Is Bernie Sanders correct about the planned Ann Coulter speech at UC Berkeley?
Asked by
DominicY (
5662
)
April 24th, 2017
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
85 Answers
He is. You defeat bad ideas with good ideas, not threats of violence.
I would let her speak, but I wouldn’t restrict people from booing when she spews what she is full of.
I think she should be allowed to speak. I do draw lines when it comes to free speech, but my line isn’t drawn in regards to Ann Coulter. She is a right wing voice always willing to debate. She gives a clue into how right wing people think and feel. I think it’s good for people with differing views to listen to what she says.
I’ve said this many times. Give a fool a chance to speak so they can prove you right.
“The Berkeley College Republicans and the Young America’s Foundation have sued UC Berkeley for cancelling Ann Coulter’s planned speech at the campus due to fear of violence.”
This decision, if uncontested, rewards extremism.
Brian Ghilliotti
Yes he is right. I can’t think of anything more anti-intellectual than not allowing someone with different viewpoints to speak. Downright facist if you asked me.
I don’t agree with him in this instance. It is a safety concern. There are plenty of other mediums for her to speak her views.
I support free speech too. But free speech shouldn’t mean you can go wherever you want. Like I said there are other venues she can speak. She can even do a YouStream if she wanted to, a live Facebook or Twitter talk. At least that way she can say what she wants, while ensuring safety of others.
Yes, Bernie is right. My son, who is a poli-sci major at Cal, agrees with him as do most of the students.
The Cal administration needs to rethink how it addresses events that draw out the anarchist crowd. Instead, they let the anarchists win.
Free speech is just that. The line is drawn at direct threats. Even so called hate speech is covered under the constitution. The fact that simply allowing Anne coulter to speak could cause violence underlines just how dangerous and wrong setting up one sided “safe space” type environments can be. People don’t even know how to react to opposing viewpoints anymore without acting like infantile little babies.
Yes, 100% correct. Berkeley used to be (1960s,1970s) a bastion of free speech and radical thought.
Now, it’s a pisspot of political correctness.
UC-Berkeley should be ashamed of itself.
One viewpoint to remember in condemning Cal is that in 1964 the Free Speech Movement was student-driven, and the Administration was opposed to it.
Once again, students (even though they are Republicans) schedule a provocative speaker, but the Administration has reacted “in the name of safety.”
It might have been a much different response from the students if it weren’t scheduled for this week. Next week is dead week, and the week after is finals. Students are studying and working on papers this week.
Yes. Freedom of speech. I despise the woman’s views and would not attend, but I recognize the right of those who choose to do so.
That said, it occurs to me that if I lived close enough to Berkeley to hear her speak I might attend despite my liberal views, for how can I truly have trust in what I believe if I always stay in the bubble of my beliefs?
Berkeley has had two riots in the last few months.
If the far left and the far right would behave like adults then it would be fine. But they don’t.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. Oliver Wendell Holmes said the right to free speech does not mean one can shout fire in a crowded theater which this sounds like it could be. Also, the right to free speech does not mean that any institution has to allow anyone at all to speak in that institution. The venue does not have an obligation to enable incendiary talk. I don’t think a university has an obligation to allow a Neo-Nazi or white supremacist to speak. Having said that, I do think that reasoned intellectual debate would have been the better way to counter Coulter – but the “counter culture” wouldn’t have done that.
Mixed feelings here.
Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of said speech. You can yell fire but you may be held liable for the outcome. Any respectable institution of learning will provide alternative perspectives. This rioting is a symptom of the snowflake culture that has its flames stoked by a lack of regular access to those other viewpoints. Berkley is doing higher learning a great disservice.
Response moderated (Spam)
Not only is Sanders correct from an ethical point of view, he is right from a strategic point of view. The progressives have to show themselves to be the adults in the room. The other side has nothing substantive to say. Sooner or later it will become apparent that we are right. It is just a matter of time. One great idea I saw being circulated was that once the Democrats gain control of the Senate, they should reinstate the 60 vote filibuster rule. That would definitely show who the proponents of democracy are.
