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

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by blankall

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.

and denying the protesters the right to speak their mind and convey their beliefs that Coulter should not be allowed to speak somehow doesn't curtail their right to freedom of expression? The protesters did not storm the stage at the lecture hall while she was giving the lecture and kick her off. They expressed their opinion on Coulter's presence, Coulter's ideology, and Coulter's nature as a human being. She, or the organizers, or whomever, opted not to go through with the event. Rather obviously because they craved the publicity.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by blankall

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

Not surprised at all. I am surprised, however, that the aforementioned "organizers" didn't expect that people would protest and weren't better prepared for it. Especially a day after those comments from the U of O honcho (which I think played right into Coulter's hands).

They deliberately booked an engagement at a "liberal" university in the nation's capital and didn't consider that there might attract a bit of a crowd? Other reports have suggested that the entire registration process was a complete mess and contributed to issues at the door. Many of those trying to get in were Coulter supporters too... Big schools have back doors, other theatres, etc. One can only assume that this could have gone off without a hitch with a little bit of foresight to the logistics.

I certainly don't advocate violence - it undermines freedom of speech. I just see enough doubt in the planning, execution, and aftermath that I can't help but wonder if it really had a chance of going ahead anyway.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

and denying the protesters the right to speak their mind and convey their beliefs that Coulter should not be allowed to speak somehow doesn't curtail their right to freedom of expression? The protesters did not storm the stage at the lecture hall while she was giving the lecture and kick her off. They expressed their opinion on Coulter's presence, Coulter's ideology, and Coulter's nature as a human being. She, or the organizers, or whomever, opted not to go through with the event. Rather obviously because they craved the publicity.

I don't think you understand that freedom of expression is not a limitless thing, you don't get to express yourself in a maneer that prevents others from any ability to do so. That's not how it works. Expressing through presence in a large numbers and speech of their own would have been fine, expressing through blockading the venue and completely eliminating the potential for Coulter to speak is not.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

and denying the protesters the right to speak their mind and convey their beliefs that Coulter should not be allowed to speak somehow doesn't curtail their right to freedom of expression? The protesters did not storm the stage at the lecture hall while she was giving the lecture and kick her off. They expressed their opinion on Coulter's presence, Coulter's ideology, and Coulter's nature as a human being. She, or the organizers, or whomever, opted not to go through with the event. Rather obviously because they craved the publicity.

The protestors could have made that same expression while not blockign the door.

Also, since when is the belief that someone else be denied their rights something taht should be protected? That's like me saying it's my religion taht all other religions are wrong so I have the right to show up with a large and angry crowd and block the entrance to your temple/church. I'm sorry but our society does not protect that right in any way.

Whether or not it was Coulter's decision to go ahead with her speech, the protestors certainly gave her the excuse the make that decision. Either way they accomplished absolutely nothing.

If they did physically block her they commited a crime. If they did not, and it was in fact entirely Coutler's decision, they just showed how easily manipulated they were by a complete idiot.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

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.

I don't think I agree with your idea at all anymore. You replaced intimidate with fear, that's not at all a part of freedom of expression. In fact it flies in the face of freedom of expression.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Not surprised at all. I am surprised, however, that the aforementioned "organizers" didn't expect that people would protest and weren't better prepared for it. Especially a day after those comments from the U of O honcho (which I think played right into Coulter's hands).

They deliberately booked an engagement at a "liberal" university in the nation's capital and didn't consider that there might attract a bit of a crowd? Other reports have suggested that the entire registration process was a complete mess and contributed to issues at the door. Many of those trying to get in were Coulter supporters too... Big schools have back doors, other theatres, etc. One can only assume that this could have gone off without a hitch with a little bit of foresight to the logistics.

I certainly don't advocate violence - it undermines freedom of speech. I just see enough doubt in the planning, execution, and aftermath that I can't help but wonder if it really had a chance of going ahead anyway.

That's like saying we shouldn't punish someone for a crime, because the victim should have known they were likely to commit it in the first place.

The actions of the students made Canada as a country look bad.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think you understand that freedom of expression is not a limitless thing, you don't get to express yourself in a maneer that prevents others from any ability to do so. That's not how it works. Expressing through presence in a large numbers and speech of their own would have been fine, expressing through blockading the venue and completely eliminating the potential for Coulter to speak is not.

I know it's not limitless. I was arguing this in a more abstract sense, I guess. I would agree that blockading the venue is inappropriate. To tell the truth, I wasn't aware that the venue was blockaded and that they had completely eliminated the potential for Coulter to speak. Still, my more general points made in this thread still stand, I think.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't think I agree with your idea at all anymore. You replaced intimidate with fear, that's not at all a part of freedom of expression. In fact it flies in the face of freedom of expression.

I didn't replace it with fear, I was replying to what the person I quoted said. He said nobody should be prevented from saying what they feel for fear of harm coming to them. My point in response is that people may feel fear of harm coming to them for all sorts of reasons, but as long as explicit threats are not made towards them, and they are legally able to speak their minds, then the group which may make them feel that fear is perfectly within their rights to make their presence felt. Which is not to say that I approve of that presence being pronounced through physical or verbal threats.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by blankall

The protestors could have made that same expression while not blockign the door.

Also, since when is the belief that someone else be denied their rights something taht should be protected? That's like me saying it's my religion taht all other religions are wrong so I have the right to show up with a large and angry crowd and block the entrance to your temple/church. I'm sorry but our society does not protect that right in any way.

Whether or not it was Coulter's decision to go ahead with her speech, the protestors certainly gave her the excuse the make that decision. Either way they accomplished absolutely nothing.

If they did physically block her they commited a crime. If they did not, and it was in fact entirely Coutler's decision, they just showed how easily manipulated they were by a complete idiot.

Again, I did not know that they blocked the entrance. However, I think it's entirely reasonable to allow for a Jewish or Christian or Pagan or Atheist or whatever group to gather outside the Calgary Islamic Centre in Christie Park and express their opinion on Islam. So long as they let the people pass through, did not incite a riot, and did not incite violence.

If I'd known that they physically blocked her (I don't know if this happened or not, someone confirm it one way or the other, please!), I probably would've posted far fewer words on this thread.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by blankall

That's like saying we shouldn't punish someone for a crime, because the victim should have known they were likely to commit it in the first place.

The actions of the students made Canada as a country look bad.

It's not like that at all. As I mentioned way back in the thread, the Coulter people blamed everything from the police (which appears not to be the case), fire alarms getting pulled (which Levant retracted), violence (again - no evidence), etc. on the reason why it was cancelled. All in the name of repression and preventing her from speaking.

She either didn't want to speak (because she had more to gain from NOT speaking at this point), or piss poor organization made it too difficult to bother with after things got going.

Either way, Coulter wins. It doesn't matter that nobody was charged for uttering threats or being violent. All that matters is that the media latched onto her version of events that an angry mob of lefties at a lefty university in a lefty country somehow stifled her right to free speech.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by PyramidsofMars

I didn't replace it with fear, I was replying to what the person I quoted said. He said nobody should be prevented from saying what they feel for fear of harm coming to them. My point in response is that people may feel fear of harm coming to them for all sorts of reasons, but as long as explicit threats are not made towards them, and they are legally able to speak their minds, then the group which may make them feel that fear is perfectly within their rights to make their presence felt. Which is not to say that I approve of that presence being pronounced through physical or verbal threats.

As long as the fear isn't irrational, nobody should ever be prevented from speaking for fear of harm.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

It's not like that at all. As I mentioned way back in the thread, the Coulter people blamed everything from the police (which appears not to be the case), fire alarms getting pulled (which Levant retracted), violence (again - no evidence), etc. on the reason why it was cancelled. All in the name of repression and preventing her from speaking.

She either didn't want to speak (because she had more to gain from NOT speaking at this point), or piss poor organization made it too difficult to bother with after things got going.

Either way, Coulter wins. It doesn't matter that nobody was charged for uttering threats or being violent. All that matters is that the media latched onto her version of events that an angry mob of lefties at a lefty university in a lefty country somehow stifled her right to free speech.

Well it probably would have helped if an angry mob of 2000 people wasn't standing outside the building.

The students had the choice to show up or not. They had the choice to get all riled up. They had the choice to not block the entrance.

Perhaps Coulter did plan the whole thing, but that doesn't change the fact the students acting on their own choice. If Coulter did plan the whole thing, all that shows is how easily manipulated students are.

It doesn't change the fact that Canada looks awful here.

[PyramidsofMars]

Originally Posted by valo403

As long as the fear isn't irrational, nobody should ever be prevented from speaking for fear of harm.

What is rational fear but fear based on threats having been made? And there are varying degrees of irrationality. Back to the Klansmen thing, suppose those 20 Klansmen show up to find 500 tough-looking black guys. Black guys are being perfectly peaceful. Klansmen still choose not to march because they find it an intimidating, even scary scene. Are the Klansmen entirely irrational in fearing the 500 black dudes? Are they entirely rational in assuming that there is a significant risk? Neither is the case (IMO). This is all getting way too abstract and weird, and I don't think I'm managing to communicate what I'm talking about well at all. Go back to my original two or three posts to see the bare essentials of the point I was trying to get across.

I didn't even bring the word fear into the discussion. I quoted someone who did, and for some stupid reason decided to use a word he imposed on the conversation.

[transplant99]

Since we are "assuming" or "thinking" what really happened...in all honesty, what do you think would have occurred if she showed up and had to make her way through that crowd? Anything good come of that? Would she have had a right to be fearful? I would venture yes...as the protesters were getting lathered up pretty good with some serious hating of their own going on.

I think cancelling the thing was done for one reason only....it was not going to be safe for many had it happened. That is most certainly a problem in my world.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by blankall

Well it probably would have helped if an angry mob of 2000 people wasn't standing outside the building.

For an angry mob, they sure did a good job at avoiding arrest. The Ottawa police spokesman even said that they simply asked them to leave and they did:

He said, in no uncertain terms, "We didn't shut it (the event) down." Furthermore, there weren't thousands of protesters as has been reported by some media outlets. In fact, the best police estimate of the crowd size is 1,500 and that is everyone. Many in the crowd were there simply to hear Coulter speak and were not there to protest. Boucher refused to be drawn into estimating the exact number of protesters. In addition, there was no mob nor riot. "We had no fears that anything would occur," Boucher said. "When asked to leave, [the crowd] all left."

Must have been the most obedient angry mob ever.

Anyway - we'll obviously never reach a consensus on what exactly happened. We can probably agree that she got a lot more than 15 minutes of fame from this one!!

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

For an angry mob, they sure did a good job at avoiding arrest. The Ottawa police spokesman even said that they simply asked them to leave and they did:



Must have been the most obedient angry mob ever.

Anyway - we'll obviously never reach a consensus on what exactly happened. We can probably agree that she got a lot more than 15 minutes of fame from this one!!

Except they only left after the event had been cancelled, and 1,500 people is hardly that different than the 2,000 that was quoted earlier.

They were obedient after they got what they wanted. My question is why wasn't there a path cleared to the door prior to her speech if the crowd was so cooperative? Apparently, all it would have taken was a polite request from teh police officers.

And as far as consensus goes. I think we can all also agree that the actions of these students was far more detrimental than helpful.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Accounts I've read have it that there was some shouting and a fire alarm pulled, so Hecubus and her minions bolted. Well, Coulter wasn't even there yet.

The statements from the cops say they, despite what we were told, did not call anything off.

It's another publicity stunt from someone who does nothing but publicity stunts.

First, she complained about how a rep of the University had threatened her with with prosecution. The thick-headed among us lapped it up. I guess they think a provost at a university controls the justice system.

Then she pulled out of her "event" and claimed the cops had shut her down, and the lapping sounds continued.

Meanwhile, in the States, the lunatic fringe that she appeals to are going bat$hit about the healthcare bill. Death threats, vandalism, putting a coffin on a guy's lawn... And a few university students in Canada are "a violent mob".

Sorry, I had posted a link to a first-person account of the event and it doesn't jive with your non-first-person(?) account. That's all.

[longsuffering]

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.

Give it a rest already. You make it sound like poor, oppressed Ann Coulter has no venue to spew her hate. Relax, there are many, many outlets that allow her to spew her poison.

If this was actually someone who didn't already have a platform for their 'message', your point might actually be valid, but it seems most people have a tough time working up any sympathy for Ms. Coulter, just because her event was CANCELLED by the organizers in Ottawa.

How can you keep going on and on about "Canada should be embarrassed", blah, blah, blah, but you ignore the fact that she spoke in TO and she spoke in Calgary. Seems to me that she's getting her message out just fine.

[BlackEleven]

Anyone cynical enough to believe that Coulter's image is completely manufactured to make money should also by cynical enough to believe that she had more to gain from cancelling the event that actually exercising her to right to free speech.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

Give it a rest already. You make it sound like poor, oppressed Ann Coulter has no venue to spew her hate. Relax, there are many, many outlets that allow her to spew her poison.

If this was actually someone who didn't already have a platform for their 'message', your point might actually be valid, but it seems most people have a tough time working up any sympathy for Ms. Coulter, just because her event was CANCELLED by the organizers in Ottawa.

How can you keep going on and on about "Canada should be embarrassed", blah, blah, blah, but you ignore the fact that she spoke in TO and she spoke in Calgary. Seems to me that she's getting her message out just fine.

Not really the point at all.

The whole incident obviously helped her get her message out even further, so I doubt anyone cares whether or not she is able to get her message out.

The major concern is the attitudes that resulted in what can only be described as stiffling of basic civil liberties. Not to mention the whole thing was broadcast by the international press.

I could care less about Ms. Coulter. I do care about civil liberties and so should you.