No... that's not how it works. An institution has a right to not want a potential fight on their premise. It's their right.
Except she did have that option. CAL said she could speak anytime on Sproul plaza like the many others who do daily. The choice to cancel wasn't CAL's but Coulter's.
Actually minorities often make the same choice Coulter made. She decided that she would not be comfortable in a hostile place without adequate security so she canceled. You claim she was not allowed - interesting that you choose those words. She had a choice and choose not to speak. Minorities often don't have the same choice. They have to work in hostile places. Or live in hostile places. Many aren't rich enough to have the same choices as she does. It's interesting you defend the rights of a white woman who seeks to instigate and build her brand through conflict while ignoring those who have face real discrimination and actually don't have choices and fight real battles. I don't think any one should intimidate someone from speaking. I also think Coulter wasn't afraid to speak - but rather she saw the opportunity to profit from not speaking.
At least we now have it on record that he's a climate denier, doesn't think women's rights, LGBT rights, African American injustices, and Science are worthy causes. In fact the word stupid was used.
She was essentially downgraded from having an audience hall where she was an invited, paid speaker, to being free to stand on a soapbox and rant into the wind like the crazies. Yes, she was allowed to speak. Why was she not allowed to speak at the original time and venue?
And? Things change, and she has to make a choice. It seems she will use her choice to play the victim card. It seemed security on a public space was more important than just holding the speech. Do you disagree?
She was given an audience hall just not the time of her choosing. For that matter Cal was never going to pay her. It was the student groups who invited her that was going to pay her. She cancelled after they said they weren't going to pay for her security. Are you saying she's a victim and her free speech rights violated because the university didn't give her the exact time and location she wanted?
I don't think she is a victim, nor do I think her free speech rights were violated. My issue is that she had a hall being provided at a specific time and place. The student groups were going to pay her to speak. There is no indication that the student groups paying her or her people were going to cause any damages to the facility. Cal then said she can't speak at the previously established place and time unless she provides for the level of security Cal is requiring, presumably to prevent damages that her opponents are going to cause. I think that is bad. I don't think the poor behavior of antifa, BAMN, or any other group should be allowed to disrupt a scheduled event that is not otherwise going to cause any damages. To me the solution is to go after the violent protesters, not to cancel (or reschedule or relocate) the event. Cal is allowing the worst actors to dictate what happens. They have the ability to do so, but is what they are doing right? The free speech issue is not an issue of rights, in this instance, it is (to me) about the promotion of the ideal of free speech. Public college campuses would seemingly be the place where it is MOST important to promote the ideal of free speech, no? There is no indication that either Coulter or the student groups that arranged the event made any procedural errors in setting up the event. I think the venue was properly arranged, there was no lying about what the event would be or who would be involved. The college then, after all of the arrangements were in place, changed the requirements (allegedly for the purpose of public safety) in a way that would increase the cost to the speaker or the student groups that set up the event. To me, that seems to indicate that the college is not promoting the ideal of free speech.
Except then you're placing Ann Coulter's convenience over the need of the university to provide a safe (at least physically safe) environment for their student. You're someone that argues a lot about rights and burdens yet in this case are saying that the university should be accepting the burden that Coulter is placing on them. You seem to be arguing along the lines of a contractual obligation that since the student groups and Ann Coulter had originally arranged a time and place with CAL that CAL needs to honor that as an ideal. That is both mistaken and impractical. I mean what if CAL said they had to change the time and location because the facility had a gas leak. Would CAL not be living up to the ideal of free speech because they were going to reschedule her speech becasue of a threat to safety from that? Your argument boils down that Cal should be sacrificing resources to an ideal as interpretted by Coulter and her supporters. Keep in mind CAL had considered banning her outright but did feel that it was enough in the interest of free speech to give her a venue. They even pointed out that if she didn't like it her right to speak on Campus at a time of her own choosing would still be respected. They even were prepared for more security in the event that she went through with speaking on Sproul on My 4. I doubt you would this type of argument in any other case and I've seen you argue the other side many times.
Take away from the past several posters is: if you threaten to fight a speaker's audience, then you can have that speaker's event cancelled. We've sunk to new lows.
I don't care about Coulter's convenience. Cal has allowed mildly violent extremists to dictate what is going to happen. Because a bunch of whiny communists threaten to light trash fires and break windows, Cal holds the speaker and/or organizers responsible for the actions of their opponents. Do you see no issue with this? The radical communist protesters are nothing like a gas leak. Do you think they would not protest if the event was held on a different date? How would changing the date help anything? If there was a gas leak, you fix the leak and have the event in a different building or after the leak is fixed. That doesn't work against antifa/BAMN. Actually it doesn't. I said they should allow her to speak as scheduled with whatever security she chooses to provide for herself. Cal can choose not to expend any resources. If damages are caused by antifa/BAMN, hold them responsible. If they had the security to provide, what was the point of moving her to Sproul? Seems they were just trying to get her to cancel. You have seen me argue against free speech and in favor of allowing extremists to dictate the cancellation/rescheduling of events?
Lol... keep moving those goalposts... Coulter doesn't have to go to a liberal area to speak but she choose to. She knows what she is doing by going there and she knows her visit will burden the university.
They are both threats to safety and CAL has a greater obligation to the safety of it's faculty and students than to allow a speaker to speak at the time and location of their convenience. Also I am very critical of the so called Anti-Fascists and Anarchists. They are hypocrites who do more harm to whatever cause they claim to be for. That doesn't change that they do represent a threat to physical safety. That is no different than if there was any other threat to the physical safety of the campus. She was given that opportunity and turned it down. For one Sproul is an open and public area. Contrary to the argument that Coulter and others put out that CAL doesn't believe in free speech, they do, but they have to balance that with safety of the campus. In this regard the balance was that they couldn't restrict Coulter's speech to the public just as they don't restrict anyone else's abilty to speak on Sproul. Your position is that CAL cannot compromise and has to cater to Coulter's convenience otherwise they are wrong. I doubt you would make that argument in any other incident where the convenience of an individual would trump the property rights of another. You frequently argue for property rights and that it's wrong to burden others for the convenience of some. As you've agreed this isn't even a matter of rights. You're just arguing because you don't like those opposed to Coulter that she should be allowed to burden Cal for nothing more than for her political grandstanding and convenience.
This is a question for Stupidmoniker but anyone else is free to respond. The Westboro Baptist Church has been threatened with violence and one of the arguments put forward to greatly restrict their right to protest has been that they are so disruptive that the consequences of allowing them to protest at the time and place of their choosing is a threat to public safety and decency. As far as I can tell they've not done anything violent and their actions are limited to speech on public property. Since you're arguing that threats of violence directed a speaker shouldn't be allowed to cancel or reschedule speech then would you agree that the Westboro Baptist church should be allowed to protest at the time and location of their choosing?
One is a hazard that can be fixed and they just move the event to the next building over. The other is a group of people that can represent the same (overblown) danger to public safety no matter when or where they move the event. I agree. Whatever threat they represent is minor, and the speaker and attendees would seemingly be attending with the understanding that these loonies are going to be there. Look at the Free Speech Rally held in the City of Berkeley, the pro-free speech people went in with the knowledge that antifa and their ilk would try to disrupt, and they accepted that risk. So far as I know, the body count was zero. It can vary from other threats in a number of ways. Some threats may be more temporally limited, some may be more closely tied to a specific location (your gas leak example is both), some may be of greater or lesser severity, some may have a lesser likelihood of materializing. You can tailor your response to the threat. If there is a gas leak, you are facing a deadly threat that can be easily avoided by waiting until the leak is repaired or relocating. If you are facing a swarm of bees, you are facing a minor threat that can be easily avoided by the removal of the hive. If you are facing antifa, changing the time/date/location will accomplish nothing. They can as easily protest an outdoor event as an indoor one (see Berkeley free speech rally example above), and can come back at a new date and time. She was given the opportunity to speak at the same place and time with no required security? I didn't hear about that, but if she was given that option, that is all I was advocating for. Why does moving to Sproul solve the public safety issue? Does antifa not know how to locate Sproul plaza (Upper or Lower?)? Wouldn't something with controlled entrances be easier to secure than an outdoor area accessible from multiple directions? I argue for private property rights, which are not applicable in this situation. Moreover, as you say, this is not a rights issue. I am arguing not because I like Coulter or dislike antifa (though I really do dislike antifa) but because I think colleges and universities, especially universities that I am helping to fund with my California tax dollars, should promote free speech and not bow down to a whiny vocal minority. If Black Lives Matter want to have an event in an audience hall at Cal, and some racist protesters opposed it, I think Cal should let the event go forward. Yes, I would agree that Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to protest at the time and location of their choosing, subject to any PRIVATE property rights of others. That they are horrible people that disrupt military funerals doesn't change the principle of free speech. There is no need to protect popular speech, it is on behalf of unpopular speech that we must fight.
Sure - so long as it doesn't in and of itself interfere with the rights of others. WBC has a right to protest. But I do think people should be able to have a funeral peace. But blocking access to a speech or an abortion clinic crosses the line. That said, Ann's free speech wasn't violate. The school should not be obligated to pay for her extra security when other accommodations are satisfactory.
