Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[Darat]

I've made this point before ...snip...

Which has nothing to do with the instance under discussion.

 

[Darat]

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

What I am saying is that we all have the right to "free speech" my right to exercise that should not be curtailed unless I am doing something illegal.

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".
...snip...

Since the attendance to the event required pre-registration and the organisers controlled who could be in the hall I can't see how this applies to this event. Indeed the only mention of shouting in the actual event hall was from apparently people wanting to hear Coulter speak:

....The announcement of the cancellation was greeted with shouts of "Shame" and "We want Ann" from about 100 people inside the hall. ....​

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'.)

There is no evidence that she would have been shouted down by the people attending the event and as I show above the evidence is that the people in the event hall wanted to hear her speak.

 

[Corsair 115]

We take our rights seriously here, and the Brit/UK attitude depicted by some folks here is why we kicked them out in 1776...

And yet when it comes to some rights, citizens in Canada are more free than their counterparts in the United States. To name two quick examples: Gays can marry freely anywhere in Canada; in the U.S. they are restricted to a few specific locales. Gays can serve openly in the military in Canada; not so in the United States.

The point here is merely to illustrate that there are a great many human rights, and that no one nation can claim superiority in all such rights. It's more of a continuum where some rights are better protected in some nations than others.

 

[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.

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

But look at what GreNME suggested... He blamed Coulter for canceling and said she should have gone on despite constant shouting from the audience.

So, he was expecting that the format be changed from a speech to a 'shout off'.

Hey, maybe each and every one of those protesters would have stopped yelling the moment Coulter started talking. Somehow I doubt it.

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?

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.

Quite relevant....

In both cases you have a presentation with an expected set of rules. (I.e. one person talks, others listen. Possible Q&A at the end. Followed by snacks.) In both cases you have a group of individuals who are preventing the dispersal of ideas through disruption (rather than providing counter ideas in the same or an alternate forum).

 

[Darat]

But look at what GreNME suggested... He blamed Coulter for canceling and said she should have gone on despite constant shouting from the audience.

So, he was expecting that the format be changed from a speech to a 'shout off'.

Hey, maybe each and every one of those protesters would have stopped yelling the moment Coulter started talking. Somehow I doubt it.
...snip...

The only evidence of shouting in the hall is of people who wanted to hear her speak and that only happened after the cancellation was announced. There is no evidence that there was any other shouting inside the event hall.

Quite relevant....

In both cases you have a presentation with an expected set of rules. (I.e. one person talks, others listen. Possible Q&A at the end. Followed by snacks.) In both cases you have a group of individuals who are preventing the dispersal of ideas through disruption (rather than providing counter ideas in the same or an alternate forum).

There is no evidence that there was any disruption of any sort in the event hall before she was due to speak.

 

[Segnosaur]

And yet when it comes to some rights, citizens in Canada are more free than their counterparts in the United States. To name two quick examples: Gays can marry freely anywhere in Canada; in the U.S. they are restricted to a few specific locales. Gays can serve openly in the military in Canada; not so in the United States.

Technically, I don't know if those would be considered 'rights' here in Canada. For example, I don't think the court ruled that laws against gay marriage were unconstitutional. There was a law passed allowing gay marriage, but in theory a government could actually pass a law restricting it again.

There is a slight difference between a constitutionally guaranteed right, and one that is given through your regular, garden-variety law.

But then, that might be splitting hairs.

 

[Segnosaur]

The only evidence of shouting in the hall is of people who wanted to hear her speak and that only happened after the cancellation was announced. There is no evidence that there was any other shouting inside the event hall.

Actually I had heard (through radio reports) that there were protesters who were actually in the hall as well (although they were in the minority.) Unfortunately, I don't know if that was before or after the fire alarm was pulled.

 

[stilicho]

Technically, I don't know if those would be considered 'rights' here in Canada. For example, I don't think the court ruled that laws against gay marriage were unconstitutional. There was a law passed allowing gay marriage, but in theory a government could actually pass a law restricting it again.

There is a slight difference between a constitutionally guaranteed right, and one that is given through your regular, garden-variety law.

But then, that might be splitting hairs.

I'm not sure the Americans have anything even close to Section 15. Might be wrong about that but I thought they tried something like it about thirty years ago and it fell flat on its face.

