Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

quixotecoyote said:
I'd draw the line at pies-in-the-face and false fire alarms, though.

Protesting against giving a disingenuous hatemonger a platform is fine. I support free speech, but that doesn't mean I'd let someone put up a racist sign on my lawn.

However, there are lines as to what acts of protest are acceptable.



I think there's a difference between a speaker whose ideas may be offensive and a speaker whose idea is to be offensive.
Click to expand...
Actually, especially from a symbolic (message-sending) point of view, no.
They should have let her speak, with no booing, cat-calling or any response.
Not clapped or reverse at the end, just she leaves. In essence, she gets no reaction.
 
fitzgibbon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Assuming it wasn't the pro-Coulter organisers fishing for column space. Stranger things've happened.
Click to expand...
Don't think so...

They've had various interviews and quotations from students involved in the protests and it seems like the protests were genuine.

From: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...T_Coulter_Rxn_100324/20100324/?hub=OttawaHome
Meanwhile, the head of the university's student association said he was happy Coulter didn't get the opportunity to speak.

"I know this is a difficult debate and it's not a black and white issue, but Ann Coulter constantly and consistently doesn't just go into the realm of free speech, but goes way past it into the realm of hate speech where she condones murder, condones violence and she actually incites that type of behaviour and that's the type of thing we do not allow in Canada and I'm proud we do not allow at the University of Ottawa," said Seamus Wolfe.

Frankly Seamus Wolfe sounds like a first class idiot who doesn't understand the basic concept of "Freedom of Speech". (They had an interview with Wolfe on the radio this morning too...)
 
fuelair said:
Actually, especially from a symbolic (message-sending) point of view, no.
They should have let her speak, with no booing, cat-calling or any response.
Not clapped or reverse at the end, just she leaves. In essence, she gets no reaction.
Click to expand...

Ahh sort of like how effective we are here when we try to ignore troll threads.
 
Fnord 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?
Click to expand...

Well, think its more a case that:
- Coulter is (for whatever reason) well known so they'd be able to sell tickets
- She was on a tour anyways (She had already spoken at other colleges in Canada)
- Controversial figures do generate the most discussion

Don't think it really goes much deeper than that.
 
lomiller said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes; depends; depends; depends.

There's quite literally a ton (going by the weight of the published Court opinions) of legal precedent on this issue in the United States.

That link I posted earlier does a fairly good job of running down the basics. The Courts recognize different arenas of speech, from public to private, and adjust laws accordingly. The basic notion is that if the "state" has a legitimate interest (a concept defined by precedent), such as allowing other citizens to travel through a city, they can disallow large protests, scheduling them for another time.

There's very little state interest in a speaker speaking in a University auditorium. To my knowledge, no such person has been restricted from doing so in the United States.

The state may have an interest in keeping protesters from harassing others--as in the zone around an abortion clinic--depending on how out of control that crowd at the Coulter speech was, authorities could step in if for no other reason than allowing access to the auditorium.
 
fuelair said:
Actually, especially from a symbolic (message-sending) point of view, no.
They should have let her speak, with no booing, cat-calling or any response.
Not clapped or reverse at the end, just she leaves. In essence, she gets no reaction.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, this is a tempest in a teapot. Coulter's brand of right-wing is so far to the right of Canadian right-wing (even Albertan brand right-wing) as to be meaningless insofar as concerns the day-to-day practicalities of the Canadian purview. Our right-wing is left of the States' which is a reality lost on many.
 
Segnosaur said:
Well, think its more a case that:
- Coulter is (for whatever reason) well known so they'd be able to sell tickets
- She was on a tour anyways (She had already spoken at other colleges in Canada)
- Controversial figures do generate the most discussion

Don't think it really goes much deeper than that.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There's a desire in the Conservative side of things here to hitch their pony and ape trends from the States. T'is cheaper and brings a non-Canadian validation that I can't begin to explain to a citizen of any other self-respecting country. To compound the irony, we're Stuart Smalley writ large.
 
TraneWreck said:
There's quite literally a ton (going by the weight of the published Court opinions) of legal precedent on this issue in the United States.
Click to expand...

As there is in Canada, where this took place.

