Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[GreNME]

"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.

You're dancing away from the point I was responding to, which was you saying that for some reason "free speech" required one group to stay silent while another group had their say. You're laying conditions to speech that are not synonymous with the "free" part of free speech.

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.

The only stifling going on in this case was by Coulter and the organizers. While you've not said that anyone's views should be sacrosanct, you have suggested more than once in this thread that those who oppose her views should be silent while she states her views.

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.

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.

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.

You're correct that I know nothing about you personally. All I have to go on are your posts in this thread so far, and based on those posts I have the opinion that you're being selectively sympathetic.

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.

Wrong, I said I didn't believe you, which is not mutually exclusive from you believing your own claim. In fact, the more you post in this thread the more I believe that you believe your claim that the ideological bent of the speaker wouldn't matter, but that doesn't change my original statement about not believing that you'd be equally defensive if the speaker were someone else. The reason I don't believe you is because I don't trust your interpretation of reality, and that goes back to your posts in this thread that are taking a very creative interpretation of reality that so far hasn't been jibing with the increased information that's been coming out about the incident.

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.

I don't care. Good for you.

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.

There was no "full-scale shout-off" taking place, so again I don't trust your interpretation of reality. The reports we have so far is that the protesters were almost exclusively outside the venue and being blocked out by the organizers themselves. The description you continually try to portray-- one where Coulter is facing a horde of screeching opposition-- is simply not reflected in the descriptions of what was actually taking place. Your reality-bending characterization notwithstanding, the other accounts coming out about the event are certainly relevant to this topic, because they highlight the cognitively dissonant skewed framing of reality that must take place for Coulter's backing out of appearing to seem even remotely justified.

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.

Very cute diversion on your part. There was a requirement to register to attend, however, and that requirement was not disseminated. As a result, the organizers were blocking the entrances and disallowing people to enter. So, while no, there was no ideological requirement to attend, there was a registration requirement that was not made clear and was used to the advantage of keeping the protesting folks out. Again, your reality-bending interpretation is dodging the obvious by addressing what may have been a rumor (conservative requirement) instead of what actually happened (registration requirement) with the case.

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.

No, you never said those exact words as I wrote them. Of course you didn't. Instead, you've repeatedly skewed the characterization of what was actually taking place and have yet to modify your assessment as new information has come out about who was doing things like actually blocking the entrance. But let's look at some of the things you have said using your own words:

And does that also include the right to yell loud enough to disrupt her own speech? Do I really have "free speech" if, every time I open my mouth someone over-shouts me with a bull-horn?

The answer here is yes, people have the right to yell loud. However, since they weren't actually in the hall where Coulter would have been speaking (presumably with an amplified microphone in a closed hall), there was no need to try to shout over the protesters anyway.

The following three are very close to my paraphrase of what you were saying:

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.

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.

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.

You see, you weren't declaring that opposition should simply be silent, you-- while still using the false scenario that the protesters were inside the hall with Coulter even though they weren't-- were laying out conditions for why the protesters should have been removed or silenced.

And then in a later response to me:

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?

As a matter of fact, I did watch the video and it doesn't jibe with what you're saying. While the voice-over characterizes the situation similar to the Coulter-spin, if you actually watch the video at around the one-minute mark there is a girl who states that she and "around five" others actually had been in the hall. Five or six people in the hall apparently brought the event to its knees. If you're not seeing the inflated whopper of a "threat level" being described regarding this event, then your hyperbole is pretty thoroughly reality-proofed.

So, yeah: you never said those exact words as I wrote them-- you only implied it.

 

[Praktik]

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

Nice strawman, got any other words you wanna put in my mouth?

 

[stilicho]

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.

That's the reason the notwithstanding clause was put in there as it was. It is a sop to the Canadian "odd couple"--Quebec and Alberta.

I have absolutely no issues with this as a long-time Albertan (now transplanted to a different province).

I'll let you get back to your regularly-scheduled flame-fest. By the way, I think Coulter should have simply gone ahead with her production. All she'd have had to do is announce free tickets to the next Phish concert and the protesters would have instantly dispersed.

 

[TheDaver]

I’ve been thinking… Ann Coulter’s nothing but a troll. She loves how freedom of speech gives her the right to say the things that she does, and she loves riling people up.

Well, up here in Canada, free speech is a bit weird. It’s restricted by the whole “hate speech” thing, but on the other hand, we have much higher standards for slander and libel here.

I’m thinking it would be a great experiment as well as a hilarious idea to spread the rumour that Coulter’s a convicted child molester or something like that. In the US, that would be pretty risky, but up here, as I understand it, you need to prove actual tangible loss of property or income (and not just obvious damage to one’s reputation) to be awarded anything in a libel/slander suit.

Beat the @#$% at her own game, you know?

 

[stilicho]

I’m thinking it would be a great experiment as well as a hilarious idea to spread the rumour that Coulter’s a convicted child molester or something like that. In the US, that would be pretty risky, but up here, as I understand it, you need to prove actual tangible loss of property or income (and not just obvious damage to one’s reputation) to be awarded anything in a libel/slander suit.

I don't like being too self-referential but I hinted at that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5755055&postcount=150. Or Coulter could try it herself using, say, Al Franken as an example.

 

[Stout]

I've been thinking too. and although I'm not familiar with Coulter's material I think she's best classified as a comedian rather than a serious political analyst.

I'm impressed by her damage control. filing a human rights complaint, that's just too funny.

Here's an interesting CBC blog post about what happened that fateful night and I highly suspect that Coulter used these protests as a source for some new material and probably never intended to show up in the first place.

 

[TheDaver]

I've been thinking too. and although I'm not familiar with Coulter's material I think she's best classified as a comedian rather than a serious political analyst.

Funny you should say that. I was thinking that earlier too. Seriously. And I decided that if she’s a comedian, then she’s desperately, pathetically bad at it. I mean, between her and… say… Stephen Colbert… there isn’t even a comparison.

Here's an interesting CBC blog post about what happened that fateful night and I highly suspect that Coulter used these protests as a source for some new material and probably never intended to show up in the first place.

I think that’s probably exactly right. When I heard that she was coming up here I was surprised, because a couple of years ago I had heard her opinion of our country.…

 

[Stout]

There was a thread around here a while ago about bad comedians, I wish I'd thought to nominate Coulter on that one. I tried reading her stuff, back when i was entertaining myself reading right wing extremist sites eg World Net Daily ie Wing Nut Daily, but I found that I didn't know who/what she was talking about.

Now I'm into left wing extremism, it's much funnier.

Yes, given that Coulter isn't a fan of Canada and we make up such a tiny percentage of her market, I'm surprised she decided to cross the border in the first place.

Under the freedom of speech idea, i support both her coming up here and the protesters exercising their rights under the same idea however I'm glad to see they didn't invite the black bloc like they did to the protests at the start of the Olympics and last weeks anti Nazi ( or whatever it was ) protest in Vancouver.

I'm figuring inviting the black block is in the same league as promoting 911 truth at a protest, bye bye credibility.

Coulter isn't going to "influence" anyone, anybody going to one of her talks already shares her political views ( save hecklers ) and based on this I can't support any calls for banning her.

I found it interesting that those calling for Coulter to be silenced were the same people that screamed blue murder when George Galloway was denied entrance to Canada last year. The difference here of course, was that Galloway was banned for handing money to a known terrorist organization ( Hamas) rather than his political views.

 

[TheDaver]

Personally, if it was up to me, I would have had her speak at Ottawa, but made sure there was absolutely no security. I’m all for freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean freedom from cosequences of said speech.

 

[Stout]

Would you be OK with it if she supplied her own security ?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

Rubbish. You might as well say that without posting an infallible set of criteria for what makes a movie a Western, I cannot state that For a Fistful of Dollars is a Western.

You got called on making dumb claims about a black-and-white case. Now you're trying to drag this into being a discussion of irrelevant shades of grey. No dice. Nobody is playing along.

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".

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.

