Ann Coulter scared out of Canadian Capital UniversityFollow

That's because she's anti-organized labor.

Oh wah, Ann Coulter. She has the right to vent her spleen, and so do they.

Since slightly left of center speakers have been shouted down, sure.

Yes. We're not terribly fond of extremists up here.

Generally I am in agreement. But who decides that it's Coulter's turn to speak at the University at that time, rather than the students, the dean, or a wandering madman? Oh, wait, that last one IS Coulter. But I digress. It's not as if Coulter has no way to communicate her views in general - what's that's been taken from her is her privileged position to be heard over a thousand voices in this one place. Considering that the only voices she is talking over are those that have 'agreed' to come and listen to her (and part of that agreement is silencing) their own voices for the duration, of course) this wouldn't ordinarily be enough, but I think it's a permissible way to protest the low quality (from the students' point of view) speakers the University is bringing in, if it's a serious problem for them (personally, I think the things Coulter says are insane - if that was the consistent standard of quality I would certainly complain, probably by mildly harassing whoever was in charge of it), given the precise nature of the relationship between student and University. It shows disrespect for protocol, of course, but not everything deserves respecting at all times.

I don't endorse this but I'm not going to condemn it either.

She was invited to speak by the university. She did not approach them. They approached her. Presumably, knowing full well who she was and what ideas she expresses.

So, did you stop reading there, or...?

To clarify, yes, that was the point which I was building on.

A Muslim student made a joke about how he'd have to take a flying carpet instead of a plane, but that he didn't have one, and she joked back that he could ride a camel.



I'm 99.99999% sure that if a socialist speaker was treated that way, you'd have posted about it. Have you posted such a thing? Read about it on any of the numerous far left blogs you read? Anything?



Don't be coy Joph. We all know that the ratio of conservative to liberal speakers at universities is something like 1 to 100. And since when is "not insulting anyone" a pre-requisite of free speech?


My point is the inconsistency with which speech is determined to be "free". I thought you'd figured that out by now...

But there is no "inconsistency" except in your imaginary scenarios. Find me examples of these people cheering the Christian-hating socialist extremist speakers and we might have something to start with. You saying you're "99.99999999%" sure of something doesn't amount to a wet shit.

Strawman.

The inconsistency is the students themselves justifying an act of free speech (a protest) in the cause of preventing free speech.

I've only explained this to you about three times already Joph. The issue with regard to treatment of some hypothetical socialist speaker is a completely different inconsistency, but is not necessary to the point I'm making.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say Ann Coulter has no goddamn idea what constitutes hate speech.

Well, the cops apparently thought she was, but whatever...



No. I'm not. She was invited Joph. It's not just her speech that is at issue. It's also the speech of the university, whatever faculty invited her, and the students who wished to hear what she had to say. They purchased the platform. They invited the speaker. It was their "right" to do that which was infringed. She's just a piece of the puzzle here.

You also don't have the right to take away someone else's speech, do you? Yet that's exactly what happened here, under the guise of free speech. Hence, the irony...



Er? It's the radio stations dime to choose what to play. It's the people who paid to buy those CD's who choose to smash them. It's the people's free choices as to whether they buy their CD's in the future. I'm not sure how you can equate this Joph.

A better analogy would be if someone ran into my record store and smashed up my copies of the Dixie Chicks because they didn't like what they said. Or if they hung around the store protesting the fact that I was selling the Dixie Chick's CD's and threatening and chasing off any customers who might wish to buy them.

There's a point at which a free expression of speech crosses the line into infringement of others rights. The point at which you are obstructing someone else's actions should clearly be past that point, right? And that's what these students did. They didn't just assemble nearby and wave signs Joph. They charged into the entrance of the hall, physically blocked access and otherwise disrupted the event. They were not just protesting.




I said that when that happens, you have a problem with equality in your social system. I didn't say that the *are* that way all the time. Don't twist my words please.

I then went on to express an opinion that the label of "hate speech" is more or less invented as a means of enabling people to justify exactly the sort of actions taken on this campus. By separating speech into "free speech" and "hate speech", we create a mechanism by which some speech can be infringed based not on some kind of immediate harm (inciting to harmful action or causing such), but rather on some other much more vaguely defined criteria.


And that's what happened in this case. The students felt justified to act as they did because they weren't infringing legitimate speech, but rather "hate speech". I'm simply suggesting that once you create that mechanism then the mere act of labeling speech that way can prompt such actions (as happened in this case). What constitutes "hate speech"? We already have laws against speech which is specifically designed to bring about harm (shouting fire in a crowded theater when there's no fire, inciting people to riot or inflict harm on others, etc). Does Coulter's joke about riding a camel qualify?

I don't think so.


I just think you're really stretching the bounds of credulity to suggest that the reason her speech was labeled such had more to do with some actual immediate harm presented by her speech than it had to do with the political content of her speech. And again, that's ironic, because the students use of speech is much much closer to the legitimate definition of hateful or harmful speech than hers. They were inciting riot. They were threatening her and making people afraid to enter the hall. We normally condemn speech which strokes the flames of anger and which might result in violence, and defend the person who's expressing ideological concepts in a classroom setting. Why then is this reversed in this case? Why is her speech labeled "hate", while their's is labeled "free"? It's a bit inconsistent, isn't it?

Edited, Mar 24th 2010 7:01pm by gbaji

Haha... changed my mind. Not worth the effort

Edited, Mar 25th 2010 12:44am by Jophiel