However the point of this speaking tour, as I understand it, is to encourage discussion over what should be protected speech rather then what the courts have deemed is protected speech.
 
lomiller 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?
Click to expand...
Don't even have to go that far...

You don't have to restrict where they can exercise free speech, you just have to ensure that their 'free speech' isn't designed only to interrupt someone else's free speech.

As another poster said, by all means wave your signs outside the hall. Just don't stand in the way of people who want to enter.

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?
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is. Coulter was invited by groups within the university. It would be natural for her to give her speech at the university.

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.
Click to expand...
But, as we have pointed out before, there was a false fire-alarm. That's an pretty good indication that at least some protesters are there to do more than just wave their little anti-Coulter signs.

And yes, the decision to cancel was made by Coulter and her security, but from what I understand it was under recommendation by the police. I figure they have at least a little experience with crowd control and can tell when there is the potential for problems.
 
lomiller said:
However the point of this speaking tour, as I understand it, is to encourage discussion over what should be protected speech rather then what the courts have deemed is protected speech.
Click to expand...

The issues might be slightly different between the countries. I know I read some talk about arresting Coulter for hate speech, but when I googled it I just got a lot of rumor-mongering.

As for the United States, obviously no one has restricted anything Skeletor wants to say, which is why she's very, very rich. The only way she could say something in the US that would get her in trouble is if it was libelous (a civil issue) or actually incited violence, which is a tough standard to meet.

I think Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is one of the definitive cases on that score.

That's a long way of saying you might be right, but that's certainly not a debate in the US. She's covered.
 
lomiller said:
As there is in Canada, where this took place.

However the point of this speaking tour, as I understand it, is to encourage discussion over what should be protected speech rather then what the courts have deemed is protected speech.
Click to expand...

Then why invite someone from out-of-country with a known track record for divisiveness as opposed to having national players wit greater familiarity of the Canadian view? This wasn't about doing it our way so much as 'how cool would it be to do it theirs'?
 
TraneWreck said:
<snip.

There's very little state interest in a speaker speaking in a University auditorium. To my knowledge, no such person has been restricted from doing so in the United States.

<snip>
Click to expand...


North Carolina Speaker Ban

On June 26, 1963, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Act to Regulate Visiting Speakers, later known as the Speaker Ban Law. The law forbade anyone to speak on a University of North Carolina campus who was a known members of the Communist Party, or who was known to advocate overthrow of the Constitution of the United States, or who had invoked the Fifth Amendment in respect to communist or subversive connections. The law was rushed through in the closing hours of the legislative session with virtually no debate.
To challenge the law, two speakers were invited to campus who were communists under almost any definition. When university officials refused to allow them to speak on campus, students from the university, led by Student Body President Paul Dickson, filed a federal law suit that ultimately declared the Speaker Ban Law invalid due to vagueness.
Click to expand...


It stood in place for nearly five years before it was finally overturned.
 
Fnord said:
What was the university's reason for inviting her in the first place? For her conservative views? There are other conservatives that inspire less controversy. For her widespread appeal? Someone like Dr. William H. Cosby Jr, Ed. PhD. has far greater appeal and is also conservative in his opinions.
Click to expand...
Why she was invited and possible alternatives is not really relevant to the point here, that being that a group of people prevented a person, that was there by invitation, from speaking. Rather than simply not attending if they didn't want to hear what she had to say they physically prevented her and others from participating.

Very deserving of the criticism that Coulter gave them.
 
Neally said:
Why she was invited and possible alternatives is not really relevant to the point here, that being that a group of people prevented a person, that was there by invitation, from speaking. Rather than simply not attending if they didn't want to hear what she had to say they physically prevented her and others from participating.
Click to expand...

Goodness me. Some of us actually reared-up. Actually, it's quite relevant. The problem (from a Canadian perspective) is that we have a non-Canadian (primarily States) perspective constantly cited as the be-all-and-end-all of how to do anything and it isn't like we don't have people in our own country attuned to something closer to the Canadian perspective as opposed to a U.S. carpetbagger like Coulter.

After a certain amount of time where an outside perspective is constantly cited from without as to be aspired to, it does get just a little bit tiresome.[/rant]

Neally said:
Very deserving of the criticism that Coulter gave them.
Click to expand...

Let he who is without sin.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom