Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[AvalonXQ]

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]

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]

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

 

[Darat]

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]

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]

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]

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

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/world/americas/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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Drudgewire]

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]

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:

...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]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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:

...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...

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.

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]

Usually in those venues the speakers are paid in advance.

I hope she is keeping the money.

DDWW

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.