Except for her views on the LGBT community, I don’t know what you could possibly consider “hate speech.”
As for the “rioting” it was all the Left— setting fires and destroying buildings. You should not need the Secret Service and Riot Gear to speak anywhere in America—especially where invited.
When people are only indoctrinated with hate and libel from birth, it stands to reason that they, like various Islamic sects, might find the need to firebomb buildings when someone you believe has an opposing view speaks. That is precisely why the poor and overprotected students at Berkley SHOULD hear another point of view at least in the university.
Ann Coulter has twelve books on the New York Times best seller list and has always advocated for Free Speech and the free exchange of ideas. The Left once did in this nation as well. The right has, at least in the past eighteen or so years I’ve been tuned into them, gained ground by the free exchange of information and ideas. That is why the Left resorts to threats, intimidation, fires, boycotts, and violence.
@Yellowdog No, that is not correct. In the last conflict the right wing Trump supporters came and induced violence with left wing supporters.
I didn’t see any right wing supporters at Berkley if you are referring to when the Brietbart guy spoke—just extremely violent protesters in hoods and masks torching buildings, breaking glass.
No, the right does not protest or boycott when someone on the political left speaks. There were some book burnings in Tennessee in the 1980s but that was 35 years ago,
Lostinparadise— you said “The progressives have to show themselves to be the adults in the room. The other side has nothing substantive to say Sooner or later it will become apparent that we are right. It is just a matter of time.’
Are you sure about this? If you have to boycott advertisers or burn buildings then maybe you want opposing views censored for a reason. Censorship usually means you want the other side suppressed or or eliminated.
You also said, “One great idea I saw being circulated was that once the Democrats gain control of the Senate, they should reinstate the 60 vote filibuster rule. That would definitely show who the proponents of democracy are” But you forget that the Democrats are the ones who first opposed the filibuster rule. .
Yep. She should be allowed to speak and then let her deal with the consequences. Silencing people you don’t agree with is just the same as someone trying to silence you. How would you feel about that?
I have read the OP and the thread. Like @janbb, I’m of 2 minds.
Her right to free speech does not guarantee her the right to speak freely from every venue. A given venue does not have to grant its podium to every single speaker.
She is not being denied her right of free speech. She is only being denied the ability to practice that right from a podium at UC Berkley.
@Yellowdog
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/15/us/berkeley-protests-trump/
However, I will grant that the left wing protestors are more vocal and violent than the right wing protesters in Berkeley. But they’re not University students. There is an anarchist organization in Oakland who turns out for these protests and travel wherever in the area.
I’m of two minds, too… As @Rarebear mentions, the riots are spurred by anarchists in the area, not students at Cal… (In fact, as the NY Time article mentions, Coulter was invited by student groups from the University.)
To not have speakers like Coulter at the University seems to let the anarchists “win”... And it’s a shame that these people are disrupting political dialogue, especially for college-age adults finding their footing in the world, especially in a national climate where political dialogue is in need of repair.
At the same time, recent events have shown that having speakers like Coulter winds up being a security risk for the University and the nearby area, as well as expensive after-the-fact clean up (the anarchists caused a pricey bit of damage when Yiannopoulos was going to speak)... And I’m not sure how much control the University can have over the current political climate, or over who decides to arrive on or nearby campus to cause violence…
Although the larger national issue is a partisan one, it seems that the issue for Cal administration is whether to put students and locals at potential risk in the interest of hosting voices who happen to be followed by partisan controversy, or whether to deny those voices an on-campus stage in the interest of [easier?] local security…
I am in complete agreement with Sanders that shutting Coulter down with booing (or riots) instead of engaging in dialogue is a sign of intellectual weakness. However, I’m not sure that it’s fair to pin that weakness of the University or its students—I would think the “intellectual weakness” belongs to the idiots causing the riots that are causing the problems.
