Interesting. Is Cal Berkeley stupid? Fascist? Both?
5
I hear Berkeley has since backed off their anti-free speech decision, but the fact that they were even willing to consider shutting down Ann Coulter's opportunity to speak shows how much Berkeley administrators are willing to be accept opinions being suppressed by threat of violence. To be clear: the threat of violence is coming from the Political Left, and the majority of Muslims on the planet who follow Islam as it is strictly defined. All dead and living American soldiers who fought for our freedoms, including free speech... they're not impressed with how Americans are de-valuing American freedoms in the name of political correctness.
6
What is diversity and is California the leader in liberal values and diversification? The left, and specifically , their actions in Berkley have resurrected tactics and methods of failed rogue nations, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union! California is unique: welcoming, tolerant and soon to become a sanctuary state. Like-mindedness is the key to survive in California; it is celebrated and accepted regardless of race, color and creed. To these Californians, they hold a monopoly on the 1st amendment and on free speech. Thoughts that run counter to their's is treasonous and must be fought against. Voltaire's modicum of" I may disagree with what you say but I will fight for your right to say it" no longer holds true to the most adherent of liberal views! Market place of ideas have given way to a montheistic political view and value. Are people like Charles Murray and Ann Coulter that threatening that they present a clear and present danger? Or is it the insecurities and the lack of intellectual curiosity and laziness on the part of the alt-left to counter, dissect and disprove Coulter and Murray's views. Universities are designed for such intellectual exercises. There is a reason James Heddfield moved out of California!
6
I have never for one minute believed that this person believes the stuff she espouses. She does it solely for the green stuff and the sexual attention. See for yourself -the beautiful blonde hair.
If security cannot be maintained, then interested folks are still free to read her philosophies on-line and in her various books.
If security cannot be maintained, then interested folks are still free to read her philosophies on-line and in her various books.
1
Mrs H: "She does it solely for the green stuff and the sexual attention."
You are perilously close to committing libel.
You are perilously close to committing libel.
4
You don't have to be an Ann Coulter fan to see that it is outrageous to blame HER when people threaten mayhem and, given Berkeley these days, are willing to attack other people to make sure she is not allowed to speak.
If you are comfortable that the people who share your views show up hiding behind masks, and using Molotov cocktails, pepper spray and baseball bats to suppress speech you don't like, guess what: You're endorsing fascism.
If you are comfortable that the people who share your views show up hiding behind masks, and using Molotov cocktails, pepper spray and baseball bats to suppress speech you don't like, guess what: You're endorsing fascism.
7
Enjoy the descriptive adjectives- "militant" and "shadowy". That describes the whole American political landscape on BOTH sides. This keeps up, it will go to the streets. And unlike the 1960s and early '70s, the conservative element is as active and reactionary as the left. If it carries forward on its evolutionary cycle, there is going to be a very unfortunate conclusion. If it occurs in the Bay area (likely because of its ultraliberal history), UC-Berkeley is going to be an institution that will incur immeasurable setback. The Greater Northern California area will also very likely experience severe economic reversal.
Fair is fair. Someone invite a far-left speaker to a conservative college (if you can find one) and see what happens.
3
Like Bernie Sanders speaking at Liberty University
7
Happened already. Liberty College invited Bernie Sanders to speak. No protesters, no shouting down, and a very respectful Q&A session.
You are also missing the point that Berkeley is a PUBLIC university.
next argument...
You are also missing the point that Berkeley is a PUBLIC university.
next argument...
7
There's absolutely no question: the speaker would have no difficulty whatsoever and the evening would proceed uneventfully. Slavoj Zizek spoke at Calvin College. This is 100% a malady of liberal colleges at the moment. Nothing comparable is happening on conservative campuses. There is no evidence that anything comparable will ever happen on conservative campuses.
6
It looks like it's necessary for me to preface my comment with assurance that I despise Ann Coulter.
That's a problem.
In the past few years, social justice activists have used outrage and public shaming to silence any kind of debate. Unconditionally agree with them or you're no better than the worst bigot. You can't even express the tiniest bit of doubt without first reciting an oath of fidelity that you're on the "right" side of the issue.
Thing is, some of these issues are complicated. Vigorous debate is the only way a lot of people can make sense of them. Shut it down and you alienate potential support that could be pivotal for your cause.
Even issues that seem more black and white deserve airing out. I know for a lot of us it's incomprehensible that anyone could find someone like Ann Coulter complicated; to me, it's self-evident that she's about as close to a cartoon villain as you can get. At the same time, there are not an insignificant number of people on the right who feel the same way about President Obama. Yeah, I find that incomprehensible, too. And that's exactly why I'd be livid if a more conservative university—even a decidedly private forum like Fox News—denied him the opportunity to make his case.
Universities are the best places for polarizing figures and controversial issues to be debated. Require a Q & A. Put together a panel of expert professors. Constructively protest. Engage. But don't shut it down. Leave that strategy to the Putins and Erdogans.
That's a problem.
In the past few years, social justice activists have used outrage and public shaming to silence any kind of debate. Unconditionally agree with them or you're no better than the worst bigot. You can't even express the tiniest bit of doubt without first reciting an oath of fidelity that you're on the "right" side of the issue.
Thing is, some of these issues are complicated. Vigorous debate is the only way a lot of people can make sense of them. Shut it down and you alienate potential support that could be pivotal for your cause.
Even issues that seem more black and white deserve airing out. I know for a lot of us it's incomprehensible that anyone could find someone like Ann Coulter complicated; to me, it's self-evident that she's about as close to a cartoon villain as you can get. At the same time, there are not an insignificant number of people on the right who feel the same way about President Obama. Yeah, I find that incomprehensible, too. And that's exactly why I'd be livid if a more conservative university—even a decidedly private forum like Fox News—denied him the opportunity to make his case.
Universities are the best places for polarizing figures and controversial issues to be debated. Require a Q & A. Put together a panel of expert professors. Constructively protest. Engage. But don't shut it down. Leave that strategy to the Putins and Erdogans.
13
Brilliant comment--thank you! Couldn't agree more: I find Ann Coulter reprehensible but she isn't a murderer, rapist, child molester so she should be able to make a fool out of herself without being afraid of being attacked! Good grief!
4
Ann Coulter is getting way more press out of being rejected than her even being there. She can still speak at Berkeley. They have sidewalks do they not?
4
Yes, of course that's right. There are plenty of seats in the back of the bus.
4
As someone who thinks that Ann Coulter's politics are thoroughly despicable and every word she utters is oppressive, I am nonetheless quite unhappy to hear about Berkeley's cancellation of her speech. Of course all her right-wing supporters will put the blame on the left and on liberals ad nauseum, but really it shouldn't be such a surprise to anyone. What it shows is that the University of California, Berkeley continues its tradition of opposing free speech on its campus to whomever it pleases. This is exactly what the Free Speech Movement of the 1960's - so reviled by the very same people who are now screaming the loudest - was fighting against. Of course Ann Coulter and her ilk have never for one second believed in free speech for the left; is it even conceivable to imagine her praising Mario Savio and those who fought with him for the very freedom she now demands? I doubt it! She is also a hypocrite. Still, I think Berkeley is 100% wrong. The university is a place for the exchange of ideas, even those as abhorrent and deeply flawed as Coulter's. How else can students learn to recognize demagoguery and to analyze what makes speakers like Coulter so effective among her followers? Poli Sci and other students should be assigned to go listen to her and ask pointed questions, and the university should assure her safety. The moderator should be neutral, not a Young Republican so that all questions do get asked. I fear we have taught well-meaning students the wrong lesson.
5
"Ann Coulter and her ilk have never for one second believed in free speech for the left..."
I will donate $100 to the charity of your naming if you can post a legit link to a quote of Coulter EVER saying something ant-First Amendment, for the left or right.
I will donate $100 to the charity of your naming if you can post a legit link to a quote of Coulter EVER saying something ant-First Amendment, for the left or right.
2
The violent people at these demonstrations are not affiliated with the university. They come in for the event and create the drama
Berkeley should limit attendance to those with university iDs
The provocation is on purpose. We don't need to enable the troublemakers
Berkeley should limit attendance to those with university iDs
The provocation is on purpose. We don't need to enable the troublemakers
6
"Outside agitators" is what the segregationists called them when they were trying to prevent civil rights activists from speaking publicly or protesting. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
8
Yes, from what little I've heard from her, I dislike, but I probably wouldn't have known about her visit if it hadn't been cancelled. Berkeley Republicans 1, Administration 0.
4
Berkeley is a state institution. It does not have to create a forum for speakers. However, if it wishes to provide a forum for speakers, then it ought to provide an ideologically equal forum. If it shuts down some speakers due to security concerns, then it ought to shut down all speakers, too.
If Berkeley shuts down conservative speakers but not progressive speakers, then it is complicit, not only in using state resources and taxpayer money for one-sided propaganda, but also in taking advantage of private violence to silence opposition voices.
If Berkeley shuts down conservative speakers but not progressive speakers, then it is complicit, not only in using state resources and taxpayer money for one-sided propaganda, but also in taking advantage of private violence to silence opposition voices.
6
Schools and cities used to ban gay right speeches and parades over "safety fears".
"Protect the children."
"Community safety"
How soon did we forget.
"Protect the children."
"Community safety"
How soon did we forget.
3
Oh, the magical powers of a sharp tongued, intelligent blonde woman in a miniskirt.
2
"... in a miniskirt."
Coulter doesn't wear "a miniskirt", although she frequently wears a DRESS.
Coulter doesn't wear "a miniskirt", although she frequently wears a DRESS.
1
Please! She's a nasty hateful woman! Period.
1
The slant of this column is both unmistakable and shameless. The most violent, destructive recent demonstration at Berkeley was left-wingers reacting to a Milo Y appearance.
And this: "... the campus and surrounding areas have become a target for small, militant and shadowy right-wing groups that have clashed in recent months with equally militant and shadowy anarchist groups...." "A target?" "Militant and shadowy?" Seriously? NYT has not, and cannot, document any instance where so-called "right-wing groups" have precipitated violence to silence others.
And this: "One video that went viral on social media showed a man identified as a member of a white supremacist group sucker-punching a woman who identified herself as an anarchist." The female "victim" had posted earlier that she was going to Berkeley to "disrupt" the demonstrationto and collect "100 Nazi scalps today" Still photos clearly show her punching her "attacker" in the throat with a fist presumably gloved for that purpose.
Finally, this was a pro-Trump rally and the left-wing group she was with, Antifa, is the same group responsible for the violence and arson at the Milo Y event. It's purpose is evidently to deny the civil rights of others.
How unfortunate that NYT commenters seem more interested in the politics of these situations than in the disruption of the civil rights of people who disagree with their predictably left-wing sentiments. Maybe, just maybe, that reflects the bias in the coverage.
And this: "... the campus and surrounding areas have become a target for small, militant and shadowy right-wing groups that have clashed in recent months with equally militant and shadowy anarchist groups...." "A target?" "Militant and shadowy?" Seriously? NYT has not, and cannot, document any instance where so-called "right-wing groups" have precipitated violence to silence others.
And this: "One video that went viral on social media showed a man identified as a member of a white supremacist group sucker-punching a woman who identified herself as an anarchist." The female "victim" had posted earlier that she was going to Berkeley to "disrupt" the demonstrationto and collect "100 Nazi scalps today" Still photos clearly show her punching her "attacker" in the throat with a fist presumably gloved for that purpose.
Finally, this was a pro-Trump rally and the left-wing group she was with, Antifa, is the same group responsible for the violence and arson at the Milo Y event. It's purpose is evidently to deny the civil rights of others.
How unfortunate that NYT commenters seem more interested in the politics of these situations than in the disruption of the civil rights of people who disagree with their predictably left-wing sentiments. Maybe, just maybe, that reflects the bias in the coverage.
12
I totally agree. The "news" is doing the country a disservice by not telling the truth. More people should be aware like us.
Also, there are pics and videos of that girl (known as moldylocks now lol) thowing glass bottles. If anything she got gender equal treatment for someone throwing bottles at you
Also, there are pics and videos of that girl (known as moldylocks now lol) thowing glass bottles. If anything she got gender equal treatment for someone throwing bottles at you
2
Just so I understand:
1. It's not OK for Berkeley to prevent Coulter from speaking because that is violative of First Amendment Rights/free speech; but
2. It IS ok to punch a girl in the face because she tweeted that she was going to "get 100 nazi scalps," thereby exercising her own First Amendment rights.
Is that what you are saying?
1. It's not OK for Berkeley to prevent Coulter from speaking because that is violative of First Amendment Rights/free speech; but
2. It IS ok to punch a girl in the face because she tweeted that she was going to "get 100 nazi scalps," thereby exercising her own First Amendment rights.
Is that what you are saying?
3
She has very little of substance to say. Her entire M.O. consists of lightly researched facts marginalized by incendiary comments completely designed to provoke. She is not worth listening to. UC students would be better to have her speak and ignore her. Her audience will continue to grow smaller and more effete.
6
Well the option is BAMN and I have their manifesto! Yvette Felarca came on campus before to incite riots. Would I prefer to hear Ann Coulter or Yvette Felarca? I think Coulter is better, as Yvette is seen in news coverage kicking, punching and beating people who don't agree with her. These or organized protest by BAMN or BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. After the Sacramento riots I spoke to the California Teachers Union who BAMN and the rep hung up on me. I had already exposed the BAMN donors list, its members and agenda to DHS and the Sacramento County Sheriff. No matter what Ann Coulters agenda is, Felarca & BAMN need to be prosecuted and public education defunded, to allow vouchers. Felarca ran against Arne Duncan for Secretary of Education, so you have a school teacher, union funded, inciting riots and oeganizing students to suppress Free speech.
1
Let her spew her hateful message in her junk books, why give her a venue? She gets enough exposure --- in fact, too much. If her "message" is so important, let one of her rightwing millionaire friends hire a hall for her in which she can rant all she wants.
1
It is frustrating to see groups of idiots repeatedly vandalizing Berkeley and neighboring Oakland. They create hell for residents and business owners and reinforce stereotypes that this is acceptable and expected local behavior. It is also disappointing that student groups knowing that this the climate of the area choose speakers such as Coulter and Yiannopoulos rather than conservative ideologists who might actually foster a constructive dialogue.
As for deliberately inflammatory, hate mongering pundits, choosing Berkeley where they know people will go ballistic isn't about exercising their free speech it's trolling for media coverage.
Coulter is the Westboro Baptist Church version of Pundits. Don’t take the bait.
As for deliberately inflammatory, hate mongering pundits, choosing Berkeley where they know people will go ballistic isn't about exercising their free speech it's trolling for media coverage.
Coulter is the Westboro Baptist Church version of Pundits. Don’t take the bait.
4
DHS should attend and escort Yvette Felarca, Regional Director of BAMN who orchestrates these protest. They need to hold her during the event and hold her accountable. Berkeley is her home base and she tried to sue the college, her school district who tried to fire her after the Sacrament riots. If there is violence charge Yvette with conspiracy. FBI & DHS know exactly who she is! BAMN is California Teachers Union funded, they organize or radicalize students high school and college aged.
4
it is bad enough to accidentally hear on television. I can't imagine listening to her distasteful and bigoted rants on purpose
1
The UC Berkley kids like to ape the Ivy League, having been indoctrinated to think of themselves as intellectually superior to all those other Public Schools. Many alumni parade around draped in their academic laurels, thinking the intellectual establishment's approved thoughts, and retelling tales of their youth during the glory days of "revolution" and "war protest" and on and on.........a memory of 50 years ago from a bygone era.........
But todays kids really, really want to live up to their parents and grandparents expectations.
And so UCBerkley kids orchestrate this weak imitation of 1968-1969 for no relevant reason at all.
I suspect that actual UC Berkley students barely noticed that Ann Coulter was speaking on campus, and if they did, they probably had no plans to listen to her anyway.
More than likely, Pres Napolitano gave approval for DNC agents provacteurs to whip up a protest, which college kids love to attend as cool way to smash stuff and meet chicks.
But todays kids really, really want to live up to their parents and grandparents expectations.
And so UCBerkley kids orchestrate this weak imitation of 1968-1969 for no relevant reason at all.
I suspect that actual UC Berkley students barely noticed that Ann Coulter was speaking on campus, and if they did, they probably had no plans to listen to her anyway.
More than likely, Pres Napolitano gave approval for DNC agents provacteurs to whip up a protest, which college kids love to attend as cool way to smash stuff and meet chicks.
2
I do not understand why there is such a problem with security. Is the campus open to anyone who wants to walk through, even if they are not students and are there to cause trouble? Can not the police insist that one may not cover their face (anti Klan laws)? Can't the administration set up cameras to film any disturbance and let the students know that any behavior that disrupts the speech will be just cause for expelling the student?
I suspect that if the University took a firm stand one time and expelled a good handful of students then it would become a model of free speech. That they have not done so tells me it is because they do not want to do so.
No one is forced to attend her speech, and if one finds that what she has to say is despicable, then just ignore her and study for another hour. Some may find that she is "too extreme", but then they are willing to listen to various communists (100 million plus deaths), anti-Zionists who would eliminate Israel and the Jews, Muslims who support Jihad against America, or feminists who would abolish marriage. Somehow, there is no position or ideology of the left that is too extreme to espouse to be a speaker on campus, but anything to the right of center is subject to the heckler's veto.
I suspect that if the University took a firm stand one time and expelled a good handful of students then it would become a model of free speech. That they have not done so tells me it is because they do not want to do so.
No one is forced to attend her speech, and if one finds that what she has to say is despicable, then just ignore her and study for another hour. Some may find that she is "too extreme", but then they are willing to listen to various communists (100 million plus deaths), anti-Zionists who would eliminate Israel and the Jews, Muslims who support Jihad against America, or feminists who would abolish marriage. Somehow, there is no position or ideology of the left that is too extreme to espouse to be a speaker on campus, but anything to the right of center is subject to the heckler's veto.
5
The only thing this is about is the University being unwilling to take on the risk associated with Coulter's visit. The higher ed game today is all about minimizing exposure to risk, of whatever sort.
1
The deliberately provocative nonsense that Ann Coulter dishes out to her few remaining fans is a performance piece rather than sincere political or social commentary. Berkeley's decision to cancel her speaking engagement is a foolish attempt to restrict free speech.
Ann Coulter is a has been along with other Republico-conservative performance artists such as Sarah Palin and Milo Yann_____. This will simply extend her shelf life for a while, a regrettable and unnecessary outcome. Let her speak so that her disappearance from public view is hastened.
Ann Coulter is a has been along with other Republico-conservative performance artists such as Sarah Palin and Milo Yann_____. This will simply extend her shelf life for a while, a regrettable and unnecessary outcome. Let her speak so that her disappearance from public view is hastened.
This article and those commenting on it seem to forget that it was Berkeley students and surrounding community activists who were behind the Free Speech Movement (FSM), not the university administration, which fought against it. Expecting the current administration to defend that legacy is a bit curious.
