BS response. Again, the right to free speech is not limitless. And for good reason. Westboro Church members don't have a free right to protest at military funerals. Public safety is more important than someone inciting violence. And remember, I think universities should allow (and do allow, as noted by the American Thinker op piece I cited) conservatives to speak. Including Coulter. And UC did reverse their position and allowed her to speak. But Coulter felt it more beneficial to her brand to complain about dates than to actually speak at the university. Also noted that I believe the university should have increased security to address safety concerns. I also believe law enforcement should arrest protesters that act violently. I do think universities should consider approaching speakers that require more expensive security to help with costs.
The threat to public safety is the rioter, not the speaker. You are endorsing the heckler's veto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler's_veto The "inciting violence" excuse cannot be used based on what might happen or what she might say. And you're wrong about Westboro, court ruled in their favor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps
Again, you ignore that I said that Coulter should be able to speak (and was allowed to), and that the university should hire more security, and that the protestors should be arrested for violent acts. re: Westboro... I am clearly incorrect, but it is an example of a court ruling I disagree with (though also noting the case ruled involved them maintaining a distance and limiting view) and agree with lone dissenter Alito. As someone that supported Patriot Riders (and even rode with once) I have a personal bias against their activities. But getting back to the debate at hand, if Coulter, Milo, and other rightwing hate speech activists want to speak a reasonable distance away from people that they would offend... again, I am OK with it.
I was referring to leaderships role. On one hand you have Warren and Sanders essentially saying let her speak, and then on the other hand I don't feel confident in Trumps leadership if the roles were reversed. Remember Trump is currently dealing with a case for insiting violence at his rallies when a young woman was assaulted. Point being- there will be idiots anywhere you go with any agenda that will do stupid (sometime even violent) things. Tell me the position and responses from the leadership and how that leadership is driving protest/public action behaviors. Who is the primary Leadership leading the current liberal #resist movements?? Move on leadership, indivisible, Sanders/Warren, Tom Perez, Bill Nye(science march), Resist, etc etc. (All paid by George Soros of course) People want to throw in Black Lives Matter, and the Berkeley protestors, but they aren't the ones leading the major initiatives such as the marches, and town hall organization. Those town halls especially have been HUGE in blocking health care by really putting pressure on moderates especially who are getting blasted by their constituents. I want to remind folks that MILLIONS of people globally marched the day after the inauguration and not one report of violence or arrests. How many town halls have been violent? Look I know the purpose of all of this. It's to downplay a serious real movement that is going on or to make independents on the fence feel like they don't have to participate in actions that might have questionable ties. We know that's what FoxNews and their followers are trying to do. It's cool to admit it. We all know that what is going on and look it's politics... it happens. But remember that the Tea Party was only a fraction of the size of the resist and indivisible movements and look at the damage it had in 2010. All republicans should be concerned and instead of instigating your liberal or independent friends you should be putting pressure on your Republican leadership to get a handle on the White House to put into place quality conservative policies that can appeal to everyone not just the Donald Trumps and Wall Street elites.
"The people that they would offend" are intentionally coming to the venue to disrupt. They could stay home and they would be well out of earshot of the event. Your argument would be the same as if one of the military funerals were being held at Westboro Baptist Church itself and you told Westboro they could do their thing so long as they did it a reasonable distance away from the funeral. No one is requiring antifa to attend these events, and the events are not being held in the antifa headquarters (if such a thing could be said to exist). Unless the entire University is unreasonably close to the special snowflakes, then your point is irrelevant.
You are losing me. In this case, the Westboro people and the Milos/Coulters are the people wanting to say/do offensive things. They can do their thing at a reasonable distance The people they are offending are military funeral attendees and students at the university. The protesters engaging in violence are a third party... and I have already said that protesters engaging in violence should be arrested.
That she maybe but she still has rights and the school is wrong for not making a room available to her when she was invited to speak.
Not real familiar with Coulter other than she is linked to JJ from Good times. What is the hate that she spews that liberals can't handle?
Coulter is a regular on Bill Maher. Most liberals know shes a joke and can take it. She has such a tiny platform now, why give her a bigger one by going out of your way to make a big protest about her. That's kind of what she's going for.
First of all, people being offended is not a reason to censor people or deplatform. There are a lot of people out there and they can be offended by anything. Or pretend to be. Second, they don't have to listen to the speaker. They are choosing to go there to disrupt it. Third, your argument is so dumb it offends me. I want you off of clutchfans. Is that a fair and reasonable request?
I am all in favor of letting her speak. I am just stating that she is neoconservative filth. Carry on.
Problem solved: Have speakers speak before 10am. No way these whacked out, hippy, mama's boys can get out of bed before noon. When you stay up all night dropping acid, burning your transgendered bras, jerking off your best mate to Moby, and doing the chores your mommy and daddy assign you so you can get your $20 allowance so you can buy the newest Che Guevara tshirt from imafukstick.com, it's gonna be hard to get up in time to head down to the university to use violence and destruction to silence any opinions that threaten your do-nothing, government leeching, victim mentality little existence.
Why doesn't the next alt-right speaker and his or her gang of peaceful protesters head down to the liberal/ BLM stronghold of Compton for a little positive community interaction? Why stir up the Berkeley honey bee hive when you can kick a giant hornet's nest worth of media attention?
Coulter could have spoke whenever she wanted to do so in the designated public speech area of Sproul Plaza with just as much security as Berkley gives anybody else who wants to speak in Sproul. If Coulter wants to reserve a private speaking space with the university on campus, she has to do so at the university's convenience and discretion, just like everybody else who wants to reserve a private venue. She is free to speak in the designated public speech area (Sproul Plaza) whenever she likes. I don't have a right to demand a private room from the university to speak whenever I like on whatever terms I demand, either. I don't have the right to demand a small private army paid for by the university for my protection, because I know my speech will be provacative. Every organization i was involved with in college was allocated space on request subject to how the university saw fit to parcel it out. The idea that Coulter is owed whichever space she wants whenever she wants it by the university just doesn't jive with any experience I've had with any university I've ever heard of. Coulter's visit is about confrontation - "the battle of berkley" as RL undoubtedly pinched from Sean Hannity or someone. This manufactured confrontation with the university is the best consolation prize she could give her followers who were getting amped up for the supposed Battle of Berkley, where being able to finish her speech without some supposed "liberal outrage" would have been considered a failure. The university has a legitimate interest in preventing its campus from being a place where conservatives go to bait stupid radical children into starting a riot. If you see you are speeding towards a car crash, it is reasonable to turn the wheel to avoid it, no matter who is at fault for the danger.
It's more like Coulter and her ilk are scumbag provocateurs who make a living peddling racism, xenophobia, and hatred to poorly educated and/or frustrated white men who are angry about their loss of privilege in American society. This white nationalist trash will continue hiding behind their keyboards to harass women and minorities without taking responsibility for their own failures in life despite being the most privileged demographic of people in American history. It's the age of white fragility, the true American snowflake. Look at all of them in this thread. Trump is about to completely **** up their lives and the lives of their families and they're worried about Berkley bull***. Idiocracy becoming more of a reality every day.
