Gilgul said:

ml1 look at the data itself. 

https://www.thefire.org/resour...


Pretty much every one is "from the left" and those few listed "from the right" are all schools with a religious connection.

Looking at the link -

It's a collection of anecdotes, but it's been put into a chart so that some people might refer to it as "data".  Also, it collects anecdotes of "disinvitation attempts", which include times when a speaker's appearance was protested by somebody, but went on anyway.

It doesn't seem to contribute any evidence for any particular point, when used that way, except:

- sometimes speakers are criticized from the left, and sometimes from the right

- just because somebody objects doesn't mean the speaker doesn't appear

Gilgul said:

The Senate is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. 

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to this thread. 

That's the best response to all the left inspired censorship you can come up with? 

Hypotheticals are a useful tool in a many discussions and certainly in discussing issues of Free Speech on University campuses.

I was not aiming for "the best response.

How ironic that I seem to have been attacked for exercising  my right to free expression. 

you're correct, it's just anecdotes.  I linked to it in response to some who wanted at least one anecdote of "the right" preventing a speaker from appearing.  It's sufficient for that.  And for showing that there are anecdotes of both "the left" and "the right" protesting speakers.

the entire discussion of "suppression of free speech" is a handful of anecdotes.  Anyone who actually collects data isn't seeing any such thing as a free speech crisis.

South_Mountaineer said:

Gilgul said:

ml1 look at the data itself. 

https://www.thefire.org/resour...


Pretty much every one is "from the left" and those few listed "from the right" are all schools with a religious connection.

Looking at the link -

It's a collection of anecdotes, but it's been put into a chart so that some people might refer to it as "data".  Also, it collects anecdotes of "disinvitation attempts", which include times when a speaker's appearance was protested by somebody, but went on anyway.

It doesn't seem to contribute any evidence for any particular point, when used that way, except:

- sometimes speakers are criticized from the left, and sometimes from the right

- just because somebody objects doesn't mean the speaker doesn't appear

I'll talk about it.

ml1 said:

I've written about this before, but the suppression of criticisms of the military and our country's militarism are far more dangerous than an Ann Coulter speech being postponed.  But no one even wants to discuss our country's worship of the military, the self-imposed conformity of how we talk about the military, and how that enables our war mongering leaders.

Try pointing out that our "troops" aren't "protecting our freedom" around the world.  In some places, that might get you a beatdown.

The U.S. has a "free speech" fetish. Many countries do quite well without such blanket speech freedoms that we allow here.

Sometimes a society needs to filter out certain kinds of speech. It has to be careful about how it does that, of course.

It gets back to the idea of "tolerance". Tolerance does not mean accepting every damn thing. For tolerance to truly exist, you can't tolerate intolerance.

I think a line should be drawn around the government limiting speech and other institutions doing the same. I have a big problem with government limiting Ann Coulter. She should be allowed to write her books and try to get speech gigs.  No question.  But she has no right to freely disseminate her views in any forum that she happens to pick. The forum itself has a duty to determine whether her speech is worthwhile. And if the people are so angry with her views that they protest her appearance, well, maybe that should be taken into account as to whether to allow her access to that forum.

This issue, by the way, strikes me as similar to the one being discussed in the New Orleans monument removal thread.

Do the people who support those monuments have a "right" to keep them displayed as they are? Is the government stifling "free speech" by removing them?

And, ultimately, is the city's action good or bad?

If someone wants to pay for something and display it on private property they absolutely should be able to. 

How interesting that you feign an attack when we merely had a civilized dialogue.

LOST said:

Gilgul said:

The Senate is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. 

Hypotheticals are irrelevant to this thread. 

That's the best response to all the left inspired censorship you can come up with? 

Hypotheticals are a useful tool in a many discussions and certainly in discussing issues of Free Speech on University campuses.

I was not aiming for "the best response.

How ironic that I seem to have been attacked for exercising  my right to free expression. 

OK we got it you want everyone to be polite and not offend anyone else in the name of tolerance (IMHO an excellent rule for a primary school but not so much for adults). 

DB, are you really proposing to limit free speech so as to not offend others by setting these limits on speech?

What would the standard be for such limits?

Who would make such decisions?

Frankly, I don't think such limits are workable (and are merely a slippery slope to complete censorship of anything that does not fit the mainstream orthodoxy).  I continue to support the holding in US v. Brandenburg regarding free speech, and imminent lawlessness, intent and likelihood.

drummerboy said:

The U.S. has a "free speech" fetish. Many countries do quite well without such blanket speech freedoms that we allow here.

Sometimes a society needs to filter out certain kinds of speech. It has to be careful about how it does that, of course.


It gets back to the idea of "tolerance". Tolerance does not mean accepting every damn thing. For tolerance to truly exist, you can't tolerate intolerance.

I think a line should be drawn around the government limiting speech and other institutions doing the same. I have a big problem with government limiting Ann Coulter. She should be allowed to write her books and try to get speech gigs.  No question.  But she has no right to freely disseminate her views in any forum that she happens to pick. The forum itself has a duty to determine whether her speech is worthwhile. And if the people are so angry with her views that they protest her appearance, well, maybe that should be taken into account as to whether to allow her access to that forum.

RealityForAll said:

And how is this relevant?

dave23 said:

Here's a right-wing rally that appears to have gone off without a hitch.

No disruptions by unruly leftists. No "liberals silencing conservative speakers." 

And, most of all, it's a funny photo.

poor Ann Coulter.  It's a shame that no one ever gets to hear what she has to say.

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

ml1 said:

poor Ann Coulter.  It's a shame that no one ever gets to hear what she has to say.

Are you making the argument that leftist censorship should not be of concern until ALL conservative political speech is disrupted/censored by Leftists?

dave23 said:

RealityForAll said:

And how is this relevant?

dave23 said:

Here's a right-wing rally that appears to have gone off without a hitch.

No disruptions by unruly leftists. No "liberals silencing conservative speakers." 

And, most of all, it's a funny photo.

@ml1, if you really desire to spread your  criticisms of the military and US militarism, I would be happy to come and act as an observer of you up on the soapbox addressing the masses on these issues.  Additionally, I am willing to intercede and put myself between you and any physical threat to you.  Further, I am willing to take the punch or kick directed at you arising from you exercising your free speech rights.  Let me know when and where and I will be happy to observe, and intercede, if necessary.

PS I am willing to be available to intercede because, in my estimation, the likelihood of physical violence is so remote.

ml1 said:

I've written about this before, but the suppression of criticisms of the military and our country's militarism are far more dangerous than an Ann Coulter speech being postponed.  But no one even wants to discuss our country's worship of the military, the self-imposed conformity of how we talk about the military, and how that enables our war mongering leaders.

Try pointing out that our "troops" aren't "protecting our freedom" around the world.  In some places, that might get you a beatdown.

RealityForAll said:

Are you making the argument that leftist censorship should not be of concern until ALL conservative political speech is disrupted/censored by Leftists?

Humorlessness is more dangerous to democracy than obnoxious protesters will ever be.

RealityForAll said:

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

Let's call you Cal. You become aware of threats of violence after a student group invites a provacateur to speak without giving a heads-up. Based on experience, you take the threats seriously. You discuss rescheduling to allow for more security, but there are reasons that the later date is not acceptable to the student group or the provacateur. You have principles. What's your next step?

no.  I'm suggesting that she has plenty of platforms, and she's not being silenced.  I'm more sympathetic to organizations that don't want to endorse someone's message if that person is able to get her message out in an essentially unfettered manner otherwise.  Free speech doesn't mean every organization has to present messages they don't agree with.

the notion of "free exchange of ideas" also doesn't hold much water with regard to someone like Coulter either.  We've all heard everything she's had to say.  And we'll hear a lot more from her even if colleges don't hire her to speak.

RealityForAll said:

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

ml1 said:

poor Ann Coulter.  It's a shame that no one ever gets to hear what she has to say.

OK.  We'll find a VFW hall in rural PA and see what happens.

RealityForAll said:

@ml1, if you really desire to spread your  criticisms of the military and US militarism, I would be happy to come and act as an observer of you up on the soapbox addressing the masses on these issues.  Additionally, I am willing to intercede and put myself between you and any physical threat to you.  Further, I am willing to take the punch or kick directed at you arising from you exercising your free speech rights.  Let me know when and where and I will be happy to observe, and intercede, if necessary.




PS I am willing to be available to intercede because, in my estimation, the likelihood of physical is so remote.

ml1 said:

I've written about this before, but the suppression of criticisms of the military and our country's militarism are far more dangerous than an Ann Coulter speech being postponed.  But no one even wants to discuss our country's worship of the military, the self-imposed conformity of how we talk about the military, and how that enables our war mongering leaders.

Try pointing out that our "troops" aren't "protecting our freedom" around the world.  In some places, that might get you a beatdown.

RealityForAll said:

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

ml1 said:

poor Ann Coulter.  It's a shame that no one ever gets to hear what she has to say.

ml1 didn't sway Ann Coulter was "not worthy".  His comment was a satirical take on the fact that she has LOTS of ways that her message gets out, all the time.  She hasn't been "silenced" just because one scheduled appearance didn't take place.  In fact, we've all heard more from her lately because of this, than we've heard in a while.

I know that deliberately misinterpreting someone, and then accusing them of holding a position they did not take, is a technique to "shout down" or discourage that person's views (that are contrary to yours).  The use of that technique here is ironic, given the theme of your thread.

poor, oppressed Ann Coulter.

I will agree with one aspect of this discussion, which is that the student protesters are shooting themselves in the foot.  It gives the conservatives another chance to do what they do so well, complain about being oppressed victims.

It's laughable that people with the biggest virtual megaphones, who wield virtually all the power and influence in this country love to portray themselves as whiny victims.  

South_Mountaineer said:

RealityForAll said:

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

ml1 said:

poor Ann Coulter.  It's a shame that no one ever gets to hear what she has to say.

ml1 didn't sway Ann Coulter was "not worthy".  His comment was a satirical take on the fact that she has LOTS of ways that her message gets out, all the time.  She hasn't been "silenced" just because one scheduled appearance didn't take place.  In fact, we've all heard more from her lately because of this, than we've heard in a while.

I know that deliberately misinterpreting someone, and then accusing them of holding a position they did not take, is a technique to "shout down" or discourage that person's views (that are contrary to yours).  The use of that technique here is ironic, given the theme of your thread.

DaveSchmidt said:

RealityForAll said:

What is the next fundamental right that you will write-off because the person utilizing the right is not worthy?

Let's call you Cal. You become aware of threats of violence after a student group invites a provacateur to speak without giving a heads-up. Based on experience, you take the threats seriously. You discuss rescheduling to allow for more security, but there are reasons that the later date is not acceptable to the student group or the provacateur. You have principles. What's your next step?

Everyone; left, right, center, students, administration, faculty pledges to attend the event to show that we cherish the right of free speech and will not be intimidated by threats. 

So in order to support free speech, I need to give my money to someone like Ann Coulter?

ml1 said:

OK.  We'll find a VFW hall in rural PA and see what happens.

I can uncover no evidence that any VFW halls in rural Pennsylvania have caused trouble for invited liberal speakers. Get yourself an invitation and you should be good to go.

ska said:

Everyone; left, right, center, students, administration, faculty pledges to attend the event to show that we cherish the right of free speech and will not be intimidated by threats. 

That's a good show of support, but doesn't the security threat remain a problem?

RFA may believe that he "belong[s] to neither team (or tribe)," but no person is an island, and we are all political animals. As you note, I am not clairvoyant and can only observe, and what I observe is that you are far, far more likely to get worked up over violations of principles if they reflect poorly on the "left" than otherwise.

Insisting that one is above and apart from the noisome associations of tribe and team does not allow one to focus more purely on principle. Rather, it blinds one to their inherent biases and blind spots, as one can't avoid what one refuses to watch out for.

As a good counter-example, I like Conor Friedersdorf, who I think generally does a good job of making the kinds of critiques RFA is aiming for, but in a way I think is much more aware of his own biases and limitations, and done in a good-faith effort to try to focus on principles rather than fall back on the lazier partisan assumptions we can all succumb to.

Also, I've implied, but don't think I've actually explicitly said, that I do agree with this thread title. Simply because at this moment in history the right is the more dangerous (pop quiz -- who has more power, a group of students protesting a conservative speaker, or a president who muses about "opening up the libel laws" to go after media outlets that aren't sufficiently fawning?), doesn't mean there are no problems on "our" side of the aisle. 

I'll note, though, that it's not Coulter's rights that are being denied here (as others have pointed out, she has no shortage of available outlets for her speech), but the students who invited her. It is precisely at universities that clashing points of view, including those that are distasteful or offensive, need to happen. That's, to a large degree, the point of a university -- to get people to engage with ideas.

Tell me, in all this thread, have we actually talked about anything the students who invited Coulter actually wished to say? No, it's just your standard, rather boring competition to show that it's the other side who's truly the worst, actual content largely irrelevant.

It would have been a great success if UC-Berkeley had been able to create a space where both the students who invited Coulter and those who opposed her were pushed to engage with the content of their viewpoints. 

ml1 said:

So in order to support free speech, I need to give my money to someone like Ann Coulter?

I assume her fee is fixed so you would not be giving her anything extra. But protecting free speech and not giving into threats is so important that yes it may entail enduring something you would normally find unendurable.

sorry for disparaging PA or the VFW.

maybe I'm just paranoid.  Maybe there's no place in this country where being perceived as disrespecting the troops would anger someone.

I'd rather someone suggest that people show up in force and be part of a crowd outside to make sure she got to the arena.  There's no reason anyone has to listen to her or support her in any other way.

ska said:

ml1 said:

So in order to support free speech, I need to give my money to someone like Ann Coulter?

I assume her fee is fixed so you would not be giving her anything extra. But protecting free speech and not giving into threats is so important that yes it may entail enduring something you would normally find unendurable.

ml1 said:

sorry for disparaging PA or the VFW.

maybe I'm just paranoid.  Maybe there's no place in this country where being perceived as disrespecting the troops would anger someone.

No worries. I was being facetious. (ETA: See Conservative Campuses,  Liberal Invitees.)

ml1 said:

I'd rather someone suggest that people show up in force and be part of a crowd outside to make sure she got to the arena.  There's no reason anyone has to listen to her or support her in any other way.

ska said:

ml1 said:

So in order to support free speech, I need to give my money to someone like Ann Coulter?

I assume her fee is fixed so you would not be giving her anything extra. But protecting free speech and not giving into threats is so important that yes it may entail enduring something you would normally find unendurable.

That is fine. If those who do not want to listen to her came to the arena and created a cordon to protect her and the crowd inside that would achieve the same goal.