HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Bernie Sanders Defends An...

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:30 AM

 

Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter

in a surprising turn of events, every millennial’s favorite old man, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has come out in defense of Ann Coulter, denouncing threats that forced the University of California, Berkeley, to try to postpone her appearance at the college.

“I don’t like this. I don’t like it,” Sanders told The Huffington Post in response to the security threats that forced the university to put off the conservative firebrand’s event.

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.

The senator from Vermont also slammed protesters who said Coulter shouldn’t be given a platform to speak at the university, calling them “a sign of intellectual weakness.”

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/bernie-sanders-defends-ann-coulter-slams-intellectually-weak-student-activists/


271 replies, 13743 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 271 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter (Original post)
SecularMotion Apr 2017 OP
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #1
spanone Apr 2017 #2
Wounded Bear Apr 2017 #3
mountain grammy Apr 2017 #4
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #5
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #9
whathehell Apr 2017 #56
brush Apr 2017 #115
JCanete Apr 2017 #119
brush Apr 2017 #133
QC Apr 2017 #134
brush Apr 2017 #138
QC Apr 2017 #141
brush Apr 2017 #176
cloudythescribbler Apr 2017 #237
kcr Apr 2017 #143
whathehell Apr 2017 #213
TheFrenchRazor Apr 2017 #221
kacekwl Apr 2017 #222
brush Apr 2017 #224
Dr. Strange Apr 2017 #73
mythology Apr 2017 #18
guillaumeb Apr 2017 #36
Raster Apr 2017 #209
m-lekktor Apr 2017 #41
kstewart33 Apr 2017 #50
AJT Apr 2017 #29
LovingA2andMI Apr 2017 #35
True Dough Apr 2017 #51
J_William_Ryan Apr 2017 #53
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #55
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #81
Trumpocalypse Apr 2017 #229
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #83
QC Apr 2017 #80
sammythecat Apr 2017 #126
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #152
Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #128
pnwmom Apr 2017 #131
ehrnst Apr 2017 #194
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #150
elleng Apr 2017 #153
katmondoo Apr 2017 #155
stopbush Apr 2017 #164
ThoughtCriminal Apr 2017 #166
kacekwl Apr 2017 #227
ehrnst Apr 2017 #196
Dustlawyer Apr 2017 #228
Eko Apr 2017 #238
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #239
Eko Apr 2017 #242
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #259
Eko Apr 2017 #262
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #263
Eko Apr 2017 #264
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #267
Eko Apr 2017 #268
ProfessorPlum Apr 2017 #269
Eko Apr 2017 #270
boston bean Apr 2017 #6
karynnj Apr 2017 #89
boston bean Apr 2017 #92
karynnj Apr 2017 #95
Cha Apr 2017 #234
athena Apr 2017 #247
Exilednight Apr 2017 #250
TNLib Apr 2017 #266
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #12
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #15
Kentonio Apr 2017 #17
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #21
Kentonio Apr 2017 #22
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #23
Kentonio Apr 2017 #31
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #49
Kentonio Apr 2017 #75
JCanete Apr 2017 #121
panader0 Apr 2017 #8
Nanjeanne Apr 2017 #10
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #99
Nanjeanne Apr 2017 #111
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #114
Nanjeanne Apr 2017 #206
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #210
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #212
Nanjeanne Apr 2017 #214
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #218
JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #255
ehrnst Apr 2017 #217
Cha Apr 2017 #235
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #148
George II Apr 2017 #223
Ace Rothstein Apr 2017 #11
TexasProgresive Apr 2017 #13
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #54
Glassunion Apr 2017 #65
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #67
TexasProgresive Apr 2017 #107
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #129
Exilednight Apr 2017 #251
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #172
HopeAgain Apr 2017 #14
LovingA2andMI Apr 2017 #39
demmiblue Apr 2017 #40
Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2017 #77
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #154
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #175
Amimnoch Apr 2017 #257
grantcart Apr 2017 #117
bullwinkle428 Apr 2017 #16
Dr. Strange Apr 2017 #123
pangaia Apr 2017 #19
demmiblue Apr 2017 #20
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #193
retrowire Apr 2017 #24
Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2017 #25
m-lekktor Apr 2017 #42
Dr Hobbitstein Apr 2017 #74
KittyWampus Apr 2017 #26
Kentonio Apr 2017 #34
HoneyBadger Apr 2017 #46
KittyWampus Apr 2017 #87
Kentonio Apr 2017 #97
kcr Apr 2017 #108
Kentonio Apr 2017 #109
kcr Apr 2017 #110
Kentonio Apr 2017 #112
kcr Apr 2017 #118
Kentonio Apr 2017 #120
kcr Apr 2017 #122
Kentonio Apr 2017 #127
kcr Apr 2017 #132
Kentonio Apr 2017 #137
kcr Apr 2017 #139
Kentonio Apr 2017 #233
PJMcK Apr 2017 #27
MicaelS Apr 2017 #187
Kali Apr 2017 #28
Bradical79 Apr 2017 #30
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #38
asiliveandbreathe Apr 2017 #32
Dr. Strange Apr 2017 #82
MichMary Apr 2017 #96
moriah Apr 2017 #33
demmiblue Apr 2017 #37
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #43
Hell Hath No Fury Apr 2017 #44
Orsino Apr 2017 #45
delisen Apr 2017 #47
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #60
Voltaire2 Apr 2017 #48
leftstreet Apr 2017 #58
A-Schwarzenegger Apr 2017 #52
PatsFan87 Apr 2017 #57
whathehell Apr 2017 #61
leftstreet Apr 2017 #63
Glassunion Apr 2017 #79
QC Apr 2017 #98
HughBeaumont Apr 2017 #116
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #160
Nanjeanne Apr 2017 #208
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #88
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #256
uponit7771 Apr 2017 #113
whathehell Apr 2017 #59
G_j Apr 2017 #62
kcr Apr 2017 #64
Hassin Bin Sober Apr 2017 #101
kcr Apr 2017 #106
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #66
NurseJackie Apr 2017 #86
mackdaddy Apr 2017 #68
aquamarina Apr 2017 #69
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #85
aquamarina Apr 2017 #163
ehrnst Apr 2017 #192
Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #70
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #94
Sen. Walter Sobchak Apr 2017 #100
forjusticethunders Apr 2017 #258
SixString Apr 2017 #71
Volstagg Apr 2017 #72
retrowire Apr 2017 #76
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #151
retrowire Apr 2017 #156
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #169
QC Apr 2017 #173
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #179
QC Apr 2017 #185
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #186
QC Apr 2017 #188
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #225
retrowire Apr 2017 #174
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #178
retrowire Apr 2017 #189
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #181
Lotusflower70 Apr 2017 #78
lies Apr 2017 #84
Adrahil Apr 2017 #90
Dem2 Apr 2017 #91
beaglelover Apr 2017 #93
bettyellen Apr 2017 #102
bobalew Apr 2017 #103
liberal N proud Apr 2017 #104
benpollard Apr 2017 #105
RhodeIslandOne Apr 2017 #124
nini Apr 2017 #125
Arazi Apr 2017 #130
cwydro Apr 2017 #135
onecaliberal Apr 2017 #136
kcr Apr 2017 #140
QC Apr 2017 #144
kcr Apr 2017 #146
QC Apr 2017 #149
kcr Apr 2017 #159
QC Apr 2017 #161
kcr Apr 2017 #165
QC Apr 2017 #171
kcr Apr 2017 #180
QC Apr 2017 #183
Cha Apr 2017 #253
QC Apr 2017 #260
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #271
Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #201
moriah Apr 2017 #246
ehrnst Apr 2017 #219
Ms. Toad Apr 2017 #236
ehrnst Apr 2017 #241
QC Apr 2017 #245
onecaliberal Apr 2017 #145
kcr Apr 2017 #182
Cha Apr 2017 #254
Cha Apr 2017 #252
Starry Messenger Apr 2017 #142
trueblue2007 Apr 2017 #147
JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2017 #190
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #205
riderinthestorm Apr 2017 #157
Snackshack Apr 2017 #158
redwitch Apr 2017 #162
Softail1 Apr 2017 #167
Tarheel_Dem Apr 2017 #168
Warpy Apr 2017 #170
ehrnst Apr 2017 #191
Warpy Apr 2017 #197
ehrnst Apr 2017 #200
Warpy Apr 2017 #202
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #203
ehrnst Apr 2017 #215
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #204
lovemydogs Apr 2017 #177
ehrnst Apr 2017 #216
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #226
ehrnst Apr 2017 #184
William769 Apr 2017 #195
ehrnst Apr 2017 #198
ehrnst Apr 2017 #199
MyNameGoesHere Apr 2017 #207
Raster Apr 2017 #211
Soxfan58 Apr 2017 #220
CajunBlazer Apr 2017 #230
CajunBlazer Apr 2017 #231
Beartracks Apr 2017 #232
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #244
Dorian Gray Apr 2017 #240
X_Digger Apr 2017 #243
Raster Apr 2017 #248
Egnever Apr 2017 #249
stevenleser Apr 2017 #261
romanic Apr 2017 #265

