Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

lomiller said:
While many people are focusing on Coulters ability to say her piece I think the other side may be more interesting. ... Does it mean they should not be allowed to express their opinions in a way that stops Coulter from speaking?
Click to expand...
I'd have to say "Yes"...

Protesters should not be allowed to prevent or restrict Coulter from speaking, any more than I should be allowed to yell at you with a megaphone whenever you try to watch TV.

Coulter seems greatly concerned that her ability to speak in whatever way she wants may be curtailed, but if that’s so why should the protesters have their speech restricted in a way her speech isn’t?
Click to expand...
Because, Coulter's speech was not going to affect the speech of the protesters.

If the student protesters thought Coulter was wrong, they had ever right to bring in their own speakers, or to rent out the same hall and give their own talks. Coulter was not preventing them from doing so.
 
lomiller said:
Hmmm on further consideration I think there is some valuable free speech lessons to be learned here.

While many people are focusing on Coulters ability to say her piece I think the other side may be more interesting. How far do you go in preventing the protesters from having their say as well? Does free speech mean they can incite violence against her? Does it mean they should not be allowed to express their opinions in a way that stops Coulter from speaking?

Coulter seems greatly concerned that her ability to speak in whatever way she wants may be curtailed, but if that’s so why should the protesters have their speech restricted in a way her speech isn’t? Of course the protesters themselves could be accused of the same thing so it becomes a legitimate question to ask just how do you allow for free speech in this situation?
Click to expand...


Simple. The prostestors are often infringing on the rights of others with their activities. Coulter,in this case, is not.
It's called, "intimidation".
 
Segnosaur said:
I'd have to say "Yes"...

Protesters should not be allowed to prevent or restrict Coulter from speaking, any more than I should be allowed to yell at you with a megaphone whenever you try to watch TV.
Click to expand...

I agree, but since that means restricting what the protesters can say doesn’t this point to a contradiction? In this case, clearly all speech can’t be protected, so we must ask whose speech we should protect and why. Furthermore once we know the why part, have we not defined, in part, a new limit on protected speech?
 
dudalb said:
Simple. The prostestors are often infringing on the rights of others with their activities.
Click to expand...

but this is the very essence of their complaints about her speech, and the free speach laws she was being encouraged to obey...
 
lomiller said:
Hmmm on further consideration I think there is some valuable free speech lessons to be learned here.

While many people are focusing on Coulters ability to say her piece I think the other side may be more interesting. How far do you go in preventing the protesters from having their say as well? Does free speech mean they can incite violence against her? Does it mean they should not be allowed to express their opinions in a way that stops Coulter from speaking?
Click to expand...

I'll repeat my assertion from earlier: "freedom of speech" means that if you want to say it, and I want to hear it, and you and I put in the effort to make that happen, then others cannot interfere. Such interference is "censorship", and so another definition for "freedom of speech" would be "lack of censorship".
The protesters being allowed to stand outside the lecture hall with signs, while not assaulting anyone or blocking people from entering, should be permitted -- no censorship there. However, an attempt by the students to physically block Coulter or those trying to come to see her is an attempt at censorship.
If no one invites Coulter campus, there's no willing listener, and hence no censorship.
 
lomiller said:
I agree, but since that means restricting what the protesters can say doesn’t this point to a contradiction? In this case, clearly all speech can’t be protected, so we must ask whose speech we should protect and why. Furthermore once we know the why part, have we not defined, in part, a new limit on protected speech?
Click to expand...

No, because we are not limiting the protesters' speech. We are only limiting their actions. We can do so without any censorship at all -- because requiring them to stand aside and let people pass isn't censorship (there is no interference between willing speakers and willing listeners).
 
To be more specific: "Stand a few feet to your left and say what you're saying so people can get past you" isn't censorship.
"Stand a few feet to your left, shut up, and take those signs down" IS censorship.
 
lomiller said:
Protesters should not be allowed to prevent or restrict Coulter from speaking, any more than I should be allowed to yell at you with a megaphone whenever you try to watch TV.
Click to expand...
I agree, but since that means restricting what the protesters can say doesn’t this point to a contradiction?
Click to expand...
Actually, you're not really restricting what the protesters can say...

If the protesters want to chant "Coulter go home" or even "Coulter is a nazi" they should be free to do so. They can reserve their own lecture hall to do that, take out newspaper ads, heck, just go nuts. The content of their message will remain intact.

Normally I am against restrictions on the method of speech delivery, but from the looks of it the point of the protests was only to disrupt the speech. The protesters were not exactly bringing any useful intellectual arguments during the protest.

In this case, clearly all speech can’t be protected, so we must ask whose speech we should protect and why.
Click to expand...
Don't think its all that complex... if the purpose of one person's "free speech" is only to disrupt the free speech of someone else, then the disruptive speech should take a lower priority.
 
lomiller said:
I agree, but since that means restricting what the protesters can say doesn’t this point to a contradiction? In this case, clearly all speech can’t be protected, so we must ask whose speech we should protect and why. Furthermore once we know the why part, have we not defined, in part, a new limit on protected speech?
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting a restriction on the content of the protesters' speech, just the manner and location.

Place restrictions regulate where individuals may express themselves. The Supreme Court has recognized three forums of public expression: traditional public forums, limited public forums, and nonpublic forums. Traditional public forums are those places historically reserved for the dissemination of information and the communication of ideas. Consisting of parks, sidewalks, and streets, traditional public forums are an especially important medium for the least powerful members of society who lack access to other channels of expression, such as radio and television. Under the First Amendment, the government may not close traditional public forums but may place reasonable restrictions on their use.

The reasonableness of any such restriction will be evaluated in light of specific guidelines that have been established by the Supreme Court. First, a restriction must be content-neutral, which means the government may not prohibit entire classes of expression, such as speech concerning poverty, drug abuse, or race relations. Second, a restriction must be viewpoint-neutral, which means that it must apply uniformly to all speech; that is, it may not silence only those speakers whom the government opposes or sanction only those whom the government supports. Third, a restriction must burden speech no more than is necessary to serve an important government interest. Restrictions that are carefully aimed at controlling the harmful consequences of speech, such as litter, unrest, and disorder, will normally satisfy these guidelines.
Click to expand...
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time,+Place,+and+Manner+Restrictions


Telling people that they can't shout down another speaker, block an entrance, or otherwise physically disrupt proceedings is not a violation of free speech. In fact, no doing so would be an omission that violated the free speech of others.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Actually, you're not really restricting what the protesters can say...

If the protesters want to chant "Coulter go home" or even "Coulter is a nazi" they should be free to do so. They can reserve their own lecture hall to do that, take out newspaper ads, heck, just go nuts. The content of their message will remain intact.

Normally I am against restrictions on the method of speech delivery, but from the looks of it the point of the protests was only to disrupt the speech. The protesters were not exactly bringing any useful intellectual arguments during the protest.
Don't think its all that complex... if the purpose of one person's "free speech" is only to disrupt the free speech of someone else, then the disruptive speech should take a lower priority.
Click to expand...


For some reason this brings to mind memories of Tea Party protesters and town hall meetings.
 
In this case, clearly all speech can’t be protected, so we must ask whose speech we should protect and why.
Click to expand...

Once you go that path, you are indeed on the slippery slope.
 
fitzgibbon said:
I'd like to know how ticket sales were going. There's quite likely less to this than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I would not walk across the street, let alone pay, to see Ann Coulter.
But I still do not like the de facto intimidation tactics the Anti Coulter people were using.
 
Segnosaur said:
I don't think it was the university that invited her... I believe it was the "University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives"...
Click to expand...

In that case, what was their real motivation? Was it to merely present a more conservative view than what the student body at large may have found acceptable?

Or was it something along the lines of Orangemen marching through Catholic neighborhoods in Ulster? Officially, they're commemorating William's victory at the Battle of the Boyne (among other things), but somehow their demonstrations also seem to stir up ill-will between otherwise peaceful neighbors, thus giving the Unionists excuse to commit acts of violence of their own.
 
Fnord said:
In that case, what was their real motivation? Was it to merely present a more conservative view than what the student body at large may have found acceptable?
Click to expand...

I heard Preston* was busy


*Manning for the non-Canucks here

Fnord said:
Or was it something along the lines of Orangemen marching through Catholic neighborhoods in Ulster? Officially, they're commemorating William's victory at the Battle of the Boyne (among other things), but somehow their demonstrations also seem to stir up ill-will between otherwise peaceful neighbors, thus giving the Unionists excuse to commit acts of violence of their own.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't set that aside as a possibility, Fnord. The Canadian right-wing (well, as right-wing as we get anyway) holds sway on Parliament Hill at the moment. So there's a tendency to crow while they can because it'll likely be another decade or so before their stars align again.
 
Once again, I think the protesters were in the wrong here but as a starting point for discussion this works just as well as Coulter speaking and discussing whether it should have/haven’t been protected speech. So far the most notable thing about the discussion seems to be that it breaks down along political lines with each side arguing why “their side” should be the one allowed to speak. While I disagree, it’s still interesting.

TraneWreck said:
No one is suggesting a restriction on the content of the protesters' speech, just the manner and location.
Click to expand...

So the idea is that people can say whatever they want, but can be restricted in where they say it? Does that mean, for instance that it would be perfectly acceptable to allow Coulter to speak just not in a lecture hall? Just not at the university? Just not in public?

AvalonXQ said:
The protesters being allowed to stand outside the lecture hall with signs, while not assaulting anyone or blocking people from entering, should be permitted -- no censorship there. However, an attempt by the students to physically block Coulter or those trying to come to see her is an attempt at censorship.
Click to expand...

But we don’t know if they would have done any of those things since the speech never took place. We can’t presume this any more then we can presume Coulters speech would have violated hate speech laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom