Ann Coulter Silenced. What a victory for Liberalism!

[Marion Morrison]

Ann has not been silenced. The people who own the venue, that being the building, stage, and microphone have decided for whatever reasons, they don't want her to use their building, stage, and microphone. Her rights to use other people's buildings, stages, and microphones who will allow her to use them has not been jeopardized or denied.

It's when the 'for whatever reasons' on public property involve threats or acts of violence the right to free speech for all of us is jeopardized. When you drown out voices you don't want to hear, you deny the rights of those who do want to hear. Not one single protestor was required by law to go to any venue to hear any words they disapprove of.

This is non-negotiable and non-defensible. Period.

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Spoken like a true lemming.

The university absolutely is responsible for those on its grounds.

 

[Camp]

Ann has not been silenced. The people who own the venue, that being the building, stage, and microphone have decided for whatever reasons, they don't want her to use their building, stage, and microphone. Her rights to use other people's buildings, stages, and microphones who will allow her to use them has not been jeopardized or denied.

It's when the 'for whatever reasons' on public property involve threats or acts of violence the right to free speech for all of us is jeopardized. When you drown out voices you don't want to hear, you deny the rights of those who do want to hear. Not one single protestor was required by law to go to any venue to hear any words they disapprove of.

This is non-negotiable and non-defensible. Period.

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Spoken like a true lemming.

The university absolutely is responsible for those on its grounds.

The University determined it could not fulfill that responsibility of securing the safety of people on their property and did not want to take on the added expenses of attempting to provide that security. That plus the added factor that the people who live and work in that community did not want this particular speaker at the Univesity. There are other venues in that area that could host the controversial speaker.

 

[Mac1958]

The Regressive Authoritarians are trying to make this about security, they're trotting out their phony "hate speech" excuse, they're trying to say it's about college funding, on and on and on.

They're fooling no one. This is about their direct attack on the most important value America has.

Maybe to them, America is the problem, huh?
.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Ann has not been silenced. The people who own the venue, that being the building, stage, and microphone have decided for whatever reasons, they don't want her to use their building, stage, and microphone. Her rights to use other people's buildings, stages, and microphones who will allow her to use them has not been jeopardized or denied.

It's when the 'for whatever reasons' on public property involve threats or acts of violence the right to free speech for all of us is jeopardized. When you drown out voices you don't want to hear, you deny the rights of those who do want to hear. Not one single protestor was required by law to go to any venue to hear any words they disapprove of.

This is non-negotiable and non-defensible. Period.

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Spoken like a true lemming.

The university absolutely is responsible for those on its grounds.

The University determined it could not fulfill that responsibility of securing the safety of people on their property and did not want to take on the added expenses of attempting to provide that security. That plus the added factor that the people who live and work in that community did not want this particular speaker at the Univesity. There are other venues in that area that could host the controversial speaker.

The students requested she speak at the university. The Administrators, campus police, mayor, and city police all

colluded to deny the students the right to hear her and her right to free speech while proclaiming their own ineptness as the reason.



Coming next: DOJ will investigate.

 

[SeaGal]

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Nonsense. Intimidation has everything to do with it...fear of violence, concerns over safety.

"they do not want to deal with the protest"....why ever would that be?

 

[Marion Morrison]

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Nonsense. Intimidation has everything to do with it...fear of violence, concerns over safety.

"they do not want to deal with the protest"....why ever would that be?

They may not want to, but that's their job.

What happens to people that don't do their job?

They get fired and replaced with someone who gets the job done.

 

[Camp]

.

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Nonsense. Intimidation has everything to do with it...fear of violence, concerns over safety.

"they do not want to deal with the protest"....why ever would that be?

They may not want to, but that's their job.

What happens to people that don't do their job?

They get fired and replaced with someone who gets the job done.

They are doing their job. Safety and security of the campus are their number one job. They determined that their own security and local law enforcement could not guarantee the safety of persons attending the proposed speaking engagement. Hence, the canceled the engagement.

 

[skookerasbil]

very very few people concur with those snowflakes down at Berkeley.......they really do represent a radical fringe element. The MSM is pulling in all the suckers on this. Those people down there last night are emotional hemophiliacs with no real responsibilities in life. The dickhead types have always been around......most notably in the 60's but that was about a war so there was an impact. People now know about Berkely and the other far left institutions. They have been unmasked as fake learning centers......the whole country knows it.

 

[skookerasbil]

BTW....a lot of these protest will abruptly end when there is video of one of these limpwristers laying on his back impaled to the cement with a pipe sticking out of his mouth to the sky about 3 feet. Then we will see how many of these feminine men show up!!. Im kinda disappointed Coulter didn't get to speak..........because you know one of these fairies sooner or later is going to become the poster child, via image, for a profound level of ghey in progressive men.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Coulter has gotten more speaking time on tv than she ever has before. Silenced? Not even close. Cons are just mad because students exercising THEIR freedom of speech backed her down. So much so that Coulter's Cowards started punching women. No doubt to silence them.

 

[Marion Morrison]

.

It is not up to the protesters. It is up to the people who own or control the venue. In this case, the people who control the venue do not want to deal with the protest. Whether they agree or disagree with the message or speech of the speaker is irrelevant. As long as the speaker has other options to promote the message and speech, their free speech is guaranteed.

Nonsense. Intimidation has everything to do with it...fear of violence, concerns over safety.

"they do not want to deal with the protest"....why ever would that be?

They may not want to, but that's their job.

What happens to people that don't do their job?

They get fired and replaced with someone who gets the job done.

They are doing their job. Safety and security of the campus are their number one job. They determined that their own security and local law enforcement could not guarantee the safety of persons attending the proposed speaking engagement. Hence, the canceled the engagement.

STFU you idiot. Do I need to post the live footage of aggravated assaults, terrorism, IED throwing, arson, and aggravated battery happening and the police doing nothing?

It's all over the news. It's all over for them, too. Care to wager on it?

Wtf is this? They can only provide security if they agree with someone 100%?

Riiight.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a proud day for progressives. They have taken a bold stand against 'hate speech'. Huzzah Koo-Aid for everyone!

Ms. Coulter is welcome come over here and debate us.

 

[skookerasbil]

And lets not forget......California is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of touch with the rest of the nation. Its like its own k00ky country at this point.........really, who takes people in that state seriously in 2017? State has been electorally irrelevant for 30 years. The state draws every weirdo/k00k in the country and SanFransisco is the most racist city in the country forcing blacks out of the city with housing laws for 3 decades now. Its quickly becoming the utopia envisioned by Plato, Hobbes and More et. al.......nd best of all, when you see these meatheads on TV, it just reinforces the optics in the heads of every single person who voted for Trump and said, "Fuck if this is happening in my state!!"

 

[Ima Cat]

There should be some things we all agree on, such as Freedom of Speech. Our founders were wise.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ann Coulter is a weird conservative...If she was truly a conservative then she'd be a house wife, have kids and have a husband that would do the bread winning.

She is not a conservative but a liberal that uses you as fools.

No, she's a radical far right conservative. I've read she can't find anyone who will date her. She's been engaged a few times.

Like Phyllis Schaffley before her, who toured the country encouraging women to stay at home and look after their men folk and children, she preaches conservative values but doesn't live them.

 

[Mac1958]

Cons are just mad because students exercising THEIR freedom of speech backed her down.

Well, so much for THAT spin.
.

 

[FJO]

Ann Coulter is a weird conservative...If she was truly a conservative then she'd be a house wife, have kids and have a husband that would do the bread winning.

She is not a conservative but a liberal that uses you as fools.

I wish that there was an emogi designating "You are an idiot".

There is not,so I just say: YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

 

[FJO]

Ann Coulter is a weird conservative...If she was truly a conservative then she'd be a house wife, have kids and have a husband that would do the bread winning.

She is not a conservative but a liberal that uses you as fools.

No, she's a radical far right conservative. I've read she can't find anyone who will date her. She's been engaged a few times.

Like Phyllis Schaffley before her, who toured the country encouraging women to stay at home and look after their men folk and children, she preaches conservative values but doesn't live them.

No, she is a multiple times best selling author, a sought after guest on TV and radio shows, a thought provoking columnist and a successful lady who is far more deserving of that title than the prune faced and dried up sorry excuse for an envious liberal woman your posts on this forum prove you to be.