Berkeley Reverses Decision On Coulter Speech But Coulter Rejects New Conditions [Updated]

220px-Ann_Coulter_by_Gage_Skidmore_4Seal_of_University_of_California,_Berkeley.svg
The officials at the University of California at Berkeley have had a change of heart and agreed to the planned speech by conservative Ann Coulter.  The decision to cancel the speech was criticized on this blog and in other forums as the latest example of mob rule on our campuses.  The decision is a welcomed change.  However, Coulter has objected to the scheduling change in the speech when no students are likely to be on campus. Coulter has rejected the change and plans to move forward as previously set for the event.

The speech will occur on May 2 and will be  held at an “appropriate, protectable venue.” However, that would fall during “Reading/Review/Recitation Week” after the end of formal classes but before final exams. It is well known that that period is a dead zone for events since few students can attend. Coulter also says that she is not available on May 2nd.

The result is that there is again a risk of a confrontation over trespass with school security. As previously noted, I would have kept the original date and, with any rescheduling, the onus is on the school make the aggrieved parties whole. Those would be Coulter and these Berkeley students who wanted to hear her.

 Berkeley should now make its stand on free speech complete in affirming the right of these Republican students to hear Coulter.  Protesters should be allowed to be heard but not to block access or interpret the speech.  There is a clear line between protesting and obstructing that can and should be maintained.

140 thoughts on “Berkeley Reverses Decision On Coulter Speech But Coulter Rejects New Conditions [Updated]

  1. Victory??? Are you kidding??? That’s like bragging “war is over” in 1943 or something. Ann Coulter has yet to make it through the speech, and if you think the neo-fascist Left at Berkeley is going to let her give a speech without “disrupting” it, then you are a lot more optimistic than I am.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      • Still playing the Bush card?

        Pinkos are the very definition of Bourbonian intellect. They haven’t learned anything or forgotten anything in the past 10 years.

        …Except perhaps for their increased appetite for censorship.

        • One can be very right-wing and still think Bush Jr. was an idiot. Trust me on this one, I am not a “Bush Basher” but IMHO he was wearing his dunce cap the day he bought into all that “weapons of mass destruction” lunacy. About like our current group of war mongers and their silly a$$ “Assad is killing his own people!” dribble. Jesus H. Christ, but what does that even mean??? Abraham Lincoln killed his own people, and even committed what are now called war-crimes. It’s what you do in a civil war. Even the Syrian Rebels are killing their own people. It’s what you do in a civil war.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

            • I prefer “dribble”, because it also conjures up images of drooling knuckle-dragging Liberals. And look, since even you understood what I was talking about, it isn’t like the little word play is over anybody’s else’s head on the website. (Hmmm. Was that a slam???)

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              .

              • Problem is, everything you write is so stupid and poorly-reasoned, it’s impossible to perceive any sort of meaning other than you have a poor grip on the English language. And, I don’t believe this was intentional.

                • Well, if you read everything I write, you would know that I constantly make puns and word plays. Check out my Irish Poems, which always have a word-play as the title, or my old website, The Birther Think Tank, where all the pictures had word-play captions, and a mouse-over hidden pun, to boot.

                  Heck, I even did a new Irish Poem today, on the lying Muslim professor thread. Check it out.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

      • Yep!

        Although to be fair, he did get rid of a whole lot of those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I think we destroyed a couple of hundred thousand cars and trucks, which can never be used again to plant IEDs in, or used to mow down innocent civilians in Europe. 🙂

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

      • See the problem with digging up stuff like this is that every one (everyone) has done stupid stuff. How about Bill Clinton saying to a judge “It depends what the meaning of is is.” Or Barack Obama dressing his line in the sand on Syria using gas, or… this list goes on forever.

    • I reluctsntly agree. The campus still reeks of being a pre-DMZ. Still, let’s hope that crack in the door can lead to an opening. The optimist in me says we may be seeing the early signs of the tide turning. I have no doubt it has something to do eith funding in the face of political factors, too, rather than magnamity, but whatever starts the process. I’m not a fan of Ann, and I personally feel she is misguided, but she is by no means ‘dangerous’, she certainly in no way deserves to be harmed. I’m more concerned for her well-being at the hands of the kids than vice versa.

  2. If you read Ann’s twitter feed, she is busy the week of May 2nd.
    And Berkeley is not holding classes the week of May 2nd. 😎

  3. Victory? This does not represent any sort of “victory”. The reaction of UC Berkeley was to give in. Only after bad publicity shaming them did the university reverse course. No integrity, no principle, no fundamental core belief surrounding free speech was involved.

    Wake up professor. No publicity would have meant no change. I guess it’s appropriate a symbolic birthplace of the free speech movement should also be its graveyard.

  4. What is still missing is accountability for the unconstitutional conduct of rougue officials who have to be guilty of pedophilia before they are ever stopped.

  5. The greatest argument against extremists, whether they be on the left or the right, is to let them speak, uninterruptedly. Only then will their extreme positions be seen for what they are.

    The risk of electing an incompetent and dangerous buffoon to the Presidency has a far less damaging impact on our way of life than curtailing free speech. The only way one can successfully state that Trump is a lying, hypocritical, narcissistic, sack of sh*# is to allow him to illustrate that himself, which he does on a continuing basis.

    This Ann Coulter, allowed to expound her ideas, will connect with her ilk, one way or another, wherever, and whenever. That she does it at Berkeley makes the greatest statement of all, that the strength of the free and rational being is enough to allow her to say whatever it is shy wants to say, without threatening our freedom and societal evolution, progression.

    • I agree if said extremists have any actual power. All you have to do with Ann is turn her off. Sorry, but your argument for victimhood is weak tea. Grow up.

    • Isaac, your point in paragraph #1 is cancelled out by your vitriolic, teenage-ish language in paragraph #2. I have no comment on paragraph #3 because I stopped reading your comment. Please consider dropping the name-calling. Otherwise, you’ll continue to negate your better insights.

  6. They are also making it an afternoon speech, not in the evening when most big speaking events occur and the most students are available to attend.

  7. By making it an afternoon event, most hostile attenders will be easy to spot in their masks. I agree with those that say it is not a victory, the administration has semi-caved. And we have yet to see how security reacts to violent protesters.

  8. Despite many of Eeyore glummery comments in this post, I fundamentally agree with JT.
    Berkeley’s backing down on such an indefensible position — rejecting a legitimate speaker for fear that there will be protests — is a win win for the 1st Amendment and social pushback against political expedience.
    Yes it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, yes we haven’t seen the end of it yet, yes it shows bad form for what should be forums of free speech — but the reversal of that position is (small) step in the right direction and Berkeley being a hub of this attitude, crescendoed with their official rejection of Coulter, makes for a poignant precedent for all universities who are faced with this situation.

  9. Ann’s twitter feed is an interesting read. She says that the headline on Drudge and the New York Times, which is basically the same headline here for this blog, is FAKE NEWS. She asks people to read past the headline.

  10. I think Ann Coulter has a point about the headline being fake news. Changing the date is not a reversal of their decision. In fact, in their original recision, they said she could come at a later date. Nothing has really changed other than them specifying which date they will allow her to come.

    • Soon she will become as irrelevant as her pal Bill O’Reilly. She is gasping for air as younger and more outrageous people like Milo and Richard Spencer claim her space.

  11. “The key to these controversial speeches is to confine audience to students, faculty, and alumni.” It’s a public forum, so why do you suggest the “key” is limiting the audience to only those associated with the University of California? There’s as much a right to peacefully protest as there is to speak, isn’t there? And, if the news is to be believed, Coulter’s the one demanding – ironically – that no protesters be present, which is anathema to the fundamental right of peaceful assembly.

    https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php

    • Steve,

      If she doesn’t want protesters the school should tell her to get lost! She’s no less fascist for demanding that than the students who threaten violence if she were to speak. I should hope, if true, her supporters would tell her in no uncertain terms that they will no longer support her unless she drops this demand.

      Each side must hold their own side to account according to our Constitution.

    • Steve Groen wrote: ” if the news is to be believed, Coulter’s the one demanding – ironically – that no protesters be present…”

      I do NOT believe that for one second. She says that violent protesters are to be prosecuted. She is right! Protesting speech is allowed, but not violence.

  12. Abortion doctor, Howard Dean, says “hate speech” is not protected under the 1st Amendment. That is the mindset of leftists. Thank God some liberals like JT are still 1st Amendment advocates. Thank God for http://www.thefire.org.

          • Free speech is free speech whether you approve or not. This is far more important that silly old Ann Coulter’s latest distraction.

            • ++; You are 100% right on this one, Anon. I’m surprised Professor Turley hasn’t brought the subject up. I suppose technically, Assange is not a US citizen (even though the US would love to get their hands on him), but regardless, the issue of whistle blowing, and of a free and objective press, is an absolutely critical one to the health of any Democracy.

              It is particularly sad that those who criticize it here were more than happy when Wikileaks revealed the Clinton/DNC election corruption which helped push Trump over the finish line only a few months ago, only to now want to cannibalize this benefactor for telling the truth about abuse of power irrespective of who is in office (the irrespectivve part is the rub – security, as always, the excuse).

              As to Toads and underlings, you know you’ve struck a nerve when “they” harp on triviality. Nothing to see here folks, move along, er, quickly please… 🙂

                • bb and anon,

                  I agree this is a very important issues and many of the same dynamics are at work, one from a repressive govt. and another from a repressive lefty university: “GLENN GREENWALD: I think the key point here to understand is the way in which governments typically try and abridge core freedoms, because what they know is that if they target a group that is popular or a particular idea that people agree with, there will be an uprising against the attempt to abridge freedom. So what they always do, for example, when governments try and abridge freedom of speech, is they pick somebody who they know is hated in society or who expresses an idea that most people find repellent, and they try and abridge freedom of speech in that case, so that most people will let their hatred for the person being targeted override the principle involved, and they will sanction or at least acquiesce to the attack on freedom because they hate the person being attacked. But what happens is, the abridgment then gets institutionalized and entrenched. And that way, when the government goes to start to apply this abridgment to other people that you like more, it’s too late, because you’ve acquiesced in the first instance.”

                  In each case we have a hated actor being targeted. The lefties don’t like Coulter so they want to shut her up. The right wing Govt. of TrumpObamaBushco want to shut up Assange. Of course the danger to Assange is much greater than to Coulter, but the idea that Greenwald lays out is the same in each case. Lefties won’t defend Coulter’s rights and lefties and some but not all right wing people won’t defend Assange’s rights. Having the full faith and credit of USGinc. come down on you is quite a bit to deal with, especially since many members of the govt. want Assange dead.

                  These are very scary times and people should wake up to the fascism around them and within them.

                  • I agree that if you are going to defend the free speech of one, you must defend it for the other as well.

                    That said, I do not see equality in the messages. A whistle blower that has uncovered countless incidents of corruption in both Democrat and Republican administrations (speaking only of the US) at enormous danger and hardship to himself vs. a shock jock, someone purposefully inciting violence against an amorphous foe, The Left, that is more imaginary than real. She knows the age old truth that violence breeds more violence and the outcome is intentionally aimed at an ever greater authoritarian response.

                    But to be precise, Coulter’s and Assange’s right to free speech in our democracy is absolutely equal and I think she is quite justified at wanting the date to be when an audience is present (not during a school break).

                    It is their intent, and what they say that are two entirely different things. We thus have encapsulated in two people one of the great conundrums of liberty of which the framers were perfectly aware and under few illusions. Liberty is wide open to friend and foe alike.

                    I see Coulter’s right to free speech defended here. As it should be. As to Assange, not so much. The consensus seems to be silence, or squirrels.

                    • The penalties are also vastly different. Assange could face a life in prison while Coulter is merely denied an opportunity to speak.

                  • Jill, Your observations about the way governments try to abridge core freedoms by intentionally using people hateful to one side of the spectrum or another is insightful and interesting. I think you are on to something.

                    • BB, I can’t take credit for that idea. It’s what Glenn Greenwald said. He is absolutely correct about it!

                  • “Truth-telling in America is endangered. Free and open expression is our most fundamental right, all others threatened without it.

                    Exposing government wrongdoing is courageous and essential. Obama waged war on press freedom and whistleblowing. Trump continues his outrageous agenda.

                    When governments consider truth-telling independent journalists and whistleblowers threats to national security, tyranny replaces freedom.”

                    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-war-on-whistleblowers-cia-targets-wikileaks/5586275

                    BB, Yes they are very different cases. I tried to make that point but I guess it didn’t come through. Assange is facing death. He is dealing with USGinc and associated governmental minions (the UK), private corps, etc. But there is a similarity underlying the two cases, which Greenwald outline very well.

                    P.S. I made my donation to wikileaks!

              • This blog overall is adverse to criticism of Trump and his officials.There has been no discussion of the repeal of the internet privacy rules either. Just sayin…. 🙂

    • Both Howard Dean and Anne Coulter are trying to stay in the news but both are really irrelevant as far as most people are concerned.

  13. (Ooops! I put this on the earlier Coulter thread instead of the current one.)

    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

    • Squeeky, I don’t have an A to your Q, but I just read a line in an article that sounds like something you would appreciate 😉

      “Democrats have now spent two generations explaining that the true threat to free speech resides on the religious right, those fascistic John-Lithgow-from-Footloose types who just can’t wait to smash their Bibles in the faces of those who only want to read their lesbian pornography magazines.

      In reality, there’s only one side of the American political debate fully committed to destroying the First Amendment: the Left.”

      http://www.dailywire.com/news/15610/former-dnc-head-howard-dean-hate-speech-not-free-ben-shapiro#

      • That was a good article. Some of the Liberals here who disagree with the SJWs shutting down Free Speech, are really in LaLa Land. Because as a practical matter, how else can you sell some of their stupid ideas without resorting to verbal intimidation and smear tactics??? Which used to work pretty well when the MSM had the run of the place. But the verbal intimidation and smear tactics don’t work anymore due both to the existence and large presence of right-wingy blogs and tweeters. Now the Left has to resort actual physical violence to shut us up.

        If people like IsaacB and others want to preserve the Liberal Narrative, they are just going to have to put on their brown shirts, lace up their jackboots, grab a shillelagh and start cracking Fascist skulls.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  14. Bottle blondie with the Dumbo ears rejected the change because it would deprive her of what she really wants: free publicity for the stupid book she wrote: “in Trump We Trust”. If there aren’t large numbers of protestors present, there wouldn’t be much publicity, so she’s rejecting it, because it’s not about free speech, it’s about free publicity. Berkeley offered her a safe venue. That’s all they are required to do.

    If there are really students who want to hear what this homely hag has to say [which I seriously doubt, because you have to be smart to attend Berkeley], they’d work ahead on studying for finals, so they could take off an hour to hear her diatribe. We see through you.

      • Arguments? What arguments? How about your inability to refute the premise that Coulter is trying to stir up trouble for free publicity? Why doesn’t she go speak somewhere that might possibly welcome her remarks–some kind of Republican stronghold or meeting? Why–no free publicity, that’s why. She’s already gotten more free publicity than she deserves.

        Coulter is loud, abrasive and irritating. Everything she does is for money. She also has the obligatory fake yellow hair and shows lots of skin, just like they do on Fox News, and this is to attract the Viagara crowd. It’s sad that older men don’t see through this.

          • Yes, and it disappoints me. It’s truly sad that females these days buy into the phony blonde, skimpy clothes, stupid high heels look that they think defines them. Then, there’s the modified valley girl speak as well. How sad.

              • BUT, she did receive 3 million more votes. Also, this shows that even older women seemingly buy into the sad need to comply with standards set by the fashion industry–fake yellow hair, high heels that ruin your feet, ankles, knees and back, fillers, Botox, face lifts, and flashing a lot of skin, because they apparently feel they don’t have credibility in their natural condition or dressed more conservatively. It is a form of misogyny that women perpetrate, and it is pathetic. My mother’s generation were told that their hair was solely the province of hairdressers, and that they shouldn’t even wash it–go to the beauty shop a couple of times a week and have professionals wash, cut, perm, set, etc.. Bottle blondes were viewed as cheap imitations of Marilyn Monroe, but it was acceptable to cover your gray hair. Also, always wear a girdle, a dress, hose and pumps. My generation burned their bras, chucked the girdles and garters, wore jeans, which formerly were only work clothes, and embraced long, natural hair, Afros for people of color or those with just curly hair [Jimi Hendrix], beards and mustaches on men, and so forth. Now, we’re full circle, with Spanx, short skirts, bleached hair, ridiculously high pumps, and phony valley girl speak. In the ’50’s it was Marilyn Monroe’s fake way of speaking. It does make me sad because women continue to perpetrate this, including Hillary Clinton, whom, I presume, did this on advice for credibility reasons, because even women think this is necessary for empowerment. It’s refreshing that Michelle Obama has chucked the straightening products, though, but she did straighten while First Lady, again, presumably, to meet the standards set by someone else.

                  • This has to be a punk job. Or maybe the woman is an aspiring actress demonstrating that she can convincingly play a crazy person. The fact that she was able to “turn off” her angry persona so quickly suggests that she’s not really crazy. SNL should hire her. She’d be an improvement and add some genuine talent to the cast. “Paul Sheldon,” by the way, is a fictitious character in Stephen King’s book “Misery” who is a writer in the book, but is not an actual person or writer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s