It's cute that you want to relive some internet "victory" from the past, but you're trying to put words into my mouth. I never said anything resembling "Coulter should be banned", and you know it.

I said that Coulter had nothing to contribute to intelligent political discussion, and that I'm not in the least sorry that she failed to give a talk at a university.

If you want to attack that position you need to argue that she has something to contribute to intelligent political discussion, or that we should be sorry that she failed to give a talk at a university. You don't get to redefine my position for me, redefine what the discussion is about, and then claim that you are heroically battling for free speech.

 

[Freddy]

Personally, if it was up to me, I would have had her speak at Ottawa, but made sure there was absolutely no security. I’m all for freedom of speech but that doesn’t mean freedom from cosequences of said speech.

In the United States your second statement is false, at least as it pertains to your first sentence. For example, if the KKK has a demonstration, the city they march in must provide security. The same goes for controversial speakers at universities: the university must provide whatever security is necessary. If someone got hurt and could show that adequate security would have prevented the injury, then the university is liable.

And if you approve of an angry mob beating someone for expressing their opinions, then how exactly are you for free speech? Sounds like you're for free speech in theory, but think that it's okay to physically harm those you think deserve it for expressing their views, and that as long as the government doesn't do it it's not a violation of their rights. The Supreme Court disagrees. You may not be able to expect to keep you job if you say certain things publicly, and saying some things can get you sued, but you do have a right to expect not to be beaten when you are invited to express your opinion or obtain a permit to do so.

I don't know the law in Canada, but I'm pretty sure battery is illegal there as well.

Also kind of ironic that you would say this when the main argument against letting Coulter speak is that what she says encourages hatred and perhaps even violence. Good to see that you need no such encouragement.

 

[GreNME]

Here's an interesting CBC blog post about what happened that fateful night and I highly suspect that Coulter used these protests as a source for some new material and probably never intended to show up in the first place.

Segnosaur, please read the linked article in the above quote, and then come back here and let me know if you're still as adamant for all those reasons you've been going on about throughout this thread. Looks like the "police suggestion" line was a lie. Looks like there was a total of 8 people in the auditorium who were anti-Coulter, and they actually got shouted down. Looks like the biggest actual issue was seating space and not any type of threatening or out-of-control situation at all.

Still think this story falls in Coulter's favor?

 

[GreNME]

Segnosaur, you're missing your opportunity to prove me wrong. Check the link in the previous post about how many of the claims by Coulter-- particularly about the police and the fraction of actual people who were anti-Coulter inside the venue-- were simply false or blatantly misrepresented, and then let me know if you're still adamant that the story falls in Coulter's favor. You indicated in previous posts that I'm wrong to doubt your approach to this story, and that you are someone who considers the case on its merits instead of bias. Does the information in the aforementioned link alter your opinion on the merits of the situation at all?

 

[TheDaver]

In the United States your second statement is false, at least as it pertains to your first sentence. For example, if the KKK has a demonstration, the city they march in must provide security. The same goes for controversial speakers at universities: the university must provide whatever security is necessary. If someone got hurt and could show that adequate security would have prevented the injury, then the university is liable.

Oh, you didn’t hear? Coulter cancelled her Ottawa speech for security reasons, then threatened to file a human rights complaint.

She can’t have it both ways.

And if you approve of an angry mob beating someone for expressing their opinions, then how exactly are you for free speech?

Again, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. Having the government not go after her for expressing her opinions is one thing, but having it throw millions of dollars into letting her spread it is entirely another.

Sounds like you're for free speech in theory, but think that it's okay to physically harm those you think deserve it for expressing their views, and that as long as the government doesn't do it it's not a violation of their rights.

Sounds like you’re grasping at straws.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Your Supreme Court doesn’t get to dictate how my country does things.

you do have a right to expect not to be beaten when you are invited to express your opinion or obtain a permit to do so.

But you can’t realistically expect someone else to foot the bill for security and then complain about your rights being violated when it turns out they can’t handle it and you decide to cancel.

Also kind of ironic that you would say this when the main argument against letting Coulter speak is that what she says encourages hatred and perhaps even violence. Good to see that you need no such encouragement.

Wow, you really are grasping at straws.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Rubbish. You might as well say that without posting an infallible set of criteria for what makes a movie a Western, I cannot state that For a Fistful of Dollars is a Western.

Nope, point isn't rubbish.

Your comparison of me asking you to define 'free speech' and your suggestion that its like trying to define what a 'western' is fails for a couple of reasons.

First of all, free speech is something that should be defined. Its relevant to all members of society (unlike trying to define what a movie 'type' is). Not only that, its something that can be defined. We can define what we think reasonable limits are.

Secondly, if I really wanted to, I could define what constitutes a 'western'. (How about "a movie that takes place in the western 'prairies' of North America, after the civil war but before the invention of the internal combustion engine. There, see? Was that so hard?

You got called on making dumb claims about a black-and-white case. Now you're trying to drag this into being a discussion of irrelevant shades of grey. No dice. Nobody is playing along.

Of course you're not playing along. Because you can't. You see, you have no leg to stand on, so its easier to avoid the issue.

Actually, I'm the one who wants things defined in black and white. I think free speech can and should be defined. People like you (or anyone of the "Coulter shouldn't speak because she has nothing useful to contribute" group) are the ones who want to introduce shades of grey because you're not bothering to define what is 'useful'.

It's cute that you want to relive some internet "victory" from the past, but you're trying to put words into my mouth. I never said anything resembling "Coulter should be banned", and you know it.

I said that Coulter had nothing to contribute to intelligent political discussion, and that I'm not in the least sorry that she failed to give a talk at a university.

So, you're not sorry that she was prevented from speaking, but you're not sorry that she was 'banned'. You'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly see much difference between the 2 situations. In either case, someone who wanted to talk, and someone who wanted to listen to that talk, were prevented from doing so by a 3rd party. What is it, you don't like the word 'banned'?

If you want to attack that position you need to argue that she has something to contribute to intelligent political discussion...

Nope, I don't. Because you've never given any sort of indication of what you consider to be 'intelligent political discussion'.

Once again.... Either all speech must be protected (and not just from strict government censorship, but from people who want to 'shout down' your message) or you don't have "free speech".

 

[GreNME]

Once again.... Either all speech must be protected (and not just from strict government censorship, but from people who want to 'shout down' your message) or you don't have "free speech".

I'll quote someone else in case it coming from me isn't good enough:

Again, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

You still haven't answered whether the newer facts about what actually happened-- particularly the police suggesting nothing regarding security or safety, but instead about venue size (but not excluding the other facts)-- has affected your opinion.

No one threatened Coulter's speech. She ran out of her own accord and then (as per usual) lied about it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Here's an interesting CBC blog post about what happened that fateful night and I highly suspect that Coulter used these protests as a source for some new material and probably never intended to show up in the first place.

Segnosaur, please read the linked article in the above quote, and then come back here and let me know if you're still as adamant for all those reasons you've been going on about throughout this thread.

Ok, first of all, keep in mind that that blog post was through the CBC. Not sure if you're familiar with the Canadian media, but the CBC is generally seen as having a left-of-center bias. (Perhaps not as bad as, lets say, Fox news, but expect that whatever is presented by them will usually be slanted.)

Secondly, this was a very poorly written and researched article. There are some rather significant mistakes in it. For example, one of the claims is that she never intended to show because she would have had to have left the Rideau club 'a half hour before' in order to make it. Ummmm.... I live in Ottawa. The only way it would take you half an hour to get from the Rideau club (located downtown Ottawa) to the University is if you were walking. With a broken leg. While dragging a 100 pound boulder. Had she spent 2 minutes with a city map (or even mapquest) she would have seen that travel time by car is roughly 5 minutes. Should you really trust an author who makes blunders such as this?

Lastly, the author of this article seems to be relying on certain sources, but ignoring others. Heck, she even ignores information even from sources she referred to. For example, she claims that: They [her source] added: "At no time was there any evidence of physical threat." Yet one of her sources also pointed out: One male in his early twenties was escorted out of the foyer of the building by an Ottawa police officer..

Umm.. Just wondering, just why do you think the police would be escorting someone out of the building? Unclaimed parking tickets?

Oh, and by the way, there was evidence of a threat provided by reporters that were there. For example:
From: http://deborahgyapong.blogspot.com/2010/03/anti-free-speech-students-shut-down-ann.html
...a group of people rushed the hall, jostling the three people who were at a table checking student ids and those who had registered. The table got pushed aside. When the volunteers said they needed order and for people to come to the table, some of the rowdies folded the table up and threw it aside. Then the volunteers decided it was too dangerous for them and they shut the doors to the auditorium.

re: police suggestion that they simply "find a bigger venue"

Looks like the "police suggestion" line [that they cancel the event] was a lie.

Ok, first of all, my personal belief is that, on average, the Ottawa police are incompetent. Just a general observation from living in the city (and from seeing crimes that the police did absolutely nothing to stop). Its also borne out by statistics (for example, they have the lowest clearance rate for crime in the region.)

Secondly, the author of the article spoke to an Ottawa police media relations officer... but did she actually talk to police that were there? Quite possible that the media relations officer is just attempting to provide a 'spin', while those at the event might have had a different story to tell.

Lastly, and most importantly, just what would be the purpose of "finding a bigger venue"? You had to have a prior registration to enter, and the article itself points out that they were making sure only registered participants entered. So why was a bigger hall needed? Did the police mistakenly think everyone should be let in? Were they just too lazy to provide proper crowd control outside the hall?

If I go to a movie, and the movie theater is sold out, I go home. I don't expect they'll move the movie to somewhere with more seats.

And just how practical would it have been to move the talk? I'm not a student at the University of Ottawa, but from what I've read, Marion hall was already the largest hall on campus. (See: http://web5.uottawa.ca/mcs-smc/virtualtour/science_buildings.php) Think they'd actually be able to just pick up and move somewhere else in the city?

Frankly, the idea that they could have just "moved" the thing is a foolish idea that would have been seen as impractical had the author of this article spent 2 minutes doing some investigation.

Looks like there was a total of 8 people in the auditorium who were anti-Coulter, and they actually got shouted down.

Yes, 8 people in a hall that wasn't even near full. And for which other protesters were attempting to enter. And do you really think its possible to give a speech when people are having a shout-off?

Segnosaur, you're missing your opportunity to prove me wrong.

Sorry, but I had limited time and wanted to save my responses in this thread to when I had significant opportunity to provide a proper debunking.

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.

You're dancing away from the point I was responding to, which was you saying that for some reason "free speech" required one group to stay silent while another group had their say. You're laying conditions to speech that are not synonymous with the "free" part of free speech.

Nope, I'm not 'dancing away'. I've been entirely consistent. As I've said before (and will probably have to again since you seem to have a lack of understanding over this point)... Free speech should not belong to only those with the largest megaphone.

The only stifling going on in this case was by Coulter and the organizers. While you've not said that anyone's views should be sacrosanct, you have suggested more than once in this thread that those who oppose her views should be silent while she states her views.

Once again, Free speech should not belong to only those with the largest megaphone.

How many more times do I have to repeat that before you understand?

There was no "full-scale shout-off" taking place, so again I don't trust your interpretation of reality. The reports we have so far is that the protesters were almost exclusively outside the venue and being blocked out by the organizers themselves.

And as the source I have pointed to earlier indicated, It was being blocked because people who had not registered were attempting to gate-crash. Registration for the event was required, when certain people were asked for 'order' so that they could be checked off, their table was pushed aside (the word "thrown" was used, although I suspect that is a bit of poetic license.)

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

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.

Very cute diversion on your part. There was a requirement to register to attend, however, and that requirement was not disseminated.

Actually, it was disseminated. It was probably discussed more on conservative message boards and similar places because they had more interest, but the fact that at least some protesters were actually admitted suggests that the event (plus the registration requirement) was disseminated.