Not long after the FSM, the Black Panthers were selling Mao's Little Red Book on campus so they could buy their first guns. And of course helicopters dropped teargas on campus during anti-Vietnam war protests. In the related struggle over People's Park, police shot and killed James Rector in 1969. In this light all the current hand-wringing over violence at Berkeley and the legacy of FSM seems out of place. Or, more accurately perhaps, it's the kind of complaining Berkeley administrators (all well meaning liberals I'm sure) have been doing for over fifty years.
Not long after the FSM, the Black Panthers were selling Mao's Little Red Book on campus so they could buy their first guns. And of course helicopters dropped teargas on campus during anti-Vietnam war protests. In the related struggle over People's Park, police shot and killed James Rector in 1969. In this light all the current hand-wringing over violence at Berkeley and the legacy of FSM seems out of place. Or, more accurately perhaps, it's the kind of complaining Berkeley administrators (all well meaning liberals I'm sure) have been doing for over fifty years.
3
This is an Orwellian act at is finest. UC Berkley is a tax payer funded institution and should not be allowed to chose who speaks and who doesn't. They kept piling on new "requirements" for her speech and she just called their bluff...and then they just cancel it! I hope Sessions looks into this...
We will see what happens when she speaks next week anyway!!
We will see what happens when she speaks next week anyway!!
2
Ann Coulter enjoys being hateful, which is creepy and toxic. That should not be enough, however, to ban her from speaking at UCB, and I hope the university finds a way to ensure safety while permitting the conservative campus provocateurs to have their say. If indeed sunshine is the best disinfectant, perhaps more exposure will ultimately neutralize Coulter, as it did Yiannopoulos.
2
I agree on one thing, and one thing only, with Ms. Coulter, "no school accepting public funds can ban free speech". I will take it further, no school should ban free speech. She should be allowed to voice her views without threats of violence from children posing as anarchists. Berkeley, shame on you!
3
Let her come. Simply offer her no protection.
Is that what you would say if the speaker were Hillary Clinton, or Martin Luther King? Yeah, didn't think so. And thus your hypocrisy is exposed.
1
Ann Coutler's right to speak is not being curtailed in the slightest. Just like the rest of us, she can go stand on nearly any street corner or public forum and gesticulate and bloviate and speak until she's blue in the face. It's her supposed "right" to be supplied with a venue and an audience that is being balanced with issues of public safety. Given the interest some groups have shown in going to Berkeley to bash heads, the administrators would be out of their minds to expose the campus to the threat of violence. So speak Ann speak just don't think you have a "right" to make people listen
5
You miss the point. It is UC-Berkeley's obligation to enforce the law and if some groups are going to "bash heads," then arrest those people for their criminal behavior, not restrict First Amendment right's of the speaker. As a government institution, UC-Berkeley is under an legal obligation based on the First Amendment to not discriminate based on viewpoints. If any recognized student organization is allowed to bring a speaker on campus, then all recognized student organization must be provided with the same. Further, UC-Berkeley can't have separate fees for some speakers even if the security costs more especially if that cost is driven by the speakers viewpoint.
3
The left is as brainwashed as the right. Who would have thunk?
4
looks like she'll be allowed to go ahead, so maybe not "as brainwashed as the right"
The reporting in this article is shameful. That innocent by stander who got punched was THROWING GLASS BOTTLES at people.
Stop trying paint a picture that the Trump people are violent. They are trying to listen to a speaker, its the crazy left who is causing the violence.
Stop trying paint a picture that the Trump people are violent. They are trying to listen to a speaker, its the crazy left who is causing the violence.
9
PBrain: "That innocent by stander who got punched was THROWING GLASS BOTTLES at people."
You will need to post better evidence than your say-so. Post a Youtube link or an exact Google search phrase.
You will need to post better evidence than your say-so. Post a Youtube link or an exact Google search phrase.
1
Search #moldylocks.
It's literally al over the Internet.
It's literally al over the Internet.
2
My say so? Sure here is a link...curious where is the writers proof of innocent by stander?
https://goo.gl/images/SjXEGz
Please do research and think for your self. These reporters are liars
https://goo.gl/images/SjXEGz
Please do research and think for your self. These reporters are liars
3
Let her come and spew her garbage. She is meaningless. This simply gives her more right wing creeds, how sad.
The Free Speech Movement is dead! And Berkeley, the liberal institution, is no longer a platform for freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech. It's a sad day, indeed, when speakers of different backgrounds, with different voices, are not allowed to have a discourse at a "liberal" university. This should be a time of enlightenment for students at the university level so that they have the opportunity to listen to all speakers with different points of view. But what exists today on so many campuses throughout the United States, is the suppression of free speech. Terrifying thought but so true today.
6
During the Civil Rights era, southern cities banned protests of segregation laws by citing that they were unable to protect the demonstrators from attack by civilian segregationists. The US Supreme Court rejected that excuse. The Berkeley police have sufficient forces to protect Coulter and the school from attack by anarchist thugs. By canceling or postponing Ms. Coulter's speech the university inadvertently aided her cause -- to vilify academia as left-wing elitists.
9
Kudos to Berkeley for making the right call and yielding to mob rule. A valuable lesson for students... but who will now be in charge of which speakers can safely speak and which can not?
3
The mob, who else?
2
I agree that barring Coulter from speaking only benefits her through the added attention (and name recognition) she gains in the media. And, presumably, the Berkeley College Republicans are using their own student-organization fees to host her, which (again presumably) should be their choice. At that level, she should be allowed to speak.
On the other hand, I understand Berkeley's hesitation. I do not know all the rationales for canceling the event, but violence seems to be a very real concern here. And Berkeley would never live it down if Coulter was harmed (which she understands).
If she does speak on campus, I hope that those Berkely students who do protest will do so peacefully. I also hope that such protestors will strive to prevent violence, which harms Berkeley and feeds Coulter's personnae and ego. There will be people who come to the event strictly to cause commotion and student protestors must think seriously about that.
On the other hand, I understand Berkeley's hesitation. I do not know all the rationales for canceling the event, but violence seems to be a very real concern here. And Berkeley would never live it down if Coulter was harmed (which she understands).
If she does speak on campus, I hope that those Berkely students who do protest will do so peacefully. I also hope that such protestors will strive to prevent violence, which harms Berkeley and feeds Coulter's personnae and ego. There will be people who come to the event strictly to cause commotion and student protestors must think seriously about that.
1
If Napolitano (once head of Homeland Security) can't keep Cal Berkeley safe then extraordinary steps are warranted. Current administrative types who have announced they do not know how to make the campus safe should be summarily dismissed. The Governor needs to call out the National Guard to take control of the campus while students are being disbursed to other campuses and then the place needs to be shut down until an administration that can provide safety can be put into place.
Too bad, really. I'm an alum (1965), but the current violence and anarchy cannot be allowed to continue.
1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
Too bad, really. I'm an alum (1965), but the current violence and anarchy cannot be allowed to continue.
1 • Edit• Reply•Share ›
4
For far too long, liberals have let pseudo conservatives, the likes of Ann Coulter and others, present their message on Fox and talk radio unchallenged. Liberals have a better message and must present our point of view to these outlets, and challenge these ideological dimwits on their own turf. We also need to allow them to speak in our venues, like Berkeley, where their ideas can be thoroughly interrogated and challenged. Failing to do so doesn't stop these hate mongers from speaking, rather, it forces them to turn to their own echo chambers, speaking only to those who share their points of view. And that is dangerous.
4
j: "We also need to allow them to speak in our venues, like Berkeley, ..."
While I commend you for your argument, you should not be claiming ownership of Berkeley or any other public institution.
While I commend you for your argument, you should not be claiming ownership of Berkeley or any other public institution.
2
UCB is the centerpiece of the 60's free speech movement. I have little interest in Ms. Coulter's views but as a graduate of the UC system I am horrified that it has devolved this far. Even during my JUCO days the averted campus crisis was over the speech rights of the head of the California Communist Party. We managed to listen without becoming radicalized - and what if we were? Isn't the point of speakers to open minds and debate issues? What's the 1st Amendment for- if not to discomfort the comfortable and comfort the discomforted?
Trump should have one of his "Friday Night Lights" pep rallies (for those who attended prep school thus missed them in high school). Have Ms. Coulter as his fellow right fielder/cheerleader. The surest way to expose fools is to let them speak their minds.
Trump should have one of his "Friday Night Lights" pep rallies (for those who attended prep school thus missed them in high school). Have Ms. Coulter as his fellow right fielder/cheerleader. The surest way to expose fools is to let them speak their minds.
2
She is a lying despicable mouthpiece of hate - let her have her say
4
You could more effectively refute her words by addressing those words directly and leaving her entirely out of the response. Getting you to focus on her instead of what she actually says, is the number one way she avoids being held to account for what she says.
3
So the message is: "If you don't like a particular speaker and you want to have their presentation cancelled, just threaten violence and Berkeley will quietly oblige?"
13
Yep this is so weak in so many levels. How does this college hold events with THOUDANDS of people all the time...but we can't protect one speaker.
The rest of the country thinks they are joke
The rest of the country thinks they are joke
8
It always ends up that the real 'liberals' one knows are the most closed-minded of the group. They will fight for their right to beat those who are 'different', and their police will not protect the innocent. Close Berkeley down.
11
Exactly!
As a resident of SF, who happens to be a conservative Republican, I am not surprised by UCB's decision not to allow Ann Coulter to speak. Such a decision is little more than a reaffirmation of the fraud that is liberalism. Liberals and progressives are the true fascists; they insist on rights for themselves but not for others; and worse, they are consummate hypocrites - or perhaps I should use "triangulation", a favorite tactic of the Clintonistas.
10
Berkeley needs to be immediately shut down. Administration, faculty, (students) need to be blockaded from the premises. The buildings need to be razed. It's totalitarian anarchy threatens free speech, the very fabric of America. Sadly, it has come to this..
8
Give us a break cb. Property rights are the fabric of America. I'm sure to some extent it was protection of this and avoiding conservative outrage when property was damaged that probably animated the university's decison. BTW, free speech wasn't even in the Constitution as authored by the founding fathers (lack of caps intended). Protection of property and reserving the right to vote to the well propertied was however fully considered and embraced by America's idols.
3
this comment makes no sense. "property rights"? Berkeley is a public university; it is the property of the State of California.
If Ann Coulter's free speech is being constrained, why is it that a person can't turn around without hearing her talk?
That's all she does, and her presence is all over TV, the web, newspapers, and so on.
Her free speech is not being constrained at all. A speaking engagement of hers at one tiny physical spot in the universe has been canceled because of safety concerns. Meanwhile her voice gets louder, and louder, and more ubiquitous.
Is free speech imperiled because a person isn't allowed to speak to a group of 400 in an auditorium somewhere, but is free to air her grievances and shout her provocations, at length, without fear of interruption, to millions and millions?
Pardon me for not seeing a grievous threat to civil liberties here.
That's all she does, and her presence is all over TV, the web, newspapers, and so on.
Her free speech is not being constrained at all. A speaking engagement of hers at one tiny physical spot in the universe has been canceled because of safety concerns. Meanwhile her voice gets louder, and louder, and more ubiquitous.
Is free speech imperiled because a person isn't allowed to speak to a group of 400 in an auditorium somewhere, but is free to air her grievances and shout her provocations, at length, without fear of interruption, to millions and millions?
Pardon me for not seeing a grievous threat to civil liberties here.
10
The grievous threat is the cancellation by a government institution caving to anarchists because of the speaker's viewpoint. You may applaud this in the short term, there is nothing good that comes from this longer term. Security should never be the excuse to suppress a speaker.
2
Sorry you are unable to see it, but the First Amendment is not subject to the availability of alternate venues. The Constitution does NOT say that the government CAN restrict speech, "as long as the person whose speech is restricted can write a book, or appear on TV." The Constitution does NOT say that the government CAN restrict the press, " as long as people can hear about it on the radio."
This is pretty basic civil liberties stuff. Ask a 5th grader.
This is pretty basic civil liberties stuff. Ask a 5th grader.
4
Its not a problem for you because it is someone you don't like. What happens when they do this to someone you want to see?
That's the difference between patriots who will fight for free speech and fascists who want to shutdown a message they don't like.
This is a very narrow minded view.
That's the difference between patriots who will fight for free speech and fascists who want to shutdown a message they don't like.
This is a very narrow minded view.
2
As a liberal it is painful for me see other so called liberals (anarchists) who demand diversity. However, what they are really wanting is gender and racial
diversity..................Not intellectual.
diversity..................Not intellectual.
14
Exactamundo as Fonzie would say!
1
I dont even consider myself conservative or republican. I feel like its patriots vs golbalist.
Most of these "protest" are funded which should alarm anyone
Most of these "protest" are funded which should alarm anyone
Commenters who focus on Coulter's odious speech miss the broader context. Schools have shut down events for speech far more mainstream and mundane merely because an aggrieved set of students demanded it.
The New York Times recently ran an article that provided objective evidence that Charles Murray's speech was very politically middle of the road. And yet, Middlebury protesters objected before the fact and attacked his escort, injuring her.
All of this proves the point - objectionable speech is in the eye of the beholder including instances where the speech is in fact fine once people's preconceived notions are eliminated.
The New York Times recently ran an article that provided objective evidence that Charles Murray's speech was very politically middle of the road. And yet, Middlebury protesters objected before the fact and attacked his escort, injuring her.
All of this proves the point - objectionable speech is in the eye of the beholder including instances where the speech is in fact fine once people's preconceived notions are eliminated.
12
Middlebury did not shut down Mr. Murray's speech! Regarding your cited article, I've not seen the evidence, but saying something is politically in the middle in today's US doesn't mean its not conservative. Murray's work is funded by the American Enterprise Institute which is far to the right and his work that I'm aware of is very much aligned with the views on the political right in the U.S.. He's not a provocateur at all like Ms. Coulter, although what he writes challenges many people's beliefs and values, like writing that Africans are genetically inferior intellectually. I bet she likes to cite his work, but that's not his fault.
1
Let us parse this "event".
The Berkeley Republicans know the rules for invitation of guest speakers. They know they must pay for the expenses beyond rental of the space. They are aware of what happened with Milo and that the Berkeley police have added requirements for the locations used to limit property damage and broken glass as well as numbers of police etc.
They want to invite Ann Coulter. They know she is a lightening rod. They know they cannot pay for the expenses or provide a space for her to speak in. They invite her anyway.
The university reviews the arrangements and points out they have not met the rules for guest speakers and thus cannot hold the event, which they already scheduled knowing they could not meet the requirements of the rules.
The Berkeley Republicans go to the press and claim suppression of free speech.
Have I got that right?
The Berkeley Republicans know the rules for invitation of guest speakers. They know they must pay for the expenses beyond rental of the space. They are aware of what happened with Milo and that the Berkeley police have added requirements for the locations used to limit property damage and broken glass as well as numbers of police etc.
They want to invite Ann Coulter. They know she is a lightening rod. They know they cannot pay for the expenses or provide a space for her to speak in. They invite her anyway.
The university reviews the arrangements and points out they have not met the rules for guest speakers and thus cannot hold the event, which they already scheduled knowing they could not meet the requirements of the rules.
The Berkeley Republicans go to the press and claim suppression of free speech.
Have I got that right?
15
My point being this has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the Berkeley Republicans pulling a propaganda stunt fully intending to incite a reaction.
3
"Have I got that right?"
That's hard to say, since you failed to cite a source for the alleged "rules for invitation of guest speakers" that you are invoking.
The article itself certainly doesn't say anything about "rules for invitation of guest speakers".
That's hard to say, since you failed to cite a source for the alleged "rules for invitation of guest speakers" that you are invoking.
The article itself certainly doesn't say anything about "rules for invitation of guest speakers".
4
This is literally a fascists explanation. Berkley has a duty to protect its students. When milo was there they literally told the police to stand down. There is a difference between ordering security to stand down and "not being able to provide adequate protection"
So no you don't have it right
So no you don't have it right
8
Pretty lame. If the threat of violence is the price to close an open forum, that is a pretty cheap price for the disruptors.
6
Perhaps it is not safe for Ann Coulter to speak anywhere ever.
As a First-Amendment liberal - I am reminded of the words of the recently-departed Nat Hentoff - who was, in fact, my favorite liberal -
In his weekly column in The Village Voice, Hentoff would periodically remind his readers of a very, very important point --
The main purpose - if not the entire purpose - of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of others which you may find to be particularly deplorable, insulting, disgusting and aberrant --
Unless we're willing to stand up to that ideal - then in the end - all we become are the stereotypical "Feel-Good Liberals" --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
In his weekly column in The Village Voice, Hentoff would periodically remind his readers of a very, very important point --
The main purpose - if not the entire purpose - of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of others which you may find to be particularly deplorable, insulting, disgusting and aberrant --
Unless we're willing to stand up to that ideal - then in the end - all we become are the stereotypical "Feel-Good Liberals" --
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
~ Evelyn Beatrice Hall
9
The first amendment gives her the right to speak, not the right to speak at Berkeley.
9
Yes, of course. Everyone knows that only liberals have the right to speak at Berkeley. Conservatives have only the obligation to pay for it.
3
"The first amendment gives her the right to speak, not the right to speak at Berkeley."
Apparently, a great many people - including some of the liberal faculty at Berkeley - disagree with that point -
"Berkeley, Reversing Decision, Says Ann Coulter Can Speak After All"
APRIL 20, 2017
BERKELEY, Calif. — The University of California, Berkeley, on Thursday reversed its decision to cancel a speech by the conservative author Ann Coulter, approving her to appear on campus in early May.
University administrators had said a day earlier that they could not let Ms. Coulter speak because of security threats. In a letter to the Berkeley College Republicans, who were sponsoring the speech, two vice chancellors said the university had been “unable to find a safe and suitable venue for your planned April 27 event featuring Ann Coulter.”
The decision was criticized not just by Ms. Coulter — who had vowed to defy the administration and speak at the university anyway — but also by groups and thinkers across the political spectrum who viewed it as an attack on free speech.
“Free speech is what universities are all about,” Robert Reich, a labor secretary in the Clinton administration and now a professor of public policy at Berkeley, wrote on his website. “If universities don’t do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren’t universities. They’re playpens.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/berkeley-reversing-decision-says-a...
Apparently, a great many people - including some of the liberal faculty at Berkeley - disagree with that point -
"Berkeley, Reversing Decision, Says Ann Coulter Can Speak After All"
APRIL 20, 2017
BERKELEY, Calif. — The University of California, Berkeley, on Thursday reversed its decision to cancel a speech by the conservative author Ann Coulter, approving her to appear on campus in early May.
University administrators had said a day earlier that they could not let Ms. Coulter speak because of security threats. In a letter to the Berkeley College Republicans, who were sponsoring the speech, two vice chancellors said the university had been “unable to find a safe and suitable venue for your planned April 27 event featuring Ann Coulter.”
The decision was criticized not just by Ms. Coulter — who had vowed to defy the administration and speak at the university anyway — but also by groups and thinkers across the political spectrum who viewed it as an attack on free speech.
