• 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!

Coulter's speech at Berkely cancelled... again.

calamity said:
Looks like Ann was just in it for money. Her sponsor pulled out. Maybe you righties should take it up with them.
Click to expand...

Right. They just pulled out under threat of physical harm. What's next for the fascists on the left? Cutting to the chase by arming with guns and making straight up threats to kill anyone who doesn't toe the line?

Perhaps the boiler rooms can run out a few dog whistles attempting to spin away from that growing revelation.
 
RickJames3000 said:
1. Literally no one will suffer because they don't get to see Ann Coulter speak in person.

2. Saying that this is a "dark day for free speech" is drama queen-worthy hyperbole. There are plenty of ways for people to learn what this POS has to say. When all of her videos and rants disappear from the internet... then you might have a case.

3. It's the organizers who have cancelled this engagement. The responsibility for the cancellation lies solely with them.

4. This woman is an attention whore who is only making these conflicting announcements to generate buzz. She learned the trick from Milo.
Click to expand...

Would anyone "suffer" if Beethoven's Ninth disappeared? Not in the way your comment implies the word. But some of us suffer this anti-liberal silencing of speech in the way we might suffer fools, ungladly.
 
beerftw said:
You seemed to be the one who believed violent censorship was not censorship, if you like I can quote you, you have been called out numerous times in this thread, and simple deflections do not protect your position from ridicule.
Click to expand...

Good luck in your future efforts at improving your reading skills.
 
Fishking said:
Freedom of speech no respecter of a person's words having any inherent value. It is applies equally to those who speak inanities and those who speak profound truths.
Click to expand...

How about rearranging your word salad so it makes sense?
 
Phys251 said:
Good questions.

Another thing I want to know. What exactly is this "adequate security" thing that Coulter is whining about? Why should Berkeley U be expected to foot the bill? What about the city of Berkeley? Or Alameda County? Have there been no discussions between Berkeley U and these entities?
Click to expand...

As I said, this is shoddy journalism from FOX News. No wonder people here are so confused.
 
ocean515 said:
Right. They just pulled out under threat of physical harm. What's next for the fascists on the left? Cutting to the chase by arming with guns and making straight up threats to kill anyone who doesn't toe the line?

Perhaps the boiler rooms can run out a few dog whistles attempting to spin away from that growing revelation.
Click to expand...

Are you triggered?
 
ludin said:
LOL typical.

UC Berkeley cancels Ann Coulter appearance, citing safety concerns after violent protests - LA Times

University of California officials have been caught between left-wing activists who have tried to shut down appearances by conservative speakers.

U.C. Berkeley teacher leading anti-facist protests speaks | KRON4.com

BAMN was in on the Milo protests as well.

yes they are liberal progressives.
Click to expand...

Naturally, a brief examination of the links you provided exposes your partisan assumptions and flawed misconceptions. You should actually read the substantiating links you post so you don’t end up looking foolish.

Just as I said, there is no mention of any specific threat beyond the perception that prior problems might be repeated:

"UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said campus police feared that some of the same extremist forces who caused problems during recent clashes would be out in force when Coulter was on campus."

OF course the partisan hacks have laid all the blame for this on "the Left"... a very shortsighted and flawed assumption based upon no actual evidence. Next time, try substantiating your opinions with actual facts. Both sides (as well as unidentifiable actors) have clearly been involved in protests and clashes over such events. And you haven’t provided any proof that an organization named “BAMN” was behind any threats over Ann Coulter’s prospective appearance. When you find that, go ahead and post it.

AS I mentioned upthread... the sole responsibility for the most recent cancellation lies squarely on the shoulders of the conservative student organization that invited Coulter in the first place (the YAF), that was petulantly dissatisfied with the provisions the University deemed necessary in order to hold an orderly event:

"Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group that helped organize Coulter’s speech, said the university told organizers that the writer “would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.”
 
TurtleDude said:
how about providing security so that someone who would threaten Ms Coulter or her audience gets their asses kicked or arrested or maced? that seems to be the proper response rather than allowing the thugs to win out
Click to expand...

If you do even a little bit of research, you will find that the University Administration set conditions for an orderly and safe event for all participants, and the petulant organizers of the YAF balked, and cancelled Coulter's appearance as a publicity stunt.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Naturally, a brief examination of the links you provided exposes your partisan assumptions and flawed misconceptions. You should actually read the substantiating links you post so you don’t end up looking foolish.

Just as I said, there is no mention of any specific threat beyond the perception that prior problems might be repeated:

"UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said campus police feared that some of the same extremist forces who caused problems during recent clashes would be out in force when Coulter was on campus."

OF course the partisan hacks have laid all the blame for this on "the Left"... a very shortsighted and flawed assumption based upon no actual evidence. Next time, try substantiating your opinions with actual facts. Both sides (as well as unidentifiable actors) have clearly been involved in protests and clashes over such events. And you haven’t provided any proof that an organization named “BAMN” was behind any threats over Ann Coulter’s prospective appearance. When you find that, go ahead and post it.

AS I mentioned upthread... the sole responsibility for the most recent cancellation lies squarely on the shoulders of the conservative student organization that invited Coulter in the first place (the YAF), that was petulantly dissatisfied with the provisions the University deemed necessary in order to hold an orderly event:

"Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group that helped organize Coulter’s speech, said the university told organizers that the writer “would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.”
Click to expand...
denial arguments are fallacies.

the people protesting the speakers are liberals progressive groups.
there is nothing partisan about what I posted that is in fact a projection fallacy.

you asked for proof I gave you proof who was protesting.

the fact that you don't want to accept it is not my problem but yours.

nothing you said refutes the fact that it is liberal progressives that are protesting and
attempting to shut down free speech.

no it is the school that canceled the speech. the school then refused to provide a venue for the speaker that
would be safe for the speaker and the people that would attend.

they attempted to move the speech to a point in time where no one would be able to attend due to
exams.

the school went out of it's way and has gone out of it's way to shut down conservative speakers.

the school went out of it's way not to provide a proper venue for the speech to be given.
 
ludin said:
denial arguments are fallacies.

the people protesting the speakers are liberals progressive groups.
there is nothing partisan about what I posted that is in fact a projection fallacy.

you asked for proof I gave you proof who was protesting.

the fact that you don't want to accept it is not my problem but yours.

nothing you said refutes the fact that it is liberal progressives that are protesting and
attempting to shut down free speech.

no it is the school that canceled the speech. the school then refused to provide a venue for the speaker that
would be safe for the speaker and the people that would attend.

they attempted to move the speech to a point in time where no one would be able to attend due to
exams.

the school went out of it's way and has gone out of it's way to shut down conservative speakers.

the school went out of it's way not to provide a proper venue for the speech to be given.
Click to expand...

You have provided nothing but deflection and lies. Try harder.
 
RickJames3000 said:
If you do even a little bit of research, you will find that the University Administration set conditions for an orderly and safe event for all participants, and the petulant organizers of the YAF balked, and cancelled Coulter's appearance as a publicity stunt.
Click to expand...

how is making them have the event outside instead of inside where it can be controlled and proper security measures taken orderly and safe?
your partisanship is showing again.
 
RickJames3000 said:
You have provided nothing but deflection and lies. Try harder.
Click to expand...

so you are back to you say so.
I posted 2 links that supported what I said so prove those links or is this just the defacto
non-argument you just declare someone lying?

I didn't lie at all.

the articles I posted proved me correct sorry you don't like facts.

so the question is now why are you being so dishonest?
 
ludin said:
how is making them have the event outside instead of inside where it can be controlled and proper security measures taken orderly and safe?
your partisanship is showing again.
Click to expand...

Yet again with more lies...

Where are you getting the notion that the University was going to require Coulter's appearance to be "outside"? It certainly wasn't in the links you provided:

"Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group that helped organize Coulter’s speech, said the university told organizers that the writer “would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.”
 
WillyPete said:
It definitely doesn't help the activist's credibility for this to be the outcome.

The move would have been to let her talk and ignore it.

Could you even fill a school bus with Coulter fans at Berkeley?
Click to expand...

One does not have to be a fan to want to hear someone speak.
 
Phys251 said:
Good questions.

Another thing I want to know. What exactly is this "adequate security" thing that Coulter is whining about? Why should Berkeley U be expected to foot the bill? What about the city of Berkeley? Or Alameda County? Have there been no discussions between Berkeley U and these entities?
Click to expand...

The group on campus had to pay the university 5k dollars or so for security measures that were not provided.
It was the school that deemed the security measures were not bad. which is the fault of the school.

I am sure none of their liberal speakers had issues.

it is the job of the host to provide security which would include the local police in so that order is kept.
The school could have done just that and failed to do so and closed down a speaker which they do not
do with their liberal speakers.

that is why the student group is suing the school like they should.
 
ocean515 said:
Is that a question leftist leaders ask protestors before sending them out to take care of business?
Click to expand...

Protesting hate mongers like Coulter is the duty of every citizen. It's not our fault the Right is a big bunch of babies who can't handle a little protest.
 
matchlight said:
Government may unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech without making a law. Other government acts may also do that. UC Berkeley is a public university. The decision by officials there to revoke an invitation to speak on campus that student organizations had already extended to Ms. Coulter was therefore a state action for constitutional purposes. The First Amendment freedom of speech therefore applied to that action through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

University is not exactly government. But had Berkeley cancelled this event solely because Coulter was on the right, then I think you'd have a stronger case. However, that isn't the reason. We've seen the violence outbreak already, and Berkeley has to take that into consideration. They have to provide a secure and relatively safe environment. They had all this scheduled, after the outbreak of violence they looked to postpone it and even gave alternate dates because they had to get extra security and police at the events since the anarchists and political terrorists are targeting the Right. They state it's safety concern, and there is legitimate evidence to believe that.

I do think that Berkeley has a responsibility to get this fixed as well, to provide the security and to work with the police to help capture and arrest these criminals so that they can be prosecuted and jailed. But they also have a responsibility for the safety of their student population and campus, so that must be taken into account. This isn't an abridgment of free speech by the University, there's absolutely no evidence for that. Everything points to safety concerns.

Berkeley is not encouraging the violence, they're not saying "Hey, come throw bricks through our windows and cause a bunch of property danger while endangering the safety of our students!". And while they need to be serious in their efforts to snuff out this sort of violent protest, they must also be aware and take into consideration how that violence is going to effect their campus and student body.

I believe that those who are out there trying to make it seem like Berkeley is encouraging this, or purposefully stepping on the political speech of others aren't truly being honest about the situation and the decisions the University has to make.
 
ocean515 said:
Ikari, why are you being so obtuse? The foundational support of liberal ideas and agenda's has been documented on college campuses, and in college classrooms for years.

I've posted links documenting that very thing.

Have you ever read of any campus wide protests stemming from noted communist/socialist/Marxist groups speaking on campus?

Have colleges and universities established safe spaces?

Hey, run with your nothing is something standards. It's all good.
Click to expand...

you provided no information on any systematic. You gave 2 articles, separated by a year. One in which one University allowed a conservative speaker, and the other where a different University was looking into allegations made against a professor. That doesn't establish any trend nor mete out any statistic. You've provided nothing to this account, so it's quite laughable that you're complaining about my "nothing is something" standards.

My side is rooted in reality. There has been violence by anarchists and political terrorists aimed at the right. The University has a responsibility to the safety of its students and campus. Thus any scheduled talk at this point that may elicit that violent response may need to be postponed so that they can provide additional security and police in order to properly protect the students and campus.

You want to argue against that, but can provide nothing to demonstrate that isn't what is going on.
 
TurtleDude said:
how about providing security so that someone who would threaten Ms Coulter or her audience gets their asses kicked or arrested or maced? that seems to be the proper response rather than allowing the thugs to win out
Click to expand...

coulter wants to speak
and has the right to do so
but why does that right obligate UC Berkeley to provide a venue at the time of coulter's choosing
or the obligation to ensure her security
why is coulter not obligated to arrange her own presentation site and her own security team to assure her own security
coulter is exhibiting classic entitlement behavior. she wants to speak and expects someone else to arrange for her to be able to do so

and we now see that coulter's team has declined to speak because those who oppose her espoused positions are viewed as threats to her safety. the same position the university held. the position team coulter filed suit to counter. the position team coulter now holds, as evidenced by her refusal to go forward with the announced speaking engagement

this has been nothing more than an orchestrated effort by coulter to gain lots of media attention at virtually no personal expense
if the reader believes coulter is actually the victim of this charade, then that reader is a mark
 
Lord of Planar said:
This thread was already over 160 posts when I entered it. I didn't read most of the responses.

My question is this:

Do any of you lefties really think safety concerns are the reason? If so, I think cities across the nation need to start shutting down all left and progressive protests because they almost always have violence.

Remarks?
Click to expand...

yes they are a concern
if they were not, coulter would continue with her plans to speak
 
RickJames3000 said:
Yet again with more lies...

Where are you getting the notion that the University was going to require Coulter's appearance to be "outside"? It certainly wasn't in the links you provided:

"Young America’s Foundation, a conservative group that helped organize Coulter’s speech, said the university told organizers that the writer “would be required to deliver her speech in the afternoon; only students would be allowed to attend; and the speech location would not be announced until close to the event.”
Click to expand...

No lie at all. I would have to find the article that I read. which cited more of the complaint.

however what isn't a lie and your now being completely dishonest is the fact that liberal progressive are attempting to shut down free speech.
which is the main point of the articles. you are now simply putting on a delfection fallacy.

BAMN and other liberal student groups are behind the protests this is pretty much a fact and I have proven it.
so we know you won't deal with that argument and continue to deflect into something else.

I proved what I needed to prove you are now doing what we call a strawman or red herring fallacy.

so back to my original argument which is the groups protesting are liberal progressives. this has been proven.
so you can either address the actual argument I made or continue to be dishonest and strawman something I never argued.
 
matchlight said:
Government may unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech without making a law. Other government acts may also do that. UC Berkeley is a public university. The decision by officials there to revoke an invitation to speak on campus that student organizations had already extended to Ms. Coulter was therefore a state action for constitutional purposes. The First Amendment freedom of speech therefore applied to that action through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

did that student organization which extended the invitation for coulter to speak have the authority to provide her with a safe venue in which to present her remarks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom