Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[GreNME]

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.)

When cornered play the good-old "librul media" canard, as if that somehow proves what was said wrong. Lame.

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?

To the second: trying to change the subject because you think she too long getting there is insipidly pedantic, and blatantly trying to play incredulous. To the last, unless you have some proof of reason why the young man was being escorted away (for pulling the alarm maybe?), you have nothing supporting that there was any threat. The police themselves said they were never concerned about a threat (but open to any being reported), so in case you're missing this Coulter's people have lied about that.

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.

Nice backpedaling. The police never warned of any threat. Repeat it with me: the police never warned of any threat. Ann Coulter and friends are outright lying about the police having any concern of a threat. You're just retreating into hearsay now that the authorities don't back up Coulter's claims. Speaking of the authorities not backing them up:

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.)

Wow, it's like you're playing directly from the Fox News playbook now: when the facts don't fit the narrative, character assassination is soon to follow. Great job on being uncreative.

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.

You're fishing now. Coulter's quote of the police in her tweets and blogs were creatively paraphrasing the police concern over capacity. The very person whom Coulter quoted was asked to verify, and he contradicted them. Why can't you just admit the duplicity?

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?

Do you not understand what a fire hazard is? The hall had a capacity of 400 people, and by the time the event was canceled the hall was already at half capacity with more than twice the capacity outside. That you can't see the obvious venue size concern seems intentionally obtuse after so many pages on the topic.

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?

Perhaps that's a question you should be asking the organizers... you know, the guys who cut and ran.

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.

No one is suggesting they should have just "moved" that day. You're making up strawmen to ignore the reality of the only concern the police expressed.

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?

8 people out of 200, and those were shouted down by the others there to see Coulter. This is actually described quite plainly in the link, and you're ignoring it to continue insisting on a fantasy scenario.

Nope, I'm not 'dancing away'. I've been entirely consistent.

Yes, you've certainly been consistently giving a narrative from bizarro-world that the updates on what happened completely contradict. In doing so, you've pretty much solidified what I said earlier about not believing that you would be making these same defenses were the ideological bent switched. Again, while I can believe that you believe you would defend the same, the lengths to which you are denying reality in your defense of Coulter's lying does not support your insistence that you'd behave the same with different characters at play.

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.

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?

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.)

Look, you (and AvalonXQ) were the one who earlier in the thread seemed to be implying that the anti-Coulter folks were the ones blocking entrance to the event, and it turned out that the organizers were blocking entrance to the event. That you're not admitting the reality is the opposite of what was being presented earlier in the thread is why I pointed it out. You're just avoiding admitting as much.

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.

You don't at all see the cognitive dissonance in what you're trying to argue here, do you? If the dissemination was as selective as you seem to be admitting, how does that support what you're asserting and disputing what I'm saying?

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 yet the word got out to at least 190+ people who made it to the event, and presumably more-- unless you're now asserting that everyone present who wasn't admitted was anti-Coulter-- who showed up.

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

And I find yours dishonest.

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?

What part of "no freedom from consequences" did you not understand?

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.

An amplified mic wasn't necessary-- the anti-Coulter folks were already shouted down before the event was put off. You're just ignoring this to continue insisting that your fantasy-land scenario is the one that actually played out when it didn't.

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

Nope, just pointing out that your weird conditions do not seem to be recognized as valid by anyone but those defending Coulter on ideological bases, which is part of why I said I didn't believe you earlier.

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.

No you shouldn't. There's no guarantee of that. It's completely irrelevant to the event in question though, because the only people who got shouted down were the anti-Coulter folks who made it into the hall. Don't let the facts stop you from continuing to argue along your goofy fantasy scenario though.

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

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the police issued no warnings about physical threats? There were no reports of fights or other injuries happening, and about the closest you could get to "property damage" is your anecdote about a table being pushed over. You're just making crap up to try to present Coulter and the organizers as victims, when in reality it's precisely as I've been saying since the first page-- Coulter cut out on the event for false pretenses and is trying to claim moral high ground based on lies.

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?

To the first, again you're making up a scenario where someone suggested moving the venue on short notice (no one did), and to the second all you're doing is displaying the logistical fail of the organizers that turned out being precisely the problem the event was called off anyway (despite the lies from Coulter-fantasy-land). Funny how all of the sudden the police concern has stopped being a talking point waved by you in your defense of Coulter's walking out, and now is being lambasted as idiocy because it contradicts your earlier assumptions-- classic confirmation bias failing and then facing scorn as a result.

