Support NeoGAF

[DontBeThatGuy]

I see lots of "let her speak, challenge her (among already endless challenges)" but to what end, exactly? I don't see a damn soul in here budging in any regard even on something like this, let alone on the depravity Coulter is all about. It's gonna turn into yet another platform (paid for, in her case) to be awful, nothing more than that. Taste that sweet freedom.

Students shouldn't have carte blanche on inviting the worst of us to speak at their colleges, and the university itself should always be allowed to act accordingly without controversy. But regardless of that, she's allowed to speak (but apparently wants to complain), and that's current status of things.

 

[Erevador]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

 

[Angelus Errare]

So again.

Protesting doesn't work and my proposed solution is shot down.

So maybe now you see why there might be unresolved anger that explodes on these situations? Since nobody really seems to give a shit about offering solutions once the ones that involve retaliating are shot down.

You can't even kneel in silence.

 

[Lord Frieza]

That is literally exactly what they want though. For us to fumble so they can discredit our entire position because we had a brain fart when overwrought with anger and emotions. It's a trap that hurts us and destroys the endgame. It's the same reason bullies don't start fights, but poke and prod until we give in to their demand, usually the victim throwing the first punch. I agree we need to take a firmer stand, but one that is smarter than what you suggest.

No, what they want is to win. To beat us. And they will use what they can. If we don't fight back and instead smile like idiots to just wait our turns to raise our hands like nice little boys and girls to debate, it's over.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I see lots of "let her speak, challenge her (among already endless challenges)" but to what end, exactly? I don't see a damn soul in here budging in any regard even on something like this, let alone on the depravity Coulter is all about. It's gonna turn into yet another platform (paid for, in her case) to be awful, nothing more than that. Taste that sweet freedom.

Students shouldn't have carte blanche on inviting the worst of us to speak at their colleges, and the university itself should always be allowed to act accordingly without controversy.

The challenge her argument is useless. Sure, challenge your racist uncle, or a friend with questionable views. Challenge someone running for office on a debate. But why should media figures like this be challenged instead of just shut down. If she wants, she can go stand on the sidewalk and hold her talk.

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

This is not free speech. Her rights are not being infringed upon. Can I go to an university and demand a podium to talk about whatever? No. And that is not something that against my free speech.

She has the right to speak. Nobody is stopping her. But you don't have the obligation to give her a podium.

Plus, public universities also have the obligation to give a safe environment to their students. If there are indications this thing will blow up with violence, they are right to shut it down.

 

[Mr. X]

ITT we defend radicalization by claiming free speech

 

[Brandon F]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

.

 

[Frozenprince]

You can't even kneel in silence.

Brother gets blacklisted because he knelt during a song. People threaten to kill him. More peoplr hate him for kneeling than Aaron Hernandez for killing three people.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

The challenge her argument is useless. Sure, challenge your racist uncle, or a friend with questionable views. Challenge someone running for office on a debate. But why should media figures like this be challenged instead of just shut down. If she wants, she can go stand on the sidewalk and hold her talk.

Man, wouldn't that be nice? Living in a society where verifiable racist, hate and fearmongers like Coulter get the sidewalk as a platform, instead of all-expenses paid trips to public universities?

 

[MotionBlue]

But there is nothing wrong with it. I don't have specific examples, but I doubt this is the first event on a campus that has been postponed, cancelled or not go passed the planning stages because of security issues. And in this specific case, there is a history of violent protests, so I think people complaining should chill and accept that the people in charge made this decision.

To my knowledge, this was past the planning stage. No-platforming is a good form of protest, but only on private property. Berkley receives Government funding, so they follow different rules.

She's getting exactly what she wants. To be viewed as the victim.

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Doing other wise gives ammunition to them. If you seriously think Trump is going turn America into a dictatorship in 4 years, you failed High School Social Studies(or whatever the equal is).

So now her bullshit radicalizes yet more youthful bigots.

Pretending anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot does not help at all.

 

[Siegcram]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

It sure as shit ain't.

And this isn't even an issue of free speech but you people have ignored that little caveat so far, so I'm certain you'll continue to do so.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Brother gets blacklisted because he knelt during a song. People threaten to kill him. More peoplr hate him for kneeling than Aaron Hernandez for killing three people.

They relate way more to Aaron Hernandez than Kapernick. I'm sure all of them at some point or another have fantasized about killing a few people with a gun.

 

[MUnited83]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

Universities should only allow people with actual stuff to teach to come, not crazy ass pieces of shit with 100% false claims.

 

[The Kree]

ITT we defend radicalization by claiming free speech

We've been through the looking glass before. The stupidity is asstounding.

"Don't silence them! Challenge their views!"

I can't even change your fucking mind and you're supposedly one of the reasonable ones, so what hope does anyone have of convincing this deranged cunt?

 

[Frozenprince]

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

You need far more education on the US civil rights movement to ever think that.

And yes anybody that agrees with Ann "fuck the blacks and the Muslims we should kill em all" Coulter is a bigot.

 

[Loudninja]

ITT we defend radicalization by claiming free speech

I am so sick of it too.

 

[Angelus Errare]

To my knowledge, this was past the planning stage. No-platforming is a good form of protest, but only on private property. Berkley receives Government funding, so they follow different rules.



Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Doing other wise gives ammunition to them. If you seriously think Trump is going turn America into a dictatorship in 4 years, you failed High School Social Studies(or whatever the equal is).


Pretending anyone that disagrees with you is a bigot does not help at all.

Wha..

 

[Lois_Lane]

To my knowledge, this was past the planning stage. No-platforming is a good form of protest, but only on private property. Berkley receives Government funding, so they follow different rules.



Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Pick up a good history book for the love of fucking jesus. This ignorance right here is revolting. Here I'll help you start.

Stone wall
Black Panthers
Malcolm X
Fucking Ferguson, which finally got the government off its ass to investigate the corrupt Ferguson police.

 

[ClosingADoor]

To my knowledge, this was past the planning stage. No-platforming is a good form of protest, but only on private property. Berkley receives Government funding, so they follow different rules.

Yes, that is why I said "postponed, cancelled or not get passed the planing stage."

Berkley still has the right to cancel her talk if there are security concerns. I mean, she was offered another date to speak but refused. So how is this against free speech or any rules.

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Doing other wise gives ammunition to them. If you seriously think Trump is going turn America into a dictatorship in 4 years, you failed High School Social Studies(or whatever the equal is).[/I]

You got to pick up a history book man. The civil rights movement had plenty of violence around it. It's nice to say turn the other cheek, until there is a racist asshole with a gun in front of you.

 

[III-V]

AC is vile and intolerant. She has cast many proverbial stones at others, and she judges and ridicules them at the same time.

The very fact that she is invited to speak by student groups at UC is a sign of the times.

And the rest of us should tolerate intolerance, I suppose.

I am glad these people will protest her. Her hateful words do damage, and many of these people have been damaged by her and her rhetoric.

 

[Frozenprince]

I swear people think Malcolm X accomplished nothing of note for civil rights with his approach. Like he was hated and feared and ultimately executed for nothing.

 

[Mr. X]

What is with the revisionist history of violence not working in favor of civil rights? If there wasn't a looming threat of violence from the oppressed, you think anything would be done? It's a powder keg waiting to go off.

 

[MUnited83]

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

That's false and quite the demonstration of a complete ignorance of actual history.

 

[Siegcram]

Which is exactly why you don't get violent. Every successful civil rights movement in the past 100 years was passive in nature. Turn the other cheek, etc.

Doing other wise gives ammunition to them. If you seriously think Trump is going turn America into a dictatorship in 4 years, you failed High School Social Studies(or whatever the equal is.)

the ironing ...

 

[ForsakenLotus]

I have lived my whole life in Alabama. I've seen racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ultra-conservative Christian values, etc. I've been exposed to all of it, yet somehow I'm pretty dang liberal/progressive. I get that it's scary and frustrating to see people in authority, let alone the fucking president, spreading hateful messages. Even still, I believe in the true definition of Free Speech and not the flimsy cherry picked definition wherein we create polarizing bubbles of accepted discourse.

I'm strongly Pro-Choice, but if somebody who is Pro-Life is asked to speak at a university that's largely conservative I think it's okay to let those people speak. Protests should be about important things, and while I don't want to tell people what to protest about I am alarmed at how many protests seem to be popping up trying to shut down discourse. It's almost ironic.

 

[Cyframe]

Maybe I could respect free speech advocates (speech that is hate speech and not covered, but, let's not talk about that) if a big swath of them like Bill Maher didn't just handwave things like racism and transphobia. Who cares if you recognizing issues like homophobia and the prison complex when you invite people on and rarely challenge them. That sends the message that certain views are okay, rather than openly challenging them at every turn.

People need to stop using the word debate if they don't know what it means. Ann Coulter does not adhere to debate practices, so...how can you debate someone like that? You can't.

And my favorite things is, blaming those on the left who don't want to entertain people like Coulter as the real problem here. You really think you aren't responsible for this environment? That this has nothing to do with you? The reason why we have the issues we have today regarding racism, islamophobia, and others is due to complacency.

Throughout my life, many of those who are free speech advocates don't address things like racism and homophobia with the same fervor, even when a person doesn't have the free speech argument to stand on. And then to see these same people blaming minorities for the current climate? It's...really something else.

 

[boiled goose]

Yeah let's be clear, I'm not agreeing with Maher here either, I also find him to be an idiot.



Okay, so the law is flawed - it doesn't mean Berkeley is allowed to disregard it anyway.



I would be fine with that. Many people ITT are saying they don't have to allow her to be there at all, which is patently false, though.

The courtyard is literally public property. There's no mechanism to ban someone from standing there unless the police has to take over because of violence.

 

[Buckle]

No, what they want is to win. To beat us. And they will use what they can. If we don't fight back and instead smile like idiots to just wait our turns to raise our hands like nice little boys and girls to debate, it's over.

Feels like politics on the left could definitely use more anger/passion.

Democrats seem to really suffer from a lack of spine.

 

[Frozenprince]

I'm on my phone so I can't pull up my usual list of literature of armed resistance in the civil rights movement.

So just read negroes with guns.

 

[BeesEight]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

This is a remarkably vapid post.

But I eagerly await the lawsuit against Berkeley for cancelling a public speaking engagement. It is truly the greatest of crimes against human rights and The Republic.

 

[akira28]

Fuck bill Maher.

Fuck Ann coulter

they should definitely get it over with if they haven't already.

 

[Lord Frieza]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

So the free speech for Neo-Nazis and eugenic pushers are a fundamental part of America? What about speaker who read off names of LGBTQ or undocumented students for them to be bullied by supporters like Bill's recent pedo-loving friend Milo did? Are those fundamental parts of American society as well?

 

[Jeffolation]

Wild to see people getting all bent out of shape over a cancelled Ann Coutler speaking engagement. Ann fucking Coulter.

 

[Frozenprince]

they should definitely get it over with if they haven't already.

Given his description of her is "I've never agreed with anything coming out of her mouth" and they still close.

They have to be fucking.

That or he's just signal boosting her act for a cut.

 

[2Smashed4U]

It sure as shit ain't.

And this isn't even an issue of free speech but you people have ignored that little caveat so far, so I'm certain you'll continue to do so.

It is, it is literally an issue of free speech. Berkeley has to allow her, legally, on campus given their status as a public university. No they don't have to nor should they give her a massive venue, but they don't have a choice as to whether or not she can go there and speak.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I have lived my whole life in Alabama. I've seen racism, homophobia, xenophobia, ultra-conservative Christian values, etc. I've been exposed to all of it, yet somehow I'm pretty dang liberal/progressive. I get that it's scary and frustrating to see people in authority, let alone the fucking president, spreading hateful messages. Even still, I believe in the true definition of Free Speech and not the flimsy cherry picked definition wherein we create polarizing bubbles of accepted discourse.

I'm strongly Pro-Choice, but if somebody who is Pro-Life is asked to speak at a university that's largely conservative I think it's okay to let those people speak. Protests should be about important things, and while I don't want to tell people what to protest about I am alarmed at how many protests seem to be popping up trying to shut down discourse. It's almost ironic.

She was invited to speak at another date. Nothing is being shut down.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter has turned down a compromise offer to speak next month at the University of California at Berkeley, insisting she plans to stick with next week’s planned appearance that was canceled by officials over security concerns.

 

[Angelus Errare]

So the free speech for Neo-Nazis and eugenic pushers are a fundamental part of America? What about speaker who read off names of LGBTQ or undocumented students for them to be bullied by supporters like Bill's recent pedo-loving friend Milo did? Are those fundamental parts of American society as well?

Debate/challenge them with facts or something, then the rest of America will TOTES be like "wow these guys are assholes" and they will no longer have fans (this argument gets trotted out time and time again not sure why, it NEVER makes sense).

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Wild to see people getting all bent out of shape over a cancelled Ann Coutler speaking engagement. Ann fucking Coulter.

The 'regressive' left, indeed.

 

[MotionBlue]

This ignorance right here is revolting.

Wha..

US civil rights movement

It was violent as fuck, especially in Confederate states. Protestors swayed public opinion best when MLK and Gandhi spread and enforced peaceful protests. I've read plenty of History in that Era, have you?

Hard to justify bashing skulls in when they're dressed in their church outfits and not resisting.

 

[2Smashed4U]

We've been through the looking glass before. The stupidity is asstounding.

"Don't silence them! Challenge their views!"

I can't even change your fucking mind and you're supposedly one of the reasonable ones, so what hope does anyone have of convincing this deranged cunt?

The point is not to convince her, it's to convince the people she speaks to first.

 

[Slayven]

Wild to see people getting all bent out of shape over a cancelled Ann Coutler speaking engagement. Ann fucking Coulter.

For real, Ann is a millionaire with a gang of books out there peddling hate, who going to shut her down?

 

[Siegcram]

It is, it is literally an issue of free speech. Berkeley has to allow her, legally, on campus given their status as a public university. No they don't have to nor should they give her a massive venue, but they don't have a choice as to whether or not she can go there and speak.

I suggest you read the article in the OP before you embarrass yourself further.

 

[Frozenprince]

Debate/challenge them with facts or something, then the rest of America will TOTES be like "wow these guys are assholes" and they will no longer have fans (this argument gets trotted out time and time again not sure why, it NEVER makes sense).

Member all those proponents of the civil rights act that battle hatred with truth. Sure is great all of them are still around and alive and totally didn't get assassinated or anything.

 

[2Smashed4U]

I suggest you read the article in the OP before you embarrass yourself further.

Please, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm ALL ears.

PS: you might want to try some reading of your own.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

 

[ClosingADoor]

It was violent as fuck, especially in Confederate states. Protestors swayed public opinion best when MLK and Gandhi spread and enforced peaceful protests. I've read plenty of History in that Era, have you?

Hard to justify bashing skulls in when they're dressed in their church outfits and not resisting.

Nobody is saying violence is the answer, but the threat of violence certainly played a big role in changing things.

Like Frozenprince says below, the government had to march in the damn National Guard to protect schoolkids.

 

[Frozenprince]

It was violent as fuck, especially in Confederate states. Protestors swayed public opinion best when MLK and Gandhi spread and enforced peaceful protests. I've read plenty of History in that Era, have you?

Hard to justify bashing skulls in when they're dressed in their church outfits and not resisting.

And yet they did just that, constantly, until the US Army came in and threatened them with overwhelming force.

So yeah I highly doubt you're as knowledgeable as you think you are.

 

[old manatee]

It's hilarious that there is another thread on the front page talking about a teacher who was transferred to another school because she tried to teach kids yoga. BOTH SIDES GUYS.

 

[legacyzero]

Many in this thread resent "giving" freedom of speech to those whose views they find toxic.

If such a thing is "given", can it be taken away?

Who decides?

There is no defensible answer. That's why our laws AND social norms are so much in favor of an inalienable right to free speech. Public universities are the intellectual heart of the country and should uphold the core principles of the society they serve. Free speech is the most fundamental of those principles, it is the mechanism that safeguards the protection of all other principles.

It is no test of tolerance to accept free speech you agree with. Others will have views you find abhorrent, yet they have the right to speak them. Others will feel that you have views that they find abhorrent, yet you too have the right to speak them.

It is the most successful approach to human expression that has ever been conceived.

Be careful in your attempts to dismantle a mechanism that you will someday need to protect yourself.

Thank you THANK YOU. I said this same thing for Milo, and even Richard Spencer. The moment we stop debating their points with a CLEARLY stronger point of view, the moment theirs gains leverage. I think those on the left think that they're living on a slippery slope trying to stifle free speech, and act with violent protest, the moment they assume it's acceptable for them to reciprocate, or even feel like they're taking the high ground.

But folks keep thinking that this approach actually works.

This is a remarkably vapid post.

.

You mean, like any argument you think you have by throwing a fit about what somebody has to say, versus engaging in aggressive debate and winning with stronger ideas? Or are you all out of ideas?

 

[Erevador]

This is a remarkably vapid post.

If the core founding principles of the US are vapid, than I accept the charge of vapidity.

I've found this thread an entirely depressing experience.

 

[Siegcram]

Please, tell me how I'm wrong. I'm ALL ears.

PS: you might want to try some reading of your own.

http://college.usatoday.com/2017/04...have-a-right-to-speak-at-public-universities/

Safety concerns for faculty and students override agreed upon speaking engagements. And they offered her an alternative date.