Berkeley reverses decision to cancel speech by conservative pundit Ann Coulter

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post


By William Wan and Susan Svrluga April 20 at 5:20 PM

Officials at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday reversed their decision to cancel a speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter.

The university had announced Wednesday that it was canceling Coulter’s appearance following several political protests in Berkeley that turned violent. But on Thursday, the university said it had found a venue where it could hold the speech on May 2, instead of the original April 27 date. However, a leader of the college Republican group that originally invited Coulter said the university was placing strict conditions on the event, and he said his group intended to reject the new terms.

Before the reversal was announced, Coulter had vowed to go ahead with an appearance anyway.

That probably would have put security officials on high alert and might have sparked another showdown in struggles over campus safety, student views and ideological openness.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/19/berkeley-cancels-ann-coulter-speech-over-fears-of-more-violent-protests/?utm_term=.ccbde71f1198&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-politics%252Bnation&wpmk=1

[nycbos]

1. I think a good protest for a**holes like this would be...

... to not show up.


If someone like this would speak to an empty room. That would send a powerful statement.


She is a troll and craves the outrage she produces.


Stoping her from appearing gives her a huge megaphone.

[LisaM]

2. Agree! I don't think colleges should necessarily ban speeches.

Obviously there are some groups that could be excluded but in general free speech is a good thing.

[Initech]

12. Exactly! Don't feed the trolls!

All they want is attention. This includes the group that I'm now referring to as the Free Speech Brigade, the Antifa idiots, and Coulter herself. By giving them attention - good or bad, they feed off it. Just ignore them and they'll eventually go away.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Hate speech should be filtered

those two sign burning students in Maryland are charged with hate?

What about what Ann Coulter says in print and in speech?

She hates liberals.

[Henry Krinkle]

16. Hate speech should never be filtered or banned unless it crosses the line of ...

promoting illegal activity and/or actions, and even then, there needs to be specifics.

Using the Maryland thing as an example, doing anything less sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding who exactly
gets to determine what exactly constitutes hate speech.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. Hate speech is more complicated and

can become the subject of litigation. Harrassment, malice, intent to cause
emotional distress, that sort of thing. Then hate speech winds up before a
jury, who will decide what constitutes hate speech and will effectively filter
it if they find it caused harm, suffering, financial loss or distress, worry.

So the lines blur, there is no absolute solution. The Supreme Court has ruled
it knows pornography when it sees it, it has ruled it is illegal to yell "FIRE!" in
a crowded theater to prompt a stampede, and that could be viewed as hate
speech since it harms or intends to harm the attendees.

[Henry Krinkle]

19. So, what it comes down to, is because so and so hurt my feelings...

called me a bad name, insulted me, my race, gender, sexual identity, I should take them to court, and/or
petition the government so it never happens again.

About the only Constitutional right we have left that hasn't been slowly dismantled by the right, is being
taken care of by the left.

Strange times we live in.

[bucolic_frolic]

20. Well, that's an interesting perspective

but we do have the right not to be harrassed, slandered, harmed,
discriminated against. The right to defend oneself has been part of
political philosophy since at least Thomas Hobbes. Many if not all
have their private biases, prejudices, but we generally don't publicize
them for all to see all the time. We keep them to ourselves and go about
our business.

? I dunno. That's how I see it, others may see it differently and they are
entitled to do so.

[Henry Krinkle]

21. I agree.

In my defense, in my original post I stated

crosses the line of promoting illegal activity and/or
actions, and even then, there needs to be specifics.

The examples you give (even though not exactly 1st amendment related), fall into 'crossing the line'.

Any words or rhetoric spoken, I may or may not have a problem with... it's when it becomes reality that it
should be a problem for everyone.

[bucolic_frolic]

22. True

Welcome to DU. This is the place to be!

[Henry Krinkle]

38. Thanks for the welcome...

but I've been here well over a year and wasn't able to get back in after the Russian hack attack.

[GulfCoast66]

23. Actually you have every right to slander someone

Last edited Fri Apr 21, 2017, 08:05 AM - Edit history (1)

As it falls under the first amendment. The government will do nothing to punish you.

Now the person you slander can sue you in civil court for an award. But you will not be jailed for slander.

[leftynyc]

27. Glad I read the comments

You took the words right out of my mouth. My advice to Berkeley liberals - ignore her. That would bother her more than anything else and another protest that turns into violence is EXACTLY what she's hoping for.

[melm00se]

28. hate/inflammatory speech

can be banned if (and only if) it violates the Supreme Court established "Brandenburg Test".

(1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
(2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”

The Brandenburg Test has been refined over the years with additional cases including RAV v. City of St. Paul and Virginia v. Black.

[Henry Krinkle]

36. It doesn't help matters when one has a shit stirring, rabble rousing spokes person...

like this banging on the war drums and calling to incite even more violence.

Unsurprisingly, she puts the blame on the UCB chancellor for the Feb riot for his failure to
cancel the speaking engagement... IOW, suppression of free speech.

[hughee99]

32. Yes, as long as we make sure that only people who agree with us get to decide what "hate speech" is!

[mountain grammy]

4. What if Ann showed up to an empty hall?

Best protest ever..

[nycbos]

5. Great minds think alike we posted about the this at almost exactly at the same time.

[BigOleDummy]

6. Except..

.. that the wingnuts who ASKED her to come would surely show up. Then if no one else was there they would claim victory.

[Astraea]

7. When Ann Coulter decides

to be a part of civilized society, maybe I'll be more concerned about her rights to a platform.

[C_U_L8R]

8. Ignore the rightwing publicity stunts

This shit is as phony as a Trump suntan.
Don't give them the headlines they crave.

[BigOleDummy]

13. From Thomas Jefferson's letter to William Smith ....

....... "what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants."

We are fast reaching a time when we must consider this.

[mr_lebowski]

24. An interesting thing about this quote ...

When viewed in it's entire context ... Jefferson referred to a limited and specific 'rebellion' that took place in Massachusetts (Shays Rebellion ... which was just as much against the State and Local governments as it was against the Feds) to make a totally different point besides 'violence is the answer'.

He was NOT advancing the notion that the US Citizenry should rise up in arms against the Democratically-Elected Federal Government that he'd been instrumental in creating ... if they so desire.

Read what comes before:

"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion?"

Interpreting this to mean he's suggesting people should violently rebel against our own Federal Government ... is a huge stretch, given the totality of the letter. What do you suppose he meant by 'honorably conducted'? You think that meant they were putting Congressmen's heads up on spikes? No. That's not what was happening.

Yet folks on the Right LOVE to use this brief blurb as justification/inspiration for the idea the Jefferson himself was a proponent of violent uprising against the very Federal Government ... he was in the process of creating.

That interpretation is laughable, really ... Just like the one they like to use to 'prove' that Jefferson was a die-hard Christian who thought we were a 'Christian Nation' ... another one taken completely out of context ...

It's clear that he feels that not only was the rebellion borne of 'ignorance' but also that the 'remedy' should involve properly educating the ignorant ... as opposed to him supporting the notion that 'violence is the answer'.

What he was really getting at is that USA was not in a state of 'anarchy', like the British were trying to claim ... just because we'd had ONE rebellion in one of 13 states, in 11 years of independence.

One last bit ... Shay's rebellion happened BEFORE The Constitution was ratified, right before in fact, and it played a significant part in the debates leading up to it ... the goal being ... "let's construct a government where people DON'T feel a need to rebel in this manner".

[crosinski]

30. Thank you for the history lesson!

"The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive."

I'm always amazed by how well our founders knew human nature, and how people never really change.

[BigOleDummy]

31. True

But I like to take the spirit of his words rather than the precise parsing. He also envisioned a representative government too, which thanks to gerrymandering I don't think we have anymore. And just how's that ole "Checks and Balances" thing working out, hum? Maybe his , and the other Founding Fathers GOAL was "let's construct a government where people DON'T feel a need to rebel in this manner", but the reality is ,IMHO, is that THAT ideal is slipping away from us. I for one am getting tired of those of us on the left side of the political spectrum just bending over , smiling and asking for some more of the same screwing we take from those who oppress us.

