UC Berkeley: Student GOP group suing because they dont like the date the University told them to have Ann Coulter speak? (Condi Rice, weapon)

[alliance]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Yeah, but that's not what this thread is about. The thread is about a group of conservative students suing the university, because they don't like the date the university gave them for the speaker they wanted to invite.


More info needed, OP. Without additional info, it comes across like a troll topic.

Solid counterpoint.


Supposedly coulter couldn't do the new date, so that's probably part of the issue I imagine.

[likealady]

Originally Posted by twins4lynn

^ Student groups threaten to sue UC Berkeley over Ann Coulter visit - SFGate if you want more sources, google.

Thank you. OP should have included that in the original post.

From the article, it's pretty clear UC Berkeley has a history of canceling/silencing speakers who aren't clearly liberal. The best part of the article is when they say the university did a similar thing with David Horowitz, who's known to speak about liberal indoctrination in US schools.

That said, booking the speech for a dead week, during the day is a d**k move.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Masterful_Man

Who cares if there's a point or not.
The 1st Amendment should always prevail, especially at a tax payer funded university!
The thought of a public university trying to ban people from speaking because they're "controversial" is abhorrent and uncivilized.

College students aren't little children and they don't need to be mollycoddled and "protected" by the smug intellgentsia who run the universities nowadays.

Students should hear a variety of political