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:31 AM

1. No, he defended her right to speak.

And I agree with him, as should we all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:32 AM

2. precisely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:33 AM

3. This...

Being a progressive requires a bit of subtlety and nuance that the reactionaries of far right and left cannot summon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:34 AM

5. Yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:35 AM

9. Which goes without saying, like defending her right to inhale air ... so why say anything at all!?!?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:33 PM

56. Obviously, it does not "go without saying" or she wouldn't have been getting threats..

Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whathehell (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:16 PM

115. Why say anything at all, why interject oneself into that?

Of course there should be free speech but come on. Doesn't he have anything better to do?

He couldn't be bothered to endorse Jon Ossoff, a Dem in a special election to Congress but he can speak up for effin Ann Coulter?

God!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:25 PM

119. because we are handling hate speech wrong. This puts us on the wrong side of an issue, and gives

 

GOP frat boys pseudo-intellectual talking points. It is actually a poor strategic move. We should be thinking about this. I grant that it's more complicated than that, and that paid-for venues of political shills is going beyond simple free speech, but this is still bad optics, again, far far far too easily packaged into sound=bytes for the masses who are already eager to disavow the "librul elite" and their book learning, etc. and to make false equivalences about our own intolerance. Why are we giving them that fuel?

Sanders is if nothing else, making a distinction that there are liberals who do not want free speech threatened, even to prevent someone as despicable as Coulter from speaking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCanete (Reply #119)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:55 PM

133. Again, why say anything. If your opposition is having problems...

let them figure it out themselves. No need to get involved. There are more important things for the Dem outreach chairman to take care of than coming to Ann effin Coulter's aid.

Stay out of it and there is no story for repugs to use. Not rocket science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #133)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:59 PM

134. Apparently he was asked. Would it be better to refuse

to defend the First Amendment?

Honestly, can you not find a more plausible pretext to find fault with him than this? It's just sad and desperate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #134)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:13 PM

138. Just say of course she has First Amendment rights and move on to next question.

Why get involved with Ann Coulter's problems?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #138)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:35 PM

141. It's not Ann Coulter's problem. It's a key American value.

It's also a terrible, awful, dumb strategy to allow people like her and Milo to portray themselves as free speech martyrs. They're nothing more than trolls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #141)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:34 PM

176. I agree they are little more than trolls. What I don't get is why get involved?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #176)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:58 PM

237. The idea of repressing RW free speech's widespread among Lefties, both authentic & not, & is serious

The notion of why get involved -- categorically, suggests that this is merely the action of a few "trolls" who are not worth the attention of Bernie Sanders. The opposite is the case. The issue of not allowing RWers like Ann Coulter ('no free speech for fascists') is a long-standing view of some on the Left (both authentically left & not) and is becoming more predominant among progressives in the current era than was true, say, 30 years ago. The overall issue is of importance and Bernie Sanders, as the best-known socialist in the US today has every reason to address it -- on his terms, when & where it is most favorable. It is important that it is known that progressives do indeed believe in free speech, even for vile characters like Ann Coulter. This is why the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie (which was pushing the envelope in terms of provocation, but was nevertheless within bounds of expression that was rightfully defended). Remaining silent as an overall strategy for leading leftists, as you seem to suggest is the right way, leaves the field only to those -- who are more than a few trolls -- who do not believe in free speech.

A couple of other points. The right of demonstration against this speech should also be recognized, including even militant demonstration (like there was in Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolous was there -- and now he plans to return for a whole week of events -- though of course attacks against persons that are not like self-defense (eg from police assault) are NOT a protected right). Sorry about all the parens but there are exceptions to general rules and exceptions to exceptions. And if the militancy of the demonstration, even to the point of vandalism and other acts of uncivil disobedience that are short of real violence to persons creates problems for some speakers, that is all part of the conflict-allowance that is part of the First Amendment and the kind of society it presumes. Sure, some people might get prosecuted for "failing to disperse" or something, and then a jury might exercise the right of juror nullification and so forth. Often these demonstrations are treated as "violating" the free speech of speakers, as if there were some Constitutional prohibition of heckling.

But threats against and assaults against persons DO violate a person's right of expression, and it is important that progressives visibly are known NOT to universally embrace that (or remain conveniently silent). It is not sufficient to say that advocating higher military spending or Islamophobic views are automatically "assaults" and can be treated with violence, like "fighting words". The breakdown of this system of allowing speech and protest but disallowing personal assaults is perfectly comfy for the right.

There is the question of WHEN to be silent and WHEN to speak up about this. That is a strategic question. Bernie Sanders in this situation seemed to have been in a favorable enough environment where he could be free to express his views fully and they would reach his intended audience. HE chose to answer the question, a strategic question, and I have no reason to believe it was an egregious error in principle OR strategically for him to do so. I also think that other progressives should, without "Gitlinizing" (finger-wagging at militant Leftists generally) defend NOT Ann Coulter but the system of free speech.

I would also add that SOME kinds of speech, speech that as a practical matter seriously threatens persons within the community in the ways that Milo Yiannopolous does, like outing transgender people by name, or the threat (apparently) to do so with undocumented students and others in the campus community, also crosses a certain line that Ann Coulter (or what I've seen of her on Bill Maher) does not. I will never forgive her for her gloating response to the Nov 13 2015 attacks in Paris (which were on my birthday, as it happens), saying at that time that that day, Trump was elected president of the US. Vile creature. But that doesn't change the arguments here, which attempt to lay out some kind of principled basis for distinction b/t the allowable and the non-allowable.

Also, it should be noted that RWers come to Berkeley precisely TO provoke a response and to exploit it. That's why the Republican Club made the invitations -- to drum up support in the name of free speech. At the April 15 clash, there were MAJOR "alt-right" (neofascist) leaders from across the country. They knew a great photo op when they see one. The Leftists were mainly from the Bay Area. The tactics of physical assault are an arena where the alt-right people are very much at home (and even many Leftists conceded afterwards that the RWers got the better of the violent confrontations, aside from whatever the police did or did not do). It is a case of the maxim that when you wrestle a pig, both of you will get covered in mud & the pig will be right at home.

So the whole issue is one of many nuances and complexities, and it is very important, and Bernie was totally right to speak out about it

Lately there has been a lot of sniping at Bernie, the underlying agenda of which is to weaken his role as one leader of the progressive mobilization within and outside the Democratic Party. Much of this sniping comes at least ostensibly from the Left (many on the Left think that ANY effort w/in the Democratic Party whatsoever is anathema, but THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE PROGRESSIVE MASSES WHO ARE WILLING TO EVEN VOTE OR BECOME ACTIVE ARE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #133)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:39 PM

143. Exactly

Like it isn't bad optics for Bernie to be calling the victims of hate speech standing up for themselves intellectually weak? There's his foot in his mouth, yet again. But somehow that's ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:53 PM

213. I can't speak for him on Ossof, but

I reject the idea that he was "speaking up" for Coulter, rather than defending free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:19 PM

221. sillence means consent, that's why. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:22 PM

222. Give it a rest my god

this crap is getting out of hand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kacekwl (Reply #222)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:49 PM

224. I'll say. Foot in mouth disease is rampant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:56 PM

73. It doesn't go without saying.

Howard Dean, for example, doesn't think she has a right to free speech. Bernie Sanders does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:38 AM

18. You mean this isn't lauding Coulter?

 

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.


