Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[Fnord]

Short letter from an attendee

.
Concluding exerpt:

"... this event was cancelled due to extremely poor planning by the organizers, some idiotic decisions by the SFUO and some prankster pulling a fire alarm."

.
I'll buy that. One eye-witness account trumps untold numbers of speculative opinions.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

Ah, I saw a video from the event on CNN and must have misheard the girl.

 

[Steelmage]

When I read about this item, I though "Oh irony".

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

Tea Party Protesters & Town Hall Meetings

I note that you did not choose to address the potential similarities when I brought this up earlier.

Do you see no analogues between the two situations? Were you equally outraged by the behavior of the Tea Party Protesters?

What's there to say? I agree with you... there were similarities, and I think the Tea Party Protesters did step over the line at times. (I didn't respond to that part because I didn't actually see much point in posting a message just saying "I agree".)

I am more concerned about this particular incident than about the Tea party protesters because:
A: It happened in my home town
B: Universities are supposed to be places that allow the free exchange of ideas.
But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Can't say I've ever heard that before, on either side of the free speech debate.

Well, in a radio interview with Seamus Wolfe (president of the university's student federation) had made some sort of comment along the lines of "it wasn't fair to let her speak because we couldn't debate her".

And remember, the poster that I was responding to suggested she canceled because of 'opposition'. Why should opposition matter? If I have a message (even if its wrong-headed and can't defend it) I should have the right to deliver it without facing opposition.

 

[Segnosaur]

I think the question has to be "Did the people who were against her speaking do anything illegal?"

If they did then they stepped over a line (albeit I do support the principle of 'civil disobedience' as long as it is not violent), if they didn't then why is what they did wrong?

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

Once again, you have a unique conception of freedom of speech.

The idea that you have a right to speak without government interference is not generally extended to the concept that someone should shut up the crowd so you can be heard. That generally falls under property rights and the ability of owners to do what they want with their own platforms, including kicking the rabble out.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

If every time I try to speak someone shouts me down to drown me out, it may not necessarily be illegal, but it is at least a violation of the concept of freedom of speech. After all, you're preventing my message from getting out to an audience who wants to hear it.

Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship.
Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple.

 

[Segnosaur]

Speakers aren't protested at colleges in the United States? What's she talking about. When I was in college, I can't count how many protests there were regarding planned speakers, even seemingly innocuous ones.

Don't think she was saying that there were "never" protests at various universities/colleges. Just don't think the protests directed at her were bad enough to actually cancel events.

Edited to add: I'm not sure if its true... does anyone have any video or news reports from appearances of Coulter at various American universities? Are they ever like the one that happened here in Canada?

 

[stilicho]

Canada is not the USA. I don't know what your Freedom of Speech laws or principles are.

We just make 'em up as we go.

Actually, pretty similar to yours, I'd imagine. Here's a summary of a Canadian satirical magazine inviting young Tories to deflower a former Prime Minister's daughter:

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caroline-mulroney/

 

[Darat]

...snip...

But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard".

 

[Darat]

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

...snip...

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.




*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

 

[Darat]

Exactly. If person A wants to speak and person B wants to hear and person C interferes, then person C is engaged in censorship.
Whether it's preventing person A from speaking or preventing person B from hearing it, it's censorship plain and simple.

So you also have to believe that people have a right to be heard or that some people don't have a right to "free speech".

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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".

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

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.

Thank you. You just called me a liar.

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

Frankly, I find your suggestion that opposition should be silenced while a speaker is talking to be antithetical to free speech.

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.

 

[Segnosaur]

But again, I agree, any protester (be it tea party, student activist, or anyone else) who attempts to 'shout down' people expressing views they don't like is in the wrong.

That has to mean that you are either fine with curtailing of "free speech" you don't agree with or you think people should have (or do?) a right "to be heard".

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.

Otherwise, the only person who has "free speech" is the one with the largest megaphone.

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?

(Not that I'm trying to say Coulter has anywhere near the respectability of Randi; but the measure of 'free speech' should include our willingness to accept even the worst messages.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you also have to believe that people have a right to be heard or that some people don't have a right to "free speech".

I've made this point before and I'll make it again -- people have the right to speak, and to be heard by those who want to hear them and are willing to make the effort that that requires.
Censorship is action, not speech. The fact that your action also contains words, like shouting so others can't be heard or blocking people with your demonstration, doesn't change the censoring action into speech itself. You can divorce the speech from the action and still allow everyone to speak while not allowing anyone to censor.
The only way I could ever see speech itself "censoring" is if that speech convinced people to not want to listen to another speaker -- and I have no issue with this. Removing people's willingness to listen isn't censorship; it's persuasion and completely appropriate.
But dressing up thuggery as though it's the same as an expression of ideas is disingenuous and inaccurate.

 

[rwguinn]

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.




*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

We take our rights seriously here, and the Brit/UK attitude depicted by some folks here is why we kicked them out in 1776...
We have this thing called The Constitution of the United States of America, as Amended.
The very FIRST AMENDMENT states That the People have the right to peaceably assemble. Now, many have held that only the Government can abridge these rights-but I know of one case where an individual has been sued for violating the Constitutional Rights of another, and one case where the threat to sue was made, both in wrongful death lawsuits.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

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

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?

...snip...

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.

(Not that I'm trying to say Coulter has anywhere near the respectability of Randi; but the measure of 'free speech' should include our willingness to accept even the worst messages.)

That is then a right "to be heard" which is quite a different right to the right to "free speech".

 

[Darat]

We take our rights seriously here, and the Brit/UK attitude depicted by some folks here is why we kicked them out in 1776...
We have this thing called The Constitution of the United States of America, as Amended.
The very FIRST AMENDMENT states That the People have the right to peaceably assemble. Now, many have held that only the Government can abridge these rights-but I know of one case where an individual has been sued for violating the Constitutional Rights of another, and one case where the threat to sue was made, both in wrongful death lawsuits.

What has this to do with the topic under discussion?

(and you seem to be quite confused - I am arguing for the right of people to demonstrate and have free speech.)

 

[Segnosaur]

Why exactly is it important whether what they did was illegal?

Because I hold if that if doing something isn't illegal* someone shouldn't be able to prevent me from doing it.

*In the colloquial sense e.g. regulations, ordinances, by-laws and so on.

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

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".

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'.)