We have been discussing the erosion of free speech on our campuses across the country through speech codes and increasingly violent protests. Conservative speakers are now routined denied the opportunity to speak on campuses by university officials who cite security concerns or by mob action preventing events from occurring. The latest example is Ann Coulter whose speech was cancelled at the last minute by the university even though she agreed to additional conditions set by officials. Coulter however pledges to show up to speak regardless of the decision. That could produce a confrontation with the university in its continued failure to protect free speech on its campus.
We have been discussing the rising intolerance and violence on college campuses, particularly against conservative speakers. (Here and here and here and here). Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over mob rule on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
Coulter has a legitimate grievance with Berkeley and, even if they disagree with her conservative views, both professors and students should be defending her right to speak and the right of others to hear her. A college Republican group invited Coulter to speak but university officials declared that her appearance on campus was too dangerous in light of past protests. That is yielding to the heckler’s veto. The university is rewarding the mob by barring any speakers with whom they may disagree.
In this case, Couter reportedly agreed to add conditions to “call their bluff.” The cancellation at this public university raises serious free speech issues. Coulter could however find herself threatened with arrest if the campus police deemed her to be a trespasser in a given area. That would itself be highly problematic given that fact that much of the campus is open to the public.
Berkeley was once the symbol of the fight for free speech. It is now increasingly viewed as the symbol of mob rule. Rather than maintain a free and open forum of ideas, Berkeley officials are cancelling any speakers who will not be tolerated by the most violent elements of its community. It teaches a chilling message to a generation that seems increasingly inclined to embrace censorship and speech regulations. Worse yet, it reaffirms the control of Berkeley by the lowest common element of the mob.
I have observed that people making comments are largely not submitting any photos revealing their true identity. What does this suggest or infer? These people are more than likely the same folks who are perpetrators of the protests and violence as a method of condemning the God given right to assemble as a group and to speak freely without fear of reciprocity from Jurisprudence or persecution as defined by the U.S. Constitution. It must be easier to present an opinion without a face attached to the opinion and following along those lines it is remarkably similar to these violent protesters setting fires wearing protective suits and wearing masks. The word mask is derived from the word masquerade. I believe if you are proud and brave and truly stand for righteousness then you face your fears. All these cowardly folks objecting to opposing views and opinions are merely insecure, cowardly, narrow minded terrorists, anarchists and traitors. I have deliberately avoided the words and phrases domestic, home grown and homeland because they are incorrect by definition. They are uncontrollably wild, therefore not tame, undomesticated. Home grown is not a true description either. Since the students are anything but ‘grown’ unless the word is spelled as ‘GROAN.’ It is unlikely they have been raised at home as much as by being influenced institutionally. Grown suggests a natural path of development, as opposed to truth they are ingrown or underdeveloped or mutant strains.
Schools in years gone by were intended to enrich the avid student by saturating their minds with great amounts of knowledge. A benefit of that was to learn so much more in a shorter period than the time required previously to accumulate vast amounts of knowledge. The source of information was by virtue of groups of great scholars and authors who assembled to form a larger shared library. These scholars were colleagues of one another and by teaching from a larger shared library of knowledge collectively became the institution known as a college. The word ‘college’ was the result of that combined larger library formed by sharing their books with their colleagues. Politics were not an issue although the subject existed.
@Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, April 21, 2017 at 10:56 am
“OK, sooo I have like a Philosophical Question. If it is OK to hit (assault and batter) a fascist, and OK to violently disrupt/suppress the Free Speech rights of a fascist, is it OK to rape a fascist???”
It is OK to rape a fascist only if it done without experiencing any sexual gratification whatsoever from the act, that is, only if it is purely punitive rape, because otherwise it would compromise the purity of the ideological praxis.