I can understand why the University is making the choice it is making. I also feel that the whole situation is a shame. I like to think there’s a way that the administration and the interested student groups can work together to figure out a venue that would work (similar to what Ellison is quoted suggesting in the HP article).
What @Soubresaut said. Exactly. Bernie doesn’t need to clean up the broken windows or treat the injuries of the wounded after those fuckers come and wreak havoc.
Robert Reich, however also expressed dismay at the University (which, incidentally reversed the decision and is allowing her to speak, just when school is not in session). However, he also does not have to treat the injured or clean up the mess.
As I’ve said before – you have an absolute right to free speech, you have a right to say whatever you wish. But nobody is obligated to provide you with a platform to say it. If the people of Berkeley don’t want her there then oh well. She’s not exactly lacking in platforms to air her views from.
I think there should be limits on free speech. That said, I don’t think Ann Coulter’s speech necessarily would have constituted hate speech, and I don’t think that one can punish her for what she might have said.
But Berkeley was right to cancel the speech, given the recent violence on campus. It would be stupid and reckless to allow the speech when they can predict with 100% certainty that students would be hurt. Ann Coulter has loads of other platforms from which she can express her point of view, and she is not at risk of being arrested for what she says. Her right to free speech is not infringed.
In the meantime, Berkeley needs to address the way its students express outrage at ideas, even if that outrage is justified. The violence is not acceptable.
@dappled_leaves It isn’t students who are “expressing outrage,” it is outside anarchists.
The University could prohibit non-students from campus during the speech.
Yes, please ban Coulter. So next time the paid agitators, anarchists, radical left, and other assorted thugs can act like stupid gorillas and intimidate other speakers that some other group doesn’t want to hear.
The best way to promote safety is to go after the misbehaving hyenas !!!! instead of purposefully doing next to $&@(ing nothing, and let the hyenas get out of control on purpose !!!, because you (the administration) doesn’t like the speaker.
Shucks, gotta go to exams after all!
Brian Ghilliotti
@zenvelo As you know, Berkeley is a campus it’s pretty hard to wall off.
@janbb Have her speak in a big lecture hall and check student IDs. Not hard.
@ARE_you_kidding_me The fighting will go on outside if there’s going to be fighting. I know the campus.
@janbb is correct. There will be huge protests on Sproul plaza that will spill out to Telegraph and probably Shattuck or Oxford avenues. There will be flash alerts on twitter that will bring the anarchist groups out of Oakland to spur on the protesters.
Once we start deciding who should be given free speech and who should not we have already lost it. Everyone has the right to free speech and no one has the right to use violence.
@zenvelo Ok, then no discussion with the students about appropriate responses to visitors they don’t like. It doesn’t fundamentally change my answer.
But I’m never sure about immediately accepting “It was all just the Black Bloc” claims. Maybe it’s not such a bad idea to warn students that this is a risk, and work on ways to defuse and prevent escalation of these situations in crowds.
@Rarebear is right. Everyone has the internet now and a zillion TV channels. It’s not like it was back in the 70’s where speakers showed up to discuss things and it was NEW information and the only space to openly discuss new ideas. It’s not NOT happening now because speakers are uninvited to Universities. People still express their ideas and people discuss them on the internet. If the University doesn’t want the destruction of property that now seems to easily accompany visits by controversial characters, students can still form groups to listen to what any particular person has to say. Never before in the history of people have we had access to other people’s thoughts on every subject. Nobody has to show up in person. I encourage people to talk.. they have a right to, but they don’t have a right to any and every venue they want. They don’t need it now, anyway. Not with You Tube and Vlogs and Twitter. We find out more about people’s inner thoughts now than we ever imagined. No one shuts up anymore. People think that they are so interesting that other people want to read their thoughts on Twitter, or look at their lunch on Instagram. If only they and their ‘subscribers’ knew that very few people on the planet are that interesting. ‘Pundits’ started this when TV channels exploded with 24/7 news. Now we are encouraged to read what our hairdresser is writing on Twitter and Instagram. No. Not interested.
So, Ann Coulter and their ilk can say what ever they want. Free Speech. Nobody said anything about free access to any venue.
Put those anarchists in jail for as long as the law permits, and have all the news outlets report on how they are sitting in jail. Jesus, are we going to let this sort of dangerous disobedience and violence control free speech? Coulter is not Hitler.
I’ve seen Coulter on many left leaning shows over the years, and too often they don’t let her complete sentences. It drives me crazy. She has a point of view, she sometimes backs her views with statistics, which of course are manipulated statistics, but often statistics presented by the left are manipulated too, but I’m interested anyway. I want to know what people like her are thinking and saying to each other. I want to know so I can understand and fight it, and I want to know, because where I agree I can find common ground.
I don’t think I would bother to see her give a speech, but her speech isn’t worse than watching right wing politicians who are given air time or some of the radio hacks that fill the air waves.
Saying she can freely speak, just not at Berkeley, reminds me of phrases like you can get health insurance, you just have to pay for it. Everyone is allowed to buy it, if you have the money.
Or, you can buy birth control, your insurance company does stop you, they just don’t pay for it.
You can get an abortion you just have to go to another state.
Gay people can get married, they can marry someone from the other gender just like straight people can.
@JLeslie Access to the internet is free. Your comparisons are very flawed. She is expressing her opinion. If it is worthwhile,.. well, that’s up to each individual to decide, isn’t it? There is not a right to demand a crowd or audience. She has no right to expect a free venue any more than I do. (Those other examples are truly offensive, actually, to compare them to this situation.)
@cazzie Access to the internet is free? Only if you go to the library.
Is she getting the venue for free? Are they paying her? I don’t know the answers to that, maybe that was in the articles. Free is better than the several thousand my university paid to Farrakhan when I was a student. That annoyed me. Paying these speakers at universities has always bothered me.
Sorry you find my analogies offensive, but that’s a matter of perception. I’d be pretty sure people who agree with Coulter see blocking her free speech as important as paying for birth control under an insurance plan. Birth control per year is probably less expensive than a computer or a smartphone per year to access the internet, or in the same ballpark. Forget if you live in a place where there are no Paneras, Starbuck’s or McDonald’s with free internet and you have to pay for it at your house. That’s another $50 a month.
Free speech is pretty important in America, people take it very seriously as you know. She is not exciting riots, she is not purposely motivating groups to go hurt others. Not in any overt way. You might say her policies do hurt some people, but I don’t believe that’s her intention.
I’m pretty sure she would have been paid. I still don’t think they should cancel, even if it may start a riot. We let punks shut things like this down and we loose any chance to have civil debates in the future. This is a grave mistake. Universities have an obligation to proliferate the free exchange of ideas, even disagreeable ones so that our future leaders and citizens understand the world properly. Guess that’s already fucked up though isn’t it.
@JLeslie
Nobody is impeding her right to free speech.
@ARE_you_kidding_me Agreed. I understand why Berkeley wants to avoid violence, but that is, in some sense, just “giving in” to it. And you can’t. And maybe the police can do more than sit around and let the violence happen, like they did with the latest clash. If you know it’s going to happen, you can step it up.
Thanks for all your answers, everyone. To respond to a specific point, though:
While freedom of speech does not guarantee the right to speak at every venue, I believe that Berkeley, as a university, has an obligation to be a venue for the free exchange of ideas, even ones that are distasteful. So while there may not be a legal case against them, I believe for image’s sake, they should allow Coulter to speak (with or without a threat of violence).
The local news last night briefly went over the situation and added a development: They reported that the student groups and Coulter both plan on Coulter speaking Thursday no matter what, and the university police are now hurrying to get security plans in place.
So I guess we’ll see what happens tomorrow!
I hope that they police are able to catch anyone that tries to cause problems and shut down the whole riot nonsense. Even more than that, I want to think that the university is being overly cautious about concerns over student/locals/property damage, and the whole issue will prove to be overblown.