And with that, I'm done trying to see if you could actually live up to your claim of ideological agnosticism on the topic after pointing out the facts contradicting the early claims (lies) by the Coulter crowd. You've basically proved why I said earlier I don't believe you would make the same defense under different circumstances, and you've already had the facts and reason pointed out to you several ways and you refuse to acknowledge them. Have fun in your ideological imaginary land.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

So, you're not sorry that she was prevented from speaking, ...snip....

All the evidence shows that she was not prevented from speaking but that she or she and her team made the decision not to speak, the two things are quite different.

...snip...

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".

Your view is contradictory - what you are saying is that my freedom of speech should be curtailed so that someone else can be heard because that person has a right to free speech. Either I am granted that right as well as the person I am "protesting" about or you are arguing that some people's right to free speech should be restricted.

 

[Segnosaur]

My apologies again for responding so late in this thread. (After all, the replies here are rather lengthy and my time has been limited lately.)

All the evidence shows that she was not prevented from speaking but that she or she and her team made the decision not to speak, the two things are quite different.

Yes, the organizers made the decision not to speak. However, that decision was made in the face of: A: Protesters, many (even if not all) of whom were there only to disrupt her speech, and B: A police force who did not appear to be willing to help the event proceed as planned.

Given those conditions, canceling the event (rather than have it turn into a 'shout off' with protesters, or end up with similar problems) may have been the only option.

Suggesting that the organizers were to blame for canceling the event is a little like saying a homeowner who escapes when his home is torched by an arsonist is responsible for leaving his home, when the real blame should reside with the arsonist who actually started the fire.

Your view is contradictory - what you are saying is that my freedom of speech should be curtailed so that someone else can be heard because that person has a right to free speech. Either I am granted that right as well as the person I am "protesting" about or you are arguing that some people's right to free speech should be restricted.

There will be situations in the real world where it is only possible to hear one voice at a time. Otherwise, as I keep pointing out, only those with the loudest megaphone will actually have "free speech".

It should also be pointed out that most of the people that went to hear her wanted to hear her speech (even if they may not necessarily agree with her opinions). They weren't there because they wanted to hear protesters chant. The right of free speech should also include the right to access the content you want to access. Protesters shouting over a speaker you wanted to hear interferes with that right.

As an analogy: if I don't like what my local TV station is broadcasting, should I be able to build a bigger transmitter and overwhelm their signal? Most people would say 'no', and I'll agree. But the law against building a bigger transmitter to overwhelm my local TV signal is not necessarily affecting my right to free speech. There's limited space on the broadcast dial, and somehow the situation must be regulated.

 

[Segnosaur]

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.

Actually, its quote productive.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 10 and Rule 12

Remember, whatever justification you seem to be making to ban Coulter could just as easily be made by (for example) religious fundamentalists who want to prevent Dawkings from talking, a fact which seems to be lost on you.

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.

Ok, first of all, you do realize that a lot of people think that universities should be leading the fight to protect free speech, not cowering from it.

So, is it an accurate description to say you don't believe free speech should exist at universities?

Secondly, you do realize that most of the people who tried to attend the talk were Canadian citizens. Many were students who paid tuition, others were regular citizens who's tax money had gone to support the building. (Coulter herself may have contributed if she had payed any Canadian taxes.)

Frankly, the whole idea that "We know better than you, so you can keep sending us your money and we'll tell you want we think you should hear" is something most people would find rather repugnant.

Ya know, I'd really think that the loony-right was full of hot air when they make claims of things like elitism, censorship, etc.. However, you seem to be doing everything you can to prove them right.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Suggesting that the organizers were to blame for canceling the event is a little like saying a homeowner who escapes when his home is torched by an arsonist is responsible for leaving his home, when the real blame should reside with the arsonist who actually started the fire.

<snip>

Unless you've got something to add that hasn't been shared in this thread so far, a reasonable person could conclude that in this case the homeowner was the arsonist.

I guess he shouldn't have been smoking the kool-aid in bed like that.

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

To the second: trying to change the subject because you think she too long getting there is insipidly pedantic, and blatantly trying to play incredulous.

Let me try to explain, since you seem to have missed the point...

I really don't care where Coulter was at any particular time. The issue is that the author of the CBC blog made a specific claim that was wrong (regarding travel time). The author should have known the facts... it takes ~5 minutes to get from point A to point B, not ~30. Even if she didn't know, it would have been very easy to verify. Yet she did not... And the fact that she could get one simple fact wrong should make anyone hesitant about trusting her fact checking in other areas.

Put it this way, would you trust someone writing about astronomy if they had included the claim that "the Sun revolves around the earth"?

Well, obviously you might, since you seem to like any source which validates your ideas. But some of us, when we see parts of an article with glaring faults, usually have less trust in the remainder.

Oh, and by the way, there was evidence of a threat provided by reporters that were there. For example:
From: http://deborahgyapong.blogspot.com/2...-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.

Nice backpedaling. The police never warned of any threat. Repeat it with me: the police never warned of any threat.

Correction... the police spokesman, quoted in a badly-written and researched article, never said that there was a "warning of a threat".

But, the event didn't go on, and all we get is a bogus claim by a spokesman that "they could find a bigger venue".

So, where exactly is the police claim that "the event could have gone on as scheduled. We could have kept the crowd in check"?

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?

Do you not understand what a fire hazard is? The hall had a capacity of 400 people, and by the time the event was canceled the hall was already at half capacity with more than twice the capacity outside.

Ummm... first of all, where exactly did you hear that the concerns were due to a "fire hazard"? There's certainly nothing in the CBC article (just the bogus recommendation that they 'find another venue').... nothing in the article suggesting why a bigger venue was needed. Seems to me you're just making an assumption (probably an incorrect one at that) that it was a 'fire' hazard (as opposed to a "there are too many disruptive people to handle properly" hazard.) But hey, if you've got some sort of proof that "fire hazard" was the underlying issue, I'm open to seeing it.

Frankly, the whole "it was a fire-hazard" thing just doesn't make any sense. They took pre-registrations, so it wasn't like the hall was going to be filled to over-capacity. No fire-hazard there. Most of the people waiting were actually waiting outside; again, no fire hazard there. Were they concerned about people waiting in the hallway outside the hall? Simple solution.. tell them to leave the building and only let them in if they have pre-registered.

8 people out of 200, and those were shouted down by the others there to see Coulter.

Lets say once the hall fills up, you'd have twice as many people, thus twice as many protesters.

You don't think over a dozen protesters shouting in a closed hall would have, shall we say, a negative impact on people attempting to listen?

Tell you what, next time you go to a movie, let me come along. I'll sit a couple of rows away from you and start yelling at key points in the movie. See how much you get out of the experience.

Look, you (and AvalonXQ) were the one who earlier in the thread seemed to be implying that the anti-Coulter folks were the ones blocking entrance to the event, and it turned out that the organizers were blocking entrance to the event.

Once again, let me explain....
- From reports of people that were there, there were people trying to gate-crash
- Blocking the entrance may have been the only way to stop said people from gate crashing
If people try to gate crash and I have to block the entrance to stop them, then the fault lies with the gate-crashers, not with the people trying to provide security.

You don't at all see the cognitive dissonance in what you're trying to argue here, do you? If the dissemination was as selective as you seem to be admitting, how does that support what you're asserting and disputing what I'm saying?

I never said that the dissemination was 'selective'. I pointed out that people naturally discuss things that appeal to them. People on the political right like Coulter more than people on the left, so they'd be more interested in discussing her/hearing her speak.

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?

What part of "no freedom from consequences" did you not understand?

Hey, it would have been your decision to go to the movie. It was the decision of the director and producers to make the movie. So, why shouldn't I be allowed to yell during it? It was your consequence to go.

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.

An amplified mic wasn't necessary--

Yet you were the one that claimed that she didn't need to worry about protesters because she would have had spoken "presumably with an amplified microphone in a closed hall". (Your exact words, see post 181). Why did you bring up the whole "amplified mike" thing at all?

the anti-Coulter folks were already shouted down

Dumb dumb argument.

Even if the protesters were shouted down at the time, such "shout downs" (were they to happen during the course of the talk) would have prevented many who attended from hearing everything.

Do you honestly think that some hardcore protester is really going to say "Hey, someone yelled at me... I think I'll keep quiet now"?

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

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the police issued no warnings about physical threats? There were no reports of fights or other injuries happening, and about the closest you could get to "property damage" is your anecdote about a table being pushed over.

Actually, I never claimed there was property damage. The reason why I brought up the issue is to explain what I think is a proper definition of 'free speech.' is. Its a tangent to the issue.

No one is suggesting they should have just "moved" that day. You're making up strawmen to ignore the reality of the only concern the police expressed.

Actually, nobody seems to know what exactly the police meant when they suggested "find a bigger venue". The rather poorly written and researched CBC article never went into details.

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?

To the first, again you're making up a scenario where someone suggested moving the venue on short notice (no one did)...

Well the only other option to moving the venue on short notice is to reschedule it on some other day, another idea which is just as lame-brained.

Organizing any event like this takes time (e.g. volunteers) and resources (money, for speaking fees, transportation, hotels, renting a venue, etc.). Did the people organizing the talk have unlimited volunteers and money? Were the cops going to assist in helping plan and pay for this re-scheduled event? Heck, would Coulter have even been available to give her speech on some other day?

Unless the police spokesman who claimed that they suggested they 'find a bigger venue' had some idea of when and where it could be held (that would fit with the available resources, and had some idea of when Coulter wold be available), then this suggestion should be discounted.

 

[Segnosaur]

Suggesting that the organizers were to blame for canceling the event is a little like saying a homeowner who escapes when his home is torched by an arsonist is responsible for leaving his home, when the real blame should reside with the arsonist who actually started the fire.

Unless you've got something to add that hasn't been shared in this thread so far, a reasonable person could conclude that in this case the homeowner was the arsonist.

You're kind of missing the point...

I was not trying to discuss "who should be the prime suspect in a criminal investigation". (I had been assuming the arsonist was a second party...)

I was pointing out how sometimes people make decisions (e.g. to leave their house after someone else set the fire, cancel an event when it becomes impractical to proceed) where they are presented with a list of bad options caused by forces outside their control, and they may be forced to pick the lesser of 2 evils. In that case, don't blame the person for making the choice, blame the person who eliminated all the 'good' options and left only the bad options behind.

 

[quadraginta]

You're kind of missing the point...

I was not trying to discuss "who should be the prime suspect in a criminal investigation". (I had been assuming the arsonist was a second party...)

I was pointing out how sometimes people make decisions (e.g. to leave their house after someone else set the fire, cancel an event when it becomes impractical to proceed) where they are presented with a list of bad options caused by forces outside their control, and they may be forced to pick the lesser of 2 evils. In that case, don't blame the person for making the choice, blame the person who eliminated all the 'good' options and left only the bad options behind.

I know what your point was. I was disagreeing with it.

You just made it again. I'm gonna disagree with it again. The analogy you are attempting to make is only comparable to the event under discussion if the two people mentioned in the sentence I highlighted are the same individual.

To try and make this simpler for you, the organizers built their own fire, lit it, watched it grow out of control, panicked, and then started running around telling people to look for an arsonist. Preferably a liberal one.

 

[Segnosaur]

To try and make this simpler for you, the organizers built their own fire, lit it, watched it grow out of control, panicked, and then started running around telling people to look for an arsonist. Preferably a liberal one.

The organizers did not ask for protesters to come to the event with the intention of disrupting the speech. (Yet they had to contend with others organizing such protests.)

The organizers did not pull the fire alarm, or ask that it be pulled. (Yet they had to contend with it being pulled prior to the event.)

The organizers did not ask for people to "gate crash"; they made it clear, both in their ads and via announcements that only registered people would be allowed in. (Yet they had to contend with people lying to try to get in, with intimidation tactics such as throwing tables, etc.)

The organizers did not ask for their ads to be banned from certain parts of the university (yet the decision to do so was made without any input by the organizers.)

Once again, the measure of "free speech" in society is how you deal with people who might say things that are distasteful. Such speech must be protected. If you claim it is "proper" to drive Coulter away because she says things that most of us dislike, then you have to be prepared to expect people you might happen to like to be driven away by people who have a similarly negative view.

Think it would be good to prevent someone like Randi or Dawkins from speaking using the same tactics? After all, they must know that their godless atheist views would cause widespread panic amongst good christian people! They must be shut down! Won't somebody think of the children!

Such a simple concept. Too bad so many people here in this forum just don't seem to "get it".

 

[quadraginta]

The organizers did not ask for protesters to come to the event with the intention of disrupting the speech. (Yet they had to contend with others organizing such protests.)

The organizers did not pull the fire alarm, or ask that it be pulled. (Yet they had to contend with it being pulled prior to the event.)

The organizers did not ask for people to "gate crash"; they made it clear, both in their ads and via announcements that only registered people would be allowed in. (Yet they had to contend with people lying to try to get in, with intimidation tactics such as throwing tables, etc.)

The organizers did not ask for their ads to be banned from certain parts of the university (yet the decision to do so was made without any input by the organizers.)

Once again, the measure of "free speech" in society is how you deal with people who might say things that are distasteful. Such speech must be protected. If you claim it is "proper" to drive Coulter away because she says things that most of us dislike, then you have to be prepared to expect people you might happen to like to be driven away by people who have a similarly negative view.

Think it would be good to prevent someone like Randi or Dawkins from speaking using the same tactics? After all, they must know that their godless atheist views would cause widespread panic amongst good christian people! They must be shut down! Won't somebody think of the children!

Such a simple concept. Too bad so many people here in this forum just don't seem to "get it".

There's nothing to "get".

They planned badly, and couldn't cope with the results of their poor planning. When things started to develop beyond their obviously limited abilities to control they panicked and pulled the plug. Then they started looking around for someone else to take the rap for their piss poor preparations. Being young conservatives they did what they had learned at their elders' knee and blamed the nearest liberals.

Nothing you mention in your list of horrors is particularly surprising to anyone who has dealt with event planning of any size. Obviously they hadn't. It is apparent that they approached the gig the way a handful of junior supervisor wannabes would set up a seminar on inspirational office management. Any popular college town music bar deals with similar crowd control situations on a regular basis, and they're dealing with drunks on top of all that.

If they had had a lick of sense among them they would have just opened the doors and welcomed everyone in that the Fire Marshall would allow, and apologized to the rest. They could also have arranged for their speaker to show up on time (that would be before she was supposed to start speaking), which would probably have avoided most of the disruptions we've been told about in what little audience they did let in.

Why didn't they know that some of their ads would be disapproved? Didn't they do any prep work to confirm their arrangements? Did they think they were setting up some kind of fraternity 'meet & greet'?

They screwed up, and they were too chicken**** to own up to it. That's what I get.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem isn't protests against Coulter. The problem is when the word "protest" is actually a euphemism for "not allowing her to speak" and "threats of violence".

 

[Skeptic]

They planned badly, and couldn't cope with the results of their poor planning. When things started to develop beyond their obviously limited abilities to control they panicked and pulled the plug. Then they started looking around for someone else to take the rap for their piss poor preparations.

That woman planned badly, took no pepper spray, handgun, or strong male escort with her, and still went down that street.

Now, naturally, she blames the violent rape on the violent rapist -- can you believe the gall she has? -- instead of on her own piss-poor preparation against being raped.

Stupid conservative, always blaming others for her own shortcomings.

 

[Darat]

That woman planned badly, took no pepper spray, handgun, or strong male escort with her, and still went down that street.

Now, naturally, she blames the violent rape on the violent rapist -- can you believe the gall she has? -- instead of on her own piss-poor preparation against being raped.

Stupid conservative, always blaming others for her own shortcomings.

And then it turned out that she hadn't actually been raped, she'd torn her own clothes, messed up her own hair and made up the story about being raped to try and excuse why she didn't turn up at the restaurant.

 

[Segnosaur]

There's nothing to "get".

They planned badly, and couldn't cope with the results of their poor planning.

Ummm... what exactly did they 'plan badly'? What exactly do you think should have been done 'better'?

Lets see:
- They reserved the largest available hall on campus (to hopefully allow anyone interested to attend)
- They had a pre-registration process in place (to prevent overcrowding in the hall). The requirement for pre-registration was mentioned both in ads for the event, and announced to the crowd when lining up
- They had people checking IDs/registrations at the door
- The majority of the people lined up outside (which would help crowd control inside the hall.)
- They had some people acting as security

Maybe they should have armed the security people. Tazered anyone who tried to gate crash. Would that have satisfied your desire for "better" crowd control?

When things started to develop beyond their obviously limited abilities to control they panicked and pulled the plug.

Well-behaved individuals (both attendees and protesters) would not have tried to gate-crash. Well-behaved individuals would not have pulled the fire-alarm.

Under normal circumstances, the arrangements that were made by the organizers would have sufficed. It should have sufficed. Similar speeches were made at other Universities in Canada without the unmanageable protesters that were at the University of Ottawa.

And for the protesters that were getting out of hand, the police should have stepped in to help (instead of just saying "Oh, hold it somewhere else, on some other day.")

You know, there is a limit on just how much "preparation" can be done. We don't expect to build cars out of solid titanium "just in case" there is some freak accident that is outside the norms. Nor should we expect the organizers/available security to be able to handle a situation that is outside the norms for what had happened previously.

Any popular college town music bar deals with similar crowd control situations on a regular basis, and they're dealing with drunks on top of all that.

Ummmm... I've been to university. Yes, bars have to have security to handle checking IDs at the door and handle drunks inside. But I never recall seeing any event on campus where there were students who planned to gate-crash with the purpose of shutting down the place. Any disruptions there tend to be by individuals. And those students don't want the bar shut down (as compared to the protesters at the Coulter talk who were trying to disrupt the thing.)

So your comparison fails.

If they had had a lick of sense among them they would have just opened the doors and welcomed everyone in that the Fire Marshall would allow, and apologized to the rest.

Which of course would have made it unfair to those who bothered to pre-register.

Not only that, I doubt it would have actually fixed the problem. Protesters not let into the hall may still have tried to gate-crash (after all, they were trying to get in even after being told that registration was required), and there would still have been the problem of how to control the crowds outside the hall while trying to let the right number of people in.

Why didn't they know that some of their ads would be disapproved?

Ummm.... because the ads were to go up in university buildings, and universities are supposed to actually, you know, support free speech.

Oh, and it wasn't that "some" of their ads weren't approved... its that they weren't allowed to post any ads at all in the main student building. It would not have mattered what the content of the ads were, the problem is that they were advertising an event that the student government disagreed with.

Kind of hard to have done the ads different when the only 'solution' acceptable to those banning the ads would have been to cancel the event all together.

 

[Skeptic]

Well, their #1 lack of preparation was not to realize that on most college campuses, those who scream the loudest about how they're in favor of "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and "free speech" and "non-violence" are usually likely to violently attack those who actually dare disagree with them.

Marcuse's famous dictum -- "no free speech for fascists!" ("Fascist" = "disagrees with me") is still the law in many campuses, alas.

Then again, "fascist" is a very relative term here: if someone like Ahmadejinad came to give a speech, however, as he did in Columbia University, I'm sure the same folks who violently shut down Coulter's speech would be falling over themselves to treat him respectably, as Columbia (to its shame) did.

I can't stand her... but she has the right not to be violently shut down, and she isn't in the same league of evil as Ahmadejinad. (In fact I think she isn't really a conservative, and is merely playing a loony all-stops-pulled conservative for the money. But that's still no reason to violence.)

 

[tyr_13]

Well, their #1 lack of preparation was not to realize that on most college campuses, those who scream the loudest about how they're in favor of "inclusiveness" and "diversity" and "free speech" and "non-violence" are usually likely to violently attack those who actually dare disagree with them.

Marcuse's famous dictum -- "no free speech for fascists!" ("Fascist" = "disagrees with me") is still the law in many campuses, alas.

Then again, "fascist" is a very relative term here: if someone like Ahmadejinad came to give a speech, however, as he did in Columbia University, I'm sure the same folks who violently shut down Coulter's speech would be falling over themselves to treat him respectably, as Columbia (to its shame) did.

I can't stand her... but she has the right not to be violently shut down, and she isn't in the same league of evil as Ahmadejinad. (In fact I think she isn't really a conservative, and is merely playing a loony all-stops-pulled conservative for the money. But that's still no reason to violence.)

There are no such folks. They only exist in the lies Coulter has told about the event. They're fictional.

So I have no idea if the imaginary people from Coulter's lies would like him. You'd have to ask her.

 

[Segnosaur]

Then again, "fascist" is a very relative term here: if someone like Ahmadejinad came to give a speech, however, as he did in Columbia University, I'm sure the same folks who violently shut down Coulter's speech would be falling over themselves to treat him respectably, as Columbia (to its shame) did.

There are no such folks. They only exist in the lies Coulter has told about the event. They're fictional.

So I have no idea if the imaginary people from Coulter's lies would like him. You'd have to ask her.

Well, not exactly Ahmadejinad, but in the weeks prior to Coulter's speech, Ottawa was one of the Universities participating in the "Israeli Apartheid Week". This event is widely seen as anti-semitic, and has been widely condemned.

And lest you think its just Jewish people and Israeli apologists who were complaining, Michael Ignatieff (leader of our main opposition party and possible future prime minister) said:
...Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.

The activities planned for the week will single out Jewish and Israeli students. They will be made to feel ostracized and even physically threatened in the very place where freedom should be paramount -- on a university campus.
(From: http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/m...el-ignatieff-regarding-israeli-apartheid-week)

Yet this event was allowed to proceed. No letter from the university administration was sent suggesting they "tone things down" (as coulter was asked). The student government did not ban posters from buildings (as they did with ads for Coulter's speech). There may have been some students speaking out against the event, but the student government didn't take action against it.

Why the double standard?

 

[tyr_13]

Well, not exactly Ahmadejinad, but in the weeks prior to Coulter's speech, Ottawa was one of the Universities participating in the "Israeli Apartheid Week". This event is widely seen as anti-semitic, and has been widely condemned.

And lest you think its just Jewish people and Israeli apologists who were complaining, Michael Ignatieff (leader of our main opposition party and possible future prime minister) said:
...Israeli Apartheid Week is a deliberate attempt to portray the Jewish state as criminal.

The activities planned for the week will single out Jewish and Israeli students. They will be made to feel ostracized and even physically threatened in the very place where freedom should be paramount -- on a university campus.
(From: http://www.liberal.ca/en/newsroom/m...el-ignatieff-regarding-israeli-apartheid-week)

Yet this event was allowed to proceed. No letter from the university administration was sent suggesting they "tone things down" (as coulter was asked). The student government did not ban posters from buildings (as they did with ads for Coulter's speech). There may have been some students speaking out against the event, but the student government didn't take action against it.

Why the double standard?

I don't know enough about his visit to say. However, none of the things you describe are anywhere near 'violently shutting down' or what Coulter claimed happened.

Without enough information to say, I can't call it a 'double standard'.

 

[Bill Thompson]

First of all, she was not banned. She was shout down by a group of kids who did not do their homework and her body guards decided it was not safe for her to leave her hotel room.

Secondly, the kids who protested did so because they were told an untruth. Some professor or school admin wrote a piece claiming Ann said something that she did not say.

In the end it is Canada who has been shown to believe in lies and also uses hate speech to deny freedom of speech.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Actually, its quote productive.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 10 and Rule 12

Remember, whatever justification you seem to be making to ban Coulter could just as easily be made by (for example) religious fundamentalists who want to prevent Dawkings from talking, a fact which seems to be lost on you.

Oh really? I assume you mean Dawkins, but his academic credentials are excellent and I suspect any talk he gave at a university would be of sufficient merit that nobody would even question whether it had a worthy place at a university.

Ok, first of all, you do realize that a lot of people think that universities should be leading the fight to protect free speech, not cowering from it.

Universities can and do lead the fight for free speech of reasonable intellectual quality. There are street corners, open mike jams and Youtube for idiots to make noise on, so their free speech is not threatened.

So, is it an accurate description to say you don't believe free speech should exist at universities?

Not for idiots, no. It's a university. It's a place to create, preserve and pass on knowledge, not a soapbox for every passing lunatic.

Frankly, the whole idea that "We know better than you, so you can keep sending us your money and we'll tell you want we think you should hear" is something most people would find rather repugnant.

Ya know, I'd really think that the loony-right was full of hot air when they make claims of things like elitism, censorship, etc.. However, you seem to be doing everything you can to prove them right.

I'm guessing you have a lot in common with the loony right and the anti-science crowd if that's your attitude.

Hell yes academics know better than Joe Average when it comes to their area of specialisation, that's their job. Hell yes they take public money and pass on their informed conclusions to the public, that's their job too. That's why we have universities in the first place.