Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
Why does it always start with ridiculous notions like this? Berkley isn't under any obligation to host an Ann Coulter speech any more than it's obligated to host a talk from me (that's an open offer if anyone there is reading, I'll talk about anything in exchange for beer and a room). It's not a free speech issue. It's an Ann Coulter is a ****ing waste of DNA and some people might get uppity about it issue.
Interesting argument. I guess we will have to pull out the Constitutional Law books, but it seems clear to me that Ann's speech is being suppressed by the (public(ly funded)) university because of the content of her speech. (It is known that she will say conservative things.) Can the violent protesters be used by the government (here, the university) as an excuse to suppress speech?
Consider for a second if this was a left leaning speaker and it was right leaning violent protestors. What would your stance be then?
This could be looked at as violating the free speech rights of those who invited Coulter. Don't they have a right to their speech (from Coulter) in the public place? Like, if it was a recording of Coulter being played by the students, then that is clearly the speech they are playing. They would have a right to "say" those things by playing the recording. Surely, they don't lose rights because she is speaking live?