I think Coulter should have been allowed to speak at the original location. I can see that by the letter of the law it may not be limiting her free speech. But it is far too close to it to make me comfortable. Then again I may be over sensitive to that issue. I do approve the idea of restricting speakers that advocate violence, but I haven't seen any evidence that Coulter does that. She's just lame. I also approve people protesting Coulter and her speaking engagement. Protesting is good for our democracy.
Except just saying in the incidence of a gas leak that they could just move to another building ignores that there are other scheduled events going on in other buildings and such buildings, such as chemistry lab, isn't appropiate for hosting such an event. The point is schedules change frequently due to all sorts of things wth public safety being one of them. You seem to want to draw a distinction because it's people involved. Yes, people are involved but then it would be appropriate to reschedule the event to a location and / or time that can be more easily secured. Again not unusual and something that frequently happens with politicians and other political leaders. The university is under no obligation to provide her a space of her choosing but has been repeatedly noted she had the opportunity to speak on Sproul at the time of her choosing. I will again reiterate it was her decision to cancel when the student groups said they weren't going to pay her. Not Cal's. Sproul Plaza is open and borders a public street so it isn't quite like a lecture hall. I don't know for sure but I suppose CAL could ban access to speakers to Sproul completely. For many reasons though they do not. One of those is historical that it was the center of the Free Speech movement and the other is that it would be bad precedent for CAL to ban a speaker on Sproul when they let anyone speak there. The University of California is a public institution but even so doesn't it have property rights? You're arguing that Coulter's convenience trumps not just CAL's property rights but also it's primary mission of education. As at the minimum a speech with a threat of violent demonstration would disrupt that mission. As a Californian taxpayer shouldn't you be concerned about CAL spending money to provide a venue, security and pay for possible damages just for the convenience of a speaker? I can tell you as CAL alumni and donor that bothers me. I will agree with you that CAL should promote free speech and if this was a matter of CAL banning Coulter outright I would be very critical of my Alma Mater. This isn't they provided alternatives in both rescheduling and also allowing her to speak on Sproul. You seem to think that anything less than giving Coulter anything less than exactly what she wants isn't promoting free speech. Except that in this case the argument would be akin to the Westboro Baptist Church being able to protest on the cemetary grounds during a funeral since Coulter and other's complaint is that she couldn't speak inside a lecture hall at the time of her choosing. Unless you belive that UC actually has no property rights and is public property no different than a sidewalk.
And yet Cal's proposed solution was to move the event to a location that is more difficult to secure. So she didn't have to option to go forward as scheduled, I didn't think so. If Rhianna was scheduled to play the Toyota Center, but as the date approached, the Toyota Center big wigs said she couldn't play inside, but was welcome to play in Parking Area C, would you say that Rhianna cancelled the event, or the Toyota Center (assuming she chose not to play Parking Area C)? Doesn't that kind of prove it wasn't a student safety issue though? I don't think it is comparable at all to private property, no. A public institution has to be much more careful in dealing with a myriad of issues than a private enterprise. Not at all what I am arguing. You are acting like Coulter just showed up one day demanding a lecture hall. That is not what happened. Two student groups invited her as a speaker, reserved a space, advertised the event, etc. Close to the date of the event, Cal said it could not go forward as planned unless Coulter or the student groups paid for Cal to provide what Cal considered adequate security. Cal has every right to do that, I suppose (no one is trying to have the regents arrested or filing lawsuits so far as I know), but they don't look good doing it. What it isn't about is the convenience of Coulter. How would the same speech, with the same threat of violent demonstration, be less disruptive if it was held a couple hundred yards away and outdoors? Would it bother me if Cal allowed an event to take place as planned, despite the whining of the radical left? No, it wouldn't bother me at all. I think disrupting a planned event with unreasonable demands shortly before the day of the event, on the basis that some other group that doesn't want the event to happen might do property damage if you allow the event to go forward is cowardly, not promoting free speech, and bowing to the whims of the radical left. Your analogy is totally off. Again, Coulter wasn't showing up and demanding to use a lecture hall during a class. This was a planned event, put on by two student groups. They had reserved a space, using whatever normal process is used to reserve a space. They weren't showing up at a class and disrupting it. They in fact would not have been disrupting anything. The whole issue was that Cal put on restrictions late in the game because of what they feared those opposed to Coulter would do, not because of anything Coulter and her sponsors were doing.
Speaking of free speech (and couple this with implications on a free press)... W. Va. reporter arrested for 'yelling questions' at HHS secretary https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-visiting-hhs-secretary-tom-price/101503242/
I'll wait and see how many of those sticking up for Coulter's "free speech" will voice their outrage over this one.
Yep, same thing....“The above defendant was aggressively breaching the secret service agents to the point where the agents were forced to remove him a couple of times from the area walking up the hallway in the main building of the Capitol,”
An example of conservative republican free speech... A GOP congressman told a constituent's boss that she opposed Trump. Afraid and uncomfortable, she resigned. http://theweek.com/speedreads/69894...t-opposed-trump-afraid-uncomfortable-resigned
Any time police departments take that stance, it completely cripples AntiFa. If they can't wear their masks, and the police do their jobs then things won't ever get out of control.
The whole thing about wearing a mask is that you don't want your identity to become public, so that you don't lose your job or ruin your career/future. Anybody who associates with violent protesters should have their identity revealed, imo.
I would agree. I think tonight kind of showed that it's actually really easy to keep those groups in check, you just take away their weapons and masks and when they break the law you come down hard on them. Do those simple things and you can get a decently peaceful protest even in some of the mate hateful places in the country such as Berkeley.
I like you Bobby, even though I don't agree with you on everything I do appreciate your input on the forum. Thanks.
I also like @Deckard and B-Bob, they make some very good posts. I like to get opinions from every poster, and I love all people from all walks of life. The thing that makes it hard for me to post in these forums is the divisive nature of the whole thing. I really wish people could just come together and I would be a very happy person.
I think in 2017 liberals think criticizing a speech and violently attacking someone for using free speech is the same thing.
