Berkeley reverses decision to cancel speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter

Good. Now democrats can riot and burn down some buildings because of free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Universities should support diversity of thought. That *is* a high standard. And they should support the idea and practice of free speech. The fact that liberals a) don't understand it b) don't want it and c) maintain a stranglehold on universities is a huge concern. Moreover, the fact that the same people who want to suppress speech want to redistribute wealth AND want to confiscate guns is the exact reason we have the second amendment.

Phys251 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Phys251 said:

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?

Click to expand...

We get it; you already said this -- only speech you approve of may pass.

ataraxia said:

Oh Yeah? Which of these highly educated and intelligent pronouncements by this very insightful woman did you find most enlightening?

Click to expand...

What's enlightening to me is how humorless you are.

Harshaw said:

We get it; you already said this -- only speech you approve of may pass.

Click to expand...

That is a bald-faced lie. Nowhere except in your imagination did I even suggest that I was to be the arbiter of whom a university should allow as keynote speakers.

It is these kinds of lies that you want broadcast onto college campuses, and the very same free speech that you claim gives these trolls the right to say whatever they want in any venue they want also gives us the right to refute you.

Phys251 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Yeah, if anyone just blurted out in class the kind of unthinking crap Coulter does, they'd fail every time

TobyOne said:

Universities should support diversity of thought. That *is* a high standard. And they should support the idea and practice of free speech. The fact that liberals a) don't understand it b) don't want it and c) maintain a stranglehold on universities is a huge concern. Moreover, the fact that the same people who want to suppress speech want to redistribute wealth AND want to confiscate guns is the exact reason we have the second amendment.

Click to expand...

Here is what some people on this thread choose not to understand:

Not only do I not disapprove of conservative speakers on college campuses, I want some conservative speakers on campus, and I want students who don't agree with them to hear it. Because either they're going to consider their points of view and realize that they may not have been so far off as they originally thought, or they're going to learn to see through their lies and will be further inoculated against them. Either way, the student wins.

But reasonable limits do exist. When you have these trolls who out trans people in a manner that feels like a scene straight out of Lord of the Flies, for instance, that crosses a line. Allowing incitement of hatred like that is an outright liability for a university, and they have every right to fight against it.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

Coulter is living proof that it doesn't matter what your views are, they can contribute absolutely nothing of value and still you can make a killing off them. She doesn't have anything worthwhile to hear, frankly.

How about the responsibility to your fellow man? Because Coulter fails that in every way. All her ilk does is stir hatreds to a boiling point

Phys251 said:

Here is what some people on this thread choose not to understand:

Not only do I not disapprove of conservative speakers on college campuses, I want some conservative speakers on campus, and I want students who don't agree with them to hear it. Because either they're going to consider their points of view and realize that they may not have been so far off as they originally thought, or they're going to learn to see through their lies and will be further inoculated against them. Either way, the student wins.

Click to expand...

I have nothing to win by hearing a hate monger spouting pro discrimination crap, heard it all my life growing up and i saw thru the lies before ever getting to college. There's nothing to gain just because it's a loudmouthed celebrity doing it, and her being a celebrity isn't a good enough reason to invite her. Opinions are like assholes, i'm not wasting my time on a 'pundit' I want to hear from leaders in science, math, linguistics, any legitimate pursuit that one should to go to college for

Unfortunately for her, there's no major in "being an asshole"

chromium said:

I have nothing to win by hearing a hate monger spouting pro discrimination crap, heard it all my life growing up and i saw thru the lies before ever getting to college. There's nothing to gain just because it's a loudmouthed celebrity doing it, and her being a celebrity isn't a good enough reason to invite her. Opinions are like assholes, i'm not wasting my time on a 'pundit' I want to hear from leaders in science, math, linguistics, any legitimate pursuit that one should to go to college for

Unfortunately for her, there's no major in "being an asshole"

Click to expand...

Exactly. Anybody of any political stripe can use a microphone to spew worthless, bombastic messages. Hell that's what our SCROTUS does constantly, and nobody except an elite few are better off for it.

TurtleDude said:

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

Click to expand...

what she says for profit is moronic because that's her target audience and that's how she'd act at berkeley. No one cares how she is in person

This is fabulous....I have rarely thought much of Ann Coulter but I was very happy to see that she was going to sue over this, because it is about time these Universities were made to defend in court their lack of willingness to secure their campuses so that speech can take place.

Phys251 said:

Exactly. Anybody of any political stripe can use a microphone to spew worthless, bombastic messages. Hell that's what our SCROTUS does constantly, and nobody except an elite few are better off for it.

Click to expand...

If it were up to the deplorables, we would all have to take a class each taught by professors coulture, limbaugh, and trump and before you know it, berkeley would plummet down to a commuter school

Hawkeye10 said:

This is fabulous....I have rarely thought much of Ann Coulter but I was very happy to see that she was going to sue over this, because it is about time these Universities were made to defend their lack of willingness to secure their campuses so that speech can take place.

Click to expand...

she can pay for the security herself if she doesn't like. It's her own damn fault she's so unwelcome there

btw, she turned down the invitation to a more secure building and it's the group that invited her that hired a lawyer (talk about snowflake victims), and it's groups full of outsiders as well like antifa(sp) that cause the violence, so you're talking out of your ass on this

chromium said:

she can pay for the security herself if she doesn't like. It's her own damn fault she's so unwelcome there

btw, she turned down the invitation to a more secure building and it's the group that invited her that hired a lawyer (talk about snowflake victims), so you're talking out of your ass on this

Click to expand...

My America is better than that.

Hawkeye10 said:

My America is better than that.

Click to expand...

Oh i'm sure you enjoy it when trump costs taxpayers $30 million every golf trip but in my america, the real america, a public servant doesn't get to do that 4 goddamn times a month. Likewise a 'public' school whose budget is a whopping 2% from taxes can't be expected to spend millions so some provocateur that 95% of the community dislikes can give a speech she can just as easily deliver from a couch

Apparently the groups that invited Dear Ann signed a contract with her for this date without ever asking the college if security was viable, and then when they were told security couldn't be ensured they flipped out like immature twats befitting her fans. Now imagine how enraged they'd be if the event on and security was insufficient *because* they didn't even bother to ask ahead of time. They have no case

katzgar said:

She sells hate and I am not a fan of that

Click to expand...

She exposes the hate of the left.

If you ever actually understood her, yo would realize that.

matchlight said:

The reason is that we conservatives, unlike pseudo-liberals, support the Constitution. A private college which is not associated with government should be able to allow or restrict speech as it sees fit, because the First Amendment does not restrict what private persons may do. But Ms. Coulter was turned away by a state university. The decision of officials there about her speech was state action, and that means the First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech applies to it.

Click to expand...

I think we should all demand for equal treatment. That they keep liberals from speaking too!

Spartacus FPV said:

You have that precisely wrong. The right are for equal opportunities and equal rights, the left are for equal outcomes which is the problem with all collectivism.

Click to expand...

Well said.

Too bad the left is indoctrinated with ignorant ideals.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

If they are concerned,beef up the security and expel the students who cause problems. To reward the troublemakers by allowing their form of terrorism to work is unacceptable, and they should be dealt with accordingly.

Phys251 said:

Allowing incitement of hatred like that is an outright liability for a university, and they have every right to fight against it.

Click to expand...

That is a misstatement of the law. The Supreme Court regards all First Amendment rights as part of a select group of rights which are fundamental. That means that in due process or equal protection challenges to government actions which restrict the freedom of speech, the action will be unconstitutional unless the state can prove it was necessary for a compelling government purpose, and that it was narrowly tailored to that purpose. This "strict scrutiny" standard is extremely hard to meet.

The First Amendment's guarantee of the freedom of speech has applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment since the 1920's. When UC Berkeley officials revoked a student organization's invitation to Ms. Coulter to speak, that was an action by the state of California. When a state imposes a prior restraint on speech, as California did here, it is treading on very thin ice, because there is no form of restriction of the freedom of speech courts disfavor more strongly than prior restraints. The Supreme Court has discussed this, noting that opposition to the prior restraints on speech--licensing, for example--which had been imposed in England was an important reason for guaranteeing the freedom of speech in the First Amendment.

A government entity which claims to know in advance that certain speech will endanger public safety, and on that basis pleads fear of liability for any injuries which might result, will find it very hard to prove to a court that was an adequate reason to prohibit the speech. You might want to read Hague v. CIO, a 1939 case which involved a First Amendment challenge to a Jersey City ordinance which authorized a public safety official to refuse a permit to assemble and speak on city streets or in city parks whenever, in the official's opinion, the refusal would prevent "riots, disturbances, or disorderly assemblage." The Court held the ordinance void on its face for abridging the freedoms of speech and assembly.

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...

But man people like to hear what she has to say. Would even 1% as many care what you have to say?

I didn't think so.

devildavid said:

So why is she wasting her time selling propaganda?

Click to expand...

Why are you calling facts, propaganda?

Your opinion is not fact.

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...

If Berkley had any integrity, they would seek out and expel the threats to her safety.

blackjack50 said:

Good. Now democrats can riot and burn down some buildings because of free speech.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That must be it.

Berkley is afraid their buildings will get burned!