This silliness of Sanders is perfect/evil needs to stop. Drop the feud. It's not useful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:53 AM

36. The feud seems to be spreading at DU. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #36)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:40 PM

209. Yes, because the hardcore anti-Sanders faction that still holds him responsible...

...for Clinton's loss IS STILL ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON DU. Still.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:57 AM

41. Defending Sanders against ridiculous attacks is not implying he is perfect. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mythology (Reply #18)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:12 PM

50. This is getting ridiculous.

Posting Bernie stuff and re-igniting the debate about who/what Bernie is and is he good or bad.

A complete waste of time.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:45 AM

29. Exactly

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:52 AM

35. EXACTLY....

And now we are quoting Blogs for Clicks as Facts.....The Slippery Slope is falling down the mountain faster than a speeding bullet.

One would think this "Renewed Throw Bernie Under The Bus" Stance of some is an effort to SERIOUSLY DIVIDE the Democratic Party and DNC Chair's Tom Perez stance to UNIFY the Party for the 2018 Election Cycle.

And If That Is It, How Is It Any Different Than What Happened In Election 2016 with the Fake News and Trolling of Democratic Websites In Other To Un-Unify The Base of Liberals, Progressives, Left of Center Democrats and Independents -- some of whom stayed home in Election 2016 due to the planted barrage of "Fake News" information on Social Media Sites -- that sadly and unfortunately led to Trump being in the White House.

#FoodForThought

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:14 PM

51. YES!! Absolutely this!!

There is a major distinction and an important one!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:22 PM

53. Nonsense

No one's rights are being violated, including the right to free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to J_William_Ryan (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:31 PM

55. Berkeley is a public university. As such it may be considered

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

an instrumentality of the government, which may not suppress speech protected by the First Amendment. Even more important is the fundamental principle that the remedy for offensive speech is more speech, not suppression. The ACLU defended the right of the American Nazi Party - an organization even more offensive than Ann Coulter, if that could be possible - to hold a parade through the largely Jewish town of Skokie, IL. If the ACLU decided to defend Ann Coulter I'd be fine with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:03 PM

81. Berkeley reversed this and invited her back, which is the right thing to do.

They came to their senses apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:03 PM

229. They are not supressing her rights

 

They are just not giving her a platform. There's a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to J_William_Ryan (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:05 PM

83. Right !!! No one is guaranteed all FORUMS to spew hate speech and neither is Coulter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:02 PM

80. Yep, but that interpretation of the matter

doesn't serve the purpose of vilifying him and dividing Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:42 PM

126. How can anyone honestly take it any other way

Good God this shit is getting old. Anymore, coming here is just a big fucking downer. I hate this OP. It's the result of flat out stupidity or else flat out dishonesty. It could be both, because it is stupid and it is not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sammythecat (Reply #126)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:57 PM

152. + 1,000,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:44 PM

128. She has a right to speak! If I wanted to do a lecture at

Berkeley about why the holocaust happened, that it was a good thing and we need another one for Jewish people, Muslims and gay people, and the university told me I couldnt speak there, what would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:51 PM

131. I wonder why he didn't defend Dolores Huertes's right to speak? As it is, the Repub Club

is objecting to a date 5 days after the original date. But she's not being denied a chance to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #131)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:06 PM

194. +1000 (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:55 PM

150. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:58 PM

153. Yes. Remember Skokie.

'In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago.'

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

A former colleague of mine represented ACLU in the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:59 PM

155. It is OK but not if you are provoking violence AKA Trump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:09 PM

164. Exactly. I'm not a Sanders fan, but he was defending her right to speak,

not what she usually says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:10 PM

166. +1

very Trollish and misleading headline in the OP. This needs to stop. And DU members should stop giving this sort of garbage recs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #166)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:56 PM

227. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:07 PM

196. And called Berkeley "intellectually weak" which is something else. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:57 PM

228. +1!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:03 PM

238. She didnt have a right to speak.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #238)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:04 PM

239. Everybody has a right to speak. That's what the First Amendment is about.

Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #239)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:08 PM

242. So,

When am I slated to speak there? Or you? I think you are confusing the right of the government not to stop you speaking with the right of a university to not give special treatment for someone to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #242)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 07:35 AM

259. It's a government run university

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #259)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:35 PM

262. Still no.

Using the commons area of a university to speak is a protected free speech area, declining to have a speaker at a forum is not. The university also has grounds to halt/stop someone from speaking if they believe there is a threat from that speech. Someone's right to free speech does not override others right to life liberty and happiness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #262)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:40 PM

263. that may be technically true

but the university obviously thought that making a first amendment martyr of Coulter was an even worse outcome.

The appearance of free speech, even if it isn't technically required, is probably a good move for a government organization.

Much as it galls me to have her invited to speak anywhere, except to herself from her straight jacket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #263)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:02 PM

264. Yes, it is technically true.

Therefore she has no free speech rights to speak at a forum on a university. Not a free speech issue. If they let her speak and there were riots and people got hurt would that be better? of course not. Then the university could be held liable for that if it was shown that they had knowledge that it was probable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #264)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 03:08 PM

267. If that's the hill you want to die on

It seems that the people actually empowered to make the decisions disagree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #267)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 03:09 PM

268. You mean

like the university or the law or the constitution? Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eko (Reply #268)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 03:18 PM

269. yes, the university

why am I in this dumb conversation anyway? Berkeley couldn't give two figs what either of us think.

dopey.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProfessorPlum (Reply #269)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 03:41 PM

270. Because

You thought she had a right to speak at the forum when she didn't. Now you know. Sure, I'm dopey for knowing the law when you didn't,
Whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:34 AM

6. But some other woman giving a speech was heresy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:09 PM

89. If you mean HRC giving speeches in 2013 and 2014, NO ONE thought it was "heresy"

What I think is that when since at least 2008, Goldman Sachs and big banks, were seen as the cause of the painful economic crash for which they seemed to pay no price, it is tone deaf for a person planning to run for President to earn a large amount of money giving private speeches giving them access and then not providing the transcript.

All totally legal .. not immoral .. not unethical -- definitely tone deaf.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:10 PM

92. Not at all what I meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:12 PM

95. Sorry - I assumed that the reference was to Clinton as I know of no other controversial speeches nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:26 PM

234. The Speeches!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:48 PM

247. Excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:39 PM

250. What woman and what speech would that be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:28 PM

266. I believe the students who pay tuition should have say in the quality of speakers on their campus

They pay dearly for the college experience and Universities should listen to their students.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:34 AM

7. No one owes hate talk the benefit of the doubt or a chair at the table

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:37 AM

12. The right to free speech includes the right to say bad things.

The remedy for "bad" speech is more speech. What happens if the tables turn and someone decides your speech is bad? As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis pointed out in Whitney v. California: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #12)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:37 AM

15. Strawman, I'm not NEEDLESSLY talking about the obvious right to speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:38 AM

17. If you deny people the right to public speech

Then their ideas end up growing underground and causing far more damage. Let them speak in public and destroy them with reason and logic. In an open debate, fairness and justice win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #17)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:40 AM

21. Again, overt strawman no one is NEEDLESSLY talking about the obvious right to speech

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:41 AM

22. Except for you and the op creator you mean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:42 AM

23. No, please learn the difference between the act and the forum ... on is given the other is not

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #23)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:46 AM

31. Colleges are supposed to be places of learning and discussion

Students need to be faced with a whole range of opinions, including those that are abhorrent to them. The important distinction however is that those opinions do not and should not go unchallenged (and that goes for opinions from all parts of the spectrum).

I hate seeing these protests trying to prevent people from making speeches or taking part in discussion panels at colleges because its little more than intellectual cowardice or childishness. If something is going to upset you, don't go. If something offends you, go along and make a better case whether its in a debate or in the questions following a speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #31)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:08 PM

49. We agree on what forum college is, we might NOT agree that hate speech is GUARANTEED a forum there &

... here's another thing that kills me... its usually white supremacist who are invited to spew their ideas in this forum.

RARELY if ever do we here other than non white supremacist invited to this forum or someone explaining that we should listen to non white supremacist at these forums.

I might have this wrong but in deed it seems like these forums are asking for one side to be listened to ...