[mr_lebowski]

35. I don't disagree ;)

[GreydeeThos]

9. I hope no one dies in the ensuing mayhem

[BigOleDummy]

10. The asshat's

that invited this human vermin WANTS trouble because it energizes their base of deplorables. They've got their shock troops ready and willing to punch people in the face. We CANNOT give up the streets as that allows them to get their message out to the public that THEY are the ones who can make things happen and not the weak and indecisive "libtards". "Resist" cannot be just an empty word, it has to have some teeth to it!

Look at Venezuela. Those people have the strength of their convictions, out in the streets braving the thugs who are killing them! But THEY ARE RESISTING in the truest sense of the word.

Again, we cannot cede the streets to the scum who are oppressing us!

[Initech]

11. Well then they'd better hire a shit ton of extra security.

[SoCalNative]

26. That should be up to the group that who invited her to speak

to organize and pay for. And any incidents that happen as a result of her appearance they are financially liable for.

Otherwise, no dice.

[NobodyHere]

39. Or perhaps the rioters should be arrested and held financially liable

[blueinredohio]

14. hate speech

I thought that also, that would really piss them off if no one showed up

[Maxheader]

15. Good Decision..

Best time in their lives to hear the psyco babble of
those that lent to the disaster in the white house.

[Henry Krinkle]

18. UC Berkeley got egg on it's face and did an about face to save it's reputaion

And it's not the first time.

Birthplace of the 'free speech' movement my ass...

UC Berkeley students seek to block Bill Maher speech

Comedian Bill Maher is scheduled to be the speaker at UC Berkeley’s mid-year commencement, but some students, who object to what they allege to be his anti-Muslim statements, are asking administrators to rescind the invitation.

A petition urging the university to drop Maher from the Dec. 20 event has garnered more than 1,400 signatures, according to the student newspaper The Daily Californian. The protest was started by the Change.org group and is backed by the Middle Eastern, Muslim and South Asian Coalition on campus, the paper reported.

“It’s not an issue of freedom of speech, it’s a matter of campus climate,” student senator Marium Navid told the newspaper. “The First Amendment gives him the right to speak his mind, but it doesn’t give him the right to speak at such an elevated platform as the commencement. That’s a privilege his racist and bigoted remarks don’t give him.”

http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-ln-uc-maher-20141027-story.html

Bill Maher on Berkeley riot: The left has a ‘problem’ with free speech

‘Free speech should be something we own’ said the liberal comedian

Outspoken liberal comedian Bill Maher says the left needs to rethink its hostility to freedom of speech in the wake of the riot at the University of California, Berkeley this week.

“Believe me, I’ve been a longtime critic of colleges shutting people up,” Mr. Maher said Friday on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” “That is a problem on the left that we need to deal with, very much so. Free speech should be something we own.”

Students at the prestigious public university assaulted people in the streets, lit fires and looted stores on Wednesday night in order to prevent conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/4/bill-maher-berkeley-riot-left-has-problem-free-spe/

[mr_lebowski]

25. Lotta bullcrap and false equivalencies in this particular 'argument' ...

While I respect him, Maher isn't always 'right' in everything he says.

Universities do not HAVE to give a platform (and the associated imprimatur) to people like Coulter if they don't want to.

That isn't what 'Freedom of Speech' means.

If Oral Roberts University declined a request by Al Sharpton to give the commencement speech there ... are they denying him his 'rights'?

How about if MIT declined a request by the dude who built the Creation Museum to give THEIR commencement speech?

I fully support UC Berkeley's right to tell Coulter to kick sand if they want to, and even more so when the decision is based on the fact that violence is likely to erupt if her HATE-FILLED rhetoric is given a platform at their school.

It's time to call a spade a spade. She's advocated for the killing of Liberals, just to teach us a lesson. So fuck her. She can go talk on Faux and write books and the knuckle-draggers will eat it up and pay her millions. She ain't being 'silenced' FFS.