Do you have any other violently dumb questions? 🙂
OK, sooo I have like a Philosophical Question. If it is OK to hit (assault and batter) a fascist, and OK to violently disrupt/suppress the Free Speech rights of a fascist, is it OK to rape a fascist??? If somebody, say a Berkeley SJW, raped Ann Coulter because she is a fascist, would that be a chargeable offense??? Would the Berkeley SJWs say that she deserved it??? Would they be expelled? Should they be expelled?
If rape seems too harsh a concept to think about, then how about would it be OK to get a female fascist (like Ann Coulter, who everybody knows is a white nationalist fascist) drunk as Cooter Brown, and then take sexual advantage of her???
This is a serious question, because we are already at the point where physical violence is acceptable to the Left, and I am just curious how far the violence can acceptably go??? Plus, if it is acceptable, then lawyers could maybe start defending young horny college men from rape and sexual assault charges by claiming the chick was a fascist, racist, said the “N” word, or used the term “illegal alien”, etc.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No, violence is never acceptable.
Jill – UCB has a history of charging for security and then telling their security to stand down when conservatives are on the platform. All contracts are a negotiation. She is just asking that the security she is paying for actually do their job and that violent students be expelled. It is not too much to ask for.
When I went to school in the 60s, it was expected that violent students would be both arrested and expelled.
The campus chief of security and the Berkeley chief of police told their officers to stand down when MY was on campus. See Jack Dunphy’s commentary on the matter.
these paid protester b george sorso all should be jailed and charge with in-sighting violence. they all professors included should be sent to Russia where they can be happy and have the kinda bondage they desire for all of America the Great.
Spare me professor Turley, Anita Sarkeesian was denied her Free Speech right at Utah State as much and more than Ann Coulter. Sarkeesian had to leave her domicile in San Francisco over, I kid you not, Video Games.
Thanks to 2nd Amendment extremists Utah State could not even prevent a person from waltzing into the Auditorium packing a freaking AR-15. They could not take the sensible percaution of banning small arms from the University after hundreds of death threats toward Sarkeesian. Death threats BTW that were so vile and so persistent that the FBI admitted to investigating some of them.
So please, spare me the pearl clutching, this is not just a leftie thing. This is a general coarsening of political discussion aided and abetted by verbal bomb-throwers like Coulter. May I remind you she has made major bank by such lovely talking points as: Liberals being traitors, Liberals as a cancer, Liberals as destroyers of the Republic, Liberals as destroyers of Civilization, Liberals as vermin that needed to be cleaned out, and Liberals being un-American, illegitimate and, evil (not necessarily in that order.)
She’s been at this ever since the Clinton Administration BTW. How much patience do you expect the UC or the people of Berkeley to have if all she is going to do is spout bile at them? With all due respect, how long would anyone, yourself included, be willing to put up with a barrage of constant abuse before even a Free Speech absolutist tells the interlocutor that they are only a few words away from a knuckle sandwich.
Speech, even free speech, has it’s consequences. Theory is nice, but reality is something else. After a very long career of insulting UC Berkeley, other “lebertards”,and the city of Berkeley BTW, it’s a huge ask for those same people to have this woman dump on them one more time.
Incivility, much like pornography, is very much something you know when you see it. It’s hard to define via law but when a person is being deliberately rude for fun and profit you know when it happens. Ann Coulter is one of those people being deliberately rude for fun and profit; she therefore gets no pass for the blow-back that occurs.
But I’ll make a deal with you, how about this, when Anita Sarkeesian can go to any University to talk about the simple subject of sexism in video games, without fearing for her life, we can revisit Ann Coulter bringing her medicine show to UC Berkeley.
spincity, You should not be allowed to vote based on your utter lack of knowledge of our Constitution. Are you Canadian?
“when Anita Sarkeesian can go to any University to talk about the simple subject of sexism in video games, without fearing for her life, we can revisit Ann Coulter bringing her medicine show to UC Berkeley.”
Here’s a free speech tip: “revisiting” Ann Coulter is not open for negotiation, regardless of how butt-hurt you are over Anita Sarkeesian.