They also mentioned a detail I had managed to overlook when I was responding, although it’s mentioned in both articles @DominicY linked… Not sure if it changes the substance of the issue, but I thought it was worth mentioning at least for myself… The University had offered a later date when they could have a venue that would be more secure (I don’t remember if it was about venue availability or having time to organize the university police). Of course, the later date is at an awkward time for Cal students (dead week, per @zenvelo‘s schedule!) which I guess would make attendance lower? That seems to be the assumption by everyone (I’ve never had a dead week in school, only heard about them from others…)—consequently, the student groups organizing the event don’t feel that it’s a fair rescheduling option… so, not quite the same as shutting down or cancelling the speech—but maybe, given expected student turnout, arguably analogous.
(@Rarebear mentioned something about the university reversing its decision and rescheduling… so was their initial response a cancellation, and then they countered with a different date?)
@DominicY “I believe that Berkeley, as a university, has an obligation to be a venue for the free exchange of ideas, even ones that are distasteful.”
I agree. However, that does not obligate them to allow any particular speaker a platform. Moreover these kinds of engagements aren’t even necessarily a kind of free exchange of ideas like we might think of in a debate. The person shows up, says their spiel for awhile, usually it’s a promotional thing for their product/brand (oh look, Ann Coulter has a new book out), and get paid a handsome sum to do so. The people who show up get to listen and not much else.
It looks like Coulter cancelled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html
I am no fan of Dirks, but I like what he wrote here. (In case anybody has any doubt of my love for the University of California, you just need to look at my avatar)
“Sadly and unfortunately, concern for student safety seems to be in short supply in certain quarters,” he said. “This is a university, not a battlefield.” He added, “We must make every effort to hold events at a time and location that maximizes the chances that First Amendment rights can be successfully exercised and that community members can be protected.”
^^^ So she demands that the university accommodate her, but refuses to meet them half-way, takes her ball and goes home when she doesn’t get everything she might have wanted, then blames everyone but herself for her decision? Lovely.
(Though not at all surprising.)
I see she just cancelled her visit because of security concerns. Big mouth, no guts.
Remember, no matter what—it’s Ann Coulter’s fault.
@Yellowdog Well, it kind of at this point since she’s the one who cancelled.
@janbb To be fair, she was kind of forced to cancel as the two Republican clubs on campus pulled out their support for the lecture. Nobody was willing to host her.
@Rarebear Didn’t know that. In that case, nobody was willing to give her a platform at this point. Again, mixed feelings.
Actually, Ann Coulter didn’t cancel.
There has been quite a bit of bullying, harassment and intimidation of the student organizations who invited her,
For those of you who don’t know, Ann Coulter is a very entertaining speaker. I know she is against gay marriage which many liberals consider a hate crime. But the reason she is hated is because she supports Donald Trump.
I think everyone needs to quit being phony here and admit that Berkley is a very intolerant crows and definitely NOT for free speech, and will use or allow what would probably be considered terror tactics to anyone whom they disagree with or even BELIEVE they disagree with. Free Speech is NOT alive and well at U.C. Berkley. admit it.
@Yellowdog Actually, she did cancel.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/us/ann-coulter-berkeley-speech.html
Coulter pulled out because she lost the backing of the Young America’s Foundation, which withdrew their support of Coulter because they “will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students”. The whole thing is pathetic that people are threatening violence and giving into threats of violence. But she did cancel and it was because she had lost support of the group that invited her.
I think I’d trust the words of Coulter herself rather than the New York Times.
There were several LAWSUITS forbidding her to speak and several allowing it—this went around, in her own words, like a game of musical chairs where every time the music stopped, the final word was “no, you CANNOT speak.”
The final decision was by a faculty organization who cited that the Student Republican group failed to secure a Judge’s order allowing her to speak. Besides that, there were many threats of violence against the Republican student group themselves as well as threats of violence against the students and property.
Here is what she said in a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity:
Coulter, YAF—which had helped organize and finance the event—and the Berkeley College Republicans initially fought the school’s decision, with YAF and the college Republicans filing a civil rights lawsuit on Monday. But by Wednesday YAF had “actively” opposed Coulter’s speech, she said, and “ordered the lawyer not [to] file for [a] court order” which would have mandated a room for the talk. The college Republicans are bound by YAF’s decision, Coulter said, “so there’s nothing more I can do.”
In a series of tweets, Coulter said she was “so sorry for free speech crushed by thugs.”
“It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech,” she tweeted.
Ann Coulter is full of shit.
It’s not a fucking free speech issue.
If she was jailed or fined for what she said on twitter or when she is interviewed by the dozens of agencies that talk to her for some reason. .. that would be a freedom of speech issue.
“Ann Coulter is full of shit ” (Cazzie) — that’s a pretty typical counterarguement to Ann Coulter.
It’s not a fucking free speech issue. (Darth Adar)
If she was jailed or fined for what she said on twitter or when she is interviewed by the dozens of agencies that talk to her for some reason. .. that would be a freedom of speech issue. (Cazzie) (Actually that’s a typical national security issue or maybe a much-needed response to cyberbullying)
Well, how about plain ole censorship? Needing a JUDGE’S ORDER to be allowed to speak? Needing riot gear while students and nearby imported anarchists burn buildings and smash windows with bicycle racks and concrete blocks while security does nothing?
Threatening conservative groups and campus republicans with failing grades if they support Ann Coulter—a speaker whose humor is exposing the hypocrisy of well-known national events and policies?
If Ann Coulter was denouncing the destruction of Israel, homosexuals, and calling Jews “Apes and Pigs” like various Muslim groups and Holocaust deniers at Berkeley have— then I’d understand how Ann Coulter could be a threat. UC Berkeley and many colleges have also had groups denouncing the death of law enforcement and anti-Christian speakers are also welcome on college campuses even if their rhetoric is nothing more than name calling and enticing insults and vulgarities. Ann Coulter is a much easier target for obvious reasons, and hated because she exposes a lot of hypocrisy done by the left (e.g. blaming republicans for being greedy—and charging half a million dollars for the 30-minute speech) . But her “official” crime is supporting Donald Trump.
Ann Coulter is allowed to say what she wants, but the school is not obligated to provide her a forum. There is no freedom of speech issue involved. Having published several books, she is not having difficulty getting her message across.
You are on shaky grounds when you talk about anti-Semitic remarks. Trump is supported by a number of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial groups. We can argue about whether Trump does anything to encourage them, but the fact remains that the number of acts of anti-Semitism took an abrupt upward turn since he took office. Trump’s refusal to mention the Jews on the U.S. Holocaust remembrance day is inexcusable. His later remarks were too little too late.
@Yellowdog No one is accusing her of a crime. It know it’s hard for folks with big egos to face rejection, but, she handled it very poorly. Instead of addressing the REAL issue, she blamed the University, which is between a rock and a hard place. She should be asking herself, ‘Why do people hate me so much?’ and ‘Why or how is my presence a threat to the school?’ but her ego won’t allow that. In fact, her ego, reputation and ‘google spot’ feeds on the inflammatory bullshit she pouts and she knows it. It’s how Trump got elected. I bet she is checking her social media ratings constantly and how many likes and followers and ratings she gets. She’s not invested in her message. She’s invested in her self-serving narcissistic, tail-eating career.
An institution such as Berkeley that does not want to host a speaker that nobody likes or is interested in is not violating free speech, they are exercising their right to choose.
Freedom of choice is just as viable as freedom of speech and everyone is free to determine what and who they wish to listen to.
“Threatening conservative groups and campus republicans with failing grades if they support Ann Coulter—a speaker whose humor is exposing the hypocrisy of well-known national events and policies?”
Source of this accusation?
@Yellowdog “If Ann Coulter was denouncing the destruction of Israel, homosexuals, and calling Jews “Apes and Pigs” like various Muslim groups and Holocaust deniers at Berkeley have…
But Coulter does call for the destruction of sovereign nations, minorities, and other religions, denies genocide, promotes disenfranchisement for certain group, and denigrates critics as thugs and snowflakes, all while not tolerating criticism of her own beliefs.
And no, it is not done with what you perceive as humor. And she would be the first to say you have no right to any assistance from the government despite your disability.
Meanwhile, I reiterate that it was not the students at Cal that were so opposed to her speaking. It was the Administration concerned about non-student anarchists. And she was unwilling to work with the Administration, because of her preciousness.
^ Yep, the women should be first lady, the perfect match for Trump. Double down. lol
Loving in a really throwing up bile way of @Coloma‘s mention,... but No….. LOOK at all the media attention she is getting? Does that LOOK like she is being stifled? HELLO!!!
@Rarebear they were at Sproupl Plaza at noon, my son sent me video he took as he walked home for lunch, said the cops were out in force.
I’m glad everyone seems to agree on free speech. What about lawlessness then? Lawlessness at marches? Lawlessness at rallies?
@Darth_Algar I’m not really debating whether it is a free speech issue. I was just saying that protesting against Ann Coulter speaking at a university seems over the top to me. She just isn’t that bad that her speech needs to be shut down. She is typically conversational, and willing to debate an issue. She represents a part of America that needs to be listened to, and really needs to be debated, because I think some of what they think is flat wrong.
@ALL I don’t blame Ann for cancelling, if that’s what happened. Her main schtick is selling her books. She’s no Martin Luther King willing to risk her life for an issue.
She wasn’t really a Trump supporter early on, she just said very early on she believed he had a great chance of winning.
@JLeslie
You mentioned “free speech” several times, as if her 1st Amendment rights are somehow being violated.
As for protests: guess what – that’s covered under the first amendment as well. Protest, for that matter, is the most fundamentally American thing one can do. This nation was founded upon protest.
Violence, threats of violence, firebombing and arson, and smashing glass with barricades is not protected free speech.
@Darth_Algar I’m just fine with protesting. I’m not ok with lighting things on fire, harming people, or threatening people.
@cazzie I skimmed over your link, and I’m more troubled by what Coulter said about immigration into the US than what she said about Jews and Israel.
@JLeslie
Ok. That’s not really what you said, but ok.
This link shows us how the Coulter-Berkley controversy is being applied to other parts of the country. I have always maintained that letting Berkley prohibit Coulter from speaking, because some other group does not like what she has to say and is threatening public disorder, is essentially rewarding extremism everywhere. This is just a variation on the same methods used by the KKK, just a different implementation. This link now shows us that this pattern is spreading.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn8eu5nYUv4&app=desktop
I hope some white supremacy group bans some future African-American heritage parade because it features representation a neo Black Panther group, who ‘could’ pose a threat to public safety by inspiring public disorder -not because I support white supremacy, but because this is the path undermining the First Amendment that America seems to be choosing.
ICE T once said:
We only got one right left in the world today
Let me have it or throw The Constitution away
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/icet/freedomofspeech.html (contains language)
By the way, the disparaging remarks about leftism made at the end of the Youtube clip do not necessarily reflect all my viewpoints.
Brian Ghilliotti
“Letting Berkeley…” implies that the university does not have the right to manage and control its own property.
@Brian_Ghilliotti It’s “Berkeley”, not “Berkley”. I stopped reading your post at that misspelling because as a Cal grad it bugs me.
@Darth_Algar I think the problem was I mashed together the stereotype of the “anarchists” doing dangerous acts, and words that imply there is a safety threat, and I was just thinking in terms of that when I said put the anarchists in jail. I don’t consider the average protestor to be an anarchist. The right to protest is important to me, and part of what America is. I do draw lines regarding protesting, but overall I support the right to protest. I think part of the misunderstanding is simply in the definitions and connotations of the words.
Answer this question 
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.
Composing members:
0
