Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation - Page 4

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

What world is she living in where American college students don't protest speakers they don't like at their school?

Again, protesting is expected. Rioting to force an event to cancel is not.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Again, protesting is expected. Rioting to force an event to cancel is not.

I think we can all agree on that (for most events) but since there was no riot in this instance what relevance has it to do with Coulter cancelling her appearance?

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 06:49 AM

There was a protest that blocked entrance to the event, and a false fire alarm.
These are actions of censorship, and inappropriate.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

There was a protest that blocked entrance to the event, and a false fire alarm.
These are actions of censorship, and inappropriate.

All well and good (and inaccurate) but what is this about a riot?

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

All well and good (and inaccurate) but what is this about a riot?

That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be.

And of course there was no such violence. (And the only indication we have of the entrance being blocked is from the letter linked to above which states that the organisers of the event at least at some point were blocking the entrance, plus we know that 100 people were waiting for her inside the event.) Even by your own definition of a riot there was no riot at this event.

Drudgewire · 25th March 2010, 07:07 AM

The cops don't seem to agree with the whole "riot" thing:

Quote:

Constable Alain Boucher of Ottawa Police Services (DW note: Oops, I said police chief. My bad) said that the police had recommended calling off the appearance because of the crowd’s size, not its behavior.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...25coulter.html

And I have no problem at all with Ann Coulter, and would bet a lot of those protesters would be the first ones crying about assaults on free speech if the same thing happened to a lefty speaker... but that doesn't mean the facts should be fudged to make her seem like a victim (something she's the first to accuse others of).

In other words, there's lots of hypocricy to go around in this story.

fitzgibbon · 25th March 2010, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be.

Hyperbole much?

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

And of course there was no such violence. (And the only indication we have of the entrance being blocked is from the letter linked to above which states that the organisers of the event at least at some point were blocking the entrance, plus we know that 100 people were waiting for her inside the event.) Even by your own definition of a riot there was no riot at this event.

If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation.

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 07:13 AM

Wait, the cops recommended calling off the event simply because there were a lot of people protesting it?
That's weak.

Drudgewire · 25th March 2010, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Wait, the cops recommended calling off the event simply because there were a lot of people protesting it?
That's weak.

They're Canadian. They're not used to people acting unruly about anything non-hockey related.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation.

I am basing mine on what the reports have said. The AP article referenced in the opening posts states that there were already 100 people inside the event when it was decided to cancel it. That report also only mentioned "crowding" at the entrance, it makes no mention that the entrance was blocked by anyone. The only mention of the entrance being blocked is in the letter linked to a few posts above in which the author (who claims to have been at the event) states that the organisers at one time blocked the entrance.

From that letter:

Quote:

...snip...

The U of O Campus Conservatives who organized the event did a very poor job. They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. It was chaos when frustrated fans and critics of Coulter were then penned inside the building, the organizers were blocking entry into Marion Hall and the large crowd outside made it to difficult to leave.

...snip...

GreNME · 25th March 2010, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

So, you think the local police were idiots when they recommended she not give her presentation at that hall on that night?

I think local police don't want to have to deal with people who come into a place to intentionally start trouble like Coulter does.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You think it was just a coincidence that the fire alarm was pulled right before the event?

Are you serious about this one? How many others avoided the event because the fire alarm was pulled? What is that supposed to mean? Is there somehow an implied threat to Coulter's life, instead of a typical juvenile action defying authorities?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech?

I don't give a crap. If she doesn't have the courage of conviction (on free speech) to speak anyway, that's her failure. Practically every member of the House of Reps in the US last year had the courage to show up at Town Hall meetings despite the early-recognized trend of sign-waving, gun-toting, and won't-shut-the-heck-up Tea Party nutjobs, and Coulter doesn't seem to have been able to muster even the level of courage that politicians (who are notoriously un-courageous) managed to exhibit.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Uhhh... no. Some of us actually believe in the concept of free speech regardless of the message or the person giving the speech. I'm not familiar with Maddow, but I'd feel the same way about someone like Michael Moore if he were to give a speech up here. Moore is an idiot, but if he were invited to give a speech here and others wanted to listen to him, then he should be free to do so.

The only one who limited Coulter's speech was Coulter by not showing. And frankly, I don't believe you that you'd react differently were it Moore.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Ummm.... not sure if that sentence makes sense...

Did you actually mean she backed out when she was going to be facing heavy opposition?

I mean that she has a history of disliking any situation where her target or target audience isn't kissing her ass or cowering at her verbal assault. Any bit of fighting back, and Coulter either backpedals or turns tail and runs, just like she did with this event.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A couple of things should be noted:
With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views.

That's a funny world you live in. Unfortunately, "opposition must be quiet while the speaker is talking" does not happen to be any kind of current rule for free speech, and in fact instances where opposing speech gets stifled actually tends to result in quite the opposite to what you're suggesting regarding free speech. Frankly, I find your suggestion that opposition should be silenced while a speaker is talking to be antithetical to free speech.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

During her previous appearance, she both gave a speech, and engaged in a Q&A with the audience. If students at the university really wanted to challenge her, they could have listened to whatever B.S. she slung in her speech, and then raised questions during the Q&A to point out her failings. Or, like I said, they could have brought in their own speakers, wrote letters to newspapers, etc.

Or they could have protested, which they did. Just because they didn't follow the set of actions you would have prescribed does not automagically make Coulter's turning tail and running any less the fault of Coulter. Singing the "Brave Sir Robin" song about her running away from the opposition, or trying to inflate the protests by describing them as "riots" (as AvalonXQ is hilariously doing), does not change the fact that the decision to stay or leave was Coulter's and she chose to not show up. Let me repeat: Ann Coulter chose to not show up, no one forced her to call off the appearance.

quadraginta · 25th March 2010, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation.

I am basing mine on what the reports have said. The AP article referenced in the opening posts states that there were already 100 people inside the event when it was decided to cancel it. That report also only mentioned "crowding" at the entrance, it makes no mention that the entrance was blocked by anyone. The only mention of the entrance being blocked is in the letter linked to a few posts above in which the author (who claims to have been at the event) states that the organisers at one time blocked the entrance.

From that letter:

Quote:

...snip...

The U of O Campus Conservatives who organized the event did a very poor job. They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. It was chaos when frustrated fans and critics of Coulter were then penned inside the building, the organizers were blocking entry into Marion Hall and the large crowd outside made it to difficult to leave.

...snip...

I was about to post the very same thing, except I was going to include this additional excerpt from the letter...

Quote:

Most people had learned about the Coulter event only a few days prior from the mainstream media. We had no idea that we needed to pre-register online to attend.

... and re-iterate this part.

Quote:

They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in.

So it would seem that not only was it the organizers who were blocking entry, but they were blocking the entry of people who actually wanted to attend, but were uninformed due to poor pre-event preparation by those same organizers. The entire debacle seems to be the fruit of their own incompetence.

Only in an Ann Coulter Bizzaro reality could this be spun into a riot by anti-Coulter protesters.

DDWW · 25th March 2010, 08:34 AM

Usually in those venues the speakers are paid in advance.

I hope she is keeping the money.

DDWW

Gord_in_Toronto · 25th March 2010, 09:20 AM

As an amusing aside I see that news.google.ca has 1020 news articles on The Coulter Incident. Not a single one of which is from a news organization outside of Canada.

Captain.Sassy · 25th March 2010, 09:30 AM

Ann Coulter can go to hell.

Telling a 17 year old muslim girl to go ride a camel?

Seriously.

The issue isn't her 'conservatism' or political views or even the intellectual level of her discourse.

It's that she's an openly racist hate monger.

If she had said something like the above comment playing on a stereotype about jewish people or black people there is no way that her speaking at the university would even be an issue and it definitely would not be framed in the same way.

*spit*

tyr_13 · 25th March 2010, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Ann Coulter can go to hell.

Telling a 17 year old muslim girl to go ride a camel?

Seriously.

The issue isn't her 'conservatism' or political views or even the intellectual level of her discourse.

It's that she's an openly racist hate monger.

If she had said something like the above comment playing on a stereotype about jewish people or black people there is no way that her speaking at the university would even be an issue and it definitely would not be framed in the same way.

*spit*

As inane and bad a person as I believe her to be, the highlighted part isn't as bad as it sounds. That seventeen year old student had just made a joke about, 'not being able to ride a magic carpet' so I'm willing to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt and say that it was probably just a joke.

Captain.Sassy · 25th March 2010, 09:51 AM

Hm.

My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want.

Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet.

So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible.

[puttin' the super in superlatives]

Praktik · 25th March 2010, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Hm.

My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want.

Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet.

So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible.

[puttin' the super in superlatives]

Exactly, the girl may have been poking fun, but she was poking fun at the insensitivity of Coulter's statement from a while back and said "I don't have a magic carpet... so what can I do?" (paraphrasing)

And then Coulter applied more racist insensitivity on her earlier racist insensitivity.

Fnord · 25th March 2010, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by ReFLeX

Short letter from an attendee

.
Concluding exerpt:

Originally Posted by Alex Sellick

"... this event was cancelled due to extremely poor planning by the organizers, some idiotic decisions by the SFUO and some prankster pulling a fire alarm."

.
I'll buy that. One eye-witness account trumps untold numbers of speculative opinions.

tyr_13 · 25th March 2010, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy

Hm.

My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want.

Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet.

So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible.

[puttin' the super in superlatives]

Originally Posted by Praktik

Exactly, the girl may have been poking fun, but she was poking fun at the insensitivity of Coulter's statement from a while back and said "I don't have a magic carpet... so what can I do?" (paraphrasing)

And then Coulter applied more racist insensitivity on her earlier racist insensitivity.

Ah, I saw a video from the event on CNN and must have misheard the girl.

Steelmage · 25th March 2010, 12:52 PM

When I read about this item, I though "Oh irony".

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Quote:

You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech?

Tea Party Protesters & Town Hall Meetings

I note that you did not choose to address the potential similarities when I brought this up earlier.

Do you see no analogues between the two situations? Were you equally outraged by the behavior of the Tea Party Protesters?

What's there to say? I agree with you... there were similarities, and I think the Tea Party Protesters did step over the line at times. (I didn't respond to that part because I didn't actually see much point in posting a message just saying "I agree".)

I am more concerned about this particular incident than about the Tea party protesters because:
A: It happened in my home town
B: Universities are supposed to be places that allow the free exchange of ideas.
But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

A couple of things should be noted:
With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views.

Can't say I've ever heard that before, on either side of the free speech debate.

Well, in a radio interview with Seamus Wolfe (president of the university's student federation) had made some sort of comment along the lines of "it wasn't fair to let her speak because we couldn't debate her".

And remember, the poster that I was responding to suggested she canceled because of 'opposition'. Why should opposition matter? If I have a message (even if its wrong-headed and can't defend it) I should have the right to deliver it without facing opposition.

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

I think the question has to be "Did the people who were against her speaking do anything illegal?"

If they did then they stepped over a line (albeit I do support the principle of 'civil disobedience' as long as it is not violent), if they didn't then why is what they did wrong?

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

quixotecoyote · 25th March 2010, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

Once again, you have a unique conception of freedom of speech.

The idea that you have a right to speak without government interference is not generally extended to the concept that someone should shut up the crowd so you can be heard. That generally falls under property rights and the ability of owners to do what they want with their own platforms, including kicking the rabble out.

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship.
Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple.

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

Speakers aren't protested at colleges in the United States? What's she talking about. When I was in college, I can't count how many protests there were regarding planned speakers, even seemingly innocuous ones.

Don't think she was saying that there were "never" protests at various universities/colleges. Just don't think the protests directed at her were bad enough to actually cancel events.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if its true... does anyone have any video or news reports from appearances of Coulter at various American universities? Are they ever like the one that happened here in Canada?

stilicho · 25th March 2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by parky76

Canada is not the USA. I don't know what your Freedom of Speech laws or principles are.

We just make 'em up as we go.

Actually, pretty similar to yours, I'd imagine. Here's a summary of a Canadian satirical magazine inviting young Tories to deflower a former Prime Minister's daughter:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caroline-mulroney/

Darat · 25th March 2010, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

...snip...

But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard".

Darat · 25th March 2010, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

...snip...

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.

*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship.
Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple.

So you also have to believe that people have a right to be heard or that some people don't have a right to "free speech".

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by GreNME

I think local police don't want to have to deal with people who come into a place to intentionally start trouble like Coulter does.

So? If the students actually respected the concept of "free speech" there would have been absolutely no risk of "trouble starting".

Quote:

Are you serious about this one? How many others avoided the event because the fire alarm was pulled? What is that supposed to mean? Is there somehow an implied threat to Coulter's life, instead of a typical juvenile action defying authorities?

Pulling a fire alarm is juvenile. But it is also disruptive. (It leads to delays, it has the potential for interrupting the flow of things.) Sorry, I just don't accept that because a tactic was "juvenile" that it is acceptable.

Quote:

You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech?

I don't give a crap. If she doesn't have the courage of conviction (on free speech) to speak anyway, that's her failure.

First of all, whether she has "conviction" or not should be irrelevant. Freedom of speech should not mean "freedom of speech but only if you feel strongly about it".

Secondly, why exactly should anyone be forced to "yell" to make their ideas heard?

Quote:

The only one who limited Coulter's speech was Coulter by not showing. And frankly, I don't believe you that you'd react differently were it Moore.

Thank you. You just called me a liar.

Are you a mind reader? If so, I know where you can get $1 million easily.

Quote:

Ummm.... not sure if that sentence makes sense...

Did you actually mean she backed out when she was going to be facing heavy opposition?

I mean that she has a history of disliking any situation where her target or target audience isn't kissing her ass or cowering at her verbal assault.

Yes, I assumed you meant that... But your previous post had stated she "backed out of an appearance when it became obvious that she wasn't going to be facing heavy opposition". It was your use of the word "wasn't" that didn't make sense.

Quote:

A couple of things should be noted:
With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views

That's a funny world you live in. Unfortunately, "opposition must be quiet while the speaker is talking" does not happen to be any kind of current rule for free speech...

Actually, whomever is providing the forum for the speech/message/presentation can and should be allowed to set the rules (whether they want the presentation to take the form of a basic speech, Q&A, or full debate.) People who do not like the rules should not attend the presentation. Those who violate the rules should be removed.

We regularly see protesters removed from other meetings for violating rules:
http://www.dailycal.org/article/2506...egents_meeting
http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201599859

Quote:

Frankly, I find your suggestion that opposition should be silenced while a speaker is talking to be antithetical to free speech.

Nope. You see, I have a belief that the right of "free speech" should not belong to just the person who happens to have the loudest megaphone.

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Quote:

But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard".

As I mentioned to another poster... I believe in free speech, and part of that freedom is in the ability for those providing the forum to decide the rules for the speech/presentation/etc. (whether they want it to be a straight speech with no audience feedback, a Q&A session, a full debate, or even a "shout off".) Those who do not want to respect the rules should not attend. Whomever is providing the forum should not be forced to change the rules against their will.

Otherwise, the only person who has "free speech" is the one with the largest megaphone.

Let me put it this way, what do you think would be an appropriate course of action if, at the next TAM, a group of christian fundamentalists bought passes to attend, and started yelling "Atheist Babykiller" or "God punishes nonbelievers" whenever Randi tried to speak? Would you consider that acceptable behavior? Or would you expect that the protesters would be removed?

(Not that I'm trying to say Coulter has anywhere near the respectability of Randi; but the measure of 'free speech' should include our willingness to accept even the worst messages.)

AvalonXQ · 25th March 2010, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

So you also have to believe that people have a right to be heard or that some people don't have a right to "free speech".

I've made this point before and I'll make it again -- people have the right to speak, and to be heard by those who want to hear them and are willing to make the effort that that requires.
Censorship is action, not speech. The fact that your action also contains words, like shouting so others can't be heard or blocking people with your demonstration, doesn't change the censoring action into speech itself. You can divorce the speech from the action and still allow everyone to speak while not allowing anyone to censor.
The only way I could ever see speech itself "censoring" is if that speech convinced people to not want to listen to another speaker -- and I have no issue with this. Removing people's willingness to listen isn't censorship; it's persuasion and completely appropriate.
But dressing up thuggery as though it's the same as an expression of ideas is disingenuous and inaccurate.

rwguinn · 25th March 2010, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.

*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

We take our rights seriously here, and the Brit/UK attitude depicted by some folks here is why we kicked them out in 1776...
We have this thing called The Constitution of the United States of America, as Amended.
The very FIRST AMENDMENT states That the People have the right to peaceably assemble. Now, many have held that only the Government can abridge these rights-but I know of one case where an individual has been sued for violating the Constitutional Rights of another, and one case where the threat to sue was made, both in wrongful death lawsuits.

Darat · 25th March 2010, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

As I mentioned to another poster... I believe in free speech, and part of that freedom is in the ability for those providing the forum to decide the rules for the speech/presentation/etc. (whether they want it to be a straight speech with no audience feedback, a Q&A session, a full debate, or even a "shout off".) Those who do not want to respect the rules should not attend. Whomever is providing the forum should not be forced to change the rules against their will.

...snip...

And in this instance none of what you don't agree with happened.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Let me put it this way, what do you think would be an appropriate course of action if, at the next TAM, a group of christian fundamentalists bought passes to attend, and started yelling "Atheist Babykiller" or "God punishes nonbelievers" whenever Randi tried to speak? Would you consider that acceptable behavior? Or would you expect that the protesters would be removed?

...snip...

Can't see how this is relevant to what happened to Coulter - but it would all depend on whether what they were doing was illegal (as I defined it earlier) or not.

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

(Not that I'm trying to say Coulter has anywhere near the respectability of Randi; but the measure of 'free speech' should include our willingness to accept even the worst messages.)

That is then a right "to be heard" which is quite a different right to the right to "free speech".

Darat · 25th March 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by rwguinn

We take our rights seriously here, and the Brit/UK attitude depicted by some folks here is why we kicked them out in 1776...
We have this thing called The Constitution of the United States of America, as Amended.
The very FIRST AMENDMENT states That the People have the right to peaceably assemble. Now, many have held that only the Government can abridge these rights-but I know of one case where an individual has been sued for violating the Constitutional Rights of another, and one case where the threat to sue was made, both in wrongful death lawsuits.

What has this to do with the topic under discussion?

(and you seem to be quite confused - I am arguing for the right of people to demonstrate and have free speech.)

Segnosaur · 25th March 2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Quote:

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.

*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

But then, aren't you assuming that legal=moral, and illegal=amoral?

There is nothing illegal about a man cheating on his wife. Yet it is immoral to do so. Similarly, the protesters may not have been violating any laws/rules, but their unwillingness to let Coulter speak (and possibly taking actions such as yelling when she tries to do so) still violates the idea that "people should be allowed to hear things they want to hear".

Now, had the speech gone on and Coulter was actually shouted down, the protesters might have been guilty of trespassing. (I'm not sure of the exact rules that were given, but if they included a clause such as "You may be removed for disruptive behavior", then they'd be doing something 'illegal'.)

25th March 2010, 06:44 AM	#121
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat What world is she living in where American college students don't protest speakers they don't like at their school? Again, protesting is expected. Rioting to force an event to cancel is not.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 06:45 AM	#122
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Again, protesting is expected. Rioting to force an event to cancel is not. I think we can all agree on that (for most events) but since there was no riot in this instance what relevance has it to do with Coulter cancelling her appearance?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 06:49 AM	#123
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	There was a protest that blocked entrance to the event, and a false fire alarm. These are actions of censorship, and inappropriate.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 06:53 AM	#124
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ There was a protest that blocked entrance to the event, and a false fire alarm. These are actions of censorship, and inappropriate. All well and good (and inaccurate) but what is this about a riot?
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 06:57 AM	#125
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Darat All well and good (and inaccurate) but what is this about a riot? That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 07:06 AM	#126
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be. And of course there was no such violence. (And the only indication we have of the entrance being blocked is from the letter linked to above which states that the organisers of the event at least at some point were blocking the entrance, plus we know that 100 people were waiting for her inside the event.) Even by your own definition of a riot there was no riot at this event.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 07:07 AM	#127
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	The cops don't seem to agree with the whole "riot" thing: Quote: Constable Alain Boucher of Ottawa Police Services (DW note: Oops, I said police chief. My bad) said that the police had recommended calling off the appearance because of the crowd’s size, not its behavior. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/wo...25coulter.html And I have no problem at all with Ann Coulter, and would bet a lot of those protesters would be the first ones crying about assaults on free speech if the same thing happened to a lefty speaker... but that doesn't mean the facts should be fudged to make her seem like a victim (something she's the first to accuse others of). In other words, there's lots of hypocricy to go around in this story.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

25th March 2010, 07:09 AM	#128
fitzgibbon Master Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Just west of the centre of the universe Posts: 2,539	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ That's my terminology: crowd of people protesting + violent behavior against those not in the crowd (blocking people from going places, sabotaging an event) = riot. I'm differentiating between a "protest", which uses a crowd to convey speech and should be permitted, and a "riot", which uses a crowd to carry out violent actions and should not be. Hyperbole much?
	__________________ "Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!" Howard Beale, "Network"

25th March 2010, 07:12 AM	#129
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Darat And of course there was no such violence. (And the only indication we have of the entrance being blocked is from the letter linked to above which states that the organisers of the event at least at some point were blocking the entrance, plus we know that 100 people were waiting for her inside the event.) Even by your own definition of a riot there was no riot at this event. If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 07:13 AM	#130
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Wait, the cops recommended calling off the event simply because there were a lot of people protesting it? That's weak.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 07:14 AM	#131
Drudgewire Critical Doofus Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 9,434	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Wait, the cops recommended calling off the event simply because there were a lot of people protesting it? That's weak. They're Canadian. They're not used to people acting unruly about anything non-hockey related.
	__________________ "You post a lie, it is proven 100% false, you move the goalposts and post yet another lie and it continues on around till we're back to the original lie as if it will somehow become true if it's re-iterated again. The same misquotes over and over again. The same hindsight bias, appeals to authority, etc." -lapman describing every twoofer on the internet

25th March 2010, 07:18 AM	#132
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation. I am basing mine on what the reports have said. The AP article referenced in the opening posts states that there were already 100 people inside the event when it was decided to cancel it. That report also only mentioned "crowding" at the entrance, it makes no mention that the entrance was blocked by anyone. The only mention of the entrance being blocked is in the letter linked to a few posts above in which the author (who claims to have been at the event) states that the organisers at one time blocked the entrance. From that letter: Quote: ...snip... The U of O Campus Conservatives who organized the event did a very poor job. They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. It was chaos when frustrated fans and critics of Coulter were then penned inside the building, the organizers were blocking entry into Marion Hall and the large crowd outside made it to difficult to leave. ...snip...
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 07:18 AM	#133
GreNME Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Folsom Prison Posts: 8,283	Originally Posted by Segnosaur So, you think the local police were idiots when they recommended she not give her presentation at that hall on that night? I think local police don't want to have to deal with people who come into a place to intentionally start trouble like Coulter does. Originally Posted by Segnosaur You think it was just a coincidence that the fire alarm was pulled right before the event? Are you serious about this one? How many others avoided the event because the fire alarm was pulled? What is that supposed to mean? Is there somehow an implied threat to Coulter's life, instead of a typical juvenile action defying authorities? Originally Posted by Segnosaur You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech? I don't give a crap. If she doesn't have the courage of conviction (on free speech) to speak anyway, that's her failure. Practically every member of the House of Reps in the US last year had the courage to show up at Town Hall meetings despite the early-recognized trend of sign-waving, gun-toting, and won't-shut-the-heck-up Tea Party nutjobs, and Coulter doesn't seem to have been able to muster even the level of courage that politicians (who are notoriously un-courageous) managed to exhibit. Originally Posted by Segnosaur Uhhh... no. Some of us actually believe in the concept of free speech regardless of the message or the person giving the speech. I'm not familiar with Maddow, but I'd feel the same way about someone like Michael Moore if he were to give a speech up here. Moore is an idiot, but if he were invited to give a speech here and others wanted to listen to him, then he should be free to do so. The only one who limited Coulter's speech was Coulter by not showing. And frankly, I don't believe you that you'd react differently were it Moore. Originally Posted by Segnosaur Ummm.... not sure if that sentence makes sense... Did you actually mean she backed out when she was going to be facing heavy opposition? I mean that she has a history of disliking any situation where her target or target audience isn't kissing her ass or cowering at her verbal assault. Any bit of fighting back, and Coulter either backpedals or turns tail and runs, just like she did with this event. Originally Posted by Segnosaur A couple of things should be noted: With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views. That's a funny world you live in. Unfortunately, "opposition must be quiet while the speaker is talking" does not happen to be any kind of current rule for free speech, and in fact instances where opposing speech gets stifled actually tends to result in quite the opposite to what you're suggesting regarding free speech. Frankly, I find your suggestion that opposition should be silenced while a speaker is talking to be antithetical to free speech. Originally Posted by Segnosaur During her previous appearance, she both gave a speech, and engaged in a Q&A with the audience. If students at the university really wanted to challenge her, they could have listened to whatever B.S. she slung in her speech, and then raised questions during the Q&A to point out her failings. Or, like I said, they could have brought in their own speakers, wrote letters to newspapers, etc. Or they could have protested, which they did. Just because they didn't follow the set of actions you would have prescribed does not automagically make Coulter's turning tail and running any less the fault of Coulter. Singing the "Brave Sir Robin" song about her running away from the opposition, or trying to inflate the protests by describing them as "riots" (as AvalonXQ is hilariously doing), does not change the fact that the decision to stay or leave was Coulter's and she chose to not show up. Let me repeat: Ann Coulter chose to not show up, no one forced her to call off the appearance.
	__________________ _{Like love, criminals will always find a way. -- foxholeatheist The kind of pacifism I endorse is brought about by eliminating one enemy combatant at a time.-- JoeyDonuts}

25th March 2010, 07:45 AM	#134
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,906	Originally Posted by Darat Originally Posted by AvalonXQ If your understanding of facts, rather than mine, is the correct one, that would certainly change my characterization of the situation. I am basing mine on what the reports have said. The AP article referenced in the opening posts states that there were already 100 people inside the event when it was decided to cancel it. That report also only mentioned "crowding" at the entrance, it makes no mention that the entrance was blocked by anyone. The only mention of the entrance being blocked is in the letter linked to a few posts above in which the author (who claims to have been at the event) states that the organisers at one time blocked the entrance. From that letter: Quote: ...snip... The U of O Campus Conservatives who organized the event did a very poor job. They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. It was chaos when frustrated fans and critics of Coulter were then penned inside the building, the organizers were blocking entry into Marion Hall and the large crowd outside made it to difficult to leave. ...snip... I was about to post the very same thing, except I was going to include this additional excerpt from the letter... Quote: Most people had learned about the Coulter event only a few days prior from the mainstream media. We had no idea that we needed to pre-register online to attend. ... and re-iterate this part. Quote: They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. So it would seem that not only was it the organizers who were blocking entry, but they were blocking the entry of people who actually wanted to attend, but were uninformed due to poor pre-event preparation by those same organizers. The entire debacle seems to be the fruit of their own incompetence. Only in an Ann Coulter Bizzaro reality could this be spun into a riot by anti-Coulter protesters.
	__________________ "It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it." Last edited by quadraginta; 25th March 2010 at 07:48 AM. Reason: quote attribution confusion

25th March 2010, 08:34 AM	#135
DDWW Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 471	Usually in those venues the speakers are paid in advance. I hope she is keeping the money. DDWW
DDWW Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 471

25th March 2010, 09:20 AM	#136
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,415	As an amusing aside I see that news.google.ca has 1020 news articles on The Coulter Incident. Not a single one of which is from a news organization outside of Canada.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

25th March 2010, 09:30 AM	#137
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Ann Coulter can go to hell. Telling a 17 year old muslim girl to go ride a camel? Seriously. The issue isn't her 'conservatism' or political views or even the intellectual level of her discourse. It's that she's an openly racist hate monger. If she had said something like the above comment playing on a stereotype about jewish people or black people there is no way that her speaking at the university would even be an issue and it definitely would not be framed in the same way. spit
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

25th March 2010, 09:42 AM	#138
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy Ann Coulter can go to hell. Telling a 17 year old muslim girl to go ride a camel? Seriously. The issue isn't her 'conservatism' or political views or even the intellectual level of her discourse. It's that she's an openly racist hate monger. If she had said something like the above comment playing on a stereotype about jewish people or black people there is no way that her speaking at the university would even be an issue and it definitely would not be framed in the same way. spit As inane and bad a person as I believe her to be, the highlighted part isn't as bad as it sounds. That seventeen year old student had just made a joke about, 'not being able to ride a magic carpet' so I'm willing to give Coulter the benefit of the doubt and say that it was probably just a joke.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

25th March 2010, 09:51 AM	#139
Captain.Sassy Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,180	Hm. My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want. Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet. So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible. [puttin' the super in superlatives]
	__________________ Evolution a poem As luck would have it, people.

25th March 2010, 09:54 AM	#140
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy Hm. My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want. Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet. So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible. [puttin' the super in superlatives] Exactly, the girl may have been poking fun, but she was poking fun at the insensitivity of Coulter's statement from a while back and said "I don't have a magic carpet... so what can I do?" (paraphrasing) And then Coulter applied more racist insensitivity on her earlier racist insensitivity.
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks

25th March 2010, 10:22 AM	#141
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	Originally Posted by ReFLeX Short letter from an attendee . Concluding exerpt: Originally Posted by Alex Sellick "... this event was cancelled due to extremely poor planning by the organizers, some idiotic decisions by the SFUO and some prankster pulling a fire alarm." . I'll buy that. One eye-witness account trumps untold numbers of speculative opinions.
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

25th March 2010, 12:23 PM	#142
tyr_13 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Falconer, NY Posts: 9,657	Originally Posted by Captain.Sassy Hm. My understanding (second, third hand) of the interaction was that the 17 year old girl asked Coulter about a comment she had made saying that muslims should be barred from planes and can ride flying carpets if they want. Coulter replied to the 17 year old that she could ride a camel if she didn't have a carpet. So yeah I find that pretty f'n offensive and derogatory, absolutely unacceptable and completely indefensible. [puttin' the super in superlatives] Originally Posted by Praktik Exactly, the girl may have been poking fun, but she was poking fun at the insensitivity of Coulter's statement from a while back and said "I don't have a magic carpet... so what can I do?" (paraphrasing) And then Coulter applied more racist insensitivity on her earlier racist insensitivity. Ah, I saw a video from the event on CNN and must have misheard the girl.
	__________________ Circled nothing is still nothing. "Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong

25th March 2010, 12:52 PM	#143
Steelmage Muse Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 630	When I read about this item, I though "Oh irony".
	__________________ Anything makes sense as long as you do not think about it. -Steelmage It is better to want what you can't have then to have what you don't want. -Denny Crane, Boston Legal

25th March 2010, 01:53 PM	#144
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by quadraginta Quote: You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech? Tea Party Protesters & Town Hall Meetings I note that you did not choose to address the potential similarities when I brought this up earlier. Do you see no analogues between the two situations? Were you equally outraged by the behavior of the Tea Party Protesters? What's there to say? I agree with you... there were similarities, and I think the Tea Party Protesters did step over the line at times. (I didn't respond to that part because I didn't actually see much point in posting a message just saying "I agree".) I am more concerned about this particular incident than about the Tea party protesters because: A: It happened in my home town B: Universities are supposed to be places that allow the free exchange of ideas. But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

25th March 2010, 02:06 PM	#145
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Quote: Quote: A couple of things should be noted: With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views. Can't say I've ever heard that before, on either side of the free speech debate. Well, in a radio interview with Seamus Wolfe (president of the university's student federation) had made some sort of comment along the lines of "it wasn't fair to let her speak because we couldn't debate her". And remember, the poster that I was responding to suggested she canceled because of 'opposition'. Why should opposition matter? If I have a message (even if its wrong-headed and can't defend it) I should have the right to deliver it without facing opposition.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

25th March 2010, 02:12 PM	#146
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Darat I think the question has to be "Did the people who were against her speaking do anything illegal?" If they did then they stepped over a line (albeit I do support the principle of 'civil disobedience' as long as it is not violent), if they didn't then why is what they did wrong? Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal? If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

25th March 2010, 02:14 PM	#147
quixotecoyote Howling to glory I go Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 9,621	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal? If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it. Once again, you have a unique conception of freedom of speech. The idea that you have a right to speak without government interference is not generally extended to the concept that someone should shut up the crowd so you can be heard. That generally falls under property rights and the ability of owners to do what they want with their own platforms, including kicking the rabble out.
	__________________ If people needed video games to live, a national single payer plan to fund those purchases would be a great idea. Last edited by quixotecoyote; 25th March 2010 at 02:17 PM.

25th March 2010, 02:16 PM	#148
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal? If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it. Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship. Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

25th March 2010, 02:17 PM	#149
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat Speakers aren't protested at colleges in the United States? What's she talking about. When I was in college, I can't count how many protests there were regarding planned speakers, even seemingly innocuous ones. Don't think she was saying that there were "never" protests at various universities/colleges. Just don't think the protests directed at her were bad enough to actually cancel events. Edited to add: I'm not sure if its true... does anyone have any video or news reports from appearances of Coulter at various American universities? Are they ever like the one that happened here in Canada?
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy Last edited by Segnosaur; 25th March 2010 at 02:18 PM.

25th March 2010, 02:34 PM	#150
stilicho Trurl's Electronic Bard Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 4,714	Originally Posted by parky76 Canada is not the USA. I don't know what your Freedom of Speech laws or principles are. We just make 'em up as we go. Actually, pretty similar to yours, I'd imagine. Here's a summary of a Canadian satirical magazine inviting young Tories to deflower a former Prime Minister's daughter: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caroline-mulroney/
	__________________ "Suppose you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone will say, 'Plate' or 'Shrimp' or 'Plate of shrimp,' out of the blue. No explanation and there's no point in looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness." -- REPO MAN LondonJohn: "I don't need to cite."

25th March 2010, 02:46 PM	#151
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by Segnosaur ...snip... But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong. That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 02:49 PM	#152
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by Segnosaur Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal? ...snip... Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it. *In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008 Last edited by Darat; 25th March 2010 at 02:49 PM. Reason: spelling mistaeak

25th March 2010, 02:51 PM	#153
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,754	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship. Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple. So you also have to believe that people have a right to be heard or that some people don't have a right to "free speech".
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

25th March 2010, 02:52 PM	#154
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by GreNME I think local police don't want to have to deal with people who come into a place to intentionally start trouble like Coulter does. So? If the students actually respected the concept of "free speech" there would have been absolutely no risk of "trouble starting". Quote: Are you serious about this one? How many others avoided the event because the fire alarm was pulled? What is that supposed to mean? Is there somehow an implied threat to Coulter's life, instead of a typical juvenile action defying authorities? Pulling a fire alarm is juvenile. But it is also disruptive. (It leads to delays, it has the potential for interrupting the flow of things.) Sorry, I just don't accept that because a tactic was "juvenile" that it is acceptable. Quote: Quote: You think that all the loud yelling by protesters (you DID watch the video link I gave earlier, didn't you?), many of whom were actually in the hall, would actually have stopped when she actually started to give her speech? I don't give a crap. If she doesn't have the courage of conviction (on free speech) to speak anyway, that's her failure. First of all, whether she has "conviction" or not should be irrelevant. Freedom of speech should not mean "freedom of speech but only if you feel strongly about it". Secondly, why exactly should anyone be forced to "yell" to make their ideas heard? Quote: The only one who limited Coulter's speech was Coulter by not showing. And frankly, I don't believe you that you'd react differently were it Moore. Thank you. You just called me a liar. Are you a mind reader? If so, I know where you can get $1 million easily. Quote: Quote: Ummm.... not sure if that sentence makes sense... Did you actually mean she backed out when she was going to be facing heavy opposition? I mean that she has a history of disliking any situation where her target or target audience isn't kissing her ass or cowering at her verbal assault. Yes, I assumed you meant that... But your previous post had stated she "backed out of an appearance when it became obvious that she wasn't* going to be facing heavy opposition*". It was your use of the word "wasn't" that didn't make sense. Quote: Quote: A couple of things should be noted: With free speech, you should be able to deliver your message without being shouted down. You are also under no obligation to allocate time during your message to opposing views That's a funny world you live in. Unfortunately, "opposition must be quiet while the speaker is talking" does not happen to be any kind of current rule for free speech... Actually, whomever is providing the forum for the speech/message/presentation can and should be allowed to set the rules (whether they want the presentation to take the form of a basic speech, Q&A, or full debate.) People who do not like the rules should not attend the presentation. Those who violate the rules should be removed. We regularly see protesters removed from other meetings for violating rules: http://www.dailycal.org/article/2506...egents_meeting http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?s=%20%201599859 Quote: Frankly, I find your suggestion that opposition should be silenced while a speaker is talking to be antithetical to free speech. Nope. You see, I have a belief that the right of "free speech" should not belong to just the person who happens to have the loudest megaphone.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy

25th March 2010, 03:05 PM	#155
Segnosaur Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 6,065	Originally Posted by Darat Quote: But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong. That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard". As I mentioned to another poster... I believe in free speech, and part of that freedom is in the ability for those providing the forum to decide the rules for the speech/presentation/etc. (whether they want it to be a straight speech with no audience feedback, a Q&A session, a full debate, or even a "shout off".) Those who do not want to respect the rules should not attend. Whomever is providing the forum should not be forced to change the rules against their will. Otherwise, the only person who has "free speech" is the one with the largest megaphone. Let me put it this way, what do you think would be an appropriate course of action if, at the next TAM, a group of christian fundamentalists bought passes to attend, and started yelling "Atheist Babykiller" or "God punishes nonbelievers" whenever Randi tried to speak? Would you consider that acceptable behavior? Or would you expect that the protesters would be removed? (Not that I'm trying to say Coulter has anywhere near the respectability of Randi; but the measure of 'free speech' should include our willingness to accept even the worst messages.)
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff) I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant) Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy