“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[marplots]

Wrong again. The reservations and arrangements made for that time and place (including money spent) made it significant.

You're getting desperate it your defense of speech suppression.

What, no refunds?

I take it that calling it my defense of "speech suppression" means no compromise then?

And thus do we recreate the necessary polarity, as reliably as if we were talking physics and magnetism instead of politics.

 

[marplots]

She lost the opportunity to speak directly to the people who invited her, the people who invited her lost the opportunity to question her, and she lost the opportunity to answer.

All because of some anti free speech fanatics.

www.gotomeeting.com

If Edward Snowden can manage to have a TED talk (and reportedly makes $25,000 for speaking on the circuit) in the US where he is a wanted man, Coulter can figure out how to reach her fans, including a question and answer session.

 

[MrFliop]

deleted

 

[marplots]

What's So special about the front of the bus, does she really need to sit in that exact seat? I'm sure a lot of drama could be avoided if she just sat somewhere else.

But no, this logic is okay to use if you don't like the person in question.

Unless all are free none are free. I'm sad you don't feel this way.

I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.

 

[marplots]

If those who wish to deny her her First Amendment rights purely for the crime of thinking differently to them really cared about free speech they would
let her speak. She was formally invited to speak there. They have no right to disrespect that decision. She cancels or speaks somewhere else then they
have won. In a democracy this type of behaviour is simply unacceptable

Actually, if they were clever, they'd flood the membership of the sponsoring organization with their own team and then vote not to have any controversial speakers at all.

 

[sadhatter]

I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.

This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.

 

[marplots]

This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.

Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

It is not uncommon for rights to butt up against each other, which is why compromise is such a handy tool.

 

[Mumbles]

Everyone that is other than those who do think they have something intellectual to say. But even if no one did that would still not be justification
for denying them their right to free speech. The First Amendment applies to everyone equally regardless of intellectual ability. Free speech is less
concerned with what someone has to say and more concerned with them actually having the freedom to say it. This is why it is called free speech
Because it applies to everyone to be free to say whatever they want to

Eh, no, there are plenty of conservatives that actually have something intelligent to say. They're *wrong*, in my opinion, but they're doing something other than spewing insults like Coulter, or trying to silence other people like Milo (ironically, the only thing he's famous for). If the campus conservative/republican groups wanted an intellectual, they'd have invited one.

 

[Mumbles]

This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation. Being told to compromise her rights because others are upset with them.

No, she really isn't in anything close to a similar situation. She's not some massive victim, she still has plenty of platforms and is not about to be arrested, and she is not living in anything close to Jim Crow.

(Also, Rosa Parks was sitting towards the back of the bus, but was supposed to give her seat up for a white man because the white section was full. The seat next to her was actually open, but it would be oh so horrible for a noble white man to sit next to some negro. So let's drop this crappy analogy.)

 

[Thermal]

I love this one. Every single time it's repeated.

Ann Coulter is Rosa Parks? Really?

That's as bad as the opposite opinion, that Ann Coulter is Hitler. Maybe she's just Ann Coulter.

Interestingly, Coulter was not even there to give a 'speech'. The group that invited her was subjecting her to a grilling, and they freely admit to not agreeing with her views.

We also understand that many see her as an inflammatory figure with destructive beliefs that disqualify her from appearing at an institution of higher learning. But we believe the only productive way to fight views one sees as bad or dangerous is with better views. So we chose to get involved and include Coulter in our speaker series on immigration so students could hear, and actively challenge, her views. We planned for the event to be a debate-style, question-and-answer session with rebuttals to allow for a dialogue.

http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2017/04/27/why-i-invited-ann-coulter-to-speak-at-berkeley/

 

[Thermal]

What part of "To protect and serve" don't they get? The whole purpose of the PD is to step in and stop violent confrontations whenever they occur, especially if the place and time is known.

Maybe being outnumbered ten to one and not wanting to shoot people is a factor?

 

[Ziggurat]

What, no refunds?

For plane tickets? Not usually.

I take it that calling it my defense of "speech suppression" means no compromise then?

Why should anyone compromise on their fundamental civil rights?

And thus do we recreate the necessary polarity, as reliably as if we were talking physics and magnetism instead of politics.

Wrong again (I sense a pattern). Protecting people's rights isn't what leads to polarization. The abandonment of fundamental principles for temporary partisan purposes is far more destructive to civility and compromise that anything Coulter would have said.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is what you are not getting, no she is not Rosa Parks. She is in a similar situation.

More to the point, marplots is putting himself in a similar situation. And not on the right side.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

Not violently. And not by trespassing either, even if non-violently.

 

[marplots]

Wrong again (I sense a pattern). Protecting people's rights isn't what leads to polarization. The abandonment of fundamental principles for temporary partisan purposes is far more destructive to civility and compromise that anything Coulter would have said.

Lest we drift too far afield and lose focus, what (in your view) would constitute protecting Ann Coulter's rights in this specific situation? Is it just that the event shouldn't be cancelled, or does it include policing the event to ensure she has the platform unmolested?

I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.

How do you reconcile your champion's abandonment of the cause in the face of difficulties? Is it enough that she posed for a selfie before retreating?

 

[marplots]

More to the point, marplots is putting himself in a similar situation. And not on the right side.

It's at least some progress to recognize there are two sides.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lest we drift too far afield and lose focus, what (in your view) would constitute protecting Ann Coulter's rights in this specific situation? Is it just that the event shouldn't be cancelled, or does it include policing the event to ensure she has the platform unmolested?

Both are necessary for the protection of rights.

I ask because Coulter is bowing to the wishes of someone here - the University, the sponsoring organization, threats from protesting groups, policing authority concerns... she doesn't seem to care as much about her right to speak as we do.

How do you reconcile your champion's abandonment of the cause in the face of difficulties? Is it enough that she posed for a selfie before retreating?

You cannot reasonably conclude any of that. It simply doesn't follow, given that the policing is inadequate.

 

[marplots]

Both are necessary for the protection of rights.

You cannot reasonably conclude any of that. It simply doesn't follow, given that the policing is inadequate.

Allow me to recap.
Coulter agrees to speak. Everyone is happy to let her speak. Except the protestors, who threaten violence if she dares. No one wants to foot the bill to allow her to speak unmolested. (The price of free speech and all that.)

Is that it in a nutshell?

I submit that Coulter gets what she wants - the ability to point to her traditional foes and tell us how they are acting outrageously and hypocritically (because of "tolerance"). Protestors get what they want because Coulter is prevented from speaking. University gets what they want because they don't have to pay for protection.

The sponsoring group doesn't get what they want though. Coulter is a nice "get."

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, of course. But don't the protestors also have the right to protest?

It is not uncommon for rights to butt up against each other, which is why compromise is such a handy tool.

No. They don't.

Surely you understand this, don't you? Of course they have the right to stand around and yell and carry signs, and if that is what you mean by protest, then they have the right to protest. They can peaceably assemble all they want

They don't have the right to break windows when they are doing it. They don't have the right to use violence or to threaten violence.

They also do not have the right to interfere with an event that was legally scheduled. i.e. if they chose to show up at the venue where Ms. Coulter was speaking, they would not have the right to yell louder than her so that she couldn't actually deliver her speech.

 

[marplots]

No. They don't.

Surely you understand this, don't you? Of course they have the right to stand around and yell and carry signs, and if that is what you mean by protest, then they have the right to protest. They can peaceably assemble all they want

Agreed.

They don't have the right to break windows when they are doing it. They don't have the right to use violence or to threaten violence.

Agreed.

They also do not have the right to interfere with an event that was legally scheduled. i.e. if they chose to show up at the venue where Ms. Coulter was speaking, they would not have the right to yell louder than her so that she couldn't actually deliver her speech.

Here we may part ways. But setting that aside, have we yet recognized that whatever subset of protestors is threatening violence (which presumably they can deliver on, judging by the last event), that subset is also infringing on the rights of peaceful protestors who simply want to disagree with whomever is speaking?

If a threat of violence is enough to shut down an event, then everyone who wished to speak (both inside and outside the venue) is crushed by the same boot. How then can we claim freedom of speech as sacrosanct while simultaneously cancelling the event?

The answer for me is that, despite the rhetoric, free speech is not sacrosanct (or if it is in the abstract, it isn't in the particular) and in light of that fact there are useful compromises to be had. Haven't they already come up with a compromise by rescheduling?

ETA: I see that Ms. Coulter has rejected the rescheduling.