Berkeley Speech Cancellation

[TopHatCat]

Wow, there's a lot of intensity on this topic. And a lot of different things to consider, shall we hash them out?

 

My first thought upon hearing that students at Berkeley were protesting was "well it's Berkeley, that's kind of their thing." It's taken on a first amendment vs first amendment kind of guise, and continues to escalate. I learned more about the specifics of why the protests were going on, and it seems like a dilemma that should have been avoidable in the first place with a little more communication. It's absolutely valid to bring a conservative voice to the most liberal college in the world-a university is a place for free ideas, challenging beliefs, and progress.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/04/27/i-invited-ann-coulter-to-speak-at-uc-berkeley-heres-why/?utm_term=.2998c2bbc714

 

However, the problem may lie in the choice of voice. In a time where not the right, but the extreme right has managed to become the primary source of conservative representation, many people are already on edge because of how noninclusive they feel the government has been in policy. Ann Coulter is a member of the extreme right, and people tend to feel uncomfortable in the presence of any far left or right aligned people. Her intended speech was to focus on immigration, but she only has credentials in law. Not only that, but a quick (or thorough) investigation of her books and the viewpoints in them (let alone their titles) shows a history of blaming the entire liberal population and hypocritical statements. Literally, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America, and I could go on.

 

How could someone like this effectively communicate for solutions with those who don't initially agree with her?

 

A university's power is in authorizing people to be accredited enough to pass on information to more people. By allowing her to speak there, or by simply inviting her, it validates her opinions. It's often stated that the limit on free speech is when it intentionally causes undue panic, "shouting fire in a movie theater when there isn't one." I would argue that Coulter's rhetoric borders hate speech, both of minorities and of at least half of the United States population through political party. If those on campus had invited a more reasonable republican, especially someone who's been in Congress, I don't think there would have been issues-at least no where near what we've seen.

 

This is not an issue of free speech, she would have been paid and is in the position to formally represent ideas. In fact, it's hypocritical to claim it's a war on the first amendment when the students are exercising another part of the same right. And it's not just this concept that she seems to have a strangely developed opinion on. She has stated this:

 

                 "  According to liberals, the message of Jesus...is something along the lines of "be nice to people" (which to them                  

                    means "raise taxes on the productive")...Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity.  "

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2004/03/04/the-passion-of-the-liberal-n737661

 

And where could people get the idea of Jesus's message to be "be nice to people?"

 

 

So to conclude-my take on this situation-just choose anyone that's actually reasonable. One of the goals of the left is to include everyone, but she's one of a few people that expects a louder voice than everyone else. It's not because of her political party, but how she goes about it.

[Sally]

Before someone says Berkeley has killed free speech, academic freedom means that the university can't fire an employee (i.e., a faculty member or instructor or TA) specifically for their political viewpoints.  It doesn't mean that a university is required to pay any particular non-university-affiliated person to speak on campus.  That's the university's choice.

[God of the Forest]

1 hour ago, TopHatCat said:

Her intended speech was to focus on immigration, but she only has credentials in law.

 

 

 

 

Wouldnt it make sense for someone with law credentials to speak on illegal immigration..ya know since its against the law?

[straightouttamordor]

I'm a social conservative and fiscal liberal. Not even etched in stone on those. I may change my mind on an issue as I gather more information and life experience. A liberal will tell you that they are mistrustful of big corporations, a conservative will telll you that they have contempt for big government. I maintain to you ladies and gentlemen that the two are one and the same. Washington D.C. is filled with lobbyist and congressman/senators representing giant corporations and every corporation has former politicians on their boards or behind the scenes helping them along in Washington. So the two really are one. I don't trust any "big" organization, none. Business, Government, Churches, Media or Education. Too much power concentrated in the hands of too few. 

So big education has decided to silence any dissent, any views they don't agree with and any controversial opinion from libertarians or conservatives. And believe me, I'm no Coulter fan at all. She is sarcastic and frankly not very good at rhetoric or debate. She ought to be welcomed if you're liberal. But if you are receiving tax payer funding, private corporate funding or student (parent) tution you have no reason or right to shout down or deny someone's right to free speech. You allow rabid progressive thought all day long. People will eventually vote with their wallets and quit sending their money there. If you lost half of your funding, you would be up the proverbial excrement creek with a five fingered paddle. 

And how is this preparring students for life any how ?  Teaching them any time someone offends you or disagrees with you, that you shout them down, sic the dean on em or have them silenced ?  Try that on management where you work, with you're spouse or kids or civic organization or where you volunteer.  This kind of stuff should embarrass the Hades out of universities as much as it does Coulter after she gets diraeah of the mouth.

[TopHatCat]

11 hours ago, RipleyJ said:

Wouldnt it make sense for someone with law credentials to speak on illegal immigration..ya know since its against the law?

Perhaps, but only on the legality of the situation. There's a lot more to be considered in the concept, and she is not necessarily and expert on this subject. She should be an expert on whatever she talks about if her venue is a university.

[God of the Forest]

Just now, TopHatCat said:

Perhaps, but only on the legality of the situation. There's a lot more to be considered in the concept, and she is not necessarily and expert on this subject. She should be an expert on whatever she talks about if her venue is a university.

Agreed 

[daveb]

I am against any sort of violence or harassment, but peaceful protests, boycotts and such are fine. That said, I think a better option is to let her speak, but just not go and listen.

 

As for the freedom of speech argument here is what the First Amendment says:

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, the government is not allowed to make laws that abridge the freedom of speech. It doesn't say everyone has to allow everyone else to speak. Like a lot of arguments/discussions where the Bill of Rights are brought up, people seem to latch onto a phrase that is only part of the whole amendment and act as if it's the whole thing or ignore how the phrase works in the context of the whole thing. Organizations and individuals are free to not hire or otherwise engage someone to speak or to rescind an invitation to speak (if so allowed by contractual obligations, if any), or to protest or boycott (assuming they are not otherwise breaking laws). Of course, that also means people are free to make poor choices, too.

 

Bottom line for me though, is if you invite someone to speak let them speak. And if you don't want to listen to them don't listen to them.

[Guest]

it seems like Berkeley cancels a speech every 2 weeks

[Sally]

14 minutes ago, skıt said:

it seems like Berkeley cancels a speech every 2 weeks

They've done it once, with Coulter.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[TopHatCat]

52 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

I'll have to investigate this fully later, but I find it hard to believe that every single left-leaning Berkeley speaker has had the credentials.

 

This is actually a myth:

 

https://www.thefire.org/a-reminder-about-shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/

 

Again, you don't think Berkeley has ever allowed someone to speak who holds similar opinions about the other half of the country (conservatives) or the common modern day punching bag (white men)?

 

Ok, now I know for a fact that most people who speak at Berkeley have not been members of Congress.  Why is this a requirement only of Conservative speakers?

 

Are you sure you looked into the issue at all?  The speech was cancelled because of threats of violent attacks. That is not free speech.  Those students are not "exercising the same right."  Those people are criminals and probably terrorists.

 

I'll take someone with a loud voice over people who stage violent protests against them.

I believe anyone speaking there on a topic that's not exclusively social in nature should have more of credentials, if someone is giving a speech at a university then they should be an expert on that subject-I have not said anything about past speakers, but I would hope that anyone would follow this.

 

I did not claim that to be a fact, merely a common explanation of how reasonable we must be in our exercising this amendment.

 

And again, I have not attributed this thread to detail the entire speaking history of Berkeley. I would certainly hope that no one so unreasonable on the left had been invited there either, if it's someone who couldn't successfully work with others of different opinion to find solutions to problems that plague us all. And actually, I agree that there has been too much animosity toward "white men"-just as these groups don't want to be singled out and and discredited in certain situations on the basis of sex/color, it's hypocritical and regressive of them to do the same thing.

 

I don't expect all speakers at Berkeley or anywhere else to have all been in Congress, but given that this was a political topic most people should be able to respect the information presented by someone voted in to deal with these problems regularly. They are a more reasonable authority on the subject.

