• 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!

Berkeley reverses decision to cancel speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter

chromium said:
find a conservative celebrity who meets that requirement first. She could by all rights be banned simply because she contributes nothing whatsoever to the education
Click to expand...

You are claiming that when students at a state university have invited a person to speak there, its officials may revoke that invitation solely on the basis of their judgment that the speaker will contribute nothing to the students' education. Please cite any Supreme Court decision you think supports that view of the authority of government to impose prior restraints on the freedom of speech.
 
matchlight said:
You are claiming that when students at a state university have invited a person to speak there, its officials may revoke that invitation solely on the basis of their judgment that the speaker will contribute nothing to the students' education. Please cite any Supreme Court decision you think supports that view of the authority of government to impose prior restraints on the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

you have exposed the illogic of your side
your post would allow one to presume that if you were invited to speak by any student attending berkeley, that the campus then is compelled to provide a facility for you to present your rant
that to fail to do so somehow would constitute a violation of the first amendment
sorry, but such an argument as you have presented only tells us you do not understand the US Constitution
 
Ikari said:
I think the argument that Berkeley is doing this to infringe upon free speech is all wrong. Mostly, that's just a partisan kneejerk statement meant to elicit emotional retort.

Berkeley has and does allow "conservative" speakers on campus. Their rescheduling of events is due to safety concerns. Now, it can be questioned if they should reschedule or rather just beef up security. Likely the latter, but that does take money (and partisans are already discussing taking that away because they want to pretend this is a purposeful effort to crush free speech) and there may still be some legitimate safety concerns. If something bad happens to a speaker while on campus, that's some liability, so there are safety and financial considerations at the root of this, not some evil desire to crush free speech.

The folk who are causing the damage and violence need to be arrested and thrown in jail. But I don't buy for a second, nor do I believe anyone with a functioning brain does either, that this is a purposeful attempt by Berkeley motivated for and designed to destroy free speech on campus.
Click to expand...

If the state's real reason for revoking Ms. Coulter's invitation were public safety, it would have the burden of proving that in a suit claiming its withdrawal of the invitation was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedom of speech. Preserving public safety has been used before as a pretext for suppressing speech in a public forum. See, e.g., Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
 
matchlight said:
If the state's real reason for revoking Ms. Coulter's invitation were public safety, it would have the burden of proving that in a suit claiming its withdrawal of the invitation was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the freedom of speech. Preserving public safety has been used before as a pretext for suppressing speech in a public forum. See, e.g., Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
Click to expand...

I think given the anarchists violence used against Milo, that they'd have plenty of proof that there is a legitimate concern.
 
justabubba said:
you have exposed the illogic of your side
your post would allow one to presume that if you were invited to speak by any student attending berkeley, that the campus then is compelled to provide a facility for you to present your rant
that to fail to do so somehow would constitute a violation of the first amendment
sorry, but such an argument as you have presented only tells us you do not understand the US Constitution
Click to expand...

You are allowed to presume anything you like. And anyone else is allowed to decide if your presumption is reasonable.

I asked the other poster to cite any Supreme Court decision to support his claim about government's authority to abridge the freedom of speech. Since you chose to intervene, why don't you cite one? Please educate those of us who lack your understanding of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
matchlight said:
I asked the other poster to cite any Supreme Court decision to support his claim about government's authority to abridge the freedom of speech. Since you chose to intervene, why don't you cite one? Please educate those of us who lack your understanding of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

i will do your homework if you agree to pay my billable hours
 
matchlight said:
You are claiming that when students at a state university have invited a person to speak there, its officials may revoke that invitation solely on the basis of their judgment that the speaker will contribute nothing to the students' education. Please cite any Supreme Court decision you think supports that view of the authority of government to impose prior restraints on the freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

the same authority that allows them to remove students from occupation protests. I'm sure you have no problem with that though. Why don't YOU try citing any supreme court, or any other court, decision that does not allow a college to ban outside speakers at its own facilities. Maybe you should invite her to speak at your house and put up with the riots on your lawn if you're so adamant

it's obvious what's going on here. She saw what happened with milo and she had no intention of speaking there, only being uninvited for security reasons and then profiting off the attention. You're just playing into her hands

she has no affiliation with the school - not student, alumni, professor, administrator at any time - and therefore has no business being there unless the community wants her to. By overwhelming majority, they do not. She would only be a trespasser. Now, if she wanted to speak at a facility at Cornell, that would be a different matter in my view. She might have to wait a while for space, but that's how it goes
 
Last edited:
katzgar said:
Opposing views are always good but she is just a rabble rouser.
Click to expand...
'Opposing views are always good but not Coulter's opposing views?' This is almost a double entrendre. It's like saying I love everyone but hate Joe. You didn't say anything, ya know.
 
cabse5 said:
'Opposing views are always good but not Coulter's opposing views?' This is almost a double entrendre. It's like saying I love everyone but hate Joe. You didn't say anything, ya know.
Click to expand...


She is yelling fire in a theater and that's never good
 
Ikari said:
I think given the anarchists violence used against Milo, that they'd have plenty of proof that there is a legitimate concern.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But when government restricts the freedom of speech, it is coming close to the third rail, and it had better be very sure it is standing on firm ground. Like all First Amendment rights, the freedom of speech belongs to a select group of rights the Supreme Court considers fundamental. That means in constitutional challenges to government actions which involve constitutionally protected speech, the Court's very demanding "strict scrutiny" standard applies. And there is no form of abridgment of the freedom of speech that courts disfavor more strongly than prior restraints.
 
katzgar said:
She is yelling fire in a theater and that's never good
Click to expand...

Right church, wrong pew. You are referring to Justice Holmes' famous example from Schenck, a case in which the issue was whether the First Amendment protects subversive advocacy which presents a clear and present danger of actions which Congress has the right to prevent. Holmes used the example to support his argument that the degree to which the Constitution protects speech depends to some extent on the context of the speech, which in that case was a leaflet urging resistance to the draft during World War One.

Schenck is not relevant to the decision to withdraw Ms. Coulter's invitation, which involves a different aspect of the freedom of speech--prior restraint.
 
matchlight said:
Right church, wrong pew. You are referring to Justice Holmes' famous example from Schenck, a case in which the issue was whether the First Amendment protects subversive advocacy which presents a clear and present danger of actions which Congress has the right to prevent. Holmes used the example to support his argument that the degree to which the Constitution protects speech depends to some extent on the context of the speech, which in that case was a leaflet urging resistance to the draft during World War One.

Schenck is not relevant to the decision to withdraw Ms. Coulter's invitation, which involves a different aspect of the freedom of speech--prior restraint.
Click to expand...


I would never go see her as she does indeed fit the modern understanding of yelling fire in a church. She should indeed be allowed to speak,
 
Here is an example of the intelligence of Ann Coulter. For starters she use the old false equivalence of the Democrats of the south vs. the Democratic party today and how political parties have never had static positions in history or ever varied by geographic location. And ooh, big secret! The democrats were racist! Just like ole Tom Jefferson! Gee Ann, you sure exposed those sneaky democrats. At the end she says Nikki Haley is an immigrant and can't understand American history. I guess beside this being totally illogical, Coulter simply misspoke about the American born Haley. Not my idea of intelligence. She is a propagandist, and a poor one at that. Moron seems quite appropriate but I prefer the far more accurate asshole.



Hey Ann, here's a quick history lesson for ya!

[video]https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/american-civics-parent/american-civics/v/history-of-the-democratic-party[/video]
 
chromium said:
the same authority that allows them to remove students from occupation protests.
Click to expand...

I see you can't cite even one Supreme Court decision to support your assertion that officials at a state university may make their judgment that a person will contribute nothing to students' education their sole basis for revoking a student group's invitation to that person to speak on campus.

Why don't YOU try citing any supreme court, or any other court, decision that does not allow a college to ban outside speakers at its own facilities.
Click to expand...

The whole of the Court's jurisprudence on prior restraints on speech in a public forum makes clear that government would need to prove that public safety was a compelling purpose for imposing such a restraint; that the restraint was necessary to achieve that purpose; and that the restraint was narrowly tailored to that purpose.

it's obvious what's going on here. She saw what happened with milo and she had no intention of speaking there, only being uninvited for security reasons and then profiting off the attention.
Click to expand...

If so, then good for Ann. I hope more people will try to expose that pseudo-liberals are wolves in sheep's clothing: They pretend to be tolerant of individual liberties, but disdain the First Amendment and the Constitution in general.

she has no affiliation with the school - not student, alumni, professor, administrator at any time - and therefore has no business being there unless the community wants her to. By overwhelming majority, they do not.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, a UC Berkeley student group had invited her to speak there. If there is some government rule which requires a majority vote to be allowed to speak on a state university campus, you have not cited it.
 
devildavid said:
Here is an example of the intelligence of Ann Coulter. For starters she use the old false equivalence of the Democrats of the south vs. the Democratic party today and how political parties have never had static positions in history or ever varied by geographic location. And ooh, big secret! The democrats were racist! Just like ole Tom Jefferson! Gee Ann, you sure exposed those sneaky democrats. At the end she says Nikki Haley is an immigrant and can't understand American history. I guess beside this being totally illogical, Coulter simply misspoke about the American born Haley. Not my idea of intelligence. She is a propagandist, and a poor one at that. Moron seems quite appropriate but I prefer the far more accurate asshole.
Click to expand...

I am glad to see you join others in asserting that Ann Coulter is a moron. I wonder, though, why you restate the obvious. It's common knowledge that everyone who graduates with honors from any of the ten most prestigious law schools in the U.S. must be a moron. That should be all the more obvious if the graduate is a conservative, because we all know that soi-disant liberals have a monopoly on intelligence. Anyone who doubts that has only to spend a little time on these forums.
 
