ACA Open Enrollment Ends Dec. 15. Review Your Options Before Being Locked in for 2018. Read More

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

365 Views
Message 91 of 117

rk9152 wrote:

CPAC has the right to invite or not anyone they want. Students have the right to attend or not attend or even protest. But they do hot have the right to squash free speech via violent mob action.

 

And that, my friend, is not Fake news, that is the truth.


Do not the Conservatives at CPAC have the right to attend or not attend Milo's speech?  Do not the students pay for the University?

 

How did Consevatives get the right to keep Milo out but students have no right to keep Coulter out? 

 

Finally, how does this interfere with Coulter's right to speak freely?  Does she have the right to set up a soapbox in my living room without my permission? In my church?  In my place of business?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

367 Views
Message 92 of 117

 Olderscout-- spot on with regard to Ann Coulter.   Horrible person,  dangerous role  model, and, IMHO, an opportunist  Who uses each and every political issue to promote her own self interests. 

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

370 Views
Message 93 of 117

Richva-thank you for another intelligent and informed post!

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

371 Views
Message 94 of 117

rk9152 wrote:

pc6063 wrote:

Coulter is one of those in "the basket of deplorables Mrs. Clinton spoke about.

 

 I assume I am too. So, shall I anticipate a mob of masked anarchists throwing bricks if I ever speak? And, would that meet with your approval?


No need for bricks. That speech would be demolished by logic and reason there, just as it is here (snicker snicker). But this isn't about you, it's about Coulter.

 

Coulter has used FAUX and Breightfart as a megaphone to spread her litany of hate and slander and has become a bit of an icon for those who cannot think through a problem. The students rightly understand letting her speak on their forum would be tantamount to agreeing with her, since she does not offer reasoned debate, only vitriol and bile.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

360 Views
Message 95 of 117

Richva wrote:


The point would be that, like CPAC and Milo, an organization and it's members have the right to decide who will and will not address them. The like the conservatives at CPAC, the students had the right to protest if they did not want to lend the legitimacy of their school to any speaker.  It could be Mr. Rogers and the same principle holds. 

 

The speaker is completely within his or her rights to put a box in the center of a park across the street from the school(s) and exercise their right of free speech. 

 

In short, the students were not limiting free speech any more than CPAC was.  Fake news. 


CPAC has the right to invite or not anyone they want. Students have the right to attend or not attend or even protest. But they do hot have the right to squash free speech via violent mob action.

 

And that, my friend, is not Fake news, that is the truth.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

359 Views
Message 96 of 117

Richva wrote:

So, if CPAC can send Milo away, why can't the Berkeley students send Coulter away? 

 

I just do not understand the distinction. 


Two thoughts:

1) CPAC is a politically oriented organization, Berkeley (theoretically) is not;

2) There is a distinction between "uninviting" and having mobs of masked brick throwers attacking police cars to "make a political statement" opposed to free speech.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

347 Views
Message 97 of 117

pc6063 wrote:

Coulter is one of those in "the basket of deplorables Mrs. Clinton spoke about.

 

 I assume I am too. So, shall I anticipate a mob of masked anarchists throwing bricks if I ever speak? And, would that meet with your approval?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

348 Views
Message 98 of 117

Olderscout66 wrote:

Berkely has some of the highest admission standards in the country so they have one of the most intelligent student bodies in the country. Knowing this, Coulter also knew they would not be interested in having their campus participate in a Fox-fest of lies and slanders, so she never intended to speak, only to try and get people to think she's just as good as the nazi's who marched in Skokey (she's not), I'd bet her supporters had a large fee aranged for her to apply to speak at Berkely, with bonuse money if they abandoned decency and let her in.


Got it - free speech only applies to those with whom you agree.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

347 Views
Message 99 of 117

Snoopy48 wrote:

From the cited article it seems that UC-Berkely refused to restrict the free speech of those that Coulter demanded they do. So rather than ATTACKING free speech UC-B was SUPPORTING free speech.


Now we shall see how the radical mobs react and how the University deals with such reactions.

Report Inappropriate Content
Treasured Social Butterfly

Re: UC-Berkely Attacks FREE SPEECH (again)

348 Views
Message 100 of 117

rk9152 wrote:

pc6063 wrote:

Mlseker-yes, you are right,  which tells you how open-minded the powers that be in Berkeley are.  The initial poster also mentions Ann Coulter who has to be at the very bottom of the human swine pool,  and ,yet, Berkeley was gracious enough to book her there too.   Seems to me that Berkley is doing a fine job at accommodating alt. right scum.


A prime example of the left's concept of free speech - "except people I call the bottom of the human swine pool".

 

Awhile back, Rutgers "uninvited" Condoleezza Rice. Is she "the bottom of the human swine pool" to you?


The point would be that, like CPAC and Milo, an organization and it's members have the right to decide who will and will not address them. The like the conservatives at CPAC, the students had the right to protest if they did not want to lend the legitimacy of their school to any speaker.  It could be Mr. Rogers and the same principle holds. 

 

The speaker is completely within his or her rights to put a box in the center of a park across the street from the school(s) and exercise their right of free speech. 

 

In short, the students were not limiting free speech any more than CPAC was.  Fake news. 

Report Inappropriate Content