate towards an identifiable group of people. Whats the difference between the KKK holding rallies to talk about how everyone who isn't white being inferior than Ann spouting off about how all muslims should be held in contempt.

I suggest you learn a little bit about the situation and what the laws actually are.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by fooks]

Originally posted by fooks
@KJ

she was threatened by the government, i guess she was trying to talk
about womens rights in saudi arabia?

death threats and arrest? you #tin me?


way to go. eh?

[edit on 25-3-2010 by fooks]

Um...that is not what happened at all. Are you making this up or did you actually hear/read/see this somewhere? Did you try to look into it more and see how accurate this was? You could not be any more off but I will be happy to eat my words with a source.