How about invite the racial supremacist all on stage at once ?!!?

Give them guns and some alcohol and film the forum live ?!!?

I'd pay money to see that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:58 PM

75. You don't hear about the other ones because they aren't newsworthy

You should check out some of these kinds of forums though. There's usually robust opposition and the hate mongers just end up looking quite pathetic. The problem when you have protesters is that the hater can play the victim card and post videos of 'liberals trampling on free speech'. It's much better to just calmly and politely eviscerate that speech instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #49)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:36 PM

121. the problem though uponit7771, is that if something hasn't crossed into legal hate-speech,

 

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:07 PM - Edit history (2)

as in explicitly inciting violence, then it is up to interpretation. If that interpretation is spun as "you just don't like what we're saying so you're calling it hate speech," that undermines us. It does not help us when we cede this kind of ground on democratic principles when such a thing is so easily spun as us being intolerant and controlling what free speech is free speech.

You are right though, when someone, who really in Coulter's case has nothing of intellectual value to say(but that's my own value judgement) is given a forum, and on a campus that people pay tuition to, what is the recourse? You are right, that "free" speech is not equally made available. I think if there's that much fervor, and that many people willing to get out there, the alternative would be to have an alternative forum, bigger and louder and to let Coulter speak to her room of fifty or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:34 AM

8. Misleading OP title

Trying to fit in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:35 AM

10. I think you missed a few words in the title . . . defends "her right to speak". But keep trying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:21 PM

99. I checked, and it appears those words were not part of the original headline. Here it is...

... the full original headline:

Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter, Slams ‘Intellectually Weak’ Student Activists

... and it appears that the words you think are "missing" weren't actually there in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #99)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:10 PM

111. Sorry I didn't spell out more clearly what I meant to say so you seemed to have

Misunderstood completely. OP title made it out that Sanders was defending Ann Coulter when it was quite apparent that he stated he disagreed completely what she was saying but still believed in her right to speak. But then I have a feeling you actually knew that .. but whatever. It's Bernie Sanders - so ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #111)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:15 PM

114. So, you had "a feeling" of what I knew? Does that mean you're a mind-reader? ;-)

I guess it makes sense that someone who's a "mind-reader" would automatically assume that everyone else is also a mind-reader and would therefore instantly understand what they were thinking (instead of what they actually wrote.)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:36 PM

206. I'm sorry. Were you talking to me? I fell asleep trying to read your comment. I'll just use my

Mind reading skills to figure out your post. No need to respond again. I think I get it. It's something rude and probably something about Sanders. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. 😴

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #206)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:41 PM

210. LOL! Nicely done!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #206)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:50 PM

212. Yet in spite of your "boredom", you still cared enough to reply. LOL ;-)




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #212)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:54 PM

214. Yes. I'm very vain. I love it when people respond to my posts. Even you. And the waving woke me up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #214)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:01 PM

218. I'll take your word for it.

I love it when people respond to my posts. Even you.
Awww. Thank you!

And the waving woke me up.
I'm sorry, I'll try to wave quieter.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #218)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 04:55 AM

255. Ha!

I'll try to wave quieter!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #212)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:00 PM

217. Yep. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #114)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:28 PM

235. Touche, Jackie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #111)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:53 PM

148. +1! Heat Street is a right wing extremist website - Trump uses it against Obama.

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:29 PM - Edit history (2)

They use misleading headlines to promote their agenda.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/


Thank you for calling it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NurseJackie (Reply #99)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:46 PM

223. That Heatstreet article is rife with interesting quotes. And correct or not, what you say IS...

....the exact headline:

"Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter, Slams ‘Intellectually Weak’ Student Activists"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:36 AM

11. False Title

Trashed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:37 AM

13. Is this like hating on the ACLU because they defended the KKKs rights?

Defending someones right to speak doesn't infer accepting what that are saying.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S. G. Tallentyre

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #13)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:30 PM

54. It was the Nazis in Skokie Illinois...the governmentrefused permits for assembly.

This was an area where holocaust survivors lived...but the Nazis had constitutional right to assemble...the ACLU did defend them. But Berkeley is not the government, and they can disallow Coulter's speech if they choose...and they should...her hate speech should not be encouraged by anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:44 PM

65. I hate Illinois Nazis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:45 PM

67. I hate them too...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:51 PM

107. It is not the government disallowing free speech.

What has happened is there are very few spaces where free speech is allowed because most "commons" are privately owned. There was a time when a person could go into a public space and speak, not any longer. Berkley is a publicly funded university and as such should make allowances for free speech.

As to Ms. Coulter, I think she is a reprehensible human being. I bought one of her books used so I could read her without giving her a boost. It was awful, never again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:46 PM

129. I disagree...there is no need to include hate speech at any University.

No one has a right to spew hate in any venue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:45 PM

251. Censorship comes full circle when the only speech allowed is the only speech no listens to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:24 PM

172. I agree. Ann Coulter doesn't have a right to speak at any university...there is no such

constitutional right...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:37 AM

14. Most misleading Topic of the Year candidate.

I vote for this OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:54 AM

39. Second That!!!

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:56 AM

40. Anyone who didn't vote to hide this should be exempt from jury duty, imo. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:00 PM

77. Agreed.

I voted to hide as it CLEARLY breaks the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:58 PM

154. Absolutely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #40)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:33 PM

175. What is wrong with the thread...I went to the google Gods...to see what the issue is...

The OP uses direct quotes from Sen. Sanders...now I don't agree with him... I am sick of conservative hate speech, and this is not protected by the constitution as the government is not silencing and/or jailing her. Why does this deserve a hide?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #40)


Response to HopeAgain (Reply #14)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:20 PM

117. Yep

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:38 AM

16. "Fake news" has become ridiculously cliched, but at the very least,

this is clearly a CRAP HEADLINE. It wouldn't even pass the smell test at Cheetolini's precious National Enquirer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bullwinkle428 (Reply #16)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:39 PM

123. Are you questioning the veracity of the source?

Might I suggest you read more from that website before judging so harshly?

https://heatst.com/politics/weirdly-sexual-bernie-sanders-coloring-books-are-now-for-sale/

Okay, never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:39 AM

19. I have trashed more OPs in the last month than in my entire previous years of coming here...

Misleading title..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:40 AM

20. heatst.com...

yet another laughable source.

What the heck is going on here?!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demmiblue (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:06 PM

193. Heat Street is right wing extremist website - Trump uses it as a source.

They use misleading headlines to promote their agenda.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:42 AM

24. I am relieved to see how many common sense DUers

Posted here to say that he was protecting freedom of speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:43 AM

25. Why are we sourcing RW garbage on DU?

Heat Street, started by Louise Mensch, owned by News Corp.

Bullshit source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:58 AM

42. Louise Mensch, her tweets anyway, is a favorite source here these days. nt

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to m-lekktor (Reply #42)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:58 PM

74. I know. Just because she doesn't like Trump doesn't make her any less

of a deplorable.

She is NOT our friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:43 AM

26. HeatStreet is a rightwing rag and its choice of story title is deliberately misleading.

 

I may have a beef with how Sanders talks about Democrats and the Democratic party but he was not defending Coulter.

He was defending her right to free speech.

However, protestors should be allowed THEIR free speech so Sanders really shouldn't attack them as being intellectually weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #26)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:49 AM

34. It is intellectually weak.

There's nothing intelligent or challenging about trying to stop someone being allowed to speak. As college students they should be devising the strongest, most robust counter arguments to utterly destroy the nonsense Coulter comes out with. Hell, its not exactly difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:02 PM

46. And they should do it without violence

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #34)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:08 PM

87. There is nothing intellectually weak about protesting hate speech.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #87)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:16 PM

97. Depends on the forum

If its people protesting in the streets about hate speech from an elected politician then great. If its protesting someone speaking in a university though, its basically cowardly. There's no need to protest when you can walk inside, listen and then tear those ideas apart intellectually. That takes more courage though than standing outside in a mob screaming at someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:56 PM

108. People who usually tend to hold your opinion are those who have never been a target of hate speech.

Holding the view that hate speech mongers are merely presenting their side of a reasoned debate is really easy to do if you've never been the victim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:02 PM

109. I didn't say they were presenting their side of a reasoned debate

I said you can use the format of a reasoned debate to destroy their feeble nonsense, and do so in a way that makes them look foolish. People who look foolish people are far less likely to attract supporters. People who are shouted out of town are much more likely to.

What do you think happens after one of those hate mongers gets shouted out of a university or uninvited? They get free press, more money and sympathy support from likeminded assholes. They also get to use video footage and press coverage to convince gullible people that they're the good guys and we're the violent extremists.

Being the better people isn't just about being nicer, its about tactically undermining these hate merchants in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #109)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:09 PM

110. So, what you're saying is actually worse

It's not just feeble nonsense. People's lives are directly affected and destroyed by what you deem feeble nonsense. Your willingness to concede the format of reasonable debate is easy to see when you make it obvious that you minimize it. It's obviously not a concern in your world.

While it is true that everyone is protected by the first amendment, even hate speech mongers, it therefore does NOT follow that everyone is entitled to all platforms and that everyone must willingly assent to give them over, even to hate speech. It's as I said in another post; those who make that claim rarely subject themselves to this "nonsense" as you call it. And it is beyond the pale that one who proclaims themselves a fighter for the little people would call the targets of this hate speech intellectually weak because they refuse to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #110)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:12 PM

112. I'm using 'feeble nonsense' in the sense that their arguments and positions have no strength

Or intellectual reason to them. They're easy to demolish because they stand on pathetic and weak foundations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

I have no idea why you're trying to make this personal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:20 PM

118. You really think that it's just a matter of Debate Club! Best argument wins!

That's not how it works with these people because that's not their intention. And that matters. If that' how you engage them, you're taking a knife to a gun fight. You'll never win. All you're doing is giving them more publicity and that's what they want. Only you're serving them up their victims against their will when you let them have their pick of their forums under the guise of free speech! That's why Bernie's argument is especially egregious. This idea of giving them legitimacy as if they really want to just debate, and then setting them loose on college campuses? Yes, they're places of education and exchanges of ideas. That's NOT what hate speech mongers do! Just because it's words coming out of their mouths. It's nothing better than saying stalkers should have access to their victims because they just wanna talk! That's all! Come on, you're repressing their rights!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #118)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:29 PM

120. You're wrong I'm afraid

It was the accepted way of dealing with these kinds of people for centuries and it actually works. It doesn't matter what the hater's intentions are. As for 'setting them loose on college campuses' that is you giving them far more credit than they deserve. College students are not gullible idiots, they're supposed to be there to learn to think for themselves. They're young adults, not a bunch of kids who need to be carefully guarded from any bad words.

As for publicity, which do you think gives them more publicity? 'Hater x goes to college and gets made to look a fool' or 'Hater x faces massive violent protests and is prevented from speaking at a college'? Which of those do you think the press is going to run with more, and which do you think gives the better optics?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #120)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:38 PM

122. There's been a one true accepted way? Really? So, where is this written?

"The Kentonio Way of Dealing with Hate Speech, VOL DIV" I think a whole lot of people might be missing it.

It doesn't matter what the hater's intentions are? Well, that might be a chapter in KWDHS. I would have missed that, see. But honestly, I fail to see how their intentions wouldn't matter. See, if they don't want to debate, they won't engage in the debate. Which is exactly what happens. They aren't interested. They just blather their hate, which, because it isn't nonsense, actually has an effect. It's why college campuses aren't keen on actually inviting them! I'm beginning to see why KWDHS maybe isn't a best seller...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #122)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:44 PM

127. You can look up hundreds of examples of extremists speaking at colleges

And getting their asses handed to them by the highly intelligent and motivated young adults studying there, who are fully capable of both recognizing and demolishing hate speech when they hear it.

What is KWDHS? The only return on google was 'KAMBALDA WEST DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL' which I'm guessing isn't what you're referring to. Educate me please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #127)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:54 PM

132. I'm sure one can! That doesn't change the fact that colleges shouldn't have to be compelled

to have them. There are plenty of places for those who want to hand asses oh so intelligently and look oh so brave and intelligent while doing so. But I have to question their motives when they insist that it has to be done where others have to be subjected to that hate against their will. There are plenty of instances where it didn't go so neatly. These people have had a history of bringing along violent provocateurs, for example. Because their intention is NOT innocent debate. And that's not even counting the after effect of hate they leave in their wake.

The argument that colleges are supposed to be about exchanges of ideas doesn't cut it. I can't simply wonder into a college uninvited and express myself. Why not? If the argument is college is about exchange of ideas, then why can't I go in there and express mine? Because that's not the entirety of the reason of their existence. It's obviously curated and selective. So, there is no reason to insist that part of the curriculum HAS to include hate speech. Or that students who wish to pursue their education unaccosted are somehow weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:11 PM

137. They aren't being accosted

Those kind of forums aren't usually a mandatory thing, unless the student is part of a course where its a relevant topic that they're expected to understand thoroughly.

The reason colleges occasionally invite controversial speakers, is because it gives willing students the opportunity to debate subjects from angles that they might otherwise come into contact with in their studies, and give them new perspectives, not least on how some extreme people and groups frame their arguments. It's actually a great way for young people to learn about the more extreme opinions out there, and prepare them for dealing with those in the real world.

I do understand why you don't want people given a platform for hate, but I'm a huge believer in reason and knowledge being the best tools for beating hate. We live in such a shallow and facile society these days where idiots ranting on the radio have a bigger platform than professors, and on the radio or on their websites there's no counter arguments allowed. Just please trust our educated youngsters to be able to not only survive exposure to this stuff in colleges, but also be smart enough to destroy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kentonio (Reply #137)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:30 PM

139. Yes, they are.

Why do you think colleges reject them? There is a reason, and colleges should absolutely be allowed to do so. Allowing hate speakers to have free reign over colleges and taking away the ability for colleges to reject them will shut out college as an opportunity for many students. It will be just one more area where they are subjected to the same repression they are everywhere else. College is one area that can afford everyone economic and social mobility but it won't be able to do so effectively if it becomes just one more institution where the privileged reign supreme. Hate speech is just one tool that ensures this happens. It's the reason hate speakers are targeting it specifically. They know what they are doing. And they're unfortunately getting the help of some people who should absolutely know better. It's shameful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #139)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:14 PM

233. What are you talking about?

Colleges are the ones inviting them to speak, and withdrawing invitations when large student protests make their visits untenable. No-one is forcing the colleges to do anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:44 AM

27. The OP's title is misleading

And the source is crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PJMcK (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:49 PM

187. You will notice that the OP has NOT replied..

To any of the posts made in this thread. This is his tactic. Posts something inflammatory, and almost never replies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:45 AM

28. OFFS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:46 AM

30. Very misleading headline

I don't know that I agree with him, but he's defending her right to speak and how it looks to silence people like her rather than challenge them intelectually. I can see his point, but I don't think anyone is obligated to give a platform to outright hate speech. She can have a public speech not taking up student facilities, imo. I'm also not sure anymore that such an idealist approach is practically effective.

That said, I don't know what's right regarding the university's policy or legal obligation towards invited speakers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bradical79 (Reply #30)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:54 AM

38. Berkeley is a public university.

As such they may be considered an instrumentality of the government, and have to be damn careful about how they treat free speech issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:47 AM

32. Ann Coulters only claim to fame is stirring the pot...she is offensive, and

offends intelligent people...she can say anything she wants, just not at Berkeley - she does this just to raise a ruckus....

This is not intellectual weakness, it is intellectual strength - go muddy the waters someplace else..just like I tell my neighbors who want to bring their RW rhetoric to my backyard...you haven't got anything good to say - stay away...NO diff..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:03 PM

82. Ah yes, Free Speech Zones.

So glad to see our side adopting the worst ideas of the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to asiliveandbreathe (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:12 PM

96. Why not at Berkeley?

Which is a public--government--entity.

You, as a private individual, have the right to tell your neighbors to stay off your lawn, or whatever; but the government, in this case Berkeley, has an obligation to observe AC's Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:48 AM

33. Okay, no offense, but I have to call bullshit.

He's defending the right to free speech and condemning threats and violence for a VERY good reason -- if people have to threaten or use violence to suppress even the off-the-wall outrageous speech of Propaganda-Bot, Ann Edition, it DOES show intellectual weakness.

I was a Hillary supporter even back in 2008 and to suggest this is defending Ann herself or her beliefs, vs Constitutional rights, is a stretch that almost exceeds how far Ann herself stretches the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:54 AM

37. Well, at least only one person has recced this thread so far.

That is promising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:59 AM

43. Wow just wow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:01 PM

44. I agree with Sanders and Marr on this issue.

 

As a civil libertarian, I believe that Ann Coulter and even Milo Assbutt has a right to speak at a University that they have been invited to. And listeners have a right to object to and protest that speech.

It the tables were turned and a Norm Chompsky or Malcom X-like speaker weren't allowed to talk at a University there would -- correctly -- be outrage.

Charlie Chaplin showed us in "The Great Dictator" how to handle asshats like Coulter and Milo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:02 PM

45. Bernie Sanders Defends Not Un-strangling Kittens n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:02 PM

47. By extension, Sanders has defended our right to speak.

If only some of his followers would listen to his advice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #47)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:38 PM

60. Amen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:03 PM

48. Aren't the primaries over?

I guess I just don't understand du.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voltaire2 (Reply #48)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:36 PM

58. The beatings will continue until morale improves

Welcome to the never ending primary at DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:16 PM

52. Looks like this didn't quite pann out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:34 PM

57. People are really reaching for reasons to hate on Bernie these days.

Yes, people should be allowed to speak even if you disagree with them. Put on your big girl/big boy pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:39 PM

61. You've noticed, huh?

It's all useless garbage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:41 PM

63. They hate Sanders more than they hate Trump

Each day I get less enthused about logging on here

What a waste

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:01 PM

79. Plus 1

I've been away for quite a while and now I'm remembering why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:17 PM

98. Yep. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:17 PM

116. +1,000,000,000,000.

It's getting fucking annoying, to be honest.

The other day, there was a thread that more or less stated that Progressives and the Alt-Right are the same thing.

Guess it's easier to blame an imagined powerful "progressive left" for a near-consecutive six-year streak of failure rather than look in a mirror or even so much as acknowledge a groundswell of progressive sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:02 PM

160. I think that's the idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:39 PM

208. Yeah. I forgot to remember why I stopped reading here. It's coming back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:09 PM

88. It's almost as bad as the primaries. Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Donald Trump is in the White House and he has control over nuclear weapons, and people are whining about mean ol' Bernie? SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #88)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 05:05 AM

256. are you saying you didn't enjoy 2016????

Look here, this way you get to enjoy it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PatsFan87 (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:15 PM

113. Or LPC trolls are trying to front click bait by ignoring Sanders own statements

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:36 PM

59. He is NOT, he's defending free speech..

Can we stop this useless, divisive Bernie-bashing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:39 PM

62. OP subject lines that are blatantly false

remain and continue to take up people's time and energy.
It would be a real challenge to be less productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:43 PM

64. If he stopped at no one should make threats, I'd be fine with that.

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

But this: "The best way to counter Coulter is to politely ask her “questions which expose the weakness of her arguments,” he said:

“What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”

is utter nonsense. I bet he doesn't sit around and willingly expose himself to her bullshit and ask her questions and listen to her answers. Why does he think anyone else should have to? It's really easy for people who arent' being targeted by Ann Coulter to be subjected to her swill to those who are: You have to sit down and listen to her nonsense and take it! Because she has a right to speech! So, just be polite and ask the questions! That's all ya gotta do! Then they can go home to their nice, comfy Ann Coulter free zone and chill and it's all good for them!

And to call these students intellectually lazy. Wow. He just exposes himself more and more each time he opens his mouth. Standing up to hate speech is not intellecutally lazy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:30 PM

101. Lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #101)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:45 PM

106. Now there is some intellectual strength right there.

"Lol." You sure showed me with that display of intelligence. Bernie would be proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:45 PM

66. NOBODY has the right to "a platform"

Free speech does NOT mean that. The right of free speech is simply that the government can't arrest you for saying things, no matter how stupid. It doesn't mean that you must be given a platform or venue, or that your book must be published or your show cannot be cancelled. It doesn't mean there will be no controversy or that people must agree with you or shut up.

Coulter, as far as I know, has not been threatened with arrest, and I'd venture to say that she wouldn't be if she did speak at Berkeley or anywhere else. Certainly she's said unbelievable stupid and deliberately provocative stuff before and has managed to stay out of jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NastyRiffraff (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:08 PM

86. Thank you! That's exactly correct.

I remember when Ellen cancelled Kim Burrell's appearance and the gnashing of teeth and the wailing commenced about how Ellen was taking away Kim's "First Amendment rights".




http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/news/a818286/pharrell-williams-ellen-degeneres-comfort-cancels-guest-homophobic-rant/

Speaking on Thursday's show, Ellen said: "She said some very not nice things about homosexuals so I didn't feel that was good of me to have her on the show to give her a platform after she's saying things about me."

Pharrell replied: "There's no space, there's no room for any kind of prejudice in 2017 and moving on. There's no room.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:46 PM

68. "Bernie Sanders ATTACKS Ann Coulter!! Calls her 'Outrageous... Off the Wall"!!

There, I fixed the title for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:52 PM

69. So defending free speech is a thing now?

I've been here for 15 years and I never thought I would see the day that at DU we would criticize people for defending the right to speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquamarina (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:07 PM

85. I guess for some it depends on who's speaking and what they're saying.

If students at some university protested a speech by Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, for example, and caused the speech to be canceled, we'd be having a huge collective hissy fit. Is it OK for our guys to speak because we like what they say, but not their guys because we don't?

And that's why we liberals - or most of us, anyhow - defend free speech. Because you never know when somebody is going to try to suppress our speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:05 PM

163. It really is something and not a little concerning

I'm reminded of that Martin Neimoller quote, first they came for the socialists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aquamarina (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:05 PM

192. Not seeing that. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:54 PM

70. Dennis Prager would show up at my university at least once or twice a year

 

He would speak to a mostly empty room of about 15-30 people and then go home.

The violent lashing out does nothing but build the individual's stature and gives Fox News new B-roll of "violent leftists".

Although it's the protests of Charles Murray that really have me scratching my head since his shtick these days is basically shitting on privileged cloistered white people, then shitting on unskilled white men and then advocating for a universal basic income. You would think that would make him as popular a campus speaker as Jon Stewart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:12 PM

94. "Scratching your head"?

 

Charles Murray literally thinks black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. And you're shocked that people are protesting?

So many "progressives" don't give a shit about racism and sexism because it doesn't affect them. But then again, Andrew Sullivan is still considered "liberal" so that doesn't surprise me.

You are exactly the kind of person that needs to get their "progressive" card revoked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forjusticethunders (Reply #94)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:26 PM

100. Was the sarcasm not obvious enough?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #100)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 06:23 AM

258. good old poe's law

 

sorry though

I really could see some jacobin type say that unironically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:54 PM

71. DU wRECk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:54 PM

72. I'm glad he is defending the First Amendment.

 

People have the right to speak. It's easy to support the free expression of those you agree with. It is much harder to support the free expression of those you disagree with. Even white supremacists have First Amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 12:59 PM

76. Definitely taking note of the 3 users that have rec'd this thread. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:56 PM

151. I rec'd this OP...I stand against hate speech at Universities.

I think Sen. Sanders is wrong about this. But hey this is America and everyone has the right to their opinion. But Ann Coulter has no constitutional right to speak at any university...and I fail to see why my beliefs are objectionable to you. feds can not drag you away in the night for speech, but that doesn't mean we need the far right hate speech on college campuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #151)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:00 PM

156. No we don't need the speech.

But the federal government cannot suppress it. Which is what Bernie is saying.

He's not saying hey let's all hear what she has to say. He's not saying not to oppose her.

By reccing this blatantly mistitled thread, youre pushing forth the idea that Bernie supports this. And that's an agenda that I take note of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #156)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:18 PM

169. The federal government is not suppressing it...Berkeley is.

Unless I was misled...he supports Ann's right to make a speech at Berkeley. I don't think she has any such right? I agree that the feds can't restrict speech, but that is not what is happening...and GOP hate speech has all but destroyed this country. What am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #169)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:26 PM

173. Berkeley is a public institution.

If this were, say, Stanford, the legal situation would be different.

In any case, the best response to Coulter is to stand united against her and argue against her hateful trollery, not let her play the martyr.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #173)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:37 PM

179. It is still not the government...where my kids go to school we had Drumpt supporters

harassing my gay daughter and her unity club...I went to school and the protests stopped...this is a public university too. Ann has no such right...she has the right to say what she wants but in this case she is in no danger of being silenced by the government .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #179)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:46 PM

185. Yes, a public university is "the government."

It has very different responsibilities regarding speech than, say, a garden club or, to use an example that came up in this thread, Ellen's tv show.

There are only very limited circumstances under which a public institution can forbid speech based on content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #185)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:48 PM

186. No it is not.

It is a university...the government is the state houses, and the feds...and there is no right to any speech you want on a college campus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #186)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:49 PM

188. The courts disagree. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #186)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:51 PM

225. Wrong. A public university is considered an instrumentality of the government

and as such may not restrict the constitutional rights of its students, faculty and others who deal with it. This has been settled law, according to the SUpreme Court, for decades - see Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, State Univ. of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589 (1967)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #169)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:31 PM

174. ...She does have the right. Berkeley can refuse it.

Berkeley isn't a federal party so they can do something about it.

Bernie is just saying she has the right, which she does as long as berkeley allows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #174)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:34 PM

178. I agree with you...she can say it elsewhere...but she has no particular right to say it at any

university.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #178)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:54 PM

189. Facepalm* nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retrowire (Reply #156)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:39 PM

181. The quotes in the OP are directly taken from Bernie's own words.

I checked because I wanted to make sure this was not bull shit. And he clearly says he doesn't agree with her but that she has the right to say it at Berkeley ...I just don't agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:01 PM

78. Don't get it twisted

He defended her right to speak not what she says. UC Berkley is pissing me off. They invited her then uninvited her. That's ridiculous and hypocritical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:05 PM

84. Hey look

 

another dishonest shit stirring post predicated of an attack on Sanders.... quelle surprise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:10 PM

90. Bernie has pissed me off a lot lately....

 

but he's right on this one.

OTOH, it's always okay to punch a Nazi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:10 PM

91. He didn't defend her.

He essentially said we have a 1st Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:11 PM

93. GOOD! I'm glad Bernie defends free speech in the USA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:30 PM

102. Needlessly divisive crap- no thanks.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:38 PM

103. This whole thread looks like a TROLL BAIT Rabbit Hole to me. Just Sayin'.....,

NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:43 PM

104. I defend UCI Berkeley for confronting hate speech.

BS is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:44 PM

105. Ann Coulter should speak at a conservative safe space

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.


Some of the violence that is occurring at right-wing rallies is questionable, but "intimidation?" Coulter's entire spiel is based on intimidating liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:40 PM

124. "Two cents worth"

Ann Coulter has been given a platform to give more than that (yet it adds up to less than two cents) far more tha far more intelligent people. One could argue that she has overdone her free speech. To argue she hasn't gotten enough of her bullshit out there is outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:41 PM

125. That's the funny thing about the 1st Amendment

Even those we disagree with have the right to talk their nonsense.

HOWEVER, those who people who are against Coulter also have that right to say what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 02:48 PM

130. Just when I think the BDS can't get any worse here. SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:02 PM

135. I'm no fan of Bernie, but I have to agree with him.

Shutting down free speech is not what we should be about, no matter how vile the speaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:06 PM

136. Oh for fucks sake, he defended the first amendment.

republicans are DESTROYING the country.. STOP THIS!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #136)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:35 PM

140. Except this isn't a first amendment issue

The first amendment doesn't state that everyone must give speakers a platform. And where in the first amendment does it state that it makes a person intellectually weak because they stand up to hate speech? I'd like to see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #140)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:41 PM

144. Berkeley is a public institution that allows outside speakers.

That means the university has to be very, very careful about trying to exclude speakers based on what they might say. There are circumstances under which they can do that, but very limited ones.

Worse, excluding someone like Coulter makes a martyr of her, rather than the troll she is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #144)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:48 PM

146. Then that's especially egregious that Ann Coulter is being defended here. Because guess what?

Berkley fought the idiots claiming she had a right to be there. So, she's an especially bad hill to die on in this fight. If Berkely, a public institution that allows outside speakers (what college doesn't, btw? Is there a college that never ever allows any outside speaker, ever?) and has to be very very extra special careful, then the fact they were saying no to Ann Coulter should have been a big, fat clue on the clue bus of SHE'S INAPPROPRIATE!!! Jesus fucking christ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #146)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:55 PM

149. No one is defending Ann Coulter here. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #149)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:02 PM

159. It is a form of defense that renders actual disagreement of her ideas meaningless.

If you defend inflicting her damage on students who simply want to persue an education, to me, it doesn't matter. Colleges should be a place for all students regardless of their background to feel safe because it is integral to American society as an equalizer. The fact that Bernie takes this position is particularly bad, IMO. He wants to make college free for all. Yet doesn't care to make that a place that's welcoming for all persons regardless of their background. Hate speakers target college for a reason. His stance makes it so that colleges will be yet another bastion of the privileged. That is the hate speakers' intention and if free speech absolutists who don't understand how the first amendment actually works want to hand them over? It doesn't matter if they actually agree. It's irrelevant. They are defending the hate speakers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #159)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:02 PM

161. Is Berkeley requiring students to attend her performance? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #161)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:10 PM

165. Is Berkely going to boot every single person interested in attending her performance?

Or keep tabs on them to ensure they aren't spreading the hate and inflict it on others? Of course not. Nor should they. But this isn't about Ann Coulter specifically. This is about the notion that colleges don't have the right to reject speakers. They absolutely do, because hate speech does hurt and even kill. Even if they deem that Ann Coulter doesn't quite rise to that level and changed courses. They have that right. There are speakers much worse than Ann Coulter. Why does Bernie maintain that it's intellectual weakness to stand up to them?

Where Bernie really showed his hand is his comment about the students who objected. Calling them intellectually weak because they booed her. I have to wonder why he didn't have similar judgment for those who booed Hillary? That's telling. In fact, he's shown he's rather fond of it when it's is own supporters behaving similarly. His comment about the supporters who booed at a Hillary supporting child for example? Something to the effect of Dems should learn to harness that enthusiasm! Booing a child is enthusiasm! Not intellectual weakness in that case. Why is that? Why disdain for Ann Coulter booers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #165)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:23 PM

171. Hold teach-ins to discuss the ugliness and emptiness of her "ideas."

Have a thousand people holding hands outside singing "I Shall Not be Moved." Raise funds for local charities outside her hate rally.

There are many alternatives to playing Coulter up as a free speech martyr.

And for heaven's sake, let go of the primary. It ended about ten months ago and we have far bigger problems now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #171)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:37 PM

180. That is so completely tone deaf

First off, why invite the beast in to create the problem in the first place and subject a significant portion of the student population to the damage of the hate? And then think simply slapping on a bandaid with teach-ins is going to fix it? Here's a better, simpler idea. How about not letting in the hate-mongers in the first place? Then you don't have a problem to fix. There! Much easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #180)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:40 PM

183. Take it up with the courts. And remember that it wasn't long ago

that university administrators were going after lefties like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. We have far more to lose in a conflict over free speech than do those who carry water for the right wing establishment.

And no, teach-ins aren't a band aid. Knowledge still has some power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #171)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:02 AM

253. Quit Blaming everything BS says on the damn Primary..

Your Strawman is NOT WORKING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #253)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 09:33 AM

260. We should all move past the primary the way you have!

Mahalo!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #260)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 06:21 PM

271. *snort*



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #146)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:16 PM

201. That's the essence of the first amendment right to free speech.

If Berkely, a public institution that allows outside speakers . . . then the fact they were saying no to Ann Coulter should have been a big, fat clue on the clue bus of SHE'S INAPPROPRIATE!!!


When a public institution permits outside speakers, it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.

She is highly inappropriate. You won't get an argument from me on that. BUT disagreeing with her viewpoint is not a constitutionally permissible reason to prohibit her from speaking at a state institution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #146)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:36 PM

246. She's a troll, but if I want to get to hear a liberal speaker at...

... any of the public universities in Arkansas, I've probably got to hope that universities can invite politically disagreeable people in this region of the country without having threats of violence shut down an appearance -- and that people would criticize the people threatening violence. Ann would get an invite easily here.

To me it's a matter of avoiding hypocrisy, or as Bernie put it, "sign(s) of intellectual weakness". Now, I'm going to say right here that Coulter's target demographic eats everything she says like it's the Gospel, but if having her speak is so threatening to an actual thinking person's ability to refute her verbal excrement with sources and logic.... it IS a sign of intellectual weakness. In fact, that was a very subtle barb to people who actually buy Ann's crap, when thought of that way. They're the ones intellectually weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QC (Reply #144)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:09 PM

219. But no one is guaranteed or entitled to a speaking gig, even at a public university. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #219)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:46 PM

236. The way Universities work is that some university group sponsored her.

She didn't just demand to speak.

The University (as a state actor) is not permitted to make decisions about who their constituent groups invite in as speakers based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

It's not about her (or anyone else's right to walk onto campus and make a speech). But once the campus opens itself up (as it does when it permits student and other groups to invite speakers), it must make the decisions as to whether the speaker is permitted to come to campus without reference to the viewpoint she is expressing. (And using the possiblity that her presence will provoke an unwanted response is legally just as bad as directly repressing it for the content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #236)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:07 PM

241. They did reverse the decision, didn't they? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #236)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:04 PM

245. This is the consensus of people who know the actual law. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #140)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:45 PM

145. Trash thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #145)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:40 PM

182. Excuse me? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #145)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:05 AM

254. Please Don't Wag your Finger @ KCR..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kcr (Reply #140)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 12:58 AM

252. THANK YOU KCR!!!

"The first amendment doesn't state that everyone must give speakers a platform. And where in the first amendment does it state that it makes a person intellectually weak because they stand up to hate speech? I'd like to see that."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:36 PM

142. Is he going to demand the transcripts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:51 PM

147. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH BERNIE? Berkely Liberals hate Coulters guts and there will be violence

does he want blood in the streets?

Bad judgement. let her speak someplace else

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trueblue2007 (Reply #147)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:55 PM

190. Maybe Berkeley conservatives want to hear her and want to pay for the privilege.

Berkeley Liberals are free to attend, ignore it, or demonstrate.

The Berkeley Liberals are not likely to cause violence. That will be the Berkeley Anarchists and right-wing hooligans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:00 PM

157. Lol. Ok, now this is ridiculous nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:01 PM

158. OMG...

Bernie defends the right to free speech...

Horrible!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:04 PM

162. He's defending free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:11 PM

167. how is this even DEBATEABLE???

 

my god...what is wrong with some people...the thought that we should eliminate someone's free speech because we don't like what's being said is despicable to me. College kids need to get a spine and deal with differing views...as despicable as Coulter is, last I checked she is a citizen who has a right to speak her at a public college, just like any other political activist does there....wow...hope the far left stops this violent direction they seem to be heading in..liberalism is better than this. And yes, I agree with whoever said Bernie is not defending her..he's defending free speech...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:15 PM

168. Well, we all know the good Senator deplores "identity politics".




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:21 PM

170. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, but the most odious speech is still protected

and it's hard to find speech more odious than Coulter's.

The agreement is that the government can't silence her the same way it can't silence us when her gang is in power, the way they are right now. One thing to remember about her right to speak is that it doesn't include forcing us to listen. It just means the government can't step in to silence her.

That doesn't mean you can cause panics or incite riots. That is not protected speech.

However, political speech is protected speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #170)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:00 PM

191. Well, I guess this means that he's really concerned about women's rights.

And really thinks that Berkeley isn't intellectual enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #191)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:10 PM

197. Red herring and you know it.

This is a free speech issue, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #197)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:14 PM

200. I disagree. The "intellectually weak" jab was telling. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #200)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:17 PM

202. And another one.

One trolling post after another! A twofer!

Oh, forget it.

Buh-bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #202)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:26 PM

203. Yep.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #202)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:58 PM

215. Buh Bye. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #191)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:28 PM

204. ...

?w=650&h=558

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:34 PM

177. Please. You know he is defending the right of Free Speech

He also said she was outrageous but, he is defending the right to free speech.

I really feel this whole anger and rage thing is not even about what people are saying it is, like pro v anti choice democrats.
If it was really an issue then many would have slammed and wanted Sen. Bob Casey drummed out of the party.

I think this is mostly over unresolved issues from the Primary.

I think many still are angry that Bernie ran against and had success in running against Hillary.
Why that was a problem, I don't know.
Everyone is entitled to run for President and if a person's message catches on, so what?
Why is it something to hold against anyone and to hate that person for?
There is no rule saying no one can run against Hillary.
People really need to think and come to terms with their anger and why running for president was such an awful thing when it is the right of someone to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydogs (Reply #177)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:00 PM

216. Free speech doesn't being guaranteed a speaking gig even at a public university.

That's an important distinction to be made...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #216)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:55 PM

226. But it does mean that if someone has been invited to speak

by an authorized student group and the university shuts down the speech because they don't like the speaker or the contents of the speech, the university, in its capacity as an instrumentality of the government (which is what public universities are), has then arguably violated the First Amendment. It's true that people can't just march onto a campus and "demand a speaking gig," but if they've been invited to speak and the university steps in and says they can't, there's a problem. And there's the distinction in this case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 04:43 PM

184. Well, this is something new and surprising. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:07 PM

195. Now there's a racist we all can get behind!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:11 PM

199. But this is a moot point - they are going forward with letting her speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:39 PM

207. Must have been a lot of alerts on this one

First login and I got jumped for service. I democratically voted for a bad faith reporting and leaving this gem of an article and great post standing. Russians don't sway me away from my party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:49 PM

211. No he didn't. He defended her right of free speech...

...how's that anti-Sanders agenda workin' for ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 06:18 PM

220. My dad use to say

If you want to make a republican sound like a idiot, you just hand them a microphone. Let her speak the more vile she spewed, the more vile she seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Soxfan58 (Reply #220)


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:08 PM

231. I'm not a Sanders fan, but he's right on this one!

I agree with the statement originally accredited to Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

(Voltaire's actual statement in a letter was, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”)

Aren't we supposed to liberal who defend the 1st Amendment. Apparently when we drift too far to the left we begin to resemble our counterparts on the right fringe and try to silence anyone who disagrees with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:08 PM

232. "RW Rag Sourced at Online Progressive Forum"

There, I fixed the OP's title.

Gosh, you'd think "news drops" like this would cause DUers to start squabbling amongst themselves, taking their eye off the real problems of the country...

Oh.



By the way, you'd think the description "every millennial’s favorite old man" would've given the poster pause.

==========================



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beartracks (Reply #232)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:43 PM

244. Yep. Agree 100%

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:04 PM

240. I agree with him here....

and I think that those who don't regarding free speech are dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 08:40 PM

243. Oh look, another shit article from the same source.

Anything in furtherance of the goal, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #243)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 09:59 PM

248. Not one response from the poster...

...classic hit and run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Mon Apr 24, 2017, 10:08 PM

249. And another vapid ridiculous post graces the pages of DU

 

When you have to twist comments to make them say what you want you are as bad as the fake news hucksters that got Cheeto elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 10:47 AM

261. This is a bit more complex of an issue. University free speech has historically been nearly absolute

 

or at least that was the desire.

Professors could have and express virtually any viewpoint, speakers of all stripes could be invited to speak, even racists and bigots.

I remember the brouhaha when Ahmedinejad was invited to speak here. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/

The issue is complex because the idea of campus free speech isnt a simple one and not universally supported anymore. We have had protests and cancellations of many speakers recently.

When a racist or other figure with ugly views is invited to speak on campus, IMO the university has a number of responsibilities that need to be met. Some senior figure from the University should speak before and after the speech and offer a counterviewpoint and conduct discussions on what the speaker said.

The purpose of campus free speech is to promote learning, not endorse the ugly views.

I am generally in favor of campus free speech when conducted the right way.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:06 PM

265. He's defending free speech as we all should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread