Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
except she was not allowed to express her viewpoints...because of some perceived threat. Thats what is frightening. She didnt get the same "courtesy" that the protesters did. That is not OK. It can open a can of worms that has no end...people not being allowed to say what they believe....just think where that can lead to.
No one is saying opposing views cannot be expressed...but not allowing the original talking point (regardless how ridiculous it may be) is where oppression starts.
Yeah...but...uhhh...only one side was heard in Ottawa...no?
|
I covered this already in my first post.
Coulter and the organizers backed down from going ahead with the event because of protesters who were exercising their right to free speech. Ms. Coulter was free to, at any time, rent another venue, or just stand on a street corner and talk.
The protesters, who were exercising their right to free speech, either intimidated Coulter enough that she or the organizers or whomever decided to back down, or she saw an opportunity for publicity and ran with it.
The Canadian government did not tell Coulter she could not speak. The Ottawa police did not tell Coulter she could not speak.
If I go with your logic and agree that she is somehow being 'oppressed', I would still argue that is an inevitable by-product of HAVING freedom of speech. Because unless you put restrictions on what opposing viewpoints can say in a public forum, then those opposing viewpoints are entirely free to say what they want.
Which, as I said, can include arguing that others should not have the right to speak, and sometimes succeeding.
Bringing in a more extreme example: I do not like racists. At all. But they're free to rally and what not. However, if anti-racists successfully intimidate them, through using their right to free speech, into hiding away and not emerging into the public eye, I would not shed any tears.
Why? Because that very 'oppression' is the product of free speech.
The only way around that is to put a restriction on free speech saying that a mob of protesters cannot passionately protest against someone saying something before they've said it.
But I'm sure you don't want to put further restrictions on freedom of speech, do you?