I love how some people here are claiming that not allowing pro-fascism trolls onto campus without getting into the nuances of why some of us believe they shouldn't be allowed onto campus is in itself fascism. I also love how it takes half a dozen of them to try to shut me down, which, if the irony of that cannot be seen, no irony can.

Much appreciated, guys. You just made my point for me far better than I ever could have!
 
Phys251 said:
I love how some people here are claiming that not allowing pro-fascism trolls onto campus without getting into the nuances of why some of us believe they shouldn't be allowed onto campus is in itself fascism. I also love how it takes half a dozen of them to try to shut me down, which, if the irony of that cannot be seen, no irony can.

Much appreciated, guys. You just made my point for me far better than I ever could have!
Click to expand...

:roll:

Who tried to "shut you down"? Your posts got spanked, but that's not the same thing.

As for:

not allowing pro-fascism trolls onto campus without getting into the nuances of why some of us believe they shouldn't be allowed onto campus is in itself fascism
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter "why." Free speech is free speech, not speech you approve of.
 
Harshaw said:
:roll:

Who tried to "shut you down"? Your posts got spanked, but that's not the same thing.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Too bad for you I know how this game works. And you guys are playing it in a very typical manner.

As for:

Doesn't matter "why." Free speech is free speech, not speech you approve of.
Click to expand...

That isn't even the issue here. If "free speech" is your standard of whom should be required to be allowed to speak on college campuses, then just about anybody can talk about anything. No, the bar should be whether or not a speaker has something of reasonable value to contribute. And Milo and other trolls fail that standard miserably.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

Too bad for you I know how this game works. And you guys are playing it in a very typical manner.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're trying to make it look like you're masterminding something here, but the truth is, you made dumb posts, they got whacked, and you're pretending things are going as you planned.

But who knows? Perhaps you really do think you're fooling anyone.



That isn't even the issue here. If "free speech" is your standard of whom should be required to be allowed to speak on college campuses, then just about anybody can talk about anything.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Free speech is indeed free speech. If someone's got something to say, and some group wants to hear it enough to invite them, then yes.

It's not up to you, or anyone else, to determine which ideas are worthy of being spoken.

No, the bar should be whether or not a speaker has something of reasonable value to contribute.
Click to expand...

As determined by YOU, no doubt. Ah, yes:

And Milo and other trolls fail that standard miserably.
Click to expand...

According to you. But you are not the arbiter of who gets to speak, much as you'd like to be.

I guess you're just going to have to deal with people out there having ideas that you'd rather not hear. I know it's awful and everything, what with people thinking and expressing unapproved thoughts, but no one said freedom was always going to be fun for you.
 
matchlight said:
I am glad to see you join others in asserting that Ann Coulter is a moron. I wonder, though, why you restate the obvious. It's common knowledge that everyone who graduates with honors from any of the ten most prestigious law schools in the U.S. must be a moron. That should be all the more obvious if the graduate is a conservative, because we all know that soi-disant liberals have a monopoly on intelligence. Anyone who doubts that has only to spend a little time on these forums.
Click to expand...

Getting a college degree doesn't exempt someone from being a moron. Her actions and words demonstrate her idiocy.
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

Too bad for you I know how this game works. And you guys are playing it in a very typical manner.



That isn't even the issue here. If "free speech" is your standard of whom should be required to be allowed to speak on college campuses, then just about anybody can talk about anything. No, the bar should be whether or not a speaker has something of reasonable value to contribute. And Milo and other trolls fail that standard miserably.
Click to expand...

But..but..but they have opinions. And college degrees. Isn't that enough?;)
 
katzgar said:
She is yelling fire in a theater and that's never good
Click to expand...

but the audience is there waiting for her to scream 'fire'
in this instance, there may be a bunch of volunteer firemen who show up to quench that claim of fire
suspect that prospect is what alarms the berkeley administration
 
devildavid said:
Here is an example of the intelligence of Ann Coulter. For starters she use the old false equivalence of the Democrats of the south vs. the Democratic party today and how political parties have never had static positions in history or ever varied by geographic location. And ooh, big secret! The democrats were racist! Just like ole Tom Jefferson! Gee Ann, you sure exposed those sneaky democrats. At the end she says Nikki Haley is an immigrant and can't understand American history. I guess beside this being totally illogical, Coulter simply misspoke about the American born Haley. Not my idea of intelligence. She is a propagandist, and a poor one at that. Moron seems quite appropriate but I prefer the far more accurate asshole.



Hey Ann, here's a quick history lesson for ya!

[video]https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/american-civics-parent/american-civics/v/history-of-the-democratic-party[/video]
Click to expand...


wait, this is someone turtledude holds up as an intellectual
he must be grading on a curve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom