• 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

TheGoverness said:
Article is Here.



So it looks like crazy ol' Ann might get her chance to speak after all, albeit on a different date and under different conditions. But I'm happy the university reversed their decision, though I understand why they cancelled it in the first place.

Look, I think most of us can agree that Ann Coulter is a moron. She spews a crapton of stupid psychobabble on a daily basis in order to draw more attention to herself, and sell more copies of her ****ty books. But with that being said, I think that she should allowed to speak at the university (if she does end up going through with it). If one wishes to protest these events, they should be able to do so, but it should be done peacefully. Committing acts of violence in order to prevent someone from exercising their right to free speech is where it crosses the line.

I've made similar remarks before, but I think we as a society need to hold up the principle of free speech, particularly the concept of articulating one's opinions without fear of societal sanction. We should be open to the concept of free expression, including towards ideas and views that aren't popular with the majority. Concerning the many incidents of violent protests that have erupted around these conservative speaking events at colleges in very recent history, that kind of behavior shouldn't be acceptable. And resorting to violence should not be in any way legitimized, which is why I'm glad the university reversed their decision. Because that just looks like the university is bending the knee to these ANTIFA assholes, who come to these events with the intent of causing trouble. Giving them what they want will just encourage that kind of reprehensible behavior even further. Silencing the views of another because they are offensive, shoudn't be encouraged. Also, trying to inconvenience others by blocking their ability to access these events should also unacceptable. If someone wants to go and hear a different perspective, then they should be able to do so. And a learning environment such as a university should be a place where all ideas have a have a platform, and promotes openness, but I guess that's not the case at Berkley.

If this event does go as planned on the re-scheduled date, and the group that invited Ann Coulter doesn't reject the new conditions, I hope it doesn't get shut down like the last one did, and security should be ramped up in order to prevent any violence from breaking out, but let's just say my hopes aren't very high.
Click to expand...

you might not like what Coulter says

You might even be correct in noting she tries to stir stuff up

calling her a Moron is a really stupid position to take

like it or not, she's very intelligent. I know I have met her and talked to her. you don't graduate Order of the coif at one of the very best law schools in the USA and then clerk for a Federal Appellate Court if you are a moron.
 
devildavid said:
Getting a college degree doesn't exempt someone from being a moron. Her actions and words demonstrate her idiocy.
Click to expand...

By your lights, then, Ann Coulter is a moron. What does her intelligence--or lack of it--have to do with the question whether the state of California unconstitutionally infringed her freedom of speech by revoking an invitation by a UC Berkeley student group for her to speak on campus?

Please feel free to enlighten us about the Supreme Court's decisions on restricting speech in a public forum. I'd be particularly interested to hear your analysis of Hague v. CIO, which involved the same public safety rationale, and Widmar v. Vincent, which involved a state university. While you're at it, please explain the history of prior restraints by government on speech and how the First Amendment reflects that history. I am sure that would be way over the head of a moron like Coulter--they probably don't even teach constitutional law at a dump like her law school--but it should be child's play for you.
 
matchlight said:
By your lights, then, Ann Coulter is a moron. What does her intelligence--or lack of it--have to do with the question whether the state of California unconstitutionally infringed her freedom of speech by revoking an invitation by a UC Berkeley student group for her to speak on campus?

Please feel free to enlighten us about the Supreme Court's decisions on restricting speech in a public forum. I'd be particularly interested to hear your analysis of Hague v. CIO, which involved the same public safety rationale, and Widmar v. Vincent, which involved a state university. While you're at it, please explain the history of prior restraints by government on speech and how the First Amendment reflects that history. I am sure that would be way over the head of a moron like Coulter--they probably don't even teach constitutional law at a dump like her law school--but it should be child's play for you.
Click to expand...

She's a moron. You don't even know what, if anything, she learned in school. She spouts propaganda for a living. But lawyers and judges can be morons too. Being a moron is an equal opportunity career.
 
Puigb said:
Affirmative action.
Click to expand...

you need to actually cite some sort of evidence for that crap. I know many people who were accepted into U of Michigan (me being one) Law during the time period that Coulter was accepted. I also know that her credentials were no less than many males who were accepted into U of M or similarly ranked law schools (U of C, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, U of P, Duke, UVa etc). Michigan-at that time, mainly gave breaks-and big ones at that-to RESIDENTS of Michigan. Ms. Coulter is from Connecticut. so you are just making stuff up.
 
devildavid said:
She's a moron. You don't even know what, if anything, she learned in school. She spouts propaganda for a living. But lawyers and judges can be morons too. Being a moron is an equal opportunity career.
Click to expand...

LOL that is hilarious. BTW her academic credentials are higher than Liz warren's or Hillary Clinton's
 
Oh, and Ann Coulter has no more of a Constitutional right to speak at a college than I do. There is no such right.
 
devildavid said:
She's a moron. You don't even know what, if anything, she learned in school. She spouts propaganda for a living. But lawyers and judges can be morons too. Being a moron is an equal opportunity career.
Click to expand...

By your lights, apparently, almost everyone else is a moron. All the more surprising that you can't respond to the specific issues I raised, even though they directly relate to the topic of this thread. Didn't they discuss this area of First Amendment law at your law school?
 
devildavid said:
Oh, and Ann Coulter has no more of a Constitutional right to speak at a college than I do. There is no such right.
Click to expand...

Well not at the facilities. On the steps outside in the common area yes, but she doesn't have the guts for that. She knows how despised she is there and she's trying to make trouble and profit from that without taking on any risks

I have seen religious nuts raving outside on campus and they just get laughed at or things thrown at them. Coulter wants to avoid that, she wants to speak inside a building with only her minions there. For those saying this would encourage "critical thinking," A) nothing she ever says does and B) she would only be speaking to her followers with everyone else outside

The only exception i've seen to this was Ahmadinejad(sp), the puppet-dictator of iran. He got heckled badly even at a reserved indoor venue, because well, he has no followers here
 
justabubba said:
wait, this is someone turtledude holds up as an intellectual
he must be grading on a curve
Click to expand...

it's called taking advantage of idiots. She might be smart and just saw an opportunity. Sadly in this country even the dumb as dirt have enough savings to buy her book. Anywhere else, they would've starved, and she'd have no career being a petty hater
 
devildavid said:
Oh, and Ann Coulter has no more of a Constitutional right to speak at a college than I do. There is no such right.
Click to expand...

The right to free speech is fundamental. It is not granted by the First Amendment, but rather guaranteed by that amendment against abridgment by government. The question is whether California violated that right in Ms. Coulter's case by revoking, on the ground of preserving public safety, a UC Berkeley student group's invitation for her to speak there.

We are still waiting for your erudite analysis of the Supreme Court decisions which are most relevant to this question--something a moron like Coulter could never provide. Of course you understand that the decision by university officials was state action for constitutional purposes, so that the First Amendment applies to it through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
 
matchlight said:
The right to free speech is fundamental. It is not granted by the First Amendment, but rather guaranteed by that amendment against abridgment by government. The question is whether California violated that right in Ms. Coulter's case by revoking, on the ground of preserving public safety, a UC Berkeley student group's invitation for her to speak there.

We are still waiting for your erudite analysis of the Supreme Court decisions which are most relevant to this question--something a moron like Coulter could never provide. Of course you understand that the decision by university officials was state action for constitutional purposes, so that the First Amendment applies to it through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Click to expand...

Why not ask Ann to do it at her next speaking engagement? She seems so interested in analyzing such issues.
 
Harshaw said:
It makes her a lot of money.
Click to expand...

and robert mercer directed her to provoke an uproar on this campus
she's earning her keep
 
TurtleDude said:
you need to actually cite some sort of evidence for that crap. I know many people who were accepted into U of Michigan (me being one) Law during the time period that Coulter was accepted. I also know that her credentials were no less than many males who were accepted into U of M or similarly ranked law schools (U of C, Columbia, NYU, Cornell, U of P, Duke, UVa etc). Michigan-at that time, mainly gave breaks-and big ones at that-to RESIDENTS of Michigan. Ms. Coulter is from Connecticut. so you are just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

you should know she's a source of great shame at UM. I've seen a pic of ted kaczynski get less vitriol
 
devildavid said:
Why not ask Ann to do it at her next speaking engagement? She seems so interested in analyzing such issues.
Click to expand...

I don't want to hear it explained by a moron. Why do you keep avoiding my challenge? Someone might think you have just been pretending to understand the question of constitutional law involved in the topic of this thread. Someone might also think you don't care a tinker's damn about the freedom of speech of anyone whose views happen to irk you.
 
chromium said:
you should know she's a source of great shame at UM. I've seen a pic of ted kaczynski get less vitriol
Click to expand...

I guess that federal judge who chose her to clerk for him must have been just as much a moron as she is. He must have been a conservative, because everyone knows that all the smart people are liberals. Us conservative morons just know pickups, NASCAR ,and Budwiser, but liberals know all about Bree cheese and Pickaso and Michelle Foocaut and disconstruction and all that stuff.
 
justabubba said:
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
Click to expand...


Yeah you gotta ask what's wrong with the audience
 
What rubbish. This is why we don't want liberals on the court. We don't want you and other liberals deciding what speech has "value". Get a ****ing grip.



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...
 
matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

they don't need ANY reason to not allow someone to reserve space for ANY purpose at a campus facility. Security is just the reason they chose and some of us are saying she shouldn't because she contributes nothing to the education, or because she has no background there


matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

This isn't a public forum. As i explained, she could have gone on the public steps and bellowed into a megaphone like the other religious loons i come across, but she's too afraid for that, and she didn't want to make the trip besides. She just wanted the publicity man, and unlike you i'm not falling for it. She is no victim for not being able to give a speech where she didn't want to go anyway, good god


matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

/snooze, freedom of speech refers to government persecution, she can't rant her drivel on a blog for all i care, but she can't go to a place of limited space owned and operated by others where she's not wanted

i would question how'd you react to bernie sanders being blockaded by a conservative campus he wanted to speak at, but there's just not very many of them, owing to the fact that few conservatives bother with education

matchlight said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is super-super majority. Probably 95% don't want her there. But regardless, in a facility you do need permission. I can't waltz into the stadium at any time, i can't sit in protest at the administration building, and i have a hell of a lot more right to do so than Coulter at a school she has no affiliation with
 
chromium said:
you should know she's a source of great shame at UM. I've seen a pic of ted kaczynski get less vitriol
Click to expand...

yeah I am sure the snowflake population at U of M is pretty bad. when people start paying taxes and raising families, its funny how they tend to jettison views that might have been alluring when you don't have much in the way of responsibilities
 
devildavid said:
Why not ask Ann to do it at her next speaking engagement? She seems so interested in analyzing such issues.
Click to expand...

why don't you show how she is a moron. I have met her a couple times. She's not say as smart as some of my other famous friends such as Yale Sterling Professor of Law Akhil Amar but she is close. real close
 
TobyOne said:
What rubbish. This is why we don't want liberals on the court. We don't want you and other liberals deciding what speech has "value". Get a ****ing grip.
Click to expand...

Universities should commit themselves to the highest standards of excellence possible in all things, including the ideas that they discuss and explore. Wouldn't you agree?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom