If US campuses can’t protect free speech, they need new management

[Tilly]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

Cowards.
.

I'm sorry. College is expensive. I have a kid who is racially mixed, I'm not spending all that in tuition money for people to let some a**hole talk to my kids classmates about why he should be hated for his skin color. **** off.

Your kid doesn't have to attend. And you have no right to say what other 'kids' can listen to. Can you show me where Coulter has said anyone 'should be hated for their skin colour'? I haven't heard that, presumably you can back such an accusation up with evidence?

 

[jc456]

Coulter holds a Juris Doctorate you fool.

So, she's going to be giving a speech about law?

She usually touches on aspects of the law and how they pertain to current events. What is your point?

You're not very good at this; you're all over the map.

Just trying to follow along with your monkey on crack train of thought.

Seems to me that Ann is only actually qualified to "educate" about the law. I've noticed she never says a damn thing about it, usually preferring to opine about how bad "libruls" are.

Are you starting to get this yet? Ann doesn't "educate." She opines. Period. You know what they say about opinions, right?

What makes her opinion worth so much? Because you agree with it?

She's not going there teach a class. Christ almighty you're a cement head. Even Malcom X spoke at Berkeley. Tell me, what were his "qualifications"?

Again, I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I'm not saying that she shouldn't be allowed to speak because she isn't a teacher. All I'm saying is that it's important to make the distinction here that the only thing Ann is going to do is voice her opinion in front of a group of students. She isn't a teacher, her word isn't gospel, and her opinions are not any more valuable than anyone else's. That's it. Berkely getting in the way of her speaking is not "interfering with the students education" or any other bizarre thing the resident 'tards here are claiming. She's a woman with a big mouth and a lot of opinions, period.

And again, just to state for the record for a second time, I think it's a great thing to have speakers like her on campus as it fosters a healthy debate. But no one should be under any illusions that she's doing anything other than running her mouth and sharing her opinions.

who fking cares what you think? when did you get the idea we cared?

 

[SYTFE]

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

Does Coulter engage in hate speech and incite violence? I've never heard her do that.
And aren't there already laws against that?

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

 

[Aries]

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

Cowards.
.

I'm sorry. College is expensive. I have a kid who is racially mixed, I'm not spending all that in tuition money for people to let some a**hole talk to my kids classmates about why he should be hated for his skin color. **** off.

And of course you can cite one instance where Coulter said people "should be hated for his skin color"?

Like i said a min ago, I did **** up and think this was the milo thread.. but I know the issue with Milo is that hes a blatant racist... Wasn't coultur canceled because of security concerns?

Well I missed that... it happens to the best of us!

but coulter can certainly toe the line of hate speech

 

[blackhawk]

I'm not a fan of hers but I like how Ann Coulter is handling Berkeley she was invited to speak she agreed to all their conditions from changing the time of her speech to moving it to a smaller venue then they tried to pull the invite or push it back. Instead of backing down she told them no I was invited to speak on this date I agreed to all your conditions I will be there good for her for not letting them off the hook.

 

[Aries]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

What's wrong with hearing and challenging? That is part of receiving an education and learning.

How about we leave that to the expert professionals not the POS GOP mouthpieces.

 

[jc456]

Does Coulter engage in hate speech and incite violence? I've never heard her do that.
And aren't there already laws against that?

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

 

[SYTFE]

So, she's going to be giving a speech about law?

She usually touches on aspects of the law and how they pertain to current events. What is your point?

You're not very good at this; you're all over the map.

Just trying to follow along with your monkey on crack train of thought.

Seems to me that Ann is only actually qualified to "educate" about the law. I've noticed she never says a damn thing about it, usually preferring to opine about how bad "libruls" are.

Are you starting to get this yet? Ann doesn't "educate." She opines. Period. You know what they say about opinions, right?

What makes her opinion worth so much? Because you agree with it?

She's not going there teach a class. Christ almighty you're a cement head. Even Malcom X spoke at Berkeley. Tell me, what were his "qualifications"?

Again, I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I'm not saying that she shouldn't be allowed to speak because she isn't a teacher. All I'm saying is that it's important to make the distinction here that the only thing Ann is going to do is voice her opinion in front of a group of students. She isn't a teacher, her word isn't gospel, and her opinions are not any more valuable than anyone else's. That's it. Berkely getting in the way of her speaking is not "interfering with the students education" or any other bizarre thing the resident 'tards here are claiming. She's a woman with a big mouth and a lot of opinions, period.

And again, just to state for the record for a second time, I think it's a great thing to have speakers like her on campus as it fosters a healthy debate. But no one should be under any illusions that she's doing anything other than running her mouth and sharing her opinions.

who fking cares what you think? when did you get the idea we cared?

You obviously care a lot since you can't seem to stop replying to me. It's ok JC, I still luv u.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Does Coulter engage in hate speech and incite violence? I've never heard her do that.
And aren't there already laws against that?

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

Yes, we know, everything with which you disagree is "hate speech".

So, was she or was she not fired?

 

[jc456]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

What's wrong with hearing and challenging? That is part of receiving an education and learning.

How about we leave that to the expert professionals not the POS GOP mouthpieces.

who is that? you? hahaahahahah

 

[Aries]

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

Cowards.
.

I'm sorry. College is expensive. I have a kid who is racially mixed, I'm not spending all that in tuition money for people to let some a**hole talk to my kids classmates about why he should be hated for his skin color. **** off.

Your kid doesn't have to attend. And you have no right to say what other 'kids' can listen to. Can you show me where Coulter has said anyone 'should be hated for their skin colour'? I haven't heard that, presumably you can back such an accusation up with evidence?

Like I've said repeatedly, I fucked up and thought this was the milo thread. Coulter can toe the line as well.

 

[SYTFE]

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

This was the paragraph that caused the National Review to drop her skinny ass.

 

[jc456]

She usually touches on aspects of the law and how they pertain to current events. What is your point?

You're not very good at this; you're all over the map.

Just trying to follow along with your monkey on crack train of thought.

Seems to me that Ann is only actually qualified to "educate" about the law. I've noticed she never says a damn thing about it, usually preferring to opine about how bad "libruls" are.

Are you starting to get this yet? Ann doesn't "educate." She opines. Period. You know what they say about opinions, right?

What makes her opinion worth so much? Because you agree with it?

She's not going there teach a class. Christ almighty you're a cement head. Even Malcom X spoke at Berkeley. Tell me, what were his "qualifications"?

Again, I'm sounding like a broken record here, but I'm not saying that she shouldn't be allowed to speak because she isn't a teacher. All I'm saying is that it's important to make the distinction here that the only thing Ann is going to do is voice her opinion in front of a group of students. She isn't a teacher, her word isn't gospel, and her opinions are not any more valuable than anyone else's. That's it. Berkely getting in the way of her speaking is not "interfering with the students education" or any other bizarre thing the resident 'tards here are claiming. She's a woman with a big mouth and a lot of opinions, period.

And again, just to state for the record for a second time, I think it's a great thing to have speakers like her on campus as it fosters a healthy debate. But no one should be under any illusions that she's doing anything other than running her mouth and sharing her opinions.

who fking cares what you think? when did you get the idea we cared?

You obviously care a lot since you can't seem to stop replying to me. It's ok JC, I still luv u.

well I enjoy showing the others how fking stupid the left is. you fall right in line. I comment on your paragraph. You have the misconception that someone thinks you have something of importance to say. you don't. So we don't care about your lack of intelligence.

 

[Aries]

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

What's wrong with hearing and challenging? That is part of receiving an education and learning.

How about we leave that to the expert professionals not the POS GOP mouthpieces.

who is that? you? hahaahahahah

Well, no, I am not a professor. You probably have never been to a university before but its the professors that stand up there in front of everyone and talk. They are actually trained and hired to teach kids. Unlike Milo the pedophile and Ann culter.


That must be your unlucky meme, every time you use that with me you end up with egg on your face.

 

[Auld Phart]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

What's wrong with hearing and challenging? That is part of receiving an education and learning.

How about we leave that to the expert professionals not the POS GOP mouthpieces.

The ones that want to keep speakers like Coulter off campus, and open their arms to hate speech from the left?

 

[jc456]

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

This was the paragraph that caused the National Review to drop her skinny ass.

and what is wrong with what is in it? It is fking accurate as hell.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

This was the paragraph that caused the National Review to drop her skinny ass.

And? Classic Coulter facetiousness.

 

[Tilly]

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

Cowards.
.

I'm sorry. College is expensive. I have a kid who is racially mixed, I'm not spending all that in tuition money for people to let some a**hole talk to my kids classmates about why he should be hated for his skin color. **** off.

And of course you can cite one instance where Coulter said people "should be hated for his skin color"?

Like i said a min ago, I did **** up and think this was the milo thread.. but I know the issue with Milo is that hes a blatant racist... Wasn't coultur canceled because of security concerns?

Milo has a black boyfriend. Is that because he's racist?

 

[SYTFE]

You stupid ******* moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

This was the paragraph that caused the National Review to drop her skinny ass.

and what is wrong with what is in it? It is fking accurate as hell.

So you agree with hate-speech. Why am I not surprised?

 

[jc456]

If hearing an opposing POV incites one to violence, what does this say about this person?

Doesn't matter...Universities are a place for kids to go and learn. Universities should not be agreeing to host speakers who spew hate, racism, and fear.

What's wrong with hearing and challenging? That is part of receiving an education and learning.

How about we leave that to the expert professionals not the POS GOP mouthpieces.

who is that? you? hahaahahahah

Well, no, I am not a professor. You probably have never been to a university before but its the professors that stand up there in front of everyone and talk. They are actually trained and hired to teach kids. Unlike Milo the pedophile and Ann coulter.


That must be your unlucky meme, every time you use that with me you end up with egg on your face.

most universities have TA's that do the actual teaching. the professor merely shoots his/ her mouth off and kids take notes. your point? how is that learning? and how is that different than coulter. I have no idea the professors political backing, but I bet the majority are left leaning. eh?