Is he for real? Who says what hate speech is? Democrats?
https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/855212805506703361
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
https://spectator.org/50709_dr-dean-and-abortion/
Abortion doctors, Yeahhhhhh!
I mentioned this before, but I watched Dean’s speech/ scream live on TV.
Sen. Alan Simpson was one of the network’s commentators, and he said he “Just didn’t undertand Howard Dean’s reaction”
after a major defeat.
“He looked like a prairie dog on speed” was Simpson’s diagnosis.
One of the funniest political lines I’d ever heard.
There’s something wrong with Primal Scream Dean. How about when he suggested Trump might be a cocaine user…
I bet Howard Dean had a little coke problem himself. That would explain the primal scream heard round the world. He’s projecting.
Something’s a bit off with the man. He’s a scion of the east coast non-ethnic protestant patriciate (not a subculture in which personal self-expression is encouraged), spent his entire adult life up to age 55 in Vermont, the sort of place where, as David Brooks put it, the self is small, is married to a woman who wants no public attention (she made one appearance on his behalf, dressed in slacks and tennis shoes; she’s a doctor and was back in Vermont treating patients the whole time). and was himself a small town GP who never held a f/t political office until he was past 40. His major athletic endeavour has been biking. All that suggests a quiet man with a modest circle of good friends and a wife who keeps him from drinking too much. The man you see is an exhibitionist who gives periodic impressions of a raving loon.
Bob,
that is disturbing. Dean must be talking about Turkey’s constitution, or maybe Saudi Arabia??? He’s not talking about ours!
Dean is talking out of his ass. He stopped talking out of his mouth a couple decades ago.
Right…and that tweet is in reference to Ann Coulter’s speech being cancelled by UCB. One has to assume he knows better but he sent out that tweet anyway. Irresponsible Dirtbag.
You bet your ass hate speech is protected. ALL speech is protected. Disagree or agree. Your choice. Debate dispute or debunk. Don’t disrupt. Fascism comes in many colors.
Ann Coulter is no shrinking violet. Good for her….
@Olly, April 20, 2017 at 8:01 pm
“Dirks said police have ‘very specific intelligence regarding threats that could pose a grave danger to the speaker,’ her audience and protesters. He urged Coulter to speak at the later date instead.”
“What!? Are the protesters otherwise booked on May 2nd? Perhaps they’ll be exhausted after their all-night celebration on May Day?
“Dirks is a moron if he believes the protesters give a rats ass about the calendar.”
To be fair, Olly, I think Dirks is talking about having secured a more “protectable” venue for Coulter’s talk on the May 2 date.
Whether or not Dirks’ is a face-saving strategem, if her ego will permit, I think everyone would be well served if she were to take the new offer.
Ken, what day was she scheduled on? If it is May 1st, then rescheduling would be a good idea. May 1st is a traditional day for Anarchists to cause major problems at any protests (against righties or lefties – they hate everyone) and cause severe disruptions, property damage, and injuries to anyone in their way – even if that person, in an attempt to get away, crosses in front of their sight.
@foofoobunny, April 21, 2017 at 2:52 am
“Ken, what day was she scheduled on?”
As I recall, she was originally scheduled to speak on 4/27, but was then rescheduled by UCB for 5/2.
May 2 is in the middle of ‘Dead Week’ at UCB where students are studying for finals.
Turley, you are behind the times. UCB found a suitable venue. Its on.
On a different day. Who is going to pay all her additional fees because of this “reschedule”. How many non-conservatives have had to jump through this many hoops?
I’ve had it with the leftists. Sanjuro has the right idea, as is evident in the following scene where he takes on a confrontational leftist, standing stage left (of course), who insists on limiting the civil liberties of anyone who disagrees with him.
Aah, yes lol. Killing leftists for their speech is of course not limiting anyone’s civil liberties.
Buy a mirror.