Ann Coulter @ the U of C - UPDATE moved to Red/White Club @ McMahon

[PyramidsofMars]

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?

[amorak]

Originally Posted by yads

I think you're wrong.

Actually, I think he's right. This is what allows private forums, such as this, to be moderated. Wouldn't you see a bunch of Canucks trolls suing Bingo for being banned, otherwise?

[Jimmy Stang]

All I'm suggesting is that the perceived threat was quite possibly overreacted upon to create the subsequent controversy. Did they really think that someone suggesting on Facebook that she be "tarred and feathered" out of town was enough to pull the plug?

The people responsible for bringing her here (Herself, Levant, The International Free Press Society, and the Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute) had more to gain in terms of publicity and attention by halting the performance in Ottawa than to go ahead with it. They clearly made the right choice because we're still talking about it.

I fully agree with you when you say that nobody should be intimidated into not speaking. But given her history as an attention whore, conflicting "reports" from the event, etc., I would call this a very well executed lesson in publicity and spin.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by amorak

Actually, I think he's right. This is what allows private forums, such as this, to be moderated. Wouldn't you see a bunch of Canucks trolls suing Bingo for being banned, otherwise?

The internet is a whole other kettle of fish.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Fine...but Coulter isnt the "organizer" here...in any way.

Im not sure what that really matters however, as the point is that the whole thing was stopped because of a perceived threat to her.

Its just not right that in any free society that anyone should not be allowed to speak what they believe because there is a possibility of harm to them. Its so anti-free society i cant imagine anyone would be OK with it.



Then they shouldn't have allowed the room to be rented to begin with, and i dont believe for a second they had any problem with her speaking there. On top of that I believe that the University gets public funding as well..though that may be wrong.

This is a part of the UO charter for students...



Instead they would not be practicing what they preach had they not allowed her to talk because they dont like what she has to say.

i think this whole debate boils down to one thing...and that is, that no matter how inane and nonsensical Ann Coulters (or anyones) views are, there should be absolutely no limits on them to speak them. Period. Not in a country that likes to believe how "advanced" it is like Canada does. Especially when the limit is caused by a threat to her or anyone else...that is going backwards in a quick hurry.

People complain about the right wing nutbars in the USA, and rightfully so, but this is just as reprehensible in my opinion. I dont like the woman or much of anything that comes out of her horseface mouth....but she has every right to speak it.

I agree with your point, but I do somewhat question the legitimacy of the cancellation and the threat. Coulter gets much more play out of a cancellation than she does from actually going forward with her talk, and she's not exactly above using underhanded tactics.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

The internet is a whole other kettle of fish.

Not really, it's a private venue that can be regulated just like a store or home.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by transplant99

i think this whole debate boils down to one thing...and that is, that no matter how inane and nonsensical Ann Coulters (or anyones) views are, there should be absolutely no limits on them to speak them. Period. Not in a country that likes to believe how "advanced" it is like Canada does. Especially when the limit is caused by a threat to her or anyone else...that is going backwards in a quick hurry.

People complain about the right wing nutbars in the USA, and rightfully so, but this is just as reprehensible in my opinion. I dont like the woman or much of anything that comes out of her horseface mouth....but she has every right to speak it.

Nobody prevented her from speaking her views and nobody took away her rights. The event organizers (not the government, police or university) stopped her from speaking her views at their event. She was free to be invited to another private event or go to a public place and speak with the protesters if she so desired.

[transplant99]

The Canadian government did not tell Coulter she could not speak. The Ottawa police did not tell Coulter she could not speak.

Maybe not directly....but they certainly encouraged it.

Organizers pulled the plug on a speaking engagement by U.S. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa Tuesday evening, citing security concerns.

Police advised organizers to cancel after students of all political stripes descended upon the university to hear the talk — some of them lining up for more than two hours in the rain.

Others showed up to protest Coulter’s presence. The self-described polemicist is known for her inflammatory comments. She recently said Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to travel in airplanes and should use flying carpets instead.

Again....no one should be limited to speak for fear of harm to them or anyone there to either listen or protest. Its truly an embarrassment IMO.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

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?

When you start taling about intimidating people into not speaking you step onto shaky ground IMO. Blocking out an offensive form of speech through dilution or the like is one thing, getting into intimidation moves away from expression and towards threats and violence. By all means people should be free to express themselves fully, and if in doing so they effectively counter an undesirable viewpoint that's perfectly acceptable, almost ideal, but the use of intimidation and freedom of speech/expression are not the same thing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I fully agree with you when you say that nobody should be intimidated into not speaking. But given her history as an attention whore, conflicting "reports" from the event, etc., I would call this a very well executed lesson in publicity and spin.

I think there is a little more to the story. The e-mails she received from the university itself were basically veiled warnings that she would not be able to say what she wanted.

Also if you look at the youtube videos of what went on there it would have taken a fairly large security escort to get into the building. There were literally hundreds if not thousands of angry young adults jumping around and screaming. They were not only outside, but they had spilled throught the entrance of the building and eventually into the hall.

I'm not sure physically how she would have gotten into the building without a riot squad.

You can see the people entirely blocking the entrance and spilling in through the door:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0wZ7qWwgR4



Interviews with students also seemed to suggest a large part of the crowd came to the event with the intentino of not allowing Coulter to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOP_k...eature=related

That being said, Ezra Levant mannaged to get in, so there is probably the possibility that Coulter would have managed to find a way in too. It's also possible he would have been able to sneak in while Coutler the object of the rage would have had a much harder time getting in.

Quite frankly if I showed up to work and there was a crowd of 2000 angry young adults I would probably turn around too. It would take a fairly large armed escort for me to enter. Even if I did get in, the building who is to say I would be safe once insde.

They were discussing the whole thing on CBC last night and I have to agree with them. It basically makes Canadians look like a bunch of unintelligent "hicks".

It's all pretty ridiculous too. If you look at the associated press video, there was probably about 30 weirdos who actually showed up to hear her speak. Now because of what went on she gets exposure to 300 million people.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Again....no one should be limited to speak for fear of harm to them or anyone there to either listen or protest. Its truly an embarrassment IMO.

I'll agree with the bolded part. In this case though, I don't think that there was any threat and that is backed up by the fact that as far as I've been able to see, there were no arrests made. If people were actually threatening her, this is a much different situation.

In any case, this isn't a free speech debate - it wasn't the government or police that shut her down.
It doesn't reflect poorly on the University - they had nothing to do with this.

There, IMO, is nothing here to be embarrassed about unless you were one of the protesters AND there were actual threats of violence made against her.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by valo403

When you start taling about intimidating people into not speaking you step onto shaky ground IMO. Blocking out an offensive form of speech through dilution or the like is one thing, getting into intimidation moves away from expression and towards threats and violence. By all means people should be free to express themselves fully, and if in doing so they effectively counter an undesirable viewpoint that's perfectly acceptable, almost ideal, but the use of intimidation and freedom of speech/expression are not the same thing.

I didn't mean threats of violence. As far as I know there were no credible threats of violence explicitly made against Ann Coulter in Ottawa.

I'm merely talking about the intimidation through sheer presence and through rhetoric. I know I should never use the dictionary in an argument, but I'm going to do so anyway. I mean 'intimidate' as defined by Merriam-Webster: to make timid or fearful. The use of the word does not necessarily have to involve violence or threats of violence.

If a small number of Klansmen decide to have a rally somewhere in the Deep South or Midwest, and upon arriving at the scene of the rally see 500 tough-looking black dudes, peacefully protesting against the message of the Klan, they may choose not to rally. Indeed, there are many cases of anti-racists intimidating racists into abandoning a march simply through sheer presence. I'm sorry I keep bringing racist rallies into the discussion, but it's simply the form of political protest that I'm most aware of, off-hand.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

There, IMO, is nothing here to be embarrassed about unless you were one of the protesters AND there were actual threats of violence made against her.

I disagree.

A crowd that size that is riled up is threatening in itself.

Not only that they were physically blocking the entrance to the building.

The statements coming from the University beforehand were totally innapropriate as well. They essentially warned her not to speak.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Maybe not directly....but they certainly encouraged it.

Levant says there was violence. Police say there wasn't. Coulter's side says they were shut down by Ottawa Police. Police disagree.

Coulter and her team, including Canadian conservative Ezra Levant, cited "violence" in the crowd at the University of Ottawa and claimed that the police had shut it down. Ottawa police spokesman Alain Boucher said they saw no violence, arrested no one and had only advised Coulter’s entourage they should find a bigger space to accommodate everyone safely.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1173915.html

[blankall]

To ad to this discussion, Coulter was speaking in a private forum. She wasn't speaking in the public. So dilution was not an option. Private property has an entirely different set of laws/regulation than the public forum. If she had been preaching on the streets, it would have been a different scenario.

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Levant says there was violence. Police say there wasn't. Coulter's side says they were shut down by Ottawa Police. Police disagree.

Coulter is a sensationalist. Are you surprised by this? That doesn't make the actions of the students anymore justified.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I didn't mean threats of violence. As far as I know there were no credible threats of violence explicitly made against Ann Coulter in Ottawa.

I'm merely talking about the intimidation through sheer presence and through rhetoric. I know I should never use the dictionary in an argument, but I'm going to do so anyway. I mean 'intimidate' as defined by Merriam-Webster: to make timid or fearful. The use of the word does not necessarily have to involve violence or threats of violence.

If a small number of Klansmen decide to have a rally somewhere in the Deep South or Midwest, and upon arriving at the scene of the rally see 500 tough-looking black dudes, peacefully protesting against the message of the Klan, they may choose not to rally. Indeed, there are many cases of anti-racists intimidating racists into abandoning a march simply through sheer presence. I'm sorry I keep bringing racist rallies into the discussion, but it's simply the form of political protest that I'm most aware of, off-hand.

Intimidate is a poor choice of word for your argument, regardless of what Webster says. You and I both know the meaning that word conveys. I agree with where I think your argument is going, but the presentaion of it leaves it open to an interpretation that doesn't promote free speech whatsoever.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Maybe not directly....but they certainly encouraged it.



Again....no one should be limited to speak for fear of harm to them or anyone there to either listen or protest. Its truly an embarrassment IMO.

You addressed none of the points fundamental to my argument.

Look, I'm to the left of most of CP, but I still consider myself centre-left at most. I don't like punk anarchist types. I don't like Marxists or other Commies. I consider them as bad as far right activists. I'm not stating my own political views in my argument, I'm trying to look at an issue of political philosophy as it relates to this particular instance.

I'm not, regardless of how pompous I may sound (I have Asperger's, stuff I say very often comes out wrong), saying that I'm necessarily right. Just that right now I think I am. Based on what I've arrived at by thinking about the matter, your viewpoint that no one should be limited to speak for fear of harm to them or anyone there to listen or protest, is not really compatible with a belief in strong freedom of speech with as few conditions as possible. One may fear harm coming to them without any explicit threats of violence being made. And if a group of protesters, expressing themselves, using freedom of speech, can prevent another group from taking the stage and speaking their part, then that group was entirely in its right to do that, so long as it did not incite a riot or explicitly incite violence.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by valo403

Intimidate is a poor choice of word for your argument, regardless of what Webster says. You and I both know the meaning that word conveys. I agree with where I think your argument is going, but the presentaion of it leaves it open to an interpretation that doesn't promote free speech whatsoever.

I agree that it was a poor choice of word. But you know what I mean, I know what I mean, and I think those who thanked my post probably do not support threats of violence. I realize that interpretation of what I was saying is possible (even likely), but I'm making explicitly clear now that is not what I meant.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

And if a group of protesters, expressing themselves, using freedom of speech, can prevent another group from taking the stage and speaking their part, then that group was entirely in its right to do that, so long as it did not incite a riot or explicitly incite violence.

Not at all.

Coulter was about to give her speech at a private event using a private space she had rented. You have no right to block access to those kind of events.

Not only does it curtail Coulter's right of freedom of expression, it also curtails her right to freedom of association.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by blankall

I disagree.

A crowd that size that is riled up is threatening in itself.

Maybe. But unless they're actually threatening her, they're not doing anything wrong or illegal. Otherwise you're just limiting one person's actual right to free speech to protect what someone only thinks is their right to free speech.

Originally Posted by blankall

The statements coming from the University beforehand were totally innapropriate as well. They essentially warned her not to speak.

I disagree.

I'll admit, I've only seen excerpts from the letter and not the entire text so I may stand corrected but... Speech laws in USA and Canada are different and some of what she's said in the states could probably get her into legal trouble here. Like it or not, that's the truth and not the university's fault. From what I saw, the University informing her of this fact was appropriate and, I think, very courteous. From what I saw, they were doing it to try to avoid a mess.