We All Need to Defend Speech We Hate: Liberals Silencing Conservative Speakers Is a Pyhrric Victory for the Left

Gilgul said:

More evidence of the creeping (and yes Fascist) intolerance (and more indication that it is mostly coming from the left - you do not see this type of threats from the right):
 

Do you see conservative campuses inviting liberal firebrands to speak?

Why do liberals/progressive let people like this bother them so much?

Just let the woman deliver her drivel and don't get worked up about it.  Don't show up and don't let her bother you.  Let her deliver her schtick to her followers and anyone else who wants to listen to it, or to those who read her books (which is just the same book over and over and over again).

Progressives give the woman, who is not particularly bright or incisive, too much attention.  Her reason for being is to get under progressives' skin and they let it happen.  This whole episode played right into her hands.  They have made her bigger and more influential than she should be by the over the top reaction to her.

I say welcome her to speak at any and all college campuses and ignore her.  

More threats in order to shut down political speech.  Is anyone else repulsed by such threats to political speech?  

If the police will not protect those being threatened, can we then, conclude that the state's police power is ineffective in protecting free speech.  

What is the appropriate response for those threatened (with such threats made in order eliminate/diminish their political speech) when the state's police power is ineffective in protecting their right to free speach?

Gilgul said:

More evidence of the creeping (and yes Fascist) intolerance (and more indication that it is mostly coming from the left - you do not see this type of threats from the right):

https://www.washingtonpost.com...


For 10 years, the 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association has kicked off the city of Portland’s annual Rose Festival with a family-friendly parade meant to attract crowds to its diverse neighborhood.

Set to march in the parade’s 67th spot this year was the Multnomah County Republican Party, a fact that so outraged two self-described antifascist groups in the deep blue Oregon city that they pledged to protest and disrupt the April 29 event.

Then came an anonymous and ominous email, according to parade organizers, that instructed them to cancel the GOP group’s registration — or else.

“You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the anonymous email said, referring to the violent riots that hit Portland after the 2016 presidential election, reported the Oregonian. “This is nonnegotiable.”

The email said that 200 people would “rush into the parade” and “drag and push” those marching with the Republican Party....

 

DaveSchmidt said:

Gilgul said:

More evidence of the creeping (and yes Fascist) intolerance (and more indication that it is mostly coming from the left - you do not see this type of threats from the right):
 

Do you see conservative campuses inviting liberal firebrands to speak?

So you are saying that a University of California campus is "liberal" and that an official bias is OK. I would think a publicly funded university should be open to all views and not officially adopt any one, even if a majority of the people working and attending are liberal. 

Perhaps we can invite Coulter to SOPAC to demonstrate our support for free speech.

bettyd said:

Why do liberals/progressive let people like this bother them so much?

Just let the woman deliver her drivel and don't get worked up about it.  Don't show up and don't let her bother you.  Let her deliver her schtick to her followers and anyone else who wants to listen to it, or to those who read her books (which is just the same book over and over and over again).

Progressives give the woman, who is not particularly bright or incisive, too much attention.  Her reason for being is to get under progressives' skin and they let it happen.  This whole episode played right into her hands.  They have made her bigger and more influential than she should be by the over the top reaction to her.

I say welcome her to speak at any and all college campuses and ignore her.  

RealityForAll said:

More threats in order to shut down political speech.  Is anyone else repulsed by such threats to political speech?  

If you don't know the answer, you haven't been reading or listening.

OP posts in defense of free speech. When liberals agree with him, he remains dissatisfied. Is this the attitude of someone truly concerned about the principle of free speech, or more concerned with scoring points against the opposing political team?

Gilgul said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Gilgul said:

More evidence of the creeping (and yes Fascist) intolerance (and more indication that it is mostly coming from the left - you do not see this type of threats from the right):

Do you see conservative campuses inviting liberal firebrands to speak?

So you are saying that a University of California campus is "liberal" and that an official bias is OK. I would think a publicly funded university should be open to all views and not officially adopt any one, even if a majority of the people working and attending are liberal. 

Not in the slightest did I say that. The idea is that maybe you're seeing this come up with conservative speakers on traditionally liberal campuses because they're the campuses where contrary political speech is being invited.

PVW, you are apparently alleging to be clairvoyant with respect to my intentions.  Despite your alleged clairvoyance, I believe that you misunderstand me.

 The only points I am scoring are for the principle of free speech.  I am different from you in that I belong to neither team (or tribe).  I make my decisions based on principles that I hold dear.

PVW said:

OP posts in defense of free speech. When liberals agree with him, he remains dissatisfied. Is this the attitude of someone truly concerned about the principle of free speech, or more concerned with scoring points against the opposing political team?

RealityForAll said:

The only points I am scoring are for the principle of free speech. 

By my count, then, you win!

everyone has agreed with the OP.  Violent demonstrations over a speech are to be condemned.  But some of us however aren't in a tizzy over a crisis that isn't happening.

No one's free speech is being shut down.  Last I looked, all of the people mentioned as being "censored" have very lucrative careers writing books, blogs, and making frequent TV appearances.  And the students at these campuses aren't shutting their eyes and ears to the likes of Milo and Coulter.  They have  read and listened to them.  That's how they know about the nonsense they're spreading.  They just aren't interested in having their schools endorse intellectually shallow provocateurs.

I don't agree with that approach because it backfires.  Better to let Coulter come and speak to a half empty auditorium of college Republicans.

But these are not people who are afraid of hearing ideas they don't like.  They've heard the ideas, and they're rejecting them on the merits.

PVW said:

OP posts in defense of free speech. When liberals agree with him, he remains dissatisfied. Is this the attitude of someone truly concerned about the principle of free speech, or more concerned with scoring points against the opposing political team?

RealityForAll said:

If, not for loathsome Ms. Coulter, then for whom is the right of free speech written?

GL2 said:

I'm sure Ms. Coulter is as gratified by the reaction to her speaking engagement as she would be by appearing. There may well be another hate-filled book in this episode. 

I'm wondering if her ranting against immigrants and other target groups doesn't add a further dimension to this supposed free speech issue. Does her speech threaten some students?

ML1: See there you go. You say everyone "agrees" with the OP but then you spend the rest of your post making excuses for those shutting down free speech. Even if those people have all the information they need to oppose the person speaking how about all the other people (even if a small number) who wanted to hear the person's views from the horses mouth? Their rights are being shut down by threats of violence. 

So no you can not say people agree because you clearly do not agree. 

GL2 said:

RealityForAll said:

If, not for loathsome Ms. Coulter, then for whom is the right of free speech written?

GL2 said:

I'm sure Ms. Coulter is as gratified by the reaction to her speaking engagement as she would be by appearing. There may well be another hate-filled book in this episode. 

I'm wondering if her ranting against immigrants and other target groups doesn't add a further dimension to this supposed free speech issue. Does her speech threaten some students?

No. She has no police powers. There is nothing threatening about expressing a VIEW about the status of non citizens and what policies should be pursued. If that is not protected then all policy discussion is cut off.

I did agree.  Twice in fact in just that last post.  Or once that I agree with the OP, and once that I disagree with the actions of the people in Berkely, to be specific.

I just don't agree that it's a crisis.  Because it isn't.  

unfortunately there are a lot of conservative snowflakes out there whining about a few isolated instances of a speech being cancelled.  Meanwhile, Ann Coulter is like electronic wallpaper.  She's everywhere, and no one is muffling her.

Gilgul said:

ML1: See there you go. You say everyone "agrees" with the OP but then you spend the rest of your post making excuses for those shutting down free speech. Even if those people have all the information they need to oppose the person speaking how about all the other people (even if a small number) who wanted to hear the person's views from the horses mouth? Their rights are being shut down by threats of violence. 

So no you can not say people agree because you clearly do not agree. 

Gilgul said:

No. She has no police powers. There is nothing threatening about expressing a VIEW about the status of non citizens and what policies should be pursued. If that is not protected then all policy discussion is cut off.

She's free to speak her mind but to pretend that her views--and those of other in the conservative media--haven't been adopted by the Republican party is delusional. The Republican candidate ran on a campaign of visceral hatred and fear of Other which was largely an echo of popular conservative media. And he won.

No one is claiming otherwise. But that is irrelevant to the fact that she should be able to express her views unmolested. 

It is not the left or liberals who are shutting down free speech at Berkeley. It is the minority neo-nazi alt right cohorts and the antifa. They both come to demonstrations to pick fights.

Gilgul said:

No one is claiming otherwise. But that is irrelevant to the fact that she should be able to express her views unmolested. 

Yet protesters should be "quiet," according to you.

Nobody should shut anyone else down. There is plenty of space for everyone to express their views without interfering with others doing so.

wedjet said:

It is not the left or liberals who are shutting down free speech at Berkeley. It is the minority neo-nazi alt right cohorts and the antifa. They both come to demonstrations to pick fights.

What speaker has any alt-right group stopped from speaking at Berkeley? I am not aware of any.

Gilgul said:

Nobody should shut anyone else down. There is plenty of space for everyone to express their views without interfering with others doing so.

Agreed. That's the opposite of quiet.

I meant quiet in the presence of others speaking while they are speaking. 

Ah.

ml1 said:

I did agree.  Twice in fact in just that last post.  Or once that I agree with the OP, and once that I disagree with the actions of the people in Berkely, to be specific.

I just don't agree that it's a crisis.  Because it isn't.  

unfortunately there are a lot of conservative snowflakes out there whining about a few isolated instances of a speech being cancelled.  Meanwhile, Ann Coulter is like electronic wallpaper.  She's everywhere, and no one is muffling her.

Gilgul said:

ML1: See there you go. You say everyone "agrees" with the OP but then you spend the rest of your post making excuses for those shutting down free speech. Even if those people have all the information they need to oppose the person speaking how about all the other people (even if a small number) who wanted to hear the person's views from the horses mouth? Their rights are being shut down by threats of violence. 

So no you can not say people agree because you clearly do not agree. 

I also agree it is not a crisis but one has to recognize that there are quite a few of liberal fascists wanting to shut down free speech

This is such a ridiculous topic. As has been pointed out, people like Coulter and Murray have plenty of outlets for their speech. A cancelled campus appearance here or there makes no difference.

Colleges always have to make decisions about what speakers may or not be appropriate. The issue is simply where lines are drawn. There is a world where Coulter and Murray cross that line and are simply not appropriate speakers, and certainly shouldn't be given money by a college to speak. Coulter has no "ideas" - she's a rabble-rouser, pure and simple. Murray has been riding high based on having written a most despicable book years ago. He should have been shunted aside from any self-respecting academic institution or think-tank many years ago. Instead, he has prospered.

Yes, there should be no violent protests. But if a protest happens to prevent trash like Coulter or Murray from spreading crap while getting paid for it, I'm all for it.

No one has a right to a campus speaking engagement. No one has a right to get paid for speaking. If someone's livelihood, like Coulter's, depends on demonization and divisiveness, let her make her money some other way.

I've never been invited to speak at Berkeley. Are my First Amendment Rights being violated by the government?

The threats of violence that caused the cancellation are the definition of terrorism.

No longer being an invited speaker is not the definition of a First Amendment violation.

You think that a cancelled campus appearance, of a person who is on TV all the time and has written many books, is shutting down free speech?

No, it's denying her a paycheck.

lord_pabulum said:

I also agree it is not a crisis but one has to recognize that there are quite a few of liberal fascists wanting to shut down free speech

if they're fascists, they're not liberals.  They're just fascists.

lord_pabulum said:

ml1 said:

I did agree.  Twice in fact in just that last post.  Or once that I agree with the OP, and once that I disagree with the actions of the people in Berkely, to be specific.

I just don't agree that it's a crisis.  Because it isn't.  

unfortunately there are a lot of conservative snowflakes out there whining about a few isolated instances of a speech being cancelled.  Meanwhile, Ann Coulter is like electronic wallpaper.  She's everywhere, and no one is muffling her.

Gilgul said:

ML1: See there you go. You say everyone "agrees" with the OP but then you spend the rest of your post making excuses for those shutting down free speech. Even if those people have all the information they need to oppose the person speaking how about all the other people (even if a small number) who wanted to hear the person's views from the horses mouth? Their rights are being shut down by threats of violence. 

So no you can not say people agree because you clearly do not agree. 

I also agree it is not a crisis but one has to recognize that there are quite a few of liberal fascists wanting to shut down free speech