 

[Segnosaur]

Technically, I don't know if those would be considered 'rights' here in Canada. For example, I don't think the court ruled that laws against gay marriage were unconstitutional. There was a law passed allowing gay marriage, but in theory a government could actually pass a law restricting it again

I'm not sure the Americans have anything even close to Section 15. Might be wrong about that but I thought they tried something like it about thirty years ago and it fell flat on its face.

Yeah the Americans did try to pass an "Equal Rights Amendment" back in the 70s but it didn't succeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Of course, all this in a way is irrelevant... with the 'notwithstanding' clause as well as section 1 of the charter, many of our rights can be eliminated.

 

[ScannerHead]

That being said, the base nature of Coulter's comments belong in a bar,

Sounds more like an opinion than anything else. Of course... shut down any discourse. It's easier that way.

 

[Freddy]

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]

The girl should have asked to borrow Ann's broomstick.

 

[GreNME]

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

"Free speech" is a double-edged sword: all opinions are open territory with free speech, no respect for anyone's position is required.

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.

I don't care whether you accept it or not. It's still not an excuse to back out of an appearance.

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".

It also shouldn't mean that everyone should treat your views as sacrosanct. Coulter's own act embodies this.

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

Why don't you ask Coulter herself, or o'Reilly, or Hannity, or Beck, or any of the popular commentators of Coulter's ilk who bank on shouting others down as part of their act. Crying and running because they can't take their own treatment is quite frankly hypocritical.

Thank you. You just called me a liar.

Aww, does my incredulity at your statement hurt your feelings? Tough. Your own posts in this thread indicate that you're working from an interpretation of events that isn't jibing with reality anyway-- most notably with a number of your posts indicating somehow that there was more threat evident than the later descriptions of the event by those who were there-- and that gives me no reason to simply take your word that you're not viewing this through a set of partisan goggles.

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

And the ever-popular variation of the no-true-skeptic insult. Classic.

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.

Then the use of the "n't" was my mistake.

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.

Actually, hardly anyone who was there was even granted admission. Have you not been reading the other accounts? The more information that comes out about what was actually going on there, the less it sounds like the pandemonium your defenses for Coulter backing out make sense.

We regularly see protesters removed from other meetings for violating rules:
http://www.dailycal.org/article/25061/protesters_arrested_at_uc_board_of_regents_meeting
http://www.wate.com/Global/story.asp?s= 1599859

Which is completely unrelated to this case, since all of the protesters were outside of the venue and were not given admittance because they didn't call ahead for registration. The organizers were the ones blocking the doors, not the protesters. Since none of the protesting was taking place in the venue, your examples don't apply here.

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.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Expecting an opposing view to be silent is absolutely antithetical to free speech, especially since the students opposed to Coulter should have been silent despite none of them actually being in the venue where Coulter was to speak.

Coulter backed out of the appearance when the conditions were actually set against any of the protesters being able to get into the venue, and under conditions that seem less and less like the dangerous, riotous scenario that the earlier posts by AvalonXQ and yourself have suggested. At no point was Coulter in physical danger or threat, and the organizers of the event were actually actively blocking opposition from entering, which just brings the hypocrisy level that much higher.

But, please, continue trying to justify Coulter backing out as more information keeps coming in about what happened. At least you'll be maintaining consistency of defense... in spite of facts or reality, but consistency nonetheless.

 

[stilicho]

Yeah the Americans did try to pass an "Equal Rights Amendment" back in the 70s but it didn't succeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Of course, all this in a way is irrelevant... with the 'notwithstanding' clause as well as section 1 of the charter, many of our rights can be eliminated.

Overridden, not eliminated. There is certainly a notable distinction there and the notwithstanding clause is relatively weak because its overriding characteristic is consistent with inalienable rights to replace the government's representatives.

The US constitution has an amending formula that is harder to enact but much harder to revert. Here, we just have to wait five years and the bums are out.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do you think that she was basically "shouted down" is a win for intelligent political discourse?

Sure. She has nothing to contribute to intelligent political discourse, except her absence.

Once again, the issue is where do you draw the line? And who decides where the line is drawn. If you are willing to state "Coulter does not belong at a university" are you also willing to allow universities to ban other speakers? Or perhaps art that people think is offensive?

That is not the issue. It's an idiotic distraction you just cooked up to get yourself out of a corner.

Wherever the line is, Coulter is hell and gone past that line. Trying to kick up dust about where exactly that line should be drawn is disingenuous.

You don't think it would be worth while to actually hear directly from her, perhaps learning what her actual opinions are, or what her motivations were behind her decisions, rather than learn about such things filtered through an imperfect news media and pundints?

No. She has had, and continues to have, ample opportunity to get her statements on the record.

 

[Segnosaur]

Once again, the issue is where do you draw the line? And who decides where the line is drawn. If you are willing to state "Coulter does not belong at a university" are you also willing to allow universities to ban other speakers? Or perhaps art that people think is offensive?

That is not the issue.

No, its exactly relevant.

Hey, if you want me to admit Coulter is a moron and society would be better off if she were lost on a deserted island, I would agree 100%. If you want me to agree that most of her statements have no worth, I would also agree 100%.

But until you can actually define some sort of criteria that would define what is acceptable and what is not acceptable at a university, in such a way that nothing "valuable" ever gets censored, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

You have no interest in what she has to say. I have no interest in what she has to say. Probably most Canadians don't have any interest in what she has to say. But that doesn't mean that she should be prevented from saying what she wants, nor does it mean that people should be prevented from listening.

It's an idiotic distraction you just cooked up to get yourself out of a corner.

Nope, its actually an issue that people like you (plus other posters in this thread) like to avoid. I've brought up this issue before when people have claimed its valid to 'ban' Coulter. Instead of actually trying to justify where "the line is drawn", we just end up with a repeat of "Coulter should be banned".

Wherever the line is, Coulter is hell and gone past that line.

Well, where's the line? If you consider your intellect to be so 'superior' please define what you think is acceptable free speech and what is not.

 

[Segnosaur]

"Free speech" is a double-edged sword: all opinions are open territory with free speech, no respect for anyone's position is required.

And nobody claimed that anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together should actually respect Coulter's political positions. By all means, organize your own speeches pointing out what a moron she is. Write to newspapers showing all the errors in her 'facts'. That's the proper way to do things.

But if you stifle even bad speech, then you should also be worried that good speech might likewise be stifled.

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".

It also shouldn't mean that everyone should treat your views as sacrosanct. Coulter's own act embodies this.

And nobody (least of all myself) has said her views shoudl be sacrosanct.

But there is a difference between condemning a view/opinion, and stifling free speech because you happen to disagree with it.

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

Why don't you ask Coulter herself, or o'Reilly, or Hannity, or Beck, or any of the popular commentators of Coulter's ilk who bank on shouting others down as part of their act.[/quote]
Hey, here's a suggestion, why don't you actually try reading my posts?

I've already explained that whomever is providing a forum for "free speech" has every right to decide on whatever rules are in place. Yes, O'Reilly is well known for 'shouting down' is opponents/guests. But that's the way the creators of his TV show want the show to be. On the other hand, if the creators of a TV show wanted to set the rules to have more, ahem, 'gentle' debates, they should have that right.

Thank you. You just called me a liar.

Aww, does my incredulity at your statement hurt your feelings?

Nope, I just find that it:
A: Makes you look like an idiot, and
B: detracts from your arguments.
From the looks of things, you know absolutely nothing about me, yet you think it significant to label me as someone who favors right wing lunatics.

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

And the ever-popular variation of the no-true-skeptic insult. Classic.

Well, you're the one who claimed I was lying when I said I would similarly defend free speech if it were from a left-wing source as well.

At no point in this forum have I ever expressed support for the views of Coulter, Beck, O'Reilly, or any of the other right-wing nuts. At no point have I ever suggested that people on the 'left wing' should be censored. Yet here you are, somehow magically claiming that my support of 'free speech' extends only to people on the political right. You must be getting that wonderful information from somewhere.

The fact is, I've always considered myself to have libertarian principles.

You know, so far, there has only been one issue that I've felt was worthy of writing to my local M.P. about. A few years ago, Canada Customs was seizing shipments meant for a gay/lesbian book store in B.S. Even though I'm not gay, (and, lets face it, most Conservatives wouldn't be caught within a 100 miles of a gay book store) I still thought it was significant enough to write in to my Member of Parliament to express my disgust over the censorship by Canada customs.

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.

Actually, hardly anyone who was there was even granted admission. Have you not been reading the other accounts?

Yes, I've been reading other accounts. I've heard various stories that are sometimes conflicting, but I recognize that there was a certain amount of poor organization. (Remember, I actually live in Ottawa; as such, I've also been able to hear some of the accounts on local radio, in some cases by students at the university; some of those accounts I've never seen published.)

However, that's not relevant to that particular point. The format that the organizers had decided on was a speech (yes, a one sided speech, as you are allowed to make in a free society), followed by a Q&A session. That was decided on long before Coulter had ever set foot in Ottawa. They did not have a desire to organize a full-scale debate, nor did they desire to organize a full-scale shout-off.

Coulter backed out of the appearance when the conditions were actually set against any of the protesters being able to get into the venue,

Actually, that might not be quite right....

Some of the protesters had been claiming that the only way you could get in is if you were a conservative (or signed up to some conservative forum). But from reports I've heard, that's not the case. The even was being discussed on various Conservative blogs, but there was no requirement to be a conservative to attend.

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.

Which has nothing to do with what I said. Expecting an opposing view to be silent is absolutely antithetical to free speech,...

Except I never said that people with opposing views should be silent. I said that whatever opposition they take should take the form of useful counterpoints, rather than simply yelling to drown out those making a speech they disagree with.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Sarah Palin might be an idiot. However, she was a vice presidential candidate and former gov. of Alaska. Even if you hate her, she is a relatively significant historical figure.

Sarah is only a significant historical figure if you're claiming that people still spend a lot of time thinking about Geraldine Ferraro, who beat her to the VP race by a few years...

A

 

[Darat]

Actually I had heard (through radio reports) that there were protesters who were actually in the hall as well (although they were in the minority.) Unfortunately, I don't know if that was before or after the fire alarm was pulled.

You have information not available to me then, I can only comment on what is in the reports that I have access to.

 

[Segnosaur]

Actually I had heard (through radio reports) that there were protesters who were actually in the hall as well (although they were in the minority.) Unfortunately, I don't know if that was before or after the fire alarm was pulled.

You have information not available to me then, I can only comment on what is in the reports that I have access to.

Yes, although I do have to admit, radio reports aren't always the best source of information, given the difficulty of following up what was said. Personally, I think there's a lot of lying and spin-control from both sides of the debate.

However, even if there were absolutely no protesters in the hall itself... even if you think Coulter could have continued to give her speech, a few things need to be remembered:

- The student's union still blocked posters advertising for the event in certain buildings. Even if you assume that Coulter could have spoken, shouldn't posters themselves be considered a form of free speech? And isn't it a form of censorship if you block some event posters, but not others? (And even if the student's union had the legal authority to block the posters, isn't it still a form of censorship to allow some posters but disallow others?)

- During interviews with various protesters, I have heard it commonly said that "We're glad we stopped her" (or something along those lines). If the students themselves believed in free speech, shouldn't they be saying "too bad she didn't speak, we just wanted to make our voices heard.". Even if you think Coulter could have proceeded, the fact that the students themselves felt they were effective and justified in curtailing speech is, in my opinion, significant.

- Then there was the letter written by one of the professors/administrators at the college who suggested Coulter "tone it down". If the administration actually believed in free speech, should they not be saying "Say whatever you want, we believe in free speech and will defend your right to say what you want".

 

[Segnosaur]

Of course, all this in a way is irrelevant... with the 'notwithstanding' clause as well as section 1 of the charter, many of our rights can be eliminated.

Overridden, not eliminated. There is certainly a notable distinction there and the notwithstanding clause is relatively weak because its overriding characteristic is consistent with inalienable rights to replace the government's representatives.

Your right, there is a distinction, and yes, the 'notwithstanding' itself has to be re-invoked every 5 years. However:

- The fact that certain rights can be overridden even for a few years is, I think, rather serious.

- There is no guarantee that, following later elections, the same party that invoked the notwithstanding clause won't get re-elected, or that a newly elected party won't continue the same policy if they feel it is politically popular/advantageous to do so. Witness for example the use of the notwithstanding clause to override freedom of speech in Quebec . Both the Parti Quebecois and the provincial Liberals have had no problem using the clause.