 

Yes, of course I did look into this issue, no need to make this debate hostile. If you noticed, my intention was to go back and see where the string of choices that got us here could have been even slightly changed to avoid this conflict. This is still not an issue of free speech for either side. And of course I condemn any violence or threats thereof, it's unfortunate that they're present because it automatically ruins any point protesters try to make. But I am not discussing why it was cancelled, so this is only evidence of vehement opposition in this context. So then the question is "why is it this level of opposition?"

 

Yes, these protesters have gotten out of control, but it's not really a choice between them and the speaker-they kind of went hand in hand, didn't they? But I hazard anyone would have preferred someone with a normal voice and no/few protesters of a reasonable caliber, and that's kind of my point.

 

 

I appreciate everyone's thoughts, it's rewarding to be challenged in a calm environment with evidence and different perspectives.

[Sally]

2 hours ago, CaptainYesterday said:

 The speech was cancelled because of threats of violent attacks. That is not free speech.  

Those issuing the threats were exercising their free speech rights.  You don't support them?  

[Yatogami]

Lol at blaming "Right extreamists" when the Left has been extream for years now. (Democrats are right winged, Social democrats are far left)

[daveb]

14 hours ago, Sally said:

You don't support them?  

(I know this wasn't addressed to me)

I don't support anyone who makes threats of violence (or things like "doxxing").

 

I support their right to voice opposition and even to threaten boycotts, but not violence. And even leaving aside the ethics/morality of it, it's just stupid and counter-productive. Makes me miss the Obamas more ("they go low, we go high").

[SorryNotSorry]

I find it grimly amusing how many of these people who are so vocal about blaming everyone but themselves for every wrong they've suffered (real or imagined) never seem to get that maybe the problem is their intolerant attitude.

[carbomb]

UC Berkeley needs to get their students the fuck in line, and the Berkeley Chief of Police needs to stop refusing to take action against Antifa and issuing stand-down orders to her officers. These are the types of things that make me proud to be a YAF chapter head: attempting to give a speech and then getting shutdown under threat of violence by communist terrorists who are known to be willing to use low-grade explosives on their intellectual opponents (not that anyone in Antifa could ever be considered intellectual). As always, I'm #ProudOfYourBoy and we need to get these trust-fund commies off our streets.

[Sally]

17 minutes ago, yourcaptaiin said:

Berkeley Campus Police needs to get their students the fuck in line. 

I think you're still in high school?  When you get to college, you'll find that that is not what campus police are employed to do.  

[carbomb]

1 minute ago, Sally said:

I think you're still in high school?  When you get to college, you'll find that that is not what campus police are employed to do.  

Whoops, I meant to say Berkeley PD.

[ChillaKilla]

7 hours ago, yourcaptaiin said:

Whoops, I meant to say Berkeley PD.

Am pretty sure the police in Berkeley have more to worry about than rowdy college kids, like drug trafficking and gang crime.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]

[ChillaKilla]

7 minutes ago, CaptainYesterday said:

Rowdy?  These are riots where Antifa is beating people with bottles and bike locks, or stomping on unconscuous people's heads.

I'm trying to find sources for that that aren't from GatewayPundit, or websites called "100% truth" or "the new American" or something of that nature.

[carbomb]

3 hours ago, ChillaKilla said:

Am pretty sure the police in Berkeley have more to worry about than rowdy college kids, like drug trafficking and gang crime.

You mean the rowdy college kids with m80s and tear gas?

[daveb]

1 hour ago, ChillaKilla said:

I'm trying to find sources for that that aren't from GatewayPundit, or websites called "100% truth" or "the new American" or something of that nature.

Yeah, I've tried to look for reliable information. As far as I can tell there is either violence going on from both the right and the left or just one or the other or neither (but rather, by anarchists, whose motives or political "direction" (right/left/other) I am not familiar with - just disruption? or something else?).

 

I am against violence and threats of violence by any side/group/individual.

[CaptainYesterday]

[deleted]