I feel like there's going to be some follow up here, so can someone clarify for me if in fact students at US universities can invited whoever to say whatever and the university is legally obligated to provide the time and money to make that happen?

Seems like a bad system to me.

The trick to being a free speech absolutist is to not notice the irony when you later call anonymous jokes libel.

History is always an interesting subject and just as important, how it is written and presented and perceived by later generations:

Free_Speech_Movement at Berkley

free-speech-movement-timeline/

Unprovoked personal attack #2 in this thread. "this *******" is a personal attack.

Why no action taken by moderators?

What did the mod say when you reported the post/attempted to remove someone else's free speech?

The true irony here being that Maher is doing exactly what he's accusing others of: buying into the right-wing fantasy about safe spaces on college campuses and not taking the time to learn anything about reality.

I literally just typed multiple asterisks to troll you.

One of your own Bill Maher just crushed you all and he's absolutely correct. I find it funny that people from from lesser civilized parts of the world are trying to argue first amenment rights.

You support the rights of the protestors/rioters but not the civilized folks who are trying to educate you all. I have a feeling if you let these people speak and listened to the message there would be far less of you unenployed and angry at the world.

I feel like I'm shopping at Walmart when I read this forum.

Lapidator is crushing it.

Did you watch the video? You're the ones who are out of touch with reality. Thank god you people only exist in forums and protests/riots.

.

This moderator was saying a long and loving goodbye to two long cherished bottles of wine (among other things)

I have now acted - there's no free speech here.

You called for ending right to assemble and protest the government peacefully.

Id guess Lapidator would disagree but i could be wrong since many on the right seem blind to oppression of freedom of speech unless its on liberal college or sub forum on the internet.

You have uneducated people and criminals protesting. There is nothing peacefull about it. These dummies destroy their own neighborhoods and schools.

I'm thinking it's time to bring in Bikers for Trump. Shut these weasels down.

You rarely see conservatives protesting because they have jobs.

You said it about the womens march, the largest most peaceful march in the history of the US.

And if they have jobs why are they bitching and making protesting jestration about jobs. That makes no sense.

The short answer is...

1) violent protest is never permissible. (Violent resistance is however ok, just make sure you are willing to accept the consequences of losing. Protest and resistance are not the same thing.)

2) free speech rights do not limit other free speech rights. You cannot scream at the top of your lungs to prevent me from speaking. If folks want to assemble peacefully to hear what I have to say, then you have no right to interfere. It is not "protected free political speech" for you to prevent others from speaking or listening.

Ugg apologetics for one of your own was not my guess. Noted.

Anyway even if you disagree with and condemn violent protest, you still dont call for an end to the right to protest all together. Which is what mongidig did.

Where did mongidig do that?

I don't see it iit.

A thread a while back when the womens march made trump look bad.

Oh is that the one were they were protesting their rights being taken away even though that's not true?

Oh is that the peaceful protest were they threatened to blow up the White House?

Again that does not matter. You called for the ending of the right to assemble. Should be enough said. Free speech, right...

A+

As far as I know, this is correct. Student groups are allowed to invite whomever they please and the University is obligated to provide a space. This makes sense in that you want free inquiry and don't want the government deciding what is and isn't an appropriate idea.

However, that doesn't mean that the university couldn't argue that certain speakers would create mayhem that could be too dangerous or too onerous. If Berkeley Republicans start inviting every commenter from St0rmfr0nt to speak, then the subsequent protests and disruptions would cost millions and millions of dollars. Berkeley could then create a rule respecting speakers that sought to relieve the burden without singling out any particular ideology. This would be challenged in the courts, of course.

In this case it appears Berkeley cancelled the appearance because of safety concerns, claiming that they could not find a venue that would provide appropriate security on the date in question and that they had specific evidence of threats. If those are both true, then that seems perfectly reasonable. There is no first amendment right to conduct a speech on a specific date or at a specific time. The university is now willing to allow Coulter to speak on a different date, so there doesn't seem to be a first amendment issue anymore.

Are they lying about the threats, the venues and etc.? Maybe, but I'm not aware of any evidence. If they did lie, then they would almost certainly lose a lawsuit.

Ann Coulter is a sh*tty person, anyone who thinks Ann Coulter has any actually good opinions is a sh*tty person. People who claim they're all about Free Speech while absolutely cheering Ann Coulter on actually like Ann Coulter's sh*tty opinions but wants to hide behind the First Amendment which makes then sh*tty people.

Wait i might of overlooked something. That could matter if you want to trade one treasonish celebrity words for another and have them both go to jail.