• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ann Coulter vows to speak at UC Berkeley after school calls off event

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
93,453
Reaction score
68,150
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Ann Coulter vows to speak at UC Berkeley - CNN.com
Conservative commentator Ann Coulter vowed to proceed with a scheduled speaking event at the University of California, Berkeley, despite the school's decision to call it off.
Citing security concerns, the school's vice chancellors said they intended to "reschedule her appearance for a later date."
In a letter to Berkeley College Republicans, who organized the event, Vice Chancellors Scott Biddy and Stephen Sutton said campus police were unable to find a "suitable venue" for the April 27 event.
"Unfortunately, UCPD determined that, given currently active security threats, it is not possible to assure that the event could be held successfully -- or that the safety of Ms. Coulter, the event sponsors, audience, and bystanders could be adequately protected -- at any of the campus venues available on April 27th," the letter said.

I’ll preface everything by stating that I hate Ann Coulter’s methodology. I view her as the instigator type, that is those who say absurd and outrageous things specifically to elicit an emotional reaction in both supporters and distractors because by doing so, it creates attention, coverage, and sells books. So on some level, I take her as an actor, playing this part in order to make money. Not that there is really anything wrong with making money, but it’s more to do that her style isn’t there to promote any sort of discussion, but rather reaction; a reaction specifically tailored to sell. It’s part and parcel to America’s “drama first” consumption trends these day.

That being said, she should go and seek to make her speech regardless of Berkley because it’s important that we keep free speech open and that we engage in it. Now I do think that the University is between a rock and a hard place. Given the antics as of late, particularly by the Antifa assholes. That organization was, long ago, some anti-fascist organization, but is now the fascists themselves. Terrorists even, on some level, using violence and fear to shut down the free exercise of rights. And so the University now has to look at the safety of their campus and consider what these guys will do. I don’t think the University itself is actively trying to undercut free speech, but that they know that there is going to be violent reaction and they need to time to secure the police force and venue necessary to best protect against it.

But it feels a bit too much like giving into terrorist demands, that by not letting Coulter on campus, it legitimizes their use of violence. This is all wrong. The rights and liberties of the individual, of all individuals, is important and must be upheld. The right to speech and the right to protest alike. But we must abide by the rights of others, and the use of violence to oppose the free exercise of rights cannot be tolerated. But what’s the University to do?

We could just carte blanche increase police protection for these events for the time being. That would cost money, but hopefully we would be driving the system to more reasonable ends in the interim. We could increase policing as well, meaning that we pursue aggressive policing/arresting strategies against groups known to cause violence. Typically for these things the police will stand back somewhat, try to keep the peace, and try to stay out of it unless necessary. This isn’t a bad strategy when rational heads prevail, but as of late rational heads do not seem to be prevailing.

Fundamentally, what is even the cause of this? I think it’s true that we see this sort of violence acted out by “leftist” sides more so than “rightist”, but what happened? Even Berkley back in the day was a champion for Free Speech, and they meant it as such, as an environment where all sides could discuss their ideals and arguments. But it has since moved away, and rather quickly in very recent times. Since the 90’s we have been falling, it seems, into more and more partisan roles. When Reagan and Clinton were in charge, cooperation between the R’s and the D’s wasn’t unheard of. In fact, bipartisanship was often championed (under Clinton it was likely starting to close down, though). But since we have seen, I think, a dramatic shift in the politics and a particular rise in hyper-partisan behavior. To the point now where “bipartisanship” is neigh a dirty word. Is the violence we see now emerging a symptom of that?

Surely Trump is not to blame, per say, but he is certainly a divisive figure, more so than any we’ve had previously. But perhaps that too is a symptom and not the root cause. In fact, I’m inclined to think it is.

Why, then, the sudden shift from open discussion and bipartisan compromise to this inflexible, aggressive, and partisan mindset? How can we fix it?
 
We can start to fix it by not allowing government agencies or those that receive government funds (in any form) from doing this by arresting those on the government payroll that violate free speech and defunding that organization if those arrested are not terminated for cause if convicted.
 
I really dislike people like Coulter and Milo, but the violence we have seen in response to them at Berkeley is much more troubling. There is nothing wrong with a student protest, but when groups like Anti Fa take advantage of the situation to cause trouble there needs to be immediate push back. Instead of push back all we have seen is people seemingly turning their heads at the violence. I would also like to say that, in my opinion, there is a limit to free speech on campus. If you watch the videos of some of the Trump supporters that have been gathering you will spot multiple white supremacist flags. That is unacceptable behavior on a college campus. I have no problem with Coulter trying to speak. I didn't have a problem when Milo tried to do it either.
 
What the university is to to do is to deploy police forces in the number required to insure that their students to not employ violence in the project of shutting down speech that they dont like.
 
She should speak. She's a right wing hack, but these students shouldn't be engaging in authoritarian aggression and then have those efforts legitimized by an institution whose preeminence and excellence was built on free speech, intellectual freedom, and so on. There's always this sect at Cal that tries to ruin everything with their disdain for such values.
 
My strategy would be to stay away and let anyone speak anywhere they are invited. Then they could talk to whoever already agrees with them who attends the event. I would only go to an event if I were truly interested in the topic or the speaker's point of view. Otherwise, let them all talk. Protesting the likes of Milo and Coulter seems a bit of overkill. They are obvious provocateurs looking to get a rise out of certain people. Anyone who already likes them is not going to be swayed by protest nor will it change the point of view of the speaker. People should stop giving them free publicity.
 
Ann Coulter vows to speak at UC Berkeley - CNN.com


I’ll preface everything by stating that I hate Ann Coulter’s methodology. I view her as the instigator type, that is those who say absurd and outrageous things specifically to elicit an emotional reaction in both supporters and distractors because by doing so, it creates attention, coverage, and sells books. So on some level, I take her as an actor, playing this part in order to make money. Not that there is really anything wrong with making money, but it’s more to do that her style isn’t there to promote any sort of discussion, but rather reaction; a reaction specifically tailored to sell. It’s part and parcel to America’s “drama first” consumption trends these day.

That being said, she should go and seek to make her speech regardless of Berkley because it’s important that we keep free speech open and that we engage in it. Now I do think that the University is between a rock and a hard place. Given the antics as of late, particularly by the Antifa assholes. That organization was, long ago, some anti-fascist organization, but is now the fascists themselves. Terrorists even, on some level, using violence and fear to shut down the free exercise of rights. And so the University now has to look at the safety of their campus and consider what these guys will do. I don’t think the University itself is actively trying to undercut free speech, but that they know that there is going to be violent reaction and they need to time to secure the police force and venue necessary to best protect against it.

But it feels a bit too much like giving into terrorist demands, that by not letting Coulter on campus, it legitimizes their use of violence. This is all wrong. The rights and liberties of the individual, of all individuals, is important and must be upheld. The right to speech and the right to protest alike. But we must abide by the rights of others, and the use of violence to oppose the free exercise of rights cannot be tolerated. But what’s the University to do?

We could just carte blanche increase police protection for these events for the time being. That would cost money, but hopefully we would be driving the system to more reasonable ends in the interim. We could increase policing as well, meaning that we pursue aggressive policing/arresting strategies against groups known to cause violence. Typically for these things the police will stand back somewhat, try to keep the peace, and try to stay out of it unless necessary. This isn’t a bad strategy when rational heads prevail, but as of late rational heads do not seem to be prevailing.

Fundamentally, what is even the cause of this? I think it’s true that we see this sort of violence acted out by “leftist” sides more so than “rightist”, but what happened? Even Berkley back in the day was a champion for Free Speech, and they meant it as such, as an environment where all sides could discuss their ideals and arguments. But it has since moved away, and rather quickly in very recent times. Since the 90’s we have been falling, it seems, into more and more partisan roles. When Reagan and Clinton were in charge, cooperation between the R’s and the D’s wasn’t unheard of. In fact, bipartisanship was often championed (under Clinton it was likely starting to close down, though). But since we have seen, I think, a dramatic shift in the politics and a particular rise in hyper-partisan behavior. To the point now where “bipartisanship” is neigh a dirty word. Is the violence we see now emerging a symptom of that?

Surely Trump is not to blame, per say, but he is certainly a divisive figure, more so than any we’ve had previously. But perhaps that too is a symptom and not the root cause. In fact, I’m inclined to think it is.

Why, then, the sudden shift from open discussion and bipartisan compromise to this inflexible, aggressive, and partisan mindset? How can we fix it?

How do you instill a love of freedom into people who very much believe that other things are more important?

I have no idea.
 
What is the usual response to people that intentionally attempt to violate individuals Constitutionally protected rights?
 
Coulter has every right to speak and the violent actions of those protesting are deplorable, however if the Berkeley community and administration do now want Coulter or any speaker then she should not speak at Berkeley. She has every right to speak but people have right tot protest it and no where in the constitution doe sit say the government must provide a platform for people to speak.
 
Ann Coulter vows to speak at UC Berkeley - CNN.com

Why, then, the sudden shift from open discussion and bipartisan compromise to this inflexible, aggressive, and partisan mindset? How can we fix it?

Stop doing what Berkeley is doing and letting the fascists win.
Start taking into custody anyone wearing a mask at a rally.
Start actively and aggressively investigating the people behind Antifas and putting them in jail for inciting violence.
Get Dem. leaders to start speaking out against this kind of thing, instead of sitting in silence.
 
What is the usual response to people that intentionally attempt to violate individuals Constitutionally protected rights?

"You can not speak, because we can not guaranty that we can maintain SAFETY!"
 
rabble rouser
no different than the KKK wanting to march in a predominately black community
the purpose is to incite

coulter is able to speak, but not at a locale that has opted not to provide her with a podium to do so
she is Constitutionally welcome to rent/borrow a facility from a willing berkeley locale owner and speak there
and she will also enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with her unless she also arranges to prevent them from occupying her speaking facility

objecting to her being unable to speak on that disapproving campus is little different from objecting to being unable to post hate speech on this forum; a very stupid position to hold and share
 
"You can not speak, because we can not guaranty that we can maintain SAFETY!"
Sounds like maybe there needs to be a better effort at maintaining safety on campus and a holding people accountable that would intentionally violate someones rights.
 
rabble rouser
no different than the KKK wanting to march in a predominately black community
the purpose is to incite

coulter is able to speak, but not at a locale that has opted not to provide her with a podium to do so
she is Constitutionally welcome to rent/borrow a facility from a willing berkeley locale owner and speak there
and she will also enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with her unless she also arranges to prevent them from occupying her speaking facility

objecting to her being unable to speak on that disapproving campus is little different from objecting to being unable to post hate speech on this forum; a very stupid position to hold and share
She was invited to speak.
 
Sounds like maybe there needs to be a better effort at maintaining safety on campus and a holding people accountable that would intentionally violate someones rights.

That, and better education of the students.
 
She was invited to speak.

and subsequently was uninvited

which tells us she is no longer welcome to speak, according to the authorities who manage the berkeley campus
 
rabble rouser
no different than the KKK wanting to march in a predominately black community
the purpose is to incite

coulter is able to speak, but not at a locale that has opted not to provide her with a podium to do so
she is Constitutionally welcome to rent/borrow a facility from a willing berkeley locale owner and speak there
and she will also enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with her unless she also arranges to prevent them from occupying her speaking facility

objecting to her being unable to speak on that disapproving campus is little different from objecting to being unable to post hate speech on this forum; a very stupid position to hold and share

DP is a social club which is owned by an individual, universities are completely different, or at least they were before the great decline.
 
DP is a social club which is owned by an individual, universities are completely different, or at least they were before the great decline.

then you presume that the authorities responsible for managing the berkeley campus are without the authority to deny someone the opportunity to present a speech on that campus
i don't believe that even you would subscribe to such bull****
 
Coulter has every right to speak and the violent actions of those protesting are deplorable, however if the Berkeley community and administration do now want Coulter or any speaker then she should not speak at Berkeley. She has every right to speak but people have right tot protest it and no where in the constitution doe sit say the government must provide a platform for people to speak.

I would agree with you if Berkeley was a private institution... but it's not... they do not have a say in their speakers, if they open the campus up to speakers.
 
The First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech has applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1920's. This decision by officials of the university is almost certainly state action, for constitutional purposes. That raises the question whether the decision was a valid exercise of the state's police power, in the name of public safety, or an unconstitutional restriction of speech based on its content which used public safety as a pretext.
 
rabble rouser
no different than the KKK wanting to march in a predominately black community
the purpose is to incite

coulter is able to speak, but not at a locale that has opted not to provide her with a podium to do so
she is Constitutionally welcome to rent/borrow a facility from a willing berkeley locale owner and speak there
and she will also enjoy the opinions of those who disagree with her unless she also arranges to prevent them from occupying her speaking facility

objecting to her being unable to speak on that disapproving campus is little different from objecting to being unable to post hate speech on this forum; a very stupid position to hold and share

I suppose that your definition hate speech is now simply anything that liberal forces on or near campus might disapprove of.
 
What is the usual response to people that intentionally attempt to violate individuals Constitutionally protected rights?

Jail.

And on the short term, that could be OK. But a permanent fix to the problem will likely require education. I think the goal would be to get to a place where people will protest, but not take to violence.
 
then you presume that the authorities responsible for managing the berkeley campus are without the authority to deny someone the opportunity to present a speech on that campus
i don't believe that even you would subscribe to such bull****

Berkeley is public institution and its employees are public workers - allowing the government to pick and choose who may speak and about what on public property is not quite what the 1A had in mind.
 
Stop doing what Berkeley is doing and letting the fascists win.
Start taking into custody anyone wearing a mask at a rally.
Start actively and aggressively investigating the people behind Antifas and putting them in jail for inciting violence.
Get Dem. leaders to start speaking out against this kind of thing, instead of sitting in silence.

If people behind the antifas movement were arrested then most of California's students would be in jail. I don't have a problem with that to be honest.
 
Ann Coulter vows to speak at UC Berkeley - CNN.com


I’ll preface everything by stating that I hate Ann Coulter’s methodology. I view her as the instigator type, that is those who say absurd and outrageous things specifically to elicit an emotional reaction in both supporters and distractors because by doing so, it creates attention, coverage, and sells books. So on some level, I take her as an actor, playing this part in order to make money. Not that there is really anything wrong with making money, but it’s more to do that her style isn’t there to promote any sort of discussion, but rather reaction; a reaction specifically tailored to sell. It’s part and parcel to America’s “drama first” consumption trends these day.

That being said, she should go and seek to make her speech regardless of Berkley because it’s important that we keep free speech open and that we engage in it. Now I do think that the University is between a rock and a hard place. Given the antics as of late, particularly by the Antifa assholes. That organization was, long ago, some anti-fascist organization, but is now the fascists themselves. Terrorists even, on some level, using violence and fear to shut down the free exercise of rights. And so the University now has to look at the safety of their campus and consider what these guys will do. I don’t think the University itself is actively trying to undercut free speech, but that they know that there is going to be violent reaction and they need to time to secure the police force and venue necessary to best protect against it.

But it feels a bit too much like giving into terrorist demands, that by not letting Coulter on campus, it legitimizes their use of violence. This is all wrong. The rights and liberties of the individual, of all individuals, is important and must be upheld. The right to speech and the right to protest alike. But we must abide by the rights of others, and the use of violence to oppose the free exercise of rights cannot be tolerated. But what’s the University to do?

We could just carte blanche increase police protection for these events for the time being. That would cost money, but hopefully we would be driving the system to more reasonable ends in the interim. We could increase policing as well, meaning that we pursue aggressive policing/arresting strategies against groups known to cause violence. Typically for these things the police will stand back somewhat, try to keep the peace, and try to stay out of it unless necessary. This isn’t a bad strategy when rational heads prevail, but as of late rational heads do not seem to be prevailing.

Fundamentally, what is even the cause of this? I think it’s true that we see this sort of violence acted out by “leftist” sides more so than “rightist”, but what happened? Even Berkley back in the day was a champion for Free Speech, and they meant it as such, as an environment where all sides could discuss their ideals and arguments. But it has since moved away, and rather quickly in very recent times. Since the 90’s we have been falling, it seems, into more and more partisan roles. When Reagan and Clinton were in charge, cooperation between the R’s and the D’s wasn’t unheard of. In fact, bipartisanship was often championed (under Clinton it was likely starting to close down, though). But since we have seen, I think, a dramatic shift in the politics and a particular rise in hyper-partisan behavior. To the point now where “bipartisanship” is neigh a dirty word. Is the violence we see now emerging a symptom of that?

Surely Trump is not to blame, per say, but he is certainly a divisive figure, more so than any we’ve had previously. But perhaps that too is a symptom and not the root cause. In fact, I’m inclined to think it is.

Why, then, the sudden shift from open discussion and bipartisan compromise to this inflexible, aggressive, and partisan mindset? How can we fix it?

I agree. Let Ann Coulter spew her stupid ****!
 
Back
Top Bottom