And do you know why it wasn't disseminated more widely? One of the reasons is that the head of the student council (Seamus Wolfe) banned posters from certain buildings. So, he bans posters giving details about the event, then complains that people don't know the details of the event.

And does that also include the right to yell loud enough to disrupt her own speech? Do I really have "free speech" if, every time I open my mouth someone over-shouts me with a bull-horn?

he answer here is yes,

In that case I find your definition of "free speech" to be rather idiotic.

Remind me if I ever see you in a movie theater to yell as loud as I can... after all, it is free speech, isn't it?

However, since they weren't actually in the hall where Coulter would have been speaking (presumably with an amplified microphone in a closed hall), there was no need to try to shout over the protesters anyway.

Another idiotic suggestion. Yeah, an amplified mic can be louder than a voice, but there are limits, and I doubt anyone that was within a few seats of the protesters would have found the 'amplified mic' to be all that beneficial.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Nope, point isn't rubbish.

Your comparison of me asking you to define 'free speech' and your suggestion that its like trying to define what a 'western' is fails for a couple of reasons.

First of all, free speech is something that should be defined. Its relevant to all members of society (unlike trying to define what a movie 'type' is). Not only that, its something that can be defined. We can define what we think reasonable limits are.

I guess you must have completely lost track of what you were talking about. That or you thought nobody would notice if you suddenly switched topics to demanding a definition of free speech, instead of demanding a definition of the exact degree of mendaciousness, stupidity and ignorance that makes a person unfit to contribute to university-level political discussion.

Once again, sorry, but nobody is going to play along with your goalpost-moving.

Actually, I'm the one who wants things defined in black and white. I think free speech can and should be defined. People like you (or anyone of the "Coulter shouldn't speak because she has nothing useful to contribute" group) are the ones who want to introduce shades of grey because you're not bothering to define what is 'useful'.

I can merely repeat that calling for a discussion of where the exact boundary line lies between valid and non-valid contributions to a serious discussion when Coulter is clearly miles beyond the non-valid line is irrational and unproductive.

You are trying to pick some pet fight of yours about free speech, but I'm simply not interested in being your straw man. Please relive your internet "victories" elsewhere.

So, you're not sorry that she was prevented from speaking, but you're not sorry that she was 'banned'. You'll have to excuse me if I don't exactly see much difference between the 2 situations. In either case, someone who wanted to talk, and someone who wanted to listen to that talk, were prevented from doing so by a 3rd party. What is it, you don't like the word 'banned'?

Have you been reading the thread? Coulter was not prevented from doing anything.

Once again.... Either all speech must be protected (and not just from strict government censorship, but from people who want to 'shout down' your message) or you don't have "free speech".

Knock it off with the straw men. Nobody is saying Coulter shouldn't be allowed to stand on a milk crate on a street corner and make whatever noises she likes.

I am saying that she shouldn't be given a platform to make her noises at a university.

 

[Segnosaur]

Once again.... Either all speech must be protected (and not just from strict government censorship, but from people who want to 'shout down' your message) or you don't have "free speech".

I'll quote someone else in case it coming from me isn't good enough:
Again, freedom of speech means freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences

So, you try to justify your idiotic statements by quoting someone else who isn't really much better.

Hey, if you want to claim 'free speech does not mean freedom from consequences[/i] I agree... If I say something wrong, I could expect to be insulted, criticized for my views, shunned by society, etc. But the point is, I should still be able to get my message out there without having it shouted down by someone with a bigger megaphone.

Oh, and by the way, I do think that acceptable consequences should not include physical harm or property damage.

You still haven't answered whether the newer facts about what actually happened-- particularly the police suggesting nothing regarding security or safety, but instead about venue size (but not excluding the other facts)-- has affected your opinion.

Already answered. (I was in the process of answering when you made your post.

The suggestion by the police should have been seen for what it was: an idiotic suggestion not worthy of consideration....
- Marion hall was already the biggest one on campus. And I doubt it was really practical to move the event on short notice.
- Registration was required (and registration was open to anyone who wanted to register ahead of time).. So, why would a bigger hall be required?