A couple more thoughts. I am very glad to hear you say the bolded. I didn't expect that from you, nor from many on the left.

You seem focused on this park versus having a microphone in a conference room distinction. Seems like a false distinction to me. I can picture a case where this weekend the leftists get to use the park, with permit, etc. to have a leftist speak on a microphone, and no-one else with countering opinions get's to interrupt or even use the microphone afterward. Then next weekend, the rightist gets to speak with the same constraints. This is free speech. But if you prohibit one of them, based on the content of their speech, that is immoral.

She has conservative views on race, culture and religion. I am fine with being more specific than just saying she is conservative. I was not trying to hide that this is about her views on race (I would say it's more that than other cultural issues or religion).

So, what are you saying? If you were just pointing out that this is about her views on race, we agree. But are you saying more? For example, do you agree that it is immoral to use violence to stop her from speaking, based on the content of her speech?

Of course. Probably every poster here agrees with that.

You have a very extreme view of the left, like every Hillary voter is out smashing windows and beating up Trump supporters. That happens, but every single one of those stories is reported in right wing media. Since you haven't seens 66 million such stories, you can safely conclude that most aren't like that.

Oddly you also seem to have an extreme view of the right, in the way you're conflating the word conservatism with bigotry.

Interesting. If true, then I may have misjudged many on the left.

So, just to be crystal clear, you think using violence to stop Ann Coulter from expressing her views in a public forum is immoral? I'm still not sure what others on the left believe.

Canada has to be the most insignificant Country in the world. Are Canadians a protected group Chez? Am I allowed to make fun of them?

Ann Coulter is hot and should be allowed to speak. If you don't believe me ask Bernie.

This is how the Nazis got started folks!

Wow dat hand wringing. Really impressive.

No, let's take it the next step. You agree that it's morally wrong to stop her from speaking with violence. Now how is that morally different from the university stopping her based on the violence of the ******* violent protestors?

Did you see my response to five? The university might as well be a public park.

57 states isn't a "gaffe." And if Trump said that we'd have 10000 posts itf on it.

Hard to believe, tho. Someone tell me the footage is doctored.

Kellyanne's hotter imo.

It is odd seeing some on the right (not trump he wants to loosen libel laws, np for the right there) come to the defense of free speech given the history of the rights oppression (sometimes violent) of it my lifetime.

Of course it was.

Of course she has free speech rights, but what she doesn't have is the right to restrict other's rights. That's how this works, for better or worse. If personA wants to stand on a stage in a theater and monopolize the microphone, then personB has the right to stand outside the theater with a bullhorn and scream bloody murder to voice my dissent.

But that's putting the cart before the horse. There's this fantasyland meme going around that people like Coulter don't have a platform. She's written, like, a ****load of books, and people don't want them burned and her arrested for thoughtcrimes. Voicing dissent through protest isn't really even in the realm of a 'free speech' issue.

It's like, of course Coulter has free speech, people have heard the speech, and that's why they're protesting! They're not stopping her free speech, they're saying, yeah, we disagree with what she's saying because she already said it! The whole meme is based on mixing up the causality.


It's the same thing. If a bunch of right-leaning people protested, we'd mark it down as counterpoint, those protesters don't agree with the speaker.

That sounds like a knitting circle.

But it's not a false distinction it's just a tangential issue. How are you defining 'prohibit'?

You have no idea what I'm talking about.

The violence is between protestors. The gentleman's agreement is Coulter or Milo or Whomever The F--k Deplorable Du Jour gets the microphone, the protestors get the bullhorns. Both sides get their free speech rights. The problem is a third group, the pro-deplorable counterprotestors, come in and say one side shouldn't shouldn't have their rights, in a manner of speaking. Violence ensues.

You're basically creating a legion of strawmen up in here. The cancelling of the speech is because Coulter is so toxic she wilts every flower within a mile radius of her person and brings doom and destruction. The university doesn't want to deal with the symptoms of this toxicity. That's totally different than somebody punching Coulter in the face as she opens her mouth.

But, like, the cart is miles ahead of the horse at this point, as this is example #4237 of, "Yeah, uh, it appears we don't actually know what 'free speech' even means."

The saying goes 'free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech' but that's always struck me as too nefarious. Better IMO is 'free speech doesn't mean criticism-free speech'.

This really just seems like a bunch of Deplorable Fanbois and Fangurls want a safe space for their Deplorable Heroes to not face the negative criticism of Real Life. That's both hilarious and disappointing.

No one is saying that speakers shouldn't be criticized. No one has come close to saying that. Stifling someone elses free speech isnt exercising your own right to free speech.

Set up a counter speech around the same time , protest peacefully outside it or even better ask them some difficult questions during the q and a , shouldn't be so hard given how ****e some of her views are.

Dont violently attack people attending the speech or stop them from speaking in the first place. It makes you look childish and your arguments look weak.

This issue is bigger than Coulter and Berkely though and There is a general trend on the authoritarian left right now to try and stifle free speech and it needs to end. Im glad people like Sanders are speaking up and are on the right side of this issue , maybe it will drill some sense into some people and make them realize that just because you are for free speech does not make you a Nazi , white supremacist or a bigot

I'll retract my rant then and offer the following suggestion to US students:

At the start of each term, clog up the system by booking every room and area of the campus up for a left wing speech by a nobody.

Pretty sure the left has the old saying, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" a little backwards on this argument.

lmao

At some point we realised it wasn't true. That's about the time the PC movement got going.

It doesn't hurt like sticks and stones but language is not a passive thing. It's how we spread and reinforce cognitive biases, prejudice etc. along with increasing peoples propensity to act upon them.

I could be wrong, but I understood Gustafson's post to mean that words hurt more then sticks and stones...

Ok, but wasn't it the conservative right wing students that invited her to speak? The people that would invite her more than likely share some, if not most of the same thoughts with her on the topics at hand. If there is a disagreement on something, that is the place to bring it up and make her answer the tough questions.
I don't see how the people causing her not to speak feel like they won. Because the college doesn't feel she has a safe venue to do so? That will really change the minds of the republican kids that invited her to speak in the first place.
They need to just let her speak, just as the right needs to allow people to speak they don't agree with. There needs to be civil debates about subjects, not just shouting down the opposition. That will leave everyone in the same boat we are now, if not farther apart.
The kids participating in the violent protests are the ones that need to be removed, not the speaker that is spitting words out of their mouth.

Actually the complete opposite. Well to the left, words hurt more but, what the speaker is speaking is not hurting anyone, it's a difference of opinion. What the violent protesters are doing is a lot more hurtful and fascist.

EDIT: reading what you wrote, I think you understood it as I wrote it.