“Free speech is what universities are all about,” Robert Reich, a labor secretary in the Clinton administration and now a professor of public policy at Berkeley, wrote on his website. “If universities don’t do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren’t universities. They’re playpens.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/berkeley-reversing-decision-says-a...
2
Berkely could just say that they don't necessarily support the speaker's view.
But they believe strongly in Free Speech.
Then, they should emphatically ask the hosts to pay for extra police and protection and damages to the school. Honestly, the College Republicans are spoiling for — actually begging for — a fight. It's a bully thing. Blame the person you harmed when you instigated it.
Let her speak. Bullies get worse if you don't let them have their way.
But they believe strongly in Free Speech.
Then, they should emphatically ask the hosts to pay for extra police and protection and damages to the school. Honestly, the College Republicans are spoiling for — actually begging for — a fight. It's a bully thing. Blame the person you harmed when you instigated it.
Let her speak. Bullies get worse if you don't let them have their way.
2
Is this the only speaker the campus Republicans could find to represent conservative views? Universities are supposed to be about education not provocation. Find a substitute for Coulter who can intelligently discuss issues. Same for the left in a formal setting.
Coulter has made herself rich by slinging mud and invective. It is her right to do so but there are consequences. I believe the "do unto others" ruler applies for folks who use hate and anger as a means to make a buck.
Coulter has made herself rich by slinging mud and invective. It is her right to do so but there are consequences. I believe the "do unto others" ruler applies for folks who use hate and anger as a means to make a buck.
5
Is this the only speaker the campus Republicans could find to represent conservative views?" Coulter has had seven books on the NY Times Bestseller list. You may not like her views, but she is a successful author.
1
You mean like BLM leaders?
Let her talk, just don't give her any protection.
2
Once again, Liberals show that they can be as intolerant as anyone on the Right. I dislike Ms Coulter intensely but she is an influential individual. It might help heal our country if we could more fully understand why.
6
Always it's a left wing conspiracy with people like Ann Coulter. It's never a genuine concern for safety. It's all about them and their views and how muzzled they are, NOT. I've read some of her "books" and if she believes half of what she writes she's been drinking more than kool aid. At least the parables Jesus told had a point. Hers are outright lies.
2
"Hers are outright lies."
Post an exact quote from one of Coulter's books in which she "outright lies".
Post an exact quote from one of Coulter's books in which she "outright lies".
3
Post one where she tells the truth without putting an interesting "spin" on it. I don't have any of her books available at the moment. After I read what she writes I remember why I don't believe in extremists.
hen3ry: '... putting an interesting "spin" on it.'
That's not "outright lying", so now you are equivocating. In either case, you have the burden of proof.
"I don't have any of her books available at the moment."
That's no excuse. Try looking at an Amazon preview or at Google Books.
That's not "outright lying", so now you are equivocating. In either case, you have the burden of proof.
"I don't have any of her books available at the moment."
That's no excuse. Try looking at an Amazon preview or at Google Books.
1
Let her spew the same old tired, " incendiary " garbage. Get it on video. For future use. AND, laugh AT her. It confuses and enrages flamethrowers. They need more exposure, not less.
5
Free speech as long as the mob agrees
6
Ann Coulter is an incredibly smart (and beautiful) woman, but she is most impressive for her mastery of debate - she knows how to get an argument in, rebut, and control the conversation (and sell her books) better than anyone. A speech doesn't do her justice.
One of these days, I wish she would meet someone at her level. This was a missed opportunity. Put her up against a heavyweight Articulate Nemesis (there must be one at Berkeley?) charge on pay per view, and instead of protesting, you get fans picking teams.
One of these days, I wish she would meet someone at her level. This was a missed opportunity. Put her up against a heavyweight Articulate Nemesis (there must be one at Berkeley?) charge on pay per view, and instead of protesting, you get fans picking teams.
2
It is life in America today, both sides, left and right only listen or seek out views that are similar to what they happen to be thinking. How many people on the left would listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, or read a conservative newspaper!
3
UC Berkeley is clearly and unambiguously making a mockery of free speech.
8
I agree with all who want Berkeley to allow free speech, including the kind of childish taunting practiced by people like Coulter. However the University is losing the opportunity to take the upper hand for education here. Universities should create two levels of discourse for visitors. The higher level would involve two presenters who debate one another with a moderator present, which fulfills academic values. The second level would be billed as non-academic and non-serious. This would be presenters like Coulter. The university would push for presenters to debate one another.
"... the kind of childish taunting practiced by people like Coulter."
Please give an exact quote in which Coulter "practices" "childish taunting".
Please give an exact quote in which Coulter "practices" "childish taunting".
2
Sorry, I don't have a quote for you. I've heard her on shows and read the titles of her books in which she calls 50% of the country's citizens "godless" and "traitors". She provokes people. It's her stock in trade. If you have your own opinion, educate me. If you really want evidence, buy her books yourself. As for me, I don't need to prove a rainstorm is wet, nor do I need to prove that taunting should end with childhood.
She should be able to speak. But the real question is, with all of the possible Republican speakers out there, all this student group could come up with is Ann Coulter? We're in need of real substantive discourse, not the same old hyperbole.
3
"... the same old hyperbole."
How do you know what Coulter is going to say?
How do you know what Coulter is going to say?
3
By listening to her on talk shows and reading her interviews. Tell me you don't already know what this woman is going to say. It's so predictable.
What is happening on UC campuses is frightening, none moreso than the ballyhooed University of CA at Berkeley. Once home to the Free Speech Movement, UCB has become the graveyard of freedom of expression. And the faculty and administration are so cowed by activist student leftists that they live in fear of injecting any semblance of complexity into examinations of gender, race or politics. Some classrooms have become oppressive as leftist students intimidate both faculty and differing students alike.
I am a Democrat who has never voted for a Republican. But I am a liberal who truly embraces freedom of speech, no matter how vile. I don't remotely care for Ann Coulter, but she has a right to speak to those who wish to hear her. That's what our democracy is (supposedly) all about.
Berkeley has permitted speakers ranging from Louis Farrakhan to Hamas-embracing pro-Palestinian speakers and odious though some maintain them to be, they spoke without incident. On the other hand, the Muslim Student Union tried unsuccessfully to keep Bill Maher from speaking and it has been downhill at the university ever since as speakers invited by College Republicans have either experienced a violent response from activist leftists or been kept from speaking altogether by the university.
Interestingly, the remnant of the Free Speech Movement was silent on the attempt to ban Bill Maher and has been rather quiet on the question of speakers chosen to speak on campus by the College Republicans.
I am a Democrat who has never voted for a Republican. But I am a liberal who truly embraces freedom of speech, no matter how vile. I don't remotely care for Ann Coulter, but she has a right to speak to those who wish to hear her. That's what our democracy is (supposedly) all about.
Berkeley has permitted speakers ranging from Louis Farrakhan to Hamas-embracing pro-Palestinian speakers and odious though some maintain them to be, they spoke without incident. On the other hand, the Muslim Student Union tried unsuccessfully to keep Bill Maher from speaking and it has been downhill at the university ever since as speakers invited by College Republicans have either experienced a violent response from activist leftists or been kept from speaking altogether by the university.
Interestingly, the remnant of the Free Speech Movement was silent on the attempt to ban Bill Maher and has been rather quiet on the question of speakers chosen to speak on campus by the College Republicans.
28
I had to laugh when I got to the point in your piece blaming "small, militant and shadowy right-wing groups"( as well as their "anarchist" counterparts)for the Coulter fiasco. She is being banned by right wing people? This is a rich reach even for The New York Times! Does the writer know how to spell the word "left?"
. Many of your readers are not knucklehead students still enjoying the luxury of higher education in this country (only now armed with their"electronic leashes" and able to zap/erase/End any and all objectionable thought in a smug second.
"Breaking news" : The Left wing exists and spreads a far more noxious poison around the country than the smaller factions on the far sides that you have chosen to highlight. Don't deprive these leftists of their day as they would deprive others of theirs.
Maybe one should conduct a study over time and see whether these socialist-leaning, left wing student "thinkers' change their tune when they go out in the world and look for work, get married, have children, see their paychecks whittled away by taxes to a welfare state while their health care costs rise day by day.
There are the builders-up and there are the "tearers-down." The last presidential election was a repudiation of the latter, and in turn, the ever cynical Left.
. Many of your readers are not knucklehead students still enjoying the luxury of higher education in this country (only now armed with their"electronic leashes" and able to zap/erase/End any and all objectionable thought in a smug second.
"Breaking news" : The Left wing exists and spreads a far more noxious poison around the country than the smaller factions on the far sides that you have chosen to highlight. Don't deprive these leftists of their day as they would deprive others of theirs.
Maybe one should conduct a study over time and see whether these socialist-leaning, left wing student "thinkers' change their tune when they go out in the world and look for work, get married, have children, see their paychecks whittled away by taxes to a welfare state while their health care costs rise day by day.
There are the builders-up and there are the "tearers-down." The last presidential election was a repudiation of the latter, and in turn, the ever cynical Left.
6
"She is being banned by right wing people?"
Read the article again. Coulter isn't being "banned" by anyone. The article never uses the word "ban".
Read the article again. Coulter isn't being "banned" by anyone. The article never uses the word "ban".
It took two people to write this article, and neither could find the time to mention that Milo Yiannopoulos intended to name undocumented students at Berkley in his "speech," putting them at risk of being deported by authorities or targeted for abuse and harassment by third parties. Neo-nazis are happy to dish it out and totally unwilling to take it.
6
How can the University "protect" illegal aliens? Federal Funds should be cut immediately. Let Berkeley students and parents decide whether "protecting" violators of US immigration laws is worth the 50% increase in tuition due to the cutoff of Federal funds.
6
UC Berkeley canceled Ann Coulter's speech not because of "censorship," but because a group of alt-right Trump fans planned to instigate violence.
3
That's patently untrue. The only violence planned had already announced by local leftists.
10
I am puzzled by the delight leftists now take in "framing" events in a misleading fashion, evidently in the belief that the rest of us are fools since we lack a Berkeley degree.
If the anarchists are Trump fans then why the violence at the Trump inaugural? Overcome by joy?
If the anarchists are Trump fans then why the violence at the Trump inaugural? Overcome by joy?
7
Re the violence at Berkeley. Background: the black hats started with occupy and then continued with every public celebration Most of the black hats are not residents, but appear at events to cause anarchy. Proud Boys/Trump supporters decided to feed on this. Easy targets to make the left look bad. They are anarchists and do not subscribe to any other ideology. Most are not residents of Berkeley, Oakland or San Francisco but are from outlying suburban communities.
The best thing that can happen to this vile woman is to let her speak, but do not go to listen to her. It is beyond my comprehension why the media ever gives her the time of day. She needs to be "Sent to Coventry".
4
This is no longer an issue about free speech. It's about safety and money. Here's the deal: any college or university that invites a controversial speaker must provide enough security to ensure violence does not erupt. Security costs money. If the academic institution invites a controversial speaker, they should recognize that it will be expensive. If students at the institution invite the speaker, they should recognize that they are forcing administrators to spend money on security they could spend on other things like, I don't know, hiring faculty, maintaining facilities, or not forcing students to pay fees outside of tuition. Or turning down federal funding by being a Sanctuary City/Campus.
2
Bulloney
It's censorship by radicals on the left,cmon NYT, is it possible for you to even flirt with facts?
It's censorship by radicals on the left,cmon NYT, is it possible for you to even flirt with facts?
2
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I think that Coulter should be allowed to speak. I don't think universities should be in the business of silencing any political position. I do think that they should be prepared to prevent violence. That means having security for certain speakers at certain times (I think an argument can be made here that it's not Coulter that's on edge here, it's Berkeley). Bottom line: everyone should be allowed to speak, but some speakers will require personal and/or crowd security, and that costs university money.
Berkeley just succumbed to the Heckler's Veto.
Here is UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks's statement when Milo Y. was scheduled to speak: "Berkeley would be wrong to bar Yiannopoulos from campus. "Consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts, the university cannot censor or prohibit events or charge differential fees. Some have asked us whether attacks on individuals are also protected. In fact, critical statements and even the demeaning ridicule of individuals are largely protected by the Constitution; in this case, Yiannopoulos’s past words and deeds do not justify prior restraint on his freedom of expression or the cancellation of the event."
Here is UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks's statement when Milo Y. was scheduled to speak: "Berkeley would be wrong to bar Yiannopoulos from campus. "Consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment as uniformly and decisively interpreted by the courts, the university cannot censor or prohibit events or charge differential fees. Some have asked us whether attacks on individuals are also protected. In fact, critical statements and even the demeaning ridicule of individuals are largely protected by the Constitution; in this case, Yiannopoulos’s past words and deeds do not justify prior restraint on his freedom of expression or the cancellation of the event."
7
The self-righteous anarchist kids who started fires and pelted rocks at police in protest against Milo must feel extremely vindicated now. With this cancelation, Berkeley is telling them that their methods have been incredibly effective. Do these kids realize that ultimately all they are doing is helping Trump and handing ammunition to the conservative movement?
7
Sounds like a lot of you outside of the Bay Area don't understand that we have anarchists here some call the Black Bloc. They will fight and destroy whatever they decide is their target. How is the University supposed to protect the speaker or her audience from them without a huge force? So far, the police have not figured out how to identify or stop these anarchists from destruction. Then, shop windows, banks, and university property get hit. People who might like to peacefully protest are endangered too. Sounds like she's planning to appear anyway despite the University cancellation and she's going to love every moment of the melee.
3
Well, the police (and UB) should gain a reputation for not tolerating violence. Sorry, but that will take some time and expense.
Horrors! Not surprising that snowflakes are afraid of the Black Bloc too.
Horrors! Not surprising that snowflakes are afraid of the Black Bloc too.
5
In my comment below I address this by pointing out use of indoor auditoriums and tickets for access, prohibitions on outbursts, then have enough police inside to remove disturbers and outside to deal with the anarchists.
We must re-establish safe open discourse.
We must re-establish safe open discourse.
9
Conservative punditry has become such a crowded playing field now. A rare coup for Coulter to get attention for playing the silenced victim, just when she was in danger of being relegated to the minor leagues.
3
This is unacceptable. The University of California, Berkeley, along with the city and the state, have an obligation to protect the safety and free speech rights of all, regardless of political views. Trump's attempts to silence opposition, including his encouragement of violence, erodes support for freedom of expression. The answer is more support of these and other freedoms for all. Yes, even for Ann Coulter. Because, America.
8
The far right is arranging these speaking events as provocations, planning to incite violence and physical confrontations with protesters. In these specific circumstances, UC Berkeley is correct to weigh safety concerns against free speech rights. But UC Berkeley owes the public a more detailed explanation of its security concerns and why it has concluded that it's unable to ensure safety when Coulter speaks. Otherwise, the decision to shut down Coulter's speech plays right into the hands of the far right, which is purposefully staging these provocations as part of a strategy to disparage anyone who opposes their message of hate and provide fodder for Breitbart.
3
Its things like this that really make me question if I am a true liberal. However, if militant groups and violent protesters are a serious issue, the school would be liable if they ignored it and something happened. Especially in our litigious society. People are angry and filled with irrational rage these days that is looking for an outlet.
Ultimately, they should let her speak where ever she wants. I don't think it should be the schools responsibility to provide for Coulter's safety anyway. She is a private citizen, who peddles her opinions and political and social positions/convictions for financial gain. I think she can afford her own security.
Ultimately, they should let her speak where ever she wants. I don't think it should be the schools responsibility to provide for Coulter's safety anyway. She is a private citizen, who peddles her opinions and political and social positions/convictions for financial gain. I think she can afford her own security.
3
Yep! Let the Repubs pay , same with lefty speakers. Let the Dems pay for security
Let her speak and let students get injured and property destroyed? No, if she wants to speak that badly let her rent an arena, pay for the necessary security, and charge for the event. I believe she has a right to say whatever she wants but she has no right to play the martyr if there's been a determination made that her speaking at Berkley will cause a riot. She can't have her cake and eat it too.
1
Any university which allows the rights of its students to be destroyed -- the right to peacefully assemble and debate politics and hear the speaker they've chosen to invite -- is a university that is beneath the academic level of the most humble community college. Even if the views being suppressed at those not often heard at Berkeley. Especially if the views being suppressed are those not often heard.
Democrat news media like the Rolling Stone spent much time over a year ago in promoting vicious lies about the University of Virginia. But that University is guided by the idea laid down by its founder, Thomas Jefferson:
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
Democrat news media like the Rolling Stone spent much time over a year ago in promoting vicious lies about the University of Virginia. But that University is guided by the idea laid down by its founder, Thomas Jefferson:
"For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
4
Take me back. To the old days when we made the Bank of America brick up their windows. To the riots in People’s Park. To the last Americans airlifting off the roof of the American Embassy in Saigon. Back then we protested loudly--and often violently--against the horror called Vietnam. And history tells us that it was public outcry back home that ended the war, not a military victory in a country where we didn't belong. I cut my adult political teeth on Telegraph Avenue back then, and I was honored to be there. I was angry and wanted to be heard. A few months ago, I went to the Women's March in Chicago. It was comforting to be around people of like minds. It didn’t, however, feel quite the same. Everyone was so polite and well-behaved. We didn’t end the Vietnam War because we protested politely. We effected change because we were angry and we acted that way. Today I'm angry because America will not put a woman in the White House. I'm angry that there’s a man in the White House who doesn't pay his taxes. I'm angry that we can't be angry today without our president threatening to take away federal funding for education. Let the wild rumpus continue. Make history...by any means necessary. Don't sit there and do nothing. To speak or not to speak? That is not the question. This is not about taking sides. This is about intentional action, which rarely comes without risk. Someone might get hurt. It’s still okay to be brave and true.
"It's still okay to be brave and true."
Yes, of course. As long as those who agree with your politics get to engage in free speech and political expression at a public university paid for by everyone, while those who disagree with your politics do not.
That's what you meant to say.
Yes, of course. As long as those who agree with your politics get to engage in free speech and political expression at a public university paid for by everyone, while those who disagree with your politics do not.
That's what you meant to say.
1
She should choose another venue where there is enough a police force to ensure safety for the audience, and yes, "free speech". Berkeley was the birth of the Free Speech in the 60s, but now the radical left drifting in from who knows where is shutting it down.
This may be beyond the capabilities of the UC Berkeley Police force, and based on last Saturday's events, also the Berkeley Police, but it is the job of the city to provide public security. If they cannot handle it, bring in the State Police...
This may be beyond the capabilities of the UC Berkeley Police force, and based on last Saturday's events, also the Berkeley Police, but it is the job of the city to provide public security. If they cannot handle it, bring in the State Police...
As someone who thinks this woman particularly vile, I must vehemently disagree with the course the university has taken! Give her a venue, let her spew her entirely predictable venom, and exhibit a little support of freedom of speech! This is cowardly.
4
The University of California has implemented the "rioter's veto." Just threaten violence against people expressing different views and the University will shut the speaker down. A dangerous policy.
5
Ann is at best, a gasbag. We cannot and should not stop her from spouting her bile to whatever group happens to invite her to speak. This makes us, no better than them. I was raised in Berkeley during the sixties. I understand the outrage in response to what she,
Milo, or any other alt-righters spout from their poisoned brains, however stopping them from these speeches is against what this country stands for as well as against.
Milo, or any other alt-righters spout from their poisoned brains, however stopping them from these speeches is against what this country stands for as well as against.
10
I am very torn giving Ann Coulter a platform.
On one hand, let her speak. I do not care for her non-sense and do not feel it will poison any Berkeley students. Go ahead and spew your venom, Ann.
On the other hand, her speeches are designed for self-promotion and incendiary exactly to promote angry reactions. Giving her the platform is like inviting the burglar into the jewelry store.
So we liberals seem to damned if we do and damned if we do not. That is the thanks we get for being deliberate, open minded, and thoughtful. This Ann Coulter knows; this Ann Coulter plays.
On one hand, let her speak. I do not care for her non-sense and do not feel it will poison any Berkeley students. Go ahead and spew your venom, Ann.
On the other hand, her speeches are designed for self-promotion and incendiary exactly to promote angry reactions. Giving her the platform is like inviting the burglar into the jewelry store.
So we liberals seem to damned if we do and damned if we do not. That is the thanks we get for being deliberate, open minded, and thoughtful. This Ann Coulter knows; this Ann Coulter plays.
3
LOL. So open minded and thoughtful that they are keeping her from speaking.
3
Then teach your students how to be tolerant. Tolerance is not just saying you support X thing, it means one willingly and happily coexists with the things we do not agree with.
If they do not personalize and objectively listen to what she says they can then parse her into oblivion. Once the critical mass of people correctly parsing her into oblivion is reached her fame whoring is over and she will have to find real work.
If they do not personalize and objectively listen to what she says they can then parse her into oblivion. Once the critical mass of people correctly parsing her into oblivion is reached her fame whoring is over and she will have to find real work.
5
The true test of freedom of speech is when you protect speech with which you disagree.
3
Liberals, once again making free speech unsafe on college campuses.
UC Berkeley, once again demonstrating that your right to free speech is limited to saying only what Liberals want you to hear.
UC Berkeley, once again demonstrating that your right to free speech is limited to saying only what Liberals want you to hear.
8
Would Brigham Young host Michael Moore?
1
@Silverwheel - probably, as Liberty University, one of the most conservative colleges in the country, hosted Bernie Sanders last year. Funny how none of the audience at Liberty started rioting.
5
Brigham Young is not a publicly-funded university; Berkeley is.
2
I just hope it wasn't her safety they were worried about. She's a self-promoting horror of a human being who's thinks controversy is a substitute for intelligent dialogue. Students have the right to host speakers but not ones whose sole goal is to incite hatred and violence. Would they host the KKK?
1
It is a disgrace to shut people up like this. This will come back to haunt the country if free speech is not protected even in our great universities!
2
Tolerance of intolerance isn't the exercise of Democracy it's the end of it.
And intolerance is all that Coulter sells.
Good call by Berkeley.
BTW: Trump should have gone to jail for his free speech encouraging "second amendment remedies" during the campaign. That's what's known as "incitement to violence". Oh, I forgot, rich people have different "free speech" rights than the rest of us.
And intolerance is all that Coulter sells.
Good call by Berkeley.
BTW: Trump should have gone to jail for his free speech encouraging "second amendment remedies" during the campaign. That's what's known as "incitement to violence". Oh, I forgot, rich people have different "free speech" rights than the rest of us.
7
Pointing out the ludicrousness of Berkeley's decision is unseemly, like shooting fish in a barrel. And I seriously doubt that it would pass constitutional muster if challenged as I hope it will be. There is no question that the university admin people don't like Coulter or any brand of conservative speaker. So, they can enter into a silent dialog with extremist groups to have the latter issue threats which the university can use as a public-safety pretext to deny unwanted speakers a forum? If this is acceptable then so are all of the unintended consequences. Try to exercise your imagination on that.
1
Spend enough and enough police protection can be provided. A university should provided the resources to assure that everyone's right to speak is protected.
2
The left and the right feed off of each other. They both thrive on the back and forth provocations and outrages. I'm sick and tired of both, aren't you?
Ann Coulter is grifter who would change her "positions" on everything if that would add another dollars year to her bottom line. And the Berkeley "protestors" are bored, entitled and self consumed with rage and /or a false sense of superiority.
A pox on both of them. California taxpayers should probably cut funding for the whole silly show.
Ann Coulter is grifter who would change her "positions" on everything if that would add another dollars year to her bottom line. And the Berkeley "protestors" are bored, entitled and self consumed with rage and /or a false sense of superiority.
A pox on both of them. California taxpayers should probably cut funding for the whole silly show.
3
Let the troll speak. She's not going to say anything new, and banning her just fuels the reactionary right's claim that conservative white people are victims of the liberal left and their fake news media. In this case all the republican talk about liberal snowflakes is dead on. Fight for free speech, even if what's said is unpopular.
4
"The episodes [struggling to balance free speech and security concerns] have become fodder for conservative critics."
In other words....
It's perfectly acceptable to Conservatives that Trump, as a Republican candidate, squelched free speech at his campaign events, by commanding his police force to "Get them out of here!"; and then his rabid followers take this as a sign to harass the opposition and become violent.
That's all OK with Conservatives. But they hold Berkeley to a different standard, solely because it's a "liberal" institution.
I'm sick and tired of the constant hypocrisy from the Right. I'm tired of us Liberals trying to take the high road and do the right thing, with the Right not upholding their end of the bargain.
I say: Treat Coulter with the same amount of respect that SHE gives to people who hold different views than her; i.e. she doesn't deserve any respect! Show her the exact same scorn and disdain that she heaps on us! Let her show up on campus, and then yell "Get her out of here!" then make the campus security escort her away while people push and shove her!
I don't care if it makes us Liberals "look bad." Give them a taste of their own medicine.
In other words....
It's perfectly acceptable to Conservatives that Trump, as a Republican candidate, squelched free speech at his campaign events, by commanding his police force to "Get them out of here!"; and then his rabid followers take this as a sign to harass the opposition and become violent.
That's all OK with Conservatives. But they hold Berkeley to a different standard, solely because it's a "liberal" institution.
I'm sick and tired of the constant hypocrisy from the Right. I'm tired of us Liberals trying to take the high road and do the right thing, with the Right not upholding their end of the bargain.
I say: Treat Coulter with the same amount of respect that SHE gives to people who hold different views than her; i.e. she doesn't deserve any respect! Show her the exact same scorn and disdain that she heaps on us! Let her show up on campus, and then yell "Get her out of here!" then make the campus security escort her away while people push and shove her!
I don't care if it makes us Liberals "look bad." Give them a taste of their own medicine.
When MR. Trump said "Get them outta here," he was speaking as a candidate (a private citizen) renting a venue and the First Amendment is not implicated. When UC-Berkeley says it not going to allow a talk, it is speaking as a government institution and the First Amendment is implicated. That is the key difference.
3
What I find odd about Ann Coulter after listening to her on various occasions, is that she has nothing to say other than to insult people and spill venom. Nothing she says is based on fact or research, so why would she be a candidate to speak at a university in the first place? She's not a scholar of any sort. She's not going to be giving a lecture based on research. There's no wisdom or knowledge she's prepared to share with the students.
6
I find this woman's public persona to be totally repulsive and devoid of any meaningful commentary. She speaks to incite, Not to inform. But we pride ourselves as a country where even idiots can speak their mind. And of all the venues in the world where this idiot might speak, Berkeley -- the home of the Free Speech movement -- should be the last to take this right away from her.
4
I guess I don't know what liberal means anymore. I thought it meant open-minded, tolerant, and peace-loving. Canceling this speech does more damage to the credibility of so-called liberals than conservatives ever could.
8
Berkeley's violence problem is real. It has become a magnet for people who love to smash windows, light cars on fire and throw sucker punches. Arrest records from last week's round of protester violence in Berkeley show that the hooligans were from all over the Bay Area and beyond. The costs and threat to public safety are real. How much are you personally willing to pay to further free speech? Or do you think others should pay to protect your rights? Can we send the bill to the supreme court?
1
Just a thought, maybe you should arrest the criminals " who love to smash windows, light cars on fire and throw sucker punches". Instead of letting them win by controlling who can and can't speak.
8
Todd Stuart,
To be fair the Berkeley Police are very professional and they are probably trying to work out how to do that effectively without causing more chaos and harm to innocent bystanders and peaceful protestors.
To be fair the Berkeley Police are very professional and they are probably trying to work out how to do that effectively without causing more chaos and harm to innocent bystanders and peaceful protestors.
If they were professional the problem wouldn't exist. Letting elected politicians undermine the enforcement of the law is why this problem exists. The measure of any community is not how well majority opinion is protected -- it is how well the unpopular minority are protected.
Giving an anarchist a large settlement payoff because the police enforced the law is an encouragement, not a deterrent.
Giving an anarchist a large settlement payoff because the police enforced the law is an encouragement, not a deterrent.
1
The very people who claim they are for diversity and inclusion go to great legngths to silence any voice they disagree with, including using violence.
I disagree with progressives but would never think of silencing their voice.
It's sad that American universities have reached the point that the only thoughts that are allowed are the "correct" ones.
I disagree with progressives but would never think of silencing their voice.
It's sad that American universities have reached the point that the only thoughts that are allowed are the "correct" ones.
8
In the 1970s, liberals understood the importance of free speech and defended it, even--especially--when the viewpoint was widely seen as repulsive.
Today, many people who call themselves liberals want to suppress free speech.
They are not liberals. In fact, they are fascists, and should be identified as such.
Today, many people who call themselves liberals want to suppress free speech.
They are not liberals. In fact, they are fascists, and should be identified as such.
16
Ann Coulter is a hateful, attention hungry cockroach. This is a university, not a rented venue that she has the "right" to speak at. The point of a university is education. Not only does she not offer any educational opinions, she went there to spout garbage with the intent of inciting hate. She can go back to Fox News or rent a hall to spout her usual nonsense. She has no legal right to it at a university.
7
If the university accepts public funds, she has every right to speak. If you don't like free speech, there are many countries you can move to. I hear North Korea is nice this time of year.
10
It seems to me that most of the folks endorsing Berkeley's decision to cancel have something in common: they have decided that her speech, viewpoints, etc., are not "serious" and not worthy of First Amendment protection. The most salient question that emerges: who gets to decide what is "serious" speech and what is not worthy of protection? Also, conservative speakers will be shut out on a regular basis in the future based on fears of student safety. Thus, the mob controls - threaten violence, and you win. Sad, sad state of affairs.
12
Tell me Chris, is there a difference between Hitler and Martin Luther King?
And how is Democracy served by acting as if there is no difference?
Who decides if Coulter is morally bankrupt? Anyone with two eyes and ears.
And how is Democracy served by acting as if there is no difference?
Who decides if Coulter is morally bankrupt? Anyone with two eyes and ears.
1
Chicago guy there are obviously many differences. But let me point out a similarity: MLK and the Neo-Nazis who wanted to march in Skokie(I believe they wound up marching in Chicago) are both protected by the First Amendment. That's why Nazis get to march. Democracy is served by a very, very narrow definition of speech that can be banned, so that the marketplace of ideas can sort it out. Coulter is morally bankrupt, I agree, I'm a life-long liberal. But the fact is, she represents a point of view that is unfortunately shared by many millions of Americans, so your "anyone with two eyes and ears" response is simply incorrect, I would respectfully assert. The real answer from many liberals these days is "anyone with tow eyes and ears who agrees with me." Good questions though, and I appreciate your response.
4
Two hundred and fifty police officers were not able to keep the black block (our analog of the 1920's Red Front) and the right wing (the proto SA) apart last weekend, without any well known speaker. "Insuring domestic tranquility" in Berkeley requires Federal intervention. Most efficaciously through federal prosecution of the thugs from right and left. Mr. Sessions, where are you?
1
As a recent graduate of UCB, I've been following these stories about Coulter, Milo, and the various protests in between pretty closely, and keeping in touch with old classmates still at the university. UCB likes challenging its students and its students welcome the challenge and, at least during my time there, seemed to really enjoy engaging with each other civilly, even if they didn't agree. I have no doubt that the only reason that the university is cancelling Coulter's event is the concern about security; when Milo came, the freshly rebuilt student union got smashed up, people got hurt, and the campus unwillingly became the stage for an antifa group to send a violent message. If the school really didn't want her to come, they wouldn't have approved it in the first place. I graduated in 2011, I know what the school is like and it's maddening to see people who don't know the university get on their high horse in comments sections and preach about free speech this, "liberals can't handle debate" that, when in reality the school is trying its best but can't keep being asked to foot the bill and risk campus safety for these inflammatory speakers. Berkeley College Republicans need to choose their guests more wisely if they want to be known for anything other than trying to provoke a response like this and the one to Mio.
45
As a not so recent Berkeley grad I agree completely. The College republicans seem to be deliberately trying to provoke these reactions by inviting the most loathsome speakers they can find. What has Ms Coulter got to say besides spouting her usual venom. If the CRs are so desperate to hear her speak let them rent an off-campus venue and then they can pay for any damage. The violent protesters were from all over the Bay Area and beyond--probably few if any were Berkeley students. The Berkeley campus is completely open. Anyone can simply walk on.
1
Does the city of Berkeley or the University have a security force? What is their job?
Keep in mind that Berkeley is a public university and is required to uphold the constitution of the United States.
How sad that you, a graduate of what is supposed to be a first rate university, don't understand this, at least by the content of your comment.
Keep in mind that Berkeley is a public university and is required to uphold the constitution of the United States.
How sad that you, a graduate of what is supposed to be a first rate university, don't understand this, at least by the content of your comment.
3
While, of course, College Democrats and other left-wing organizations may invite whomever they wish without any concern whatsoever about backlash.
But, mind you, this doesn't say anything about UCB, it's Administration, faculty or students. If there is violence, or threats of violence, it's the fault of the speakers or their sponsors. And as for canceling the events, everybody knows the best way to deal with bullies is to give them what they want.
But, mind you, this doesn't say anything about UCB, it's Administration, faculty or students. If there is violence, or threats of violence, it's the fault of the speakers or their sponsors. And as for canceling the events, everybody knows the best way to deal with bullies is to give them what they want.
By shutting down Conservative speaker Ann Coulter, Berkeley is encouraging violence over debate. So much for inclusion of thought.
4
One problem is that prison time is fleeting for throwing stones at police...stones which could cause serious injury or death to the police. That's an absurdity required by a narrative that we're basically chilled and ok. Consequence free fires and stone throwing is a recipe for attracting more of the dysfunctional next time. Federal funds should at least be decreased in the hope that Berkely will struggle toward free speech....so as to reclaim those funds after struggle. Aristotle said that virtue is about difficult things.
2
Perhaps Berkeley has failed to properly educate the students who invited Coulter. The students obviously chose her for reasons other than civil discourse and a forum to share ideas. Maybe it's time for universities to require a freshman course in the necessity of civility in debate and the value of intellectual query, and the lack of value in mere provocation.
5
You mean liberal brainwashing courses....?
4
Dear Angela A.
That sounds very Maoist. Perhaps the UC Berkley professors should take a page out of the Chairman's little red book to properly indoctrinate their students on what is correct thought and what is incorrect thought. Then everyone will think the same and everyone will be safe.
That sounds very Maoist. Perhaps the UC Berkley professors should take a page out of the Chairman's little red book to properly indoctrinate their students on what is correct thought and what is incorrect thought. Then everyone will think the same and everyone will be safe.
7
As a university employee, I find this so frustrating. Berkeley can't win in these situations. People need to understand that the University didn't invite Coulter. A Student Organization did. Student Orgs at Berkeley get to use many campus spaces for free, but are expected to cover all costs outside of room rental.
UCPD told Berkeley College Republicans that based on their previous event with a controversial speaker, they would need X amount of security, it would have to take place in the day time so that it would be easier to ID violent protestors, and the venue they use would need to have certain specifications (limited access points, fewer windows for people to break/throw things through, etc). BCR were unable to find a venue that met these requirements and thus were told they cannot have this event on campus. That is NOT limiting free speech.
Furthermore, after the costs of the Milo event, BCR decided not to give campus a heads up on this one, so University Officials learned of the event second hand, which left them scrambling to organize and plan for this at the last minute.
It's also important to not minimize the security risks. Before and after the Milo event, student employees were getting death threats simply because they were scheduled to work that night. Campus should NEVER put the safety of other students at risk for the sake of an event. If it can't happen safely, it shouldn't happen on campus. No one is stopping BCR from renting a private venue off campus.
UCPD told Berkeley College Republicans that based on their previous event with a controversial speaker, they would need X amount of security, it would have to take place in the day time so that it would be easier to ID violent protestors, and the venue they use would need to have certain specifications (limited access points, fewer windows for people to break/throw things through, etc). BCR were unable to find a venue that met these requirements and thus were told they cannot have this event on campus. That is NOT limiting free speech.
Furthermore, after the costs of the Milo event, BCR decided not to give campus a heads up on this one, so University Officials learned of the event second hand, which left them scrambling to organize and plan for this at the last minute.
It's also important to not minimize the security risks. Before and after the Milo event, student employees were getting death threats simply because they were scheduled to work that night. Campus should NEVER put the safety of other students at risk for the sake of an event. If it can't happen safely, it shouldn't happen on campus. No one is stopping BCR from renting a private venue off campus.
93
What is your police department doing? Why has it given in to mob rule? Why hasn't the university and city asked for federal assistance in keeping order?
4
This is a very helpful post. I do think the Berkeley administration mishandled the case of Yiannopolis, a speaker with a documented record of abusing members of his public audiences by using a trigger camera to harass and incite others to harass transsexual students present in the audience. This is apparently what concerned faculty brought to the attention of univerity administrators. By hewing to a broad interpretation of what constitutes “protected speech,” the administration dismissed the substantive issue of Yiannaopolis’ record of conduct (as opposed to his political point of view). The rest is history: anarchists rioted and damaged university property, the talk was cancelled, and Trump accused Berkeley of violating free speech and threatened it with the loss of Federal funding. Predictably, Berkeley got no credit for its misguided efforts to accommodate a known violent speaker.
Avowed and active progressive here. If Berkeley can't find a safe venue for Ms. Coulter, they should create one. Ms. Coulter's venom does not deserve to be followed but it does have the right to be heard. And I believe that the University has the obligation and the power to see that it is. Berkeley gains more from the support of free speech than it does from acceding to the ideological demagoguery of petulant youth.
8
they don't come much more inflammatory, insulting and offensive than Ann Coulter. Definitely a sensitivity chip missing in that woman. That aside, she's got first amendment rights just like the rest of us. Let her come. If for no other reason than to watch how few show to see her. Only that will shut her up.
2
"For we can tolerate any error, as long as reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
This is one area where I can agree with many conservatives - some universities and their students are limiting speech and expression, exactly the opposite of what education is meant to be.
This is one area where I can agree with many conservatives - some universities and their students are limiting speech and expression, exactly the opposite of what education is meant to be.
5
Unfortunately, as the Trump election proves, there is no "reason" left to combat it.
Ann Coulter, like her most rabid fans and most rabid opponents, mostly want a fight club. Berkeley does not want to provide a fight club.
If Ms. Coulter were capable of writing a book with a persuasive message (i.e., one that appeals to those not already drinking her cool aid), it would sell in large numbers without inciting riots and garnering free public attention like that which got Donald J. Trump elected president. The present article is a commercial ad for her reality-TV career.
Ms. Coulter, her publicist and her publisher have the most to gain by making that old hag's message seem relevant and worth fighting over. If she came to town and gave a speech that was noticed only by the members of the club who sponsored her, both the sponsor and Ms. Coulter would consider the event a big flop. Those who go to protest her events are doing the alt-Nazi hag a big favor.
If Ms. Coulter were capable of writing a book with a persuasive message (i.e., one that appeals to those not already drinking her cool aid), it would sell in large numbers without inciting riots and garnering free public attention like that which got Donald J. Trump elected president. The present article is a commercial ad for her reality-TV career.
Ms. Coulter, her publicist and her publisher have the most to gain by making that old hag's message seem relevant and worth fighting over. If she came to town and gave a speech that was noticed only by the members of the club who sponsored her, both the sponsor and Ms. Coulter would consider the event a big flop. Those who go to protest her events are doing the alt-Nazi hag a big favor.
3
After Trump bombed Syria, Coulter said something like:
"If we wanted someone to bomb Syria, we would have voted for Hillary Clinton."
She also said:
"War is like crack for presidents. It confers instant gravitas, catapulting them to respectability, bypassing all station stops. They get to make macho pronouncements on a topic where every utterance is seen as august.
On the other hand, Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency."
Do liberals really condemn these views?
"If we wanted someone to bomb Syria, we would have voted for Hillary Clinton."
She also said:
"War is like crack for presidents. It confers instant gravitas, catapulting them to respectability, bypassing all station stops. They get to make macho pronouncements on a topic where every utterance is seen as august.
On the other hand, Trump’s Syrian misadventure is immoral, violates every promise he ran on, and could sink his presidency."
Do liberals really condemn these views?
8
Except for the incredibly unfair and untrue statement about Sec. Clinton, (who was not a warmonger such as we have had). HRC is actually schooled in diplomacy.
I could even find a couple Bill O'Reilly statement I'd agree with occasionally. Or even slimy Donald's but overall they are vile. And it's also Free Speech to conscientiously object to their speech and protest. Peacefully.
Let the mean Ann speak. Then comment.
I could even find a couple Bill O'Reilly statement I'd agree with occasionally. Or even slimy Donald's but overall they are vile. And it's also Free Speech to conscientiously object to their speech and protest. Peacefully.
Let the mean Ann speak. Then comment.
If Ann Coulter speaks and there is no one there to listen, did she say anything? We do have the right to freedom of speech.
4
This man has no business speaking anywhere, why encourage more hate? Isn't there enough of it?
Colleges and universities are now just expensive snowflake babysitters.
7
Tell that to your doctor, who attended University. Along with pretty much your entire community support network.
Snowflakes, Blowflakes. Sticks and stones...
Snowflakes, Blowflakes. Sticks and stones...
1
Let her come speak. She has nothing interesting or innovative to say. She would do better enrolling at UC Berkeley to learn proper discourse, debate and speech but instead is just looking for another way to promote herself. Coulter's figured out how to use a public university to further her own agenda. Berkeley, don't fall for it. Let her speak. It would be far better if she came and no one showed up. She's not a republican, she's a provocateur. It's worked for her. Now let's ignore her.
12
I am definitely not a fan of Ann Coulter, but as a Berkeley alumnus I find the university's action most disappointing. Mob rule should never be allowed to mute the freedom of speech.
6
Easy for you to say the U should tolerate violence and pick up the tab. Are you willing to help pay?
5
We pay almost $1 TRILLION a year in taxes for "Homeland Security" and "Defense". Any mob that thinks it can destroy the right of Americans to peacefully assemble and debate politics is a mob that is threat to this country and which must be destroyed. If Berkeley police can't handle the job then let them call on the the governor and if need be the President. An example must be made. With full protection for the police or military for any violence they mete out.
6
Whether you find Coulter repulsive or not isn't the point. Either you think it's worth defending a broad vision of free speech or you don't. It's isn't just conservatives either, Brandeis uninvited Ayaan Hirsi Ali after complaints for groups like Cair and the head of the IMF Christine Lagarde was uninvited by Smith. The extreme left is running a modern version of the French Reign of Terror on campuses and the ideological purity tests just get harder and harder for even liberals to pass. And at Berkley the idea that non student anarchists rioters would get veto at a major university through threats of violence just adds to the madness of the current situation.
14
Ann Coulter's "speeches" are worse than watching paint dry. However, she has every right in the world to speak wherever she wants, of course. Let the free market rule - if she has (or the venue has, in this case) concerns about safety - she always speaks to provoke wherever she goes - then contractually hold her responsible for everyone's safety. Let HER provide the financing for public (or private) policing if she wishes to throw verbal bombs at those (poor and misguided, IMHO) young Conservatives. If you are going to (metaphorically) yell FIRE in a crowded hall, you then pay the consequences. And, really, is s great University like Berkeley educating kids who fall for her political nonsense? Whatever happened to critical thinking???
2
Freedom of speech does not mean someone is owed a stage and a platform. As an institution of learning, UC Berkeley ought to be discerning about who gets to speak on campus and people like Ann Coulter who have no track record of serious scholarship can go spout their wild-eyed nonsense elsewhere, not on one of the world's most prestigious college campuses.
7
The college club invited her, they can invite anyone they want, as can all other college clubs. The speakers do not have to be professors, they can be from any walk of life. How can you judge what is 'wild-eyed nonsense' if you don't listen to it? That's the whole point of a university education, the chance to be exposed to other people and other thoughts and ideas. It is then up to the person to decide what to believe or not. This Red Guard violence has got to stop.
8
The college club can invite whoever they want and they can take personal responsible for their choice of speaker and pay for a venue and security too, if they think they can sell enough tickets to cover the cost. But if they want to use UCB's facilities, they need to follow the rules. Or Ms. Coulter can stand on a soapbox in the public square and have her say all she wants. (Except that in this case it's not free speech so much as paid speech.) UCB isn't obligated to accommodate everyone's request, anymore than the Smithsonian is obliged to publish my book just because I'm a taxpayer. It really seems pretty straightforward if one applies some common sense and civility.
We should keep in mind that in the universe of ideas, not all ideas are equal or deserving of attention. The freedom to say stupid things does not in any way lend them authenticity or reasonableness.
1
As a liberal and defender of Free Speech, I am very disappointed in the way college administrators and leaders are handling these issues. They need to identify every single student who engages in destructive and intimidating behavior beyond peaceful protest and have them expelled. Surely schools such as Berkeley, Middlebury, and Yale all have long lines of students who would be more than happy to take the place of students who engage in violence and suppression. A college campus is where students need to learn how to engage in civil dialogue, debate, and persuasion, not silencing others.
9
Berkeley violence is generally not caused by Berkeley students. Just look at the arrest records from last week's incident there.
1
@ David
No one was arrested for the Milo riots. The police stood by and watched bystanders beaten and buildings burning and did nothing.
No one was arrested for the Milo riots. The police stood by and watched bystanders beaten and buildings burning and did nothing.
1
Shameful, utter incompetence.
I do not know much about Ann Coulter other than she appears to be a public figure. The quality of her views is really beside the point, conservative, liberal, or whacked, doesn't really impact the impression that the U.C. Berkeley administration is not competent to accommodate a student group-invited speaker.
Perhaps the University bureaucracy has become too comfortable in their cocoon and too lazy to live the University's motto, Fiat Lux, Let there be light.
I do not know much about Ann Coulter other than she appears to be a public figure. The quality of her views is really beside the point, conservative, liberal, or whacked, doesn't really impact the impression that the U.C. Berkeley administration is not competent to accommodate a student group-invited speaker.
Perhaps the University bureaucracy has become too comfortable in their cocoon and too lazy to live the University's motto, Fiat Lux, Let there be light.
13
It would be incompetence to ignore the very real likelihood of violence and the very high cost of providing protection. Let's be real, Berkeley has a violence problem that is not caused by students or Berkeley residents - look at the arrest records from last week's round of Berkeley violence at a pro Trump rally.
7
What's been ignored is the culture at UB which tolerates intolerance.
1
The first amendment is not about protecting speech that you agree with, it is about allowing all viewpoints to be heard. If it is abhorrent, that is exposed. Sadly the left, who used to champion free speech has deemed themselves the police of which speech is acceptable and what is "hate speech". Just looking through these comments are lots of examples. The left also claims to be anti-bullying and yet they appear to have no problem using fear and intimidation to keep people who say things they don't agree with from being allowed to express themselves. It's sad that Berkeley and so many on the left fail to see this.
17
The right owns the media and have all the opportunity they need to spread their ideas.
Right. I saw Rachel Maddow calling for massive tax cuts for West Virginia coal miners just the other day.
LOL! Good one! That's why the coverage on Trump since he has been elected has been 89% negative.
3
The muddle which surrounds the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech is huge, and growing. As children we learn early that approaching the neighborhood bully and insulting his mother or sister is not freely allowed. People who persist in speaking distorted truths loudly find they are frequently shouted down, shunned, or worse. The First Amendment ONLY prevents government from censoring ordinary speech....there is a raft of exceptions carved out through the years by the Courts regarding various forms of illegal speech. Newsflash! The Supreme Court is part of the government, so yes, there are forms of speech which have been deemed criminal acts, which are punishable, and not free. Some speech comes with a cost, and currently the U. Cal. administration feels unwilling to pay the cost of supporting certain controversial speech, and having the responsibility to support all controversial speakers. Ms. Coulter can write, or indeed, stand on any street corner or in any park she wishes, and hope to be heard or read, but the First Amendment does not guarantee her right to say despicable things in a public forum sponsored by any entity which refuses to shoulder those costs.
3
Truth is not a position it simply is.
The way I see it that intolerance born of and bred by the GOP to cause exactly the rift it has caused, limits how one sees people one disagrees with. If you are limited by anger and assumption the handmaidens of intolerance you cannot listen and because of that you cannot legitimately engage in the discussion which reveals what each position holds. That is the sort of discourse our system is based on.
I'm thinking the students can be educated to come to this formerly universal understanding of tolerance. We were great because we actually listened then engaged with what was said without personalizing, not because we held most dearly to X position regardless of what was said.
The other part of the problem is the anarchists. Indoor halls, no masks, tickets and enough police to handle the anarchists who remain outside because they don't want to be unmasked.
We cannot let intolerance destroy open public discourse even from people like Ms Coulter or Milo. their opponents have bought the lie by making them the target instead of the ideas they promote. Because of that the focus is not on the right response to their ideas and rather on them as if they make the thing live. No failing to address and take apart those ideas with truth is what makes them live.
Leave these fame whores out of it, if we refute their ideas effectively they will disappear.
The way I see it that intolerance born of and bred by the GOP to cause exactly the rift it has caused, limits how one sees people one disagrees with. If you are limited by anger and assumption the handmaidens of intolerance you cannot listen and because of that you cannot legitimately engage in the discussion which reveals what each position holds. That is the sort of discourse our system is based on.
I'm thinking the students can be educated to come to this formerly universal understanding of tolerance. We were great because we actually listened then engaged with what was said without personalizing, not because we held most dearly to X position regardless of what was said.
The other part of the problem is the anarchists. Indoor halls, no masks, tickets and enough police to handle the anarchists who remain outside because they don't want to be unmasked.
We cannot let intolerance destroy open public discourse even from people like Ms Coulter or Milo. their opponents have bought the lie by making them the target instead of the ideas they promote. Because of that the focus is not on the right response to their ideas and rather on them as if they make the thing live. No failing to address and take apart those ideas with truth is what makes them live.
Leave these fame whores out of it, if we refute their ideas effectively they will disappear.
2
The only intolerance is from the left. I'm not a republican, but it is obvious all the violence is from the left. Suddenly they are getting push back from the 'alt-right' and it's riots in the streets. Great. Was that the game plan all along?
7
I think you have demonstrated my point excellently. :-)
You are probably unfamiliar with Berkeley.
The leftist students were shouting which is pretty bad since it stops discourse, and if you don't hear what she says you cannot properly address it.
The violence was the anarchists and troublemakers (most if not all of whom are not students) who take advantage of these events for their own purposes. The Anarchists intend to provoke authority to rash action to give more impetus to their goal of a revolution, the troublemakers and dilettantes do it to be able to say they have because it's sexy or take advantage of the chaos to steal or vandalize or??? you name it.
You are probably unfamiliar with Berkeley.
The leftist students were shouting which is pretty bad since it stops discourse, and if you don't hear what she says you cannot properly address it.
The violence was the anarchists and troublemakers (most if not all of whom are not students) who take advantage of these events for their own purposes. The Anarchists intend to provoke authority to rash action to give more impetus to their goal of a revolution, the troublemakers and dilettantes do it to be able to say they have because it's sexy or take advantage of the chaos to steal or vandalize or??? you name it.
1
Coulter should have been allowed to speak but in the case of both speaking engagements, it was a set-up of the Berkeley administration by the College Republicans meant to discredit the school in the media no matter what administrators did. This was initially lost on the administration in the case of Yiannopolis, a speaker with a documented record of abusing members of his public audiences by using a trigger camera to harass and incite others to harass transsexual students present in the audience. This what concerned faculty brought to the attention of administrators. By hewing to a broad interpretation of what constitutes “protected speech,” the administration dismissed the substantive issue of Yiannaopolis’ record of conduct (as opposed to his political point of view). The rest is history: anarchists rioted and damaged university property, the talk was cancelled, and Trump accused Berkeley of violating free speech and threatened it with the loss of Federal funding. Predictably, Berkeley got no credit for its misguided efforts to accommodate a known violent speaker.
Milo was not violent.
5
I amend my post and agree with Morgan's excellent post (NYT Pick, above)--a Berkeley employee--on the rationale for canceling the event.
Milo had a history of putting names, pictures and contact info on screen during his talks and people so shamed were then doxxed on line. He was planning to talk about sanctuary campuses at Berkeley and was unwilling to commit to not doing the same with undocumented students on campus. That is harassment under Title IX and not protected speech. It is also a form of violence that puts individual students at risk.
Why are we giving this idiot so much free press? I don't care that Berkeley canceled her speech.
It is a significant blow to tolerance and open discourse at the university that free speech made famous, that is why the cancellation merits an article.
6
Berkeley is caught between a rock and a hard place. Let Coulter speak, and the same violence that erupted during the Milo event will happen again...police have not yet figured out how to shut down Antifa without harming staff and students trying to get out of the way. Don't let Coulter speak (and btw, the event is postponed, not cancelled), and Berkeley is accused of muzzling free speech. Meanwhile, the research at Berkeley (cure for malaria, cancer research, genetic medical research, engineering advances, technology advances...all for the public good) goes unremarked in all this broohah.
27
That there is such a dilemma is of UB's own making: where is the leadership fostering free speech and resisting those who would deny it?
3
Berkeley has ceased to be legitimate university or school of thought and only a fool would attend, or allow their children to attend what has become an indocrination camp for leftists. The cowardice displayed by the Berkeley administrators should be soundly condemned for both sides of the political spectrum and hopefully, federal funds will soon be scarce on that so called campus.
And finally, a question for Berkeley: Will you cowards also cancel appearances by leftist speakers, or does that only apply to Republicans/conservatives who may upset the fragile egos of your population of tepid snowflakes?
And finally, a question for Berkeley: Will you cowards also cancel appearances by leftist speakers, or does that only apply to Republicans/conservatives who may upset the fragile egos of your population of tepid snowflakes?
11
So interesting.. Here I thought we had all kinds of methods for distant communication.. Ms. Coulter could speak in real time via Skype (teleconferencing) -- with no danger to herself... Of course, canelling is soooooooo much more dramatic. IMO nothing but a bunch of drama queens all of them.. Let them eat cake!! Maybe Trump should teleconference to DC?!!
" ...the latest blow to the institution's legacy and reputation as a promoter and bastion of free speech."
I question this assertion. Free speech has limits, even in this country. No one is allowed to make a false cry of fire in a crowded theater. Anne Coulter is a purveyor of hate speech and a neo-fascist. Innocent people are likely to be injured or worse in the vicinity of her incendiary and false claims. Universities are also bastions of the search for truth. Should the University invite a Josef Goebbels wannabe? If the University were private, it would have more warrant for permitting Coulter to speak. But it is a public institution, supported by the taxpayers of California, many of whom Coulter would like to deport.
At a time, when the federal government has been occupied by a neo-fascist family and clique, the universities should fight back and not give bigots and hate mongers a platform to spew their hate.
This is not censorship. Only the government has the power to censor speech. Coulter and the Mercer family can rent a hall in downtown Berkeley and pay for private security police.
I question this assertion. Free speech has limits, even in this country. No one is allowed to make a false cry of fire in a crowded theater. Anne Coulter is a purveyor of hate speech and a neo-fascist. Innocent people are likely to be injured or worse in the vicinity of her incendiary and false claims. Universities are also bastions of the search for truth. Should the University invite a Josef Goebbels wannabe? If the University were private, it would have more warrant for permitting Coulter to speak. But it is a public institution, supported by the taxpayers of California, many of whom Coulter would like to deport.
At a time, when the federal government has been occupied by a neo-fascist family and clique, the universities should fight back and not give bigots and hate mongers a platform to spew their hate.
This is not censorship. Only the government has the power to censor speech. Coulter and the Mercer family can rent a hall in downtown Berkeley and pay for private security police.
Actually, a private institution has more rights to prevent her from speaking as the First Amendment does not apply to them. As non-taxpayer supported entities they have a right to control access to their facilities. Public institutions such as UC-Berkeley are government institutions and as such they don't get to choose which viewpoints are "acceptable." It makes not one bit of difference if some California tax-payers don't like her views and are subject to deportation for not complying with US immigration rules and regulations. As long as she doesn't directly incite any actions, her viewpoint and associated speech are protected.
5
But her remarks will be incendiary and incite violence. Given the experience of the University with another hate-monger, Yannopoulous, they are acting prudently and lawfully.
UC-Berkeley is not acting lawfully. As a government institution they don't get to decide which viewpoints they'll allow and protect and those which they'll deny. If they offer a forum to any recognized student organization, they must offer the same forum to all recognized student organizations. Further, they can't charge one organization more because they believe it requires a different level of security. This is basic and settled First Amendment law.
The violence at the Yannopoulous event was not incited by the speaker. The violence was perpetrated by those that disagreed with his views. That is hardly the incitement of violence that court decisions have ruled are exceptions to the First Amendment. There are lots of ways of displaying disapproval of a person's viewpoint such as peaceful marching and picketing. Smashing of windows on private and/or public property is far from an appropriate response.
The violence at the Yannopoulous event was not incited by the speaker. The violence was perpetrated by those that disagreed with his views. That is hardly the incitement of violence that court decisions have ruled are exceptions to the First Amendment. There are lots of ways of displaying disapproval of a person's viewpoint such as peaceful marching and picketing. Smashing of windows on private and/or public property is far from an appropriate response.
2
Interestingly, when Bernie Sanders spoke last year before a few thousand students at the most right-wing college in the US, Liberty University, there wasn't a single heckle or interruption, let alone threat of violence. Is this because Ms. Coulter is more extreme than Mr. Sanders? Hardly. I entered their political positions into a non-partisan online "political spectrum calculator," and they came out evenly "extreme." Having lived in seven different decades, including through the free speech movements and struggles of the sixties and seventies, I never thought I'd see the day that the most closed-minded and politically intolerant people in this country would be young liberals. It's an absolutely astonishing and depressing cultural shift.
19
Thats because they dont think. Thought is foreign to them. Because they already know what should be.
Young liberals are the most conservative people there are. They remind me of the Catholic Church in times past.
Young liberals are the most conservative people there are. They remind me of the Catholic Church in times past.
4
True, but it was 2015 and Bernie wasn't the widely known national figure he'd become a couple months later. I'm not sure it makes sense to compare 'free college tuition' on "the left extreme" with "ban muslims" on the right. Bernie is a politician with real positions and the accountability of elected office. That's not the same as a provocateur selling books.
What happened to the Free Speech movement here in Berkeley?? Our police have an absolute responsibility to protect Coulter's right to spout outrageous, unintelligible views. If it requires bringing in law enforcement from outside agencies, so be it. We can't allow our First Amendment rights to be trampled by extremely violent protestors from groups such as the antifa and alt-right. Chaos is what these groups want. Berkeley has the responsibility to prevent that chaos and protect both Coulter's and protestor's right to free speech. Allowing violent groups to deny citizens their Constitutional rights is not an option. Do your duty.
7
So the bullies win?
2
Are you suggesting that violent protesters be given the right to trample the Constitutional rights of others if it becomes too expensive to stop them? Isn't this an invitation to chaos?
6
@terri Jeffrey: it's unconstitutional to charge a higher security fee based on the content of the speech, see Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement,
3
Berkeley could avoid all this if they stopped inviting "speakers" who have no credentials other than being self-proclaimed provocateurs
1
Please provide your approved list of speakers.
2
On Bill Maher's show a year before the election, Ann Coulter was roundly jeered for predicting that DJT had the best chance among the declared candidates of winning the presidency. Of course, the snowflakes and daisies in Berkeley don't want her inside their bubble.
12
A university has a responsibility to expose its students to varying and often contradictory points of view. That being said, they also have the responsibility to make certain they issues are presented by those with expertise in the subject. What is Coulter's particular expertise aside from making pronouncements that are aimed at drawing attention to herself ? If this woman was capable of measured well-thought out arguments, I would not object. But in the past, she has shown herself to be merely a hack for the right. If the campus republicans wish to bring in a speaker to promote dialogue regarding their point of view, they have failed miserably in their choice.
As a native Californian, a life-long Democrat, and an ardent supporter of UC, I still must condemn the university for this action. It is absolutly imperative that any university always remains a supporter of free speech, no matter who is saying what.
9
Why so much bluster over someone who has so little of substance to say?
3
This is not about Berkelely preventing a conservative thinker from speaking on campus. This is an academic organization deciding that a spewer of hateful, non-rational, diatribe should not have a platform in which to speak at an academic organization that rewards fact based research and intellectual rigor.
2
Wow. Who decides what is "hateful" or "non-rational" or a "diatribe"? What I suspect seems obvious to you as "hateful" or "non-rational" speech might not seem hateful or irrational to someone else, including me. So, again, who gets to set the rules?
10
The police did not "clash" with protesters at Auburn. Two guys punched each other and were arrested. Don't think of that as "clashing".. The event was mostly a non-event, as the auditorium was almost empty by the end of his speech.
2
The people blocking speakers on campuses are not anarchists. They are students and faculty.
12
The real reason why groups, be they liberal or conservative, religious or agnostic, or whatever do not want to let opposing viewpoints be presented is that they are not certain enough of the validity of their ideas and are afraid that someone will be convinced by the opposition (perhaps themselves).
If they were as confident of the strength of their position as they claim to be, there would be no reason not to let the opposition speak since the ideas of the righteous would be so much more powerful that the opposition would just be sounding foolish.
If they were as confident of the strength of their position as they claim to be, there would be no reason not to let the opposition speak since the ideas of the righteous would be so much more powerful that the opposition would just be sounding foolish.
8
Dear mikecody,
Yours is the best comment in the stream so far. Fear is what drives the suppression of free speech. People are concerned that someone might plant doubts in their minds about their heart felt beliefs.
Yours is the best comment in the stream so far. Fear is what drives the suppression of free speech. People are concerned that someone might plant doubts in their minds about their heart felt beliefs.
4
I believe in free speech, but the Constitution does NOT protect speech that has the potential to incite violence. And let's be real: Violence is the explicit goal of college Republican groups inviting professional bomb-throwers like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos onto known liberal campuses. I believe Berkley made the right decision in this case.
24
You don't actually believe in free speech if you believe the criteria to be heard on a campus should include only those speakers and ideas that are would be acceptable on "known liberal campuses."
6
Yes it does. Read the judicial opinions. Nothing about potential. There must be imminent, immediate, threat of violence.
7
Got some news for you 'EdgeNinja', you really don't believe in free speech.
10
She's got more than enough venues to spew her drivel. She's has spouted nothing new, or at least nothing worth wasting your time listening to. A screech with a baritone voice, and a consciousness that values only her own self righteousness. And, she's boring.
6
The sheer airheadedness of the chosen people of right wing sociopathy makes me think their wealthy enablers must have death wishes.
1
Coulter loves this. She is a publicity hound. Anything that puts her in the public eye, sells more of her badly written books is acceptable to her. Riots, people attacking each other just gets her more attention/publicity. This pathetic "writer" could care less about the first ammendement
6
I work in a university. Speakers engaged to present on campus are experts in their fields and sufficiently knowledgeable to be correct about the facts they put forth. Coulter is misinformed and ignorant of even uncomplicated historical and political dynamics , and has no right to speak to college students as if she were not ignorant.
7
Who determines who is an "expert" or "sufficiently knowledgeable" or "ignorant" or "misinformed"? Are you comfortable allowing a small group of people (i.e., university officials) determine who meets your criteria? What if the people making these decisions don't hold the same social and political views that you do (such as when Reagan stacked the public universities in California with his own people in the 60s)? Would you still support the type of censorship you're advocating?
16
Who died and made you Boss? What makes you get to decide who has a right to speak or not? You Red Guards just don't get it, it's the free exchange of ideas that's important.
7
And the people who should decide who are "informed" are? ...Wait for it...Liberal professors.
Orwell would weep.
Orwell would weep.
1
Countdown until someone blames this on liberals, and offers this as an example of the elusive "safe space" that's almost completely made up. Oh, and don't forget to characterize this as being a politically motivated decision by UC Berkeley faculty.
What people need to understand (or stop pretending to ignore) is that these universities aren't concert venues that are equipped to handle all manner of rowdy crowds, nor is it reasonable for them to allocate resources to hiring out for security if they believe that a certain event is going to be more than they can handle on the campus.
They're not concert venues, nor are they soapboxes in the park that anybody may stand upon to deliver a message to impressionable students. Nobody has any kind of right to speak at a college, nor should there be any expectation that being popular or invited by any student group on campus should be an automatic ticket to such a platform.
Also, if I can be blunt, many of you need to wake up and understand that many of these controversial pundits agree to/arrange these just so they inevitably have their plans cancelled after the fact, and then run around screaming about how they're being silenced. Do you think anybody DIDN'T know that Ann Coulter's invitation would be met with scorn on UC Berkeley of all places? Spare me this farce already, especially you on the left who feel the need to rush to any story like this to chide liberals so that you can tell yourself how consistent you think you are
What people need to understand (or stop pretending to ignore) is that these universities aren't concert venues that are equipped to handle all manner of rowdy crowds, nor is it reasonable for them to allocate resources to hiring out for security if they believe that a certain event is going to be more than they can handle on the campus.
They're not concert venues, nor are they soapboxes in the park that anybody may stand upon to deliver a message to impressionable students. Nobody has any kind of right to speak at a college, nor should there be any expectation that being popular or invited by any student group on campus should be an automatic ticket to such a platform.
Also, if I can be blunt, many of you need to wake up and understand that many of these controversial pundits agree to/arrange these just so they inevitably have their plans cancelled after the fact, and then run around screaming about how they're being silenced. Do you think anybody DIDN'T know that Ann Coulter's invitation would be met with scorn on UC Berkeley of all places? Spare me this farce already, especially you on the left who feel the need to rush to any story like this to chide liberals so that you can tell yourself how consistent you think you are
57
Not a concert venue? from their site: Want to get a taste of life at Berkeley? Daily activities, performances and events are open to the campus community and the general public. Expand your mind, stroll through the redwoods and root for the Golden Bears.
2
Copy all that. So, let's turn full circle and proclaim the Free Speech Movement which emerged from Berkeley as a fraud. Your views are exactly in line with those of Edwin Meese and Ronald Reagan from the 1960s when they tried to keep UC a speech-free zone. Who knows, maybe it would be better that way. Why not model universities on those you find in China that provide great education on technical subjects but don't give any quarter to grievance-airing, dissent, or other irritating uses of so-called rights to free speech?
3
If the school enforced a real punishment like suspension or expulsion when people block access to venues or do other things to prevent speech, this problem would go away quickly. The students do this because they get what they want with no cost. Merely enforcing the school's code of conduct would solve most of their so-called security issues.
2
Everyone of these free speech events are held in Berkeley has a bigger impact on a large community who just wants to go about their day.
Berkeley and Oakland are subjected to non-stop hovering helicopters.
This includes the police and news stations. Depending on how close you live
you can have helicopters circling or hovering over your house for hours.
The traffic is a nightmare and you live in fear of getting stuck in the middle of this mess. Not to mention the small groups that break-off and just cause havoc for fun. The streets are flooded with police cars as other officers, from other cities are sent for mutual aid. So you had better pay attention as you walk or drive around on that day. Maybe Ann Coulter can give her speech closer to her house!
Berkeley and Oakland are subjected to non-stop hovering helicopters.
This includes the police and news stations. Depending on how close you live
you can have helicopters circling or hovering over your house for hours.
The traffic is a nightmare and you live in fear of getting stuck in the middle of this mess. Not to mention the small groups that break-off and just cause havoc for fun. The streets are flooded with police cars as other officers, from other cities are sent for mutual aid. So you had better pay attention as you walk or drive around on that day. Maybe Ann Coulter can give her speech closer to her house!
6
For those "hand wringers" that are decrying Berkley's supposed tamping down of "Free Speech" by not paying enormous amounts of money for the extra police protection and security that a demagogue like Ann Coulter requires, I have some good news for you!
Berkley has on it's staff, as a Law Professor, John "Torture Memo" Yoo, who provided a legal opinion-cover for the Bush administration that "Enhanced Interrogation" AKA Torture only existed if there was "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" . Anything short of this list, was just fine according to yoo.
Berkley by having such a "person" on their staff, has shown that they are not afraid of controversial views or ideas outside the mainstream. Hope this helps!
Berkley has on it's staff, as a Law Professor, John "Torture Memo" Yoo, who provided a legal opinion-cover for the Bush administration that "Enhanced Interrogation" AKA Torture only existed if there was "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" . Anything short of this list, was just fine according to yoo.
Berkley by having such a "person" on their staff, has shown that they are not afraid of controversial views or ideas outside the mainstream. Hope this helps!
6
Let her speak, and provide her own security (or not). Why does the university need to provide it? Mr. Coulter wants to speak, I say go her go it. And suffer the potential consequences.
1
I am disappointed to see the erosion of free speech on college campuses. I disagree with Ann Coulter's politics, but we must uphold the fundamental value of free speech. Unfortunately you don't have a right to not be "offended" in this country.
5
I despise Ann Coulter but she should be allowed to speak. What I find troubling is I doubt very much the College Republicans are inviting her or any other provocateur for any other reason than they know how much it gets under the skin of Liberals and Progressives. And the Liberals take the bait every time.
This is what the Republican Party has become. They are the John Birch Society of my youth. There are many smart conservatives, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Jonah Goldberg to name a few, that although I don’t agree with them make solid arguments for conservatism and what the Republican Party used to stand for.
This is what the Republican Party has become. They are the John Birch Society of my youth. There are many smart conservatives, David Frum, Andrew Sullivan, Jonah Goldberg to name a few, that although I don’t agree with them make solid arguments for conservatism and what the Republican Party used to stand for.
2
Gov Moonbeam and CU better not count on Title IX funds.
Close this sucker down!
Close this sucker down!
9
I am grateful to the Guardian Council at UC Berkeley for protecting me from thought and speech.
9
Wrong, wrong, and wronger. Personally I am appalled, dismayed, and disheartened by this continuation of intolerance for the views of others.
"Liberal" censorship is as bad, if not worse, than the censorship liberals claim is perpetuated by the right. It violates every principle than any university can claim -- being a seat of learning and discussion.
How can there be understanding without dialogue? How can there be resolution without discussion? How can there be......?
So Berkeley, stand by the precepts which supposedly guide you -- let her, and anyone else speak.
"Liberal" censorship is as bad, if not worse, than the censorship liberals claim is perpetuated by the right. It violates every principle than any university can claim -- being a seat of learning and discussion.
How can there be understanding without dialogue? How can there be resolution without discussion? How can there be......?
So Berkeley, stand by the precepts which supposedly guide you -- let her, and anyone else speak.
11
Ann Coulter, the porta potty of right wing idiocy. Inviting her to speak is deliberate provocation. She is a pathological liar, not very bright, and just a nasty person with nothing to contribute to rational fact based conversation. Why anyone pays any attention to her escapes me. Her engagements should be ignored.
It would have been appropriate to include a few of her most stellar stupidities here. Just so readers would know how incredibly deranged she and the Young America’s Foundation is, complete wack jobs.
It would have been appropriate to include a few of her most stellar stupidities here. Just so readers would know how incredibly deranged she and the Young America’s Foundation is, complete wack jobs.
11
maybe if her speech were more intelligent and thoughtful instead of boring, repetitious and clearly designed to exploit vulnerable and gullible people--maybe then she'd have more credibility in a university campus.
6
The last thing this world needs is another hate-filled speech from Coulter. Why give her a forum?
4
Now the Berkeley administration looks like bigger fools than Coulter (who just plays the fool and played Berkeley).
6
So here is the problem. One person of a political bent telling others of a political bent they are wrong, and that is deemed inflammatory and derogative. While other people from the opposite political bent speak and say the same thing to the other side, and are protected with special rights and laws to protect them. And you wonder why the Democratic base is dwindling.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Give me liberty or give me death.
8
Ahhhhhhh...situational free speech, redux...
BTW - I propose public "safe" space cubbyholes on every American City street - and I mean EVERY - for the general public to duck into at the slightest provocation - so that those offended by language and/or speech that they find vulgar, hateful, or generally offensive, will be protected during such events. Personally, I want the crying-towel supply franchise for all those locations.
Sort of like the public pissoirs overseas...
BTW - I propose public "safe" space cubbyholes on every American City street - and I mean EVERY - for the general public to duck into at the slightest provocation - so that those offended by language and/or speech that they find vulgar, hateful, or generally offensive, will be protected during such events. Personally, I want the crying-towel supply franchise for all those locations.
Sort of like the public pissoirs overseas...
4
I suspect that Coulter will show up. From what I can tell, she'll go to any extreme to sell her books and likely sees this as an opportunity to get even more people to shell out $25 or so to get a slice of her particular brand of hate mongering. She recently appeared on a televised celebrity roast. The abuse she was taking almost made me sympathetic. I couldn't figure out why she would put herself through that -- while confirming that conservatives can't tell a joke -- until I realized the show was filmed during her book tour.
4
Went to Haverford/Bryn Mawr in the 1970s. I am saddened, but not surprised. We reap what we sow.
4
As a Berkeley alum and Bay Area resident, I appreciate the college's dilemma. The world is troubled by two forms of information suppression: censorship and propaganda. Americans have a handle on the former, but can be quite naive about the latter. Many people say propaganda is an epithet for news you don't like. No, it's a deliberate fabrication designed to replace reality.
That's how it was developed in the 20th c, most assiduously in the USSR, where it was deemed necessary to remake human nature. The West's version was mostly advertising, which may be insidious, but is usually transparent.
If an alt-left had wealthy sponsors, its propaganda would be a concern. But it's the alt-right that has the megaphone, and is spreading propaganda's lies. Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren't offering different opinions on the facts, they provide fake facts. There's a dangerous tendency for mainstream Republicans to defend these facts as legitimate, because they feel good.
But if I make up something heinous, like claim the President has a child with his daughter, I suspect most Republicans would find that unacceptable, and they'd be right. Propaganda lies are intended to make legitimate voices suspect. That's not free speech, but a way of suppressing opinions. Russians knew show trial facts were invented, but the facts were so disgusting, it still ruined their victim's reputation.
That's how it was developed in the 20th c, most assiduously in the USSR, where it was deemed necessary to remake human nature. The West's version was mostly advertising, which may be insidious, but is usually transparent.
If an alt-left had wealthy sponsors, its propaganda would be a concern. But it's the alt-right that has the megaphone, and is spreading propaganda's lies. Coulter and Yiannopoulos aren't offering different opinions on the facts, they provide fake facts. There's a dangerous tendency for mainstream Republicans to defend these facts as legitimate, because they feel good.
But if I make up something heinous, like claim the President has a child with his daughter, I suspect most Republicans would find that unacceptable, and they'd be right. Propaganda lies are intended to make legitimate voices suspect. That's not free speech, but a way of suppressing opinions. Russians knew show trial facts were invented, but the facts were so disgusting, it still ruined their victim's reputation.
5
The alt-left has wealthy supporter, Speyer and Soros.
2
Coulter is an idiot. Trump is an idiot. When you LOSE to an idiot, you need to be replaced by someone better. A thorough enema of Berkeley and many other institutions is overdue. They have lost an intellectual debate with Ann Coulter... hard to imagine anything more deeply shameful for Berkeley.
9
Liberal institutions - like universities, the comments section of the NYT, can be as closed minded and reactionary as any KKK meeting you could find. Let us be clear, bias and exclusion are not confined to the right. The comments made against MLK and others, about being incendiary provocateurs, are now being made by faculty club members against people like Ann Coulter.
In a case of sublime irony, it is these same universities that teach "growth begins at the end of your comfort zone." I guess they meant YOUR comfort zone, not THEIRS.
In a case of sublime irony, it is these same universities that teach "growth begins at the end of your comfort zone." I guess they meant YOUR comfort zone, not THEIRS.
15
Coulter's aim in life is to overcome her lack of intellectual argument and to replace it with saying anything that will get attention, even if it incites violence. For her, its a living and she found her niche with sarcasm and degradation of the "other" side, whatever that is.