And UC Berkeley doesn't OWE HER a platform.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. Some nits to pick:

Last edited Sun Apr 23, 2017, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Oral Roberts and MIT are private. So I've heard, not having attended either. MIT is certainly the recipient of Federal funding. I don't know about Oral Roberts.

The elected officials of the senior class usually choose the commencement speaker, I think, or it's put to a vote of the senior class. Again, I'm not sure. I don't think anyone can demand to give the commencement speech.*

AFAIK, Ann Coulter was invited by a recognized student group to give a speech on Berkeley grounds. She accepted. If other student groups have had their invited speakers give speeches, then Berkeley has to treat this student group the same way the other groups were treated.

The only wrinkle to this instance is one that I was not at first aware of.

I gather the invitation was made on short notice, giving Berkeley little, possibly insufficient, time to arrange security. If a requirement were made of all groups that they make known to Berkeley whom they had invited, giving the administration time to prepare for any reaction, I do not see how that would represent an infringement of First Amendment rights.

If there were an actual security concern and not just a "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" security concern, you'd be safe on Constitutional grounds.

Again, all groups would have to be treated the same. The Knitting Club and the Windsurfing Club would also have to let the Berkeley administration know whom they had invited, two weeks ahead of schedule, say. There could be some radical knitting factions out there; you never can tell.

I do not favor the heckler's veto, especially when it is wielded by thugs who show up in hoodies and masks. I don't have any love for that crowd, and I'm not going to give in to them.

* Well, he can demand, but no one will pay him any attention.

[Henry Krinkle]

37. They had plenty of notice, time to prepare.

Note the date, there was more than adequate time to prepare.

Right-wing author Ann Coulter invited to speak at UC Berkeley in April

http://www.dailycal.org/2017/03/28/right-wing-author-ann-coulter-invited-speak-uc-berkeley-april/

Again, all groups would have to be treated the same. The Knitting Club and the Windsurfing Club would also have to let the Berkeley administration whom they had invited, two weeks ahead of schedule, say. There could be some radical knitting factions out there; you never can tell.

Can I get an amen!

There are really only two options here... allow anyone to speak with the same considerations regarding time, place,
conditions, etc, or allow no one to speak, (especially as you noted that this is a public, taxpayer funded university).

Since the 2'nd option is out of the question, I guess there's only the one option left.

If people don't like it, fine. If they want to protest, fine. Just do it in a safe, non-violent, civilized manner.

If anyone can come up with a 3'rd option, I'd like to hear it.

[onetexan]

33. cop out

Berkeley's students and alot of their staff wear their liberalism like a badge of honor. I'm sure students will rise up and fight back against this monstrous woman, as they typically do in such cases.

[Eugene]

34. Ann Coulter rejects Berkeley's new invite; GOP students threaten to sue college

Source: Washington Post

Ann Coulter rejects Berkeley’s new invite; GOP students threaten to sue college

By William Wan April 21 at 12:17 PM

Ann Coulter is rejecting an offer to speak at the University of California at Berkeley on a new date, after the university canceled her event over safety concerns, then quickly reversed itself saying it would reschedule it.

Coulter says she can’t make it the new date and accused the university of continuing to try to place restrictions on her free speech. And the student group that invited Coulter is now threatening to sue the school.

The university on Wednesday announced that it was canceling Coulter’s April 27 appearance following several political protests in Berkeley that turned violent. But amid mounting criticism and national attention, the school on Thursday said it had found a venue where it could hold the speech on a different date, May 2.

Coulter and the college Republican group that invited her rejected the new arrangement.

In a series of tweets Thursday night, Coulter criticized the university, saying Berkeley officials were adding “burdensome” conditions to her speech. She said she had already spent money to hold the event on April 27 and is not available May 2. She also pointed out that later date would coincide with a reading period before final exams, when there are no classes on campus and fewer students around.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/04/21/ann-coulter-rejects-berkeleys-new-invite-gop-students-threaten-to-sue-college/?utm_term=.e727c8ef896d