6
It's been 50 years since Berkeley has been a "radical" campus. The media never forgets. In my years there, the majority of students were apolitical. There's been a population of non-students that like the campus lifestyle, but Berkeley rents have made it progressively harder to hang out.
It's an urban campus with a large, diverse student population, and so "open" physically to the surrounding public streets that controlling who gets on campus would require all the police forces in the immediate Bay Area; not just Berkeley. Checking student ID's?. Mine was a simple cardboard "reg card".
As a parent providing tuition for a child now at Berkeley, which struggles, as all public colleges do, with a lack of funds, I don't see how the University can justify $1M in policing expenses to provide security for Ms Coulter to speak.
It's an urban campus with a large, diverse student population, and so "open" physically to the surrounding public streets that controlling who gets on campus would require all the police forces in the immediate Bay Area; not just Berkeley. Checking student ID's?. Mine was a simple cardboard "reg card".
As a parent providing tuition for a child now at Berkeley, which struggles, as all public colleges do, with a lack of funds, I don't see how the University can justify $1M in policing expenses to provide security for Ms Coulter to speak.
6
They can't justify it, but that won't stop every conservative with a victim complex from pretending that this is some sort of politically motivated inhibition of their speech.
4
I just can't stand Ann Coulter.
But I was one of those folk at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement and believe that it is manifestly cowardly and intellectually dishonest for UCB administrators to put "security" above open speech here. So someone might be arrested. Or the University's policing bills might grow. Or someone might have their feeling hurt.
Tough. Suck it up and take on your responsibilities as a world center for free and open intellectual discourse.
But I was one of those folk at Berkeley during the Free Speech Movement and believe that it is manifestly cowardly and intellectually dishonest for UCB administrators to put "security" above open speech here. So someone might be arrested. Or the University's policing bills might grow. Or someone might have their feeling hurt.
Tough. Suck it up and take on your responsibilities as a world center for free and open intellectual discourse.
119
Did Adolph Hitler deserve free speech?
3
According to the constitution of the U.S.? Yes, he did.
8
The Supreme Court has said that Nazi organizations have the right to free speech, if that helps.
5
He had it. Mein Kampf. If people outside Germany actually read it, the same people who now preach to us with a straight but dishonest face that free speech is not really free speech, there might not have been WW2.
3
If scheduling white supremacists and hate-mongers to speak causes the university to fear violence, then why are they allowing it in the first place. I say allow them to speak and sit back and watch the outcome.
The left is instigating and committing the violence. The left is proving who the real hate-mongers are, themselves.
9
I am reading comments like this:
" insist that Ms. Coulter provides and pays for her own security detail."
and
"The pattern of inviting public figures who are racist, sexist bullies is a problem that has little to do with Free Speech"
Commenters, please have at least a superficial understanding of the 1st Amendment, which Berkeley, a public school, is obligated to uphold, before embarrassing yourselves and spreading misinformation.
" insist that Ms. Coulter provides and pays for her own security detail."
and
"The pattern of inviting public figures who are racist, sexist bullies is a problem that has little to do with Free Speech"
Commenters, please have at least a superficial understanding of the 1st Amendment, which Berkeley, a public school, is obligated to uphold, before embarrassing yourselves and spreading misinformation.
16
Most of the commenters you are addressing understand the First Amendment, are not embarrassed, enjoy spreading misinformation and have totalitarian leftism as their political creed.
7
You yourself clearly have no understanding of the First Amendment. It's a protection against the government's inhibition of speech. You may not be fined or arrested for your beliefs. It doesn't provide that anyone can speak about anything anywhere without interruption or dissenting speech. You don't even have the right to walk around a college campus without credentials if a college makes that decision. You certainly don't have any right as a citizen to speak at any university, even if a group of students would like you to. Please stop misinforming people in the comment section.
1
Ms. Coulter was invited to speak at Berkeley by a student group abiding by the university's policy on invitations. And that is where Berkeley's flouting of the 1st Amendment comes in.
And Berkeleyl is an arm of the government. Had it been Standford, there would not be a 1st amendment issue here as it is a private university.
And Berkeleyl is an arm of the government. Had it been Standford, there would not be a 1st amendment issue here as it is a private university.
4
Ann Coulter foments hate, an emotion that is often uncontrollable and omnidirectional. There is only so much security and law enforcement cam do in that atmosphere.
We reap what we sow.
We reap what we sow.
3
Dear Maggie,
If students emotions are so "uncontrollable and omnidirectional" then they need to need counseling. Adults are supposed to be able to control their emotions as part of a civil society.
If you really think what someone says will drive you around the bend, then why even show up.
It seems that the students just enjoy a good self-righteous fracas as break from their studies.
If students emotions are so "uncontrollable and omnidirectional" then they need to need counseling. Adults are supposed to be able to control their emotions as part of a civil society.
If you really think what someone says will drive you around the bend, then why even show up.
It seems that the students just enjoy a good self-righteous fracas as break from their studies.
6
OMG! I have no control over my emotions! I may hear something that drives me to murder! To riot and assault people! Think that would work as a defense? Adults know how to control their emotions and speak civilly with those whose ideas are different. The discourse may even be enlightening. This seems to be something that many people don't understand.
3
@ Maggie
Who defines "hate"?
You?
Who defines "hate"?
You?
Sadly, this emboldens the Trumpanzees. They chalk it up to being evidence of their (mostly fantasy) leftist war on free speech, and truth be told, I don't know that they're entirely wrong. I wish the left did a better job at sitting back and allow the right to show everyone how awful their ideas and people are.
3
If you're an outspoken right wing pundit, there's really no better PR vehicle these days than booking yourself at Berkeley and then getting shouted off the stage or cancelled altogether.
7
It would be nice to believe the statement “We are going to do whatever we can to make that happen at a time and a place when police can provide safety and security,” but would anyone be surprised if that time and place were mid-summer and a small lecture hall when under-graduates are away from campus and not likely to attend. UC-Berkeley has historically claimed to be "the center of a movement to expand political expression, which became known as the Free Speech Movement," but it rapidly becoming the center of a movement where free speech only is sanctioned for left-wing and anarchist viewpoints and all other viewpoints are actively and violently suppressed. While it is perfectly acceptable and even desirable for those opposed to her views to protest peacefully, preventing the speech or sabotaging speech is not discourse but the tyranny of mob rule. In the end, UC-Berkeley has caved to groups that have no interest in free speech, intellectual discourse, or rebutting her views with reason.
39
With the violence that has occurred at Black Lives events on university campuses, I wonder if universities will start canceling them based on "safety". Not.
9
This is too easily confused with talk about "censorship" and "political correctness" on college campuses. What's going on at Berkeley is unique and it is not rooted in the university but in the larger community. It shouldn't be the responsibility of the university to ensure security against such threats or to figure out how to deal with this implicit blackmail from outside groups. Surely, federal, state and local authorities need to do a better job of cracking down on violent extremist groups of left and right who are creating this climate. This seems to be a more urgent problem than deporting mothers and church workers.
1
Ann Coulter is a vile, provocative person who delights in saying stupid things because she seems to believe she gives them credibility simply by saying them. She doesn't.
Nonetheless, the University of California is an institution dedicated to the free expression and exchange of ideas. That includes stupid ideas. That includes even vile ideas.
Shame on Berkeley. I've been on that campus. I cannot believe there is no secure place that this speech could be given. If the folks who run the university are liberal, in the historical sense, they would find the place where Coulter her spew her ideas. Even welcome her.
If they do not find a place for her speech, they simply confirm what the right-wing cuckoos have been saying all along. Berkeley and, by extension, much of academia is more interested in conformity to its own (professedly liberal) ideology than to the free expression and exchange of ideas. Again, shame on Berkeley.
Nonetheless, the University of California is an institution dedicated to the free expression and exchange of ideas. That includes stupid ideas. That includes even vile ideas.
Shame on Berkeley. I've been on that campus. I cannot believe there is no secure place that this speech could be given. If the folks who run the university are liberal, in the historical sense, they would find the place where Coulter her spew her ideas. Even welcome her.
If they do not find a place for her speech, they simply confirm what the right-wing cuckoos have been saying all along. Berkeley and, by extension, much of academia is more interested in conformity to its own (professedly liberal) ideology than to the free expression and exchange of ideas. Again, shame on Berkeley.
9
Dear Bob Neal,
Sadly, a large percentage of academia are more interested in conformity rather than free expression. I have three sons who went through the public university system in Texas. They have all told me that you know, especially in the social sciences, arts and humanities, what you should parrot back to the professor to get a good grade.
My sons learned independent thinking from their mother and me not from the cookie cutter educators at their universities. Fortunately if you are on a STEM program you don't have to put up with too much of this rubbish.
Sadly, a large percentage of academia are more interested in conformity rather than free expression. I have three sons who went through the public university system in Texas. They have all told me that you know, especially in the social sciences, arts and humanities, what you should parrot back to the professor to get a good grade.
My sons learned independent thinking from their mother and me not from the cookie cutter educators at their universities. Fortunately if you are on a STEM program you don't have to put up with too much of this rubbish.
5
3 kids that went through Texas Universities, one graduated from UT, one from A&M, one still in A&M. All in the hard sciences, so thankfully free of cant. You are telling the truth about the humanities. My daughter got a double major, one in Asian studies and she had professors that were proudly communist. If you disagreed with them, be prepared for a low grade. This was in UT. A&M is better, but it has it's share of academic dictators. Funny, they all seem to be in the humanities.
2
Watch the right-wingers spin this into a "free speech" issue. Bull.
Coulter is a vile provocateur, and has no place at an institution of higher learning.
Coulter is a vile provocateur, and has no place at an institution of higher learning.
3
So say the leftist totalitarians....
7
Ann Coulter should go and speak where her "ideas" or lack thereof find a more receptive audience. I'm thinking Oral Roberts University and other schools like it. There her spiel would find a receptive audience and security wouldn't be an issue. Coulter's "Free Speech" shouldn't cost California Tax Payers a ton of money to pay for security and extra police protection.
Don't be fooled by the bearer of ill intent. Sometimes hate speech comes from a leggy blond author. Berkeley is correct in their decision.
Beware wolves in sheep's clothing? I'm amazed at all the people who are just fine with shutting down speech they feel is 'hate speech'. Such a inane phrase. Truly sophomoric, which also shows how little people know these days. Pathetic.
3
Who gets to define "hate speech"?
You?
You?
1
They should let her speak. A yawningly empty hall would speak much louder than whatever drivel Coulter would then spout.
4
Public money should be cut from public universities that don't provide opportunities for all speakers. Safety is just an excuse. Let them provide proper police coverage just like we do in other public areas where demonstrations and speeches take place.
9
I find this move towards shutting down public speaking engagements a real shame. Don't get me wrong: I find Ann Coulter utterly loathsome. Nonetheless, I believe strongly that our universities should be places where people can express dissent -- and learn to express dissent -- without violence. Boycotts? Fine. Peaceful demonstrations? Fine. Shutting down the opportunity to engage with views even vehemently against one's own? Not so great.
82
I support free speech, but universities are not closed environments, and their role should not be policing volatile situations. The idea that students are to blame for the violence is at least questionable (those masked rioters are uniformed and covering their face for a reason). Universities have enough budget problems as is to spend huge amounts of money in providing extra security for speakers. I wonder why republican student groups at universities seem to be systematically inviting provocateurs that make a living and enjoy notoriety out of being obnoxious and disrespectful of others and have zero substance or intellectual merit. Who is actually paying for that? Is that the image of their party that those elite students want to project, or are there any ulterior motives? The error of the university was not cancel the event, but to approve it in the first place. This is not freedom of speech. This is hate speech, and the fact that white supremacist groups are ready to jump into the fight when other students protest is very telling.
For heaven's sake let her speak. Every time she opens her mouth the level of stupid on her ideology goes up. And you can look around at the audience and identify the people on your campus who have something seriously wrong with their minds.
3
Let the fool speak !!
57
When speech is so inflammatory, its a bit like yelling fire in a crowded theater. These white supremacists incite riots. Why should they be allowed to do so at the expense of the taxpayers who have to clean up after the riots?
1
How do you know she's a white supremacist if you've never heard her speak? Is this some left liberal cant that can label anyone they disagree with as a white supremacist? No racists or white supremacists may speak! Who decides?
2
Ask the Berkeley police why they allowed Leftist rioters to commit violence and destroy property.
And no, inflammatory speech that no one is forced to listen to is not in any way equivalent to shouting 'fire' in an enclosed space - nor is it the same as burning buildings (as did the Leftist Berkeley rioters), no matter how delicately sensitive Liberal ears may be to someone somewhere saying something they disagree with.
And no, inflammatory speech that no one is forced to listen to is not in any way equivalent to shouting 'fire' in an enclosed space - nor is it the same as burning buildings (as did the Leftist Berkeley rioters), no matter how delicately sensitive Liberal ears may be to someone somewhere saying something they disagree with.
1
Why not organize a Zizek-Coulter dialog. I'd watch that!
2
As far as learning opportunities possible environments which cherish freedom of speech, there's not much difference btwn sending your kid to Berkeley or Tehran University these days.
9
That's actually pretty pathetic, Berkely
13
With the way they keep inviting white supremacists to speak at their events, maybe the Berkeley College Republicans should be labelled a hate organization.
Also, if she does show up I hope she's arrested for inciting violence, since that obviously her goal.
Also, if she does show up I hope she's arrested for inciting violence, since that obviously her goal.
5
Some things deserve hatred -- e.g,. hypocritical tyrants who try to suppress opposing political views under the deceitful -- and false -- veil of benevolence. It was not Ann Coulter who dumped 8 years of massive unemployment onto the black community and drove their median net worth down 50% -- it was Obama and the Democratic Congress of 2009-2010 with their Big Bailout for campaign donors. It was not Ann Coulter who let Camden NJ, Chester PA, Detroit, Flint MI etc suffer some of the highest homicide rates on the planet while spending $1 TRILLION/year on "Homeland Security" and "Defense" -- it was Barack Obama "defending" the foreign investments of Democrat billionaires. All the false claptrap about "Racists" and "White Supremacists" is just a Democratic Big Lie to obscure who has really been stabbing the black community in the back. The attempts by Democrat operatives to disrupt and sabotage the Constitutional right of Trump supporters to peacefully assemble was another exercise in deceit. Anyone notice how the outcries about "Black Lives Matter" disappeared as soon as Hillary lost the election?
8
Coulter is a provocateur who feigns shock when people take the bait. There are actual, mature, adult conservatives who could take her place.
7
Given her declining popularity and increasing irrelevance, could they not find a place small enough?
7
Ann Coulter is a repugnant right winger, nevertheless she should be allowed to speak without fear of violence from the audience. If they want to hear her drivel, let them.
11
Agreed, but just remind all those present, including her, that they do so at their own risk, at their own cost, and there should be absolutely ZERO police and security presence. Anyone stupid enough to expose themselves to her poisonous fumes and vitriolic garbage can do so at their own expense, and risk.
1
The Berkeley College Republicans are the creepy little fire-starters here. They are not about academic excellence or scholarly discourse. They are about creating a spectacle.
For crying out loud. Berkeley is one of our nation's top PUBLIC research universities. So can we just get on with our studies now? There's no place for this nonsense. And btw, It has nothing to do with Free Speech, or the movement from the 60's. NOTHING.
For crying out loud. Berkeley is one of our nation's top PUBLIC research universities. So can we just get on with our studies now? There's no place for this nonsense. And btw, It has nothing to do with Free Speech, or the movement from the 60's. NOTHING.
113
The fact that you believe the Berkeley students have no right to invite Coulter to speak -- to peacefully assemble without the threat of violence --- should why Coulter SHOULD speak at Berkeley. To refute the fascist idea that only ideas acceptable to Democrats ( more specifically , to Democrat billionaires and their paid sycophants) are allowed in the public forum.
Has anyone seen people like you calling for the suppression of speechs by the more outlandish leftists at Berkeley? A university that allows only one side of politics to be aired is a university that deserves to lose ALL forms of taxpayer funding --- including loss of the exemption from taxes as well as federal research grants and funding for scholarships.
Of course, given the massive collapse in American real median income, the huge drop in the median net worth of the black community and soaring suicide rate -- the result of the Big Bailout by Obama and the Democrat Congress of 2007-2010 -- one can understand why Democrats want criticism suppressed.
Has anyone seen people like you calling for the suppression of speechs by the more outlandish leftists at Berkeley? A university that allows only one side of politics to be aired is a university that deserves to lose ALL forms of taxpayer funding --- including loss of the exemption from taxes as well as federal research grants and funding for scholarships.
Of course, given the massive collapse in American real median income, the huge drop in the median net worth of the black community and soaring suicide rate -- the result of the Big Bailout by Obama and the Democrat Congress of 2007-2010 -- one can understand why Democrats want criticism suppressed.
6
Obviously this is correct, yet look at all the hand-wringing from dullwits who simply can't grasp the basics.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech, it is not magic ability to demand that any private or public entity provide a special platform and/or pay you, selectively and not others, for your speech, it is not magical ability to force others to refrain from criticizing your speech (which would, of course, be a violation of their freedom of speech).
Ann Coulter has freedom of speech but not special power to order any specialized venue to provide a costly platform for her speech.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech, it is not magic ability to demand that any private or public entity provide a special platform and/or pay you, selectively and not others, for your speech, it is not magical ability to force others to refrain from criticizing your speech (which would, of course, be a violation of their freedom of speech).
Ann Coulter has freedom of speech but not special power to order any specialized venue to provide a costly platform for her speech.
What a fuddy duddy! Not everyone is disengaged from life outside the ivory tower.
1
I am university faculty and am all for free speech that I don't agree with. That said, I can understand the backlash against Ann Coulter, Richard Spencer and their ilk; they are not serious thinkers, nor intellectual conservatives. They delight in saying incendiary things that aren't reasonable positions of difference but are meant to provoke anger and reaction. And everyone keeps falling for it, like Auburn University did with Spencer's invitation. Hey universities: that's exactly what they want.
In this case, it's the school's fault for opening the door to these garbage peddlers when there are (probably) some thoughtful conservatives (although I don't agree with them) out there like Colin Powell who could just as easily be invited. This is obviously not about real political or ideological discourse, so it's a self manufactured problem.
In this case, it's the school's fault for opening the door to these garbage peddlers when there are (probably) some thoughtful conservatives (although I don't agree with them) out there like Colin Powell who could just as easily be invited. This is obviously not about real political or ideological discourse, so it's a self manufactured problem.
124
Colin Powell is a conservative? Very funny.
5
There is something hilarious about a leftist promoting Colin Powell as a philosopher king. The Colin Powell who gave the speech at the UN justifying the invasion of Iraq to seize non-existent nukes. It's like a gambler with money on Mike Tyson suggesting Mike's opponent should be Austin Powers.
4
Your incendiary is my provocative: provocation needed to wake up liberals from their dogmatic slumber caused by the droning of their geriatric leaders.
4
How unsurprising that the NYT would blame everything on "shadowy anarchist groups." Berkeley students and faculty are enlightened 1st Amendment advocates, happy to let Ann Coulter speak without disruption, right?
Right.
Right.
22
The University of California's inability to provide security for Ms. Coulter is disgraceful. Most all academic institutions and schools in the modern day control who enters their campuses, buildings and other facilities for basic security. Only students, faculty and other employees should be on the campus of the University of California (UC) in the first place. All others should be screened by the police and excluded if they have no legitimate business with UC.
To me this is a conscious decision by UC administrators to suppress a politically conservative speaker, while routinely allowing communists, socialists and other left-wingers to speak on the campus. Ms. Coulter should make an effort to speak anyway. She is a much more successful author than any member of the UC Faculty. The students may learn something.
To me this is a conscious decision by UC administrators to suppress a politically conservative speaker, while routinely allowing communists, socialists and other left-wingers to speak on the campus. Ms. Coulter should make an effort to speak anyway. She is a much more successful author than any member of the UC Faculty. The students may learn something.
68
Ann Coulter is a provocateur, not a conservative speaker. The pattern of inviting public figures who are racist, sexist bullies is a problem that has little to do with Free Speech. Ann Coulter is more about promoting Hate Speech. No redeeming value. I am delighted her speech was canceled; I wish that the conservatives at UCB would invite a conservative speaker who is not a hate speech provocateur.
4
Hmm, I would guess that if this was some sort of maneuver by Berkeley's administration to silence Coulter, they probably wouldn't have approved the club's request for her appearance or they wouldn't allow a republican club on campus in the first place. No campus is equipped to provide security for the types of violence that has occurred in the recent past. The onus, and your blame, should be pointed at the police, which needs to step up to protect the rights of hate mongers and publicity hogs like Coulter to spew nonsense and give validity to the basest elements of society.
That's ridiculous. Universities are open places, open to outside researchers, locals and visitors from far and near for lectures, plays, sporting events, libraries museums and the like. I live near a relatively well known university and see buses full of tourists and prospective students almost every day-- as I run across campus to go to the library, take my kids to a hockey game, check out the art museum or maybe just take a pleasant shortcut downtown. As a public university, Berkeley should be even MORE open to the public.
The real shame here is that a university should have to balance public safety against its mission.
The real shame here is that a university should have to balance public safety against its mission.
1
This is a shame. That Berkeley, the epicenter of liberal thought and tolerance, cannot accommodate Coulter is an egg-on-your-face moment. Coulter, more provocateuse than analyst, makes her living stirring an opposition all-to-willing to take the bait. Her contrarian views are couched in the most inflammatory rhetoric possible, and she is adept, not only at chumming the waters for her frenzied school of mindlessly partisan sharks, but also at exploiting the rage of her detractors for fun and profit. In a public forum, where she has control of the microphone, the cards would be stacked in her favor, so reason would be unlikely to prevail. In spite of that, I do hope Berkeley makes good on its intent to reschedule. There is something to be gained by gracious accommodation of the absurd.
46
You cite ALL the reasons why she shouldn't speak. I hope there is not a reschedule of her speech.
2
Excellent comment. Let those who invited her worry about security.
Epicenter of tolerance!
"Adept at chumming the waters...", nice dysphemism for interesting speaker.
"Adept at chumming the waters...", nice dysphemism for interesting speaker.
1
We now have in the USA a norm regarding free speech that is at complete odds with our constitution and core principles. I personally suspect that UC Berkeley actually believes that they can't protect her from violence. Sad day for America and shows that both banks of the political chasm in this country are know nothings. Keep your eyes on Facebook and Breitbart and watch our quality of life steadily erode.
6
By forbidding her to speak plays right into her Provocateur-Par-Excellence agenda. Let her prattle on with her bigotry and racism, however, remind her and her audience that they all do so at their own risk, and provide NO security or police presence. The likes of has-been O'Reilly always gave her a platform to espouse her hatred, of which is well-known, and well-documented in her poorly-written books, so the likelihood of learning some new will not occur. Universities should and must be a place where free speech is not only allowed, but encouraged .... despite the vitriolic message.
30
It's less about speech and more about violence.Milo gave his speech and the anarchists showed up and shut it down. In return, the right wing nationalists showed up in Berkeley in a show of force. The anarchists also showed up and more violence ensued. Coulter's speech offers the opportunity for both to show up again and attack each other. Why should the University and its community be a pawn for violence committed by outside groups?
11
So you don't understand the problem started when "the anarchists" were allowed to dictate the terms at Berkeley?
11
There was a heavy police presence at both events. When people are interested in attacking each other they will find a way. These are not students or members of the community. The campus is open ,not a fortress, and members of that community will suffer because a student club wants to be provocative.
Funny how "the University and its community" were fine with being a pawn for violence committed by outside groups when it was Antifa doing the violence, isn't it?
It seems that the problem is not so much Berkeley's openness to ideas - but the collection of "shadowy" goups looking for opportunites for conflict and attention.
Student demonstrations are one thing - outside agitators another.
Student demonstrations are one thing - outside agitators another.
12
It's time to run these dogs out of town. Freedom of Speech is alive and well, but when hate and fear mongering are on the agenda, saner voices will hopefully drown out the twisted contingent who would like to take us backwards instead of helping us evolve into a more inclusive, loving, educated, productive society.
1
The Gestapo of the left strikes again.
How pathetic that UC-Berkeley refuses to stand up to these snowflakes, terrified to hear opinions other than their own, but at the same time willing to use violence to shut it out.
How pathetic that UC-Berkeley refuses to stand up to these snowflakes, terrified to hear opinions other than their own, but at the same time willing to use violence to shut it out.
16
Gestapo of the Left? Disingenuous drivel! As the alt right appears to want to infiltrate Berkeley with HATE SPEECH-- racism and abhorrent White Supremacist views is the real problem. Mr. Trump made America safe for hate. As as citizen, I want no part of this! It is a guarantee that violence will occur.
1
Infiltrate with hate speech? Did someone forget to take their meds today? You have a choice, don't go to the venue, change the station, turn off the TV. You don't have a right to shut things down with violence. You're just proving your ideas are intellectually weak, as are your arguments. I don't think of them as gestapo, more like the Red Guard. Have any idea what that is?
2
Coulter's sense of outrage and her personal attacks on people is why The Cornellian took a firm stance against her when she lashed out at Keith Olbermann, a fellow Cornellian. Her form of hate speech is not free, it has consequences.
4
The Cornellian is the student newspaper at Cornell College in Iowa. Ann Coulter and Keith Olbermann are both graduates of Cornell University. The student newspaper there is The Daily Sun.
3
There is no legal definition of "hate speech", no matter how many Liberals wish otherwise.
wrong Cornell, dude
Ann Coulter is a performer who has made a nice living spouting rightist rhetoric.
I don't for a moment believe that this educated woman actually believes the tripe she espouses.
Allow her to speak, but not as part of a political program. Add her to the "entertainment" programs that Berkeley has sponsors. Furthermore, insist that Ms. Coulter provides and pays for her own security detail.
I don't for a moment believe that this educated woman actually believes the tripe she espouses.
Allow her to speak, but not as part of a political program. Add her to the "entertainment" programs that Berkeley has sponsors. Furthermore, insist that Ms. Coulter provides and pays for her own security detail.
36
I can remember the 60's and it wasn't all peaceful protests and there was quite a bit of unrest and violence on campus ( remember Kent State), but we got through it. Ann Coulter views are in my opinion short sited and very biased, but Berkeley should have let her speak and let her feel the crowds reactions first hand. While her views can be inflammatory at times I doubt seriously her life or health would be in danger on the Berkeley campus.
38
Clearly the Berkeley College Republicans who invited Coulter weren't looking for a civil discourse on issues or even someone to present a considered point of view but simply a provocateur who has no interest in presenting anything close to reality.
To give an idea of Coulter's views, one only has to watch an interview she gave on RT TV, my favorite source of pro-Putin propaganda. According to her, the Democrats are angry at Putin because he had ended communism in Russia.
To give an idea of Coulter's views, one only has to watch an interview she gave on RT TV, my favorite source of pro-Putin propaganda. According to her, the Democrats are angry at Putin because he had ended communism in Russia.
90
Sure, because the pro-illegal, far left demagogues spouting nonsense 24/7 on MSNBC have such thoughtful, rational opinions and tolerance for others...
I often see various leftists and liberals attacking her personally - yet when approached on substance, they never seem to have any cogent, detailed points they can make that undermine her claims.
Perhaps if dreadful "publications" like the NYT provided some actual insight to its reader drone base rather than spouting empty, meaningless editorials and slogans/euphemisms, loyal readers like Stevie might actually have something thoughtful to present. I won't hold my breath.
I often see various leftists and liberals attacking her personally - yet when approached on substance, they never seem to have any cogent, detailed points they can make that undermine her claims.
Perhaps if dreadful "publications" like the NYT provided some actual insight to its reader drone base rather than spouting empty, meaningless editorials and slogans/euphemisms, loyal readers like Stevie might actually have something thoughtful to present. I won't hold my breath.
11
An expected interpretation from another humorless liberal.
4
Well, yes, of course. Clearly such ideas are not worthy of First Amendment protection. Rather, Berkeley should establish a governing committee of like-minded Progressives, who should evaluate all proposed speeches in advance and determine for the common good which ideas may be expressed publicly.
4
Free speech at every level. Let the woman talk. No speaking fee. No use of a building, which costs money to run. No implied status from the University. Weathers nice in Berkeley, maybe one of the drum circles will help her out.
15
Geez, Berkeley can't find a safe venue for Ann Coulter, but I bet if Elizabeth Warren, an equivalent firebrand and incendiary figure of the alt left .... er, sorry, "progressive" ... side of the ledger, there would be no problem.
This university is a government institution, and needs to follow the law, the 1st Amendment in this case.
And by the way, what's the difference between this place using lame excuses to stifle free speech, in other words to engage in unconstitutional behavior, and some state using lame excuses to try to make access abortion harder, also unconstitutional behavior.
This university is a government institution, and needs to follow the law, the 1st Amendment in this case.
And by the way, what's the difference between this place using lame excuses to stifle free speech, in other words to engage in unconstitutional behavior, and some state using lame excuses to try to make access abortion harder, also unconstitutional behavior.
24
"... and some state using lame excuses to try to make access abortion harder, also unconstitutional behavior."
The US Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, so you have a false analogy.
The US Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, so you have a false analogy.
OWV: No. You are totally mistaken. Making access to abortion harder, through various devious means, is unconstitutional because Roe v. Wade is the law. The Constitution says nothing specifically about abortion, true, and Roe v. Wade may or may not be wrongly decided, but it is the law. So it has the same force as the 1st Amendment. The analogy is therefore extremely apt.
1
Berkeley has been suckered by Ms. Coulter. She'll get more attention out of this outcome that she would have from her speech. It and its students will be condemned in the bargain. Berkeley erred in not taking the steps necessary to allow her talk. True, there would have been protests and Berkeley students would have been criticized for it, but at least the institution would have maintained its hard earned reputation for a haven for free speech.
168
I agree. Her whole reason for existing is to stir up controversy; this manages to fan the flames on the right without her even having to show up. Until she mentions pedophilia in a positive light, she's a hero to conservatives. All of the other insane things that she's said still won't take her out of favor.
11
Again, the NYT ignores even liberals who are shocked by Berkeley cowtowing to violent protesters opposed to free speech, in favor or promoting comments as "NYT picks" by people equally deaf and in favor of silencing opinions other than their own.
When did the NYT lose its spine?
When did the NYT lose its spine?
9
Berkeley does not have a reputation as a haven for free speech: it is the poster child for PC speech, a cliched institution that elicits a chuckle.
4
Doesn't the right wing fascist element get enough voice on TV and radio? Why invite her to begin with and why feel embarrassed about canceling her. Go away Annie, far far away. Go on a date with Blowhard Bill or something. He's got time on his hands - among other things.
3
The take away from this is, using violence to foster fear to silence those views you disagree with works.
8
It is this behaviour like this and tyranical political correctness which gives liberalism a bad name. Shutting down a voice, no matter how abhorent it is, as opposed to counter-arguing it, is a sign of intellectual and moral weakness.
Shame on Berkley students, and shame on Berkley administration for cowtowing to this.
Shame on Berkley students, and shame on Berkley administration for cowtowing to this.
30
"Shutting down a voice, no matter how abhorent it is, as opposed to counter-arguing it, is a sign of intellectual and moral weakness."
Well put.
Well put.
1
Colleges should be a place where free speech is allowed and encouraged. How is it possible that only a certain point of view is allowed, and other points of view meet violence and mayhem? I would not send my students to a school where indoctrination is the goal, and not education. Critical thinkers can hear multiple points of view.
25
Agree.. that's why Bill Maher doesn't speak at college campuses any more.
6
Speech and ideas are not all created equal and sadly very little of Coulter's polemics has any redeeming value.
25
Then let her speak so that the listeners can find that out (if it is the case).
8
Is your speech more equal than others? Are YOUR opinions more important than hers?
8
And who gets to decide that? You? Antifa? The Left? The government?
2
As a liberal, I am embarrassed by Berkeley's decision. Let Ms Coulter give her utterly predictable speech. Her ideas just get MORE credibility on the right when she is rejected at Berkeley.
241
Me too. I may not agree with her, but she and the republican students on that campus have a right to be heard.
13
I disagree. The right doesn't honor its spokes-bots because they are rejected or spurned by the left. Inconvenient facts, political prudence, the good of the country, reactions from others--none of these factor in to blind alt-right loyalty toward one of their own.
Really? Does it work this way for me, too - if some students like me, Berkeley must provide me a free venue for my speech, or else my first amendment rights are being violated? Regardless of the specialized educational purpose of the institution, security concerns, or anything else, they're obliged to let me show up and deliver any rant I want, or my freedom of speech is being impaired?
I'm sure she wasn't planning to pay her own travel expenses or even speak for free, for that matter. Even in the unlikely event that those expenses were going to be paid privately, unless there's rent on the venue, Berkeley, and by extension taxpayers, still bear some expense.
And even if Berkeley was going to let the students rent the room, pay for security, pay for her tickets, hotel rooms and meals, and pay her speaking fee, with no direct expense to Berkeley, it STILL represents an opportunity cost to Berkeley - the venue could have been used in another way.
Are publicly funded universities with conservative slanting student bodies, of which there are many, obliged to provide a venue for hyper-controversial left wing speakers? Why not? Why is Berkeley somehow obliged to have Milo Yianopolous and Ann Coulter, but University of Oklahoma not equally obliged to provide a venue for aggressive, offensive left wing speakers.
I'm sure she wasn't planning to pay her own travel expenses or even speak for free, for that matter. Even in the unlikely event that those expenses were going to be paid privately, unless there's rent on the venue, Berkeley, and by extension taxpayers, still bear some expense.
And even if Berkeley was going to let the students rent the room, pay for security, pay for her tickets, hotel rooms and meals, and pay her speaking fee, with no direct expense to Berkeley, it STILL represents an opportunity cost to Berkeley - the venue could have been used in another way.
Are publicly funded universities with conservative slanting student bodies, of which there are many, obliged to provide a venue for hyper-controversial left wing speakers? Why not? Why is Berkeley somehow obliged to have Milo Yianopolous and Ann Coulter, but University of Oklahoma not equally obliged to provide a venue for aggressive, offensive left wing speakers.
It is indeed ironic to reflect on the fact that half a century ago Berkeley was the originator and center of the Free Speech Movement.
46
The FSM was about allowing student civil rights groups to have the right to distribute information on campus. At that time only Democrat and Republican clubs had that right. It wasn't about allowing every crackpot on campus to speak
1
"It wasn't about allowing every crackpot on campus to speak"
Uh huh. Who gets to decide who the crackpots are? I'll bet quite a few people believed SDS qualified.
Uh huh. Who gets to decide who the crackpots are? I'll bet quite a few people believed SDS qualified.
8
Actually, not only Republicans and Democrats; but Socialists, the Peace and Freedom Party, and others.
College administrators should allow Ms. Coulter to speak, but they should announce that no security will be provided and that those who attend do so at their own risk. If she speaks to an empty audience it will speak volumes about what her words are worth. They could also give her a one-hour time slot beginning at dawn. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to pick the time that's convenient for you. This would be a page out of the obstructionist abortion deniers, the pro-fetus group that makes it difficult to impossible for a woman to have reproductive freedom in states like Mississippi. In other words, hit conservatives over the head with their own weapons.
18
'If she speaks to an empty audience it will speak volumes about what her words are worth.'
No, it will speak volumes to the power of violence to limit discourse.
No, it will speak volumes to the power of violence to limit discourse.
6
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to pick the time that's convenient for you."
Yes it does. "Congress shall make no law ..." I guess you haven't read the relevant amendment.
What you've described is censorship of the highest order. Let's have those who we disagree with speak at 3 am. Orwellian.
Yes it does. "Congress shall make no law ..." I guess you haven't read the relevant amendment.
What you've described is censorship of the highest order. Let's have those who we disagree with speak at 3 am. Orwellian.
8
"College administrators should allow Ms. Coulter to speak, but they should announce that no security will be provided and that those who attend do so at their own risk."
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to pick the time that's convenient for you. "
I'm sure you would have said the same thing about a civil rights proponent speaking at a southern college in the 1960s, right?
No? Only when the words are different from ones you'd speak yourself?
"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to pick the time that's convenient for you. "
I'm sure you would have said the same thing about a civil rights proponent speaking at a southern college in the 1960s, right?
No? Only when the words are different from ones you'd speak yourself?
9
I don't see the problem. Ms. Coulter can simply go to the campus, stand on a park bench, and state her views. She doesn't need police. If her views are stated clearly enough, they will be received with feedback commensurate to their values. Standing on a tree stump worked for Lincoln and Douglas. I dare you.
19
Yes, because the brave little 'antifa' boys and girls that hide their faces would listen and be open to respectful debate! Or maybe they'll smash more store windows, burn some cars, assault some more innocent bystanders. That's always helpful.
12
This is a joke right?
6
So much for freedom of speech and diversity of ideas.
30
Coulter's freedom of speech is not impaired if Berkeley elects not to give her a podium for her nonsense. Diversity of ideas is warranted to the extent they are constructive and grounded in reality. Coulter says polarizing things not because she believes in what she says but because it makes her money. Berkeley should have never agreed to let her speak at a University event. There are plenty of thoughtful conservatives with which to have a hearty debate, Coulter was never on that list.
66
"Coulter's freedom of speech is not impaired if Berkeley elects not to give her a podium for her nonsense."
It is if Berkeley is willing to provide a forum for left oriented groups but not the right.
It is if Berkeley is willing to provide a forum for left oriented groups but not the right.
6
Coulter was invited by a Berkeley group. Any university that suppresses the free speech and right to assembly of students no longer deserves the name of university --- and should have every form of federal financial support removed. NO federal funds for scholarships, student aid, research grants. And the endowment should immediately lose its exemption from federal taxes and become liable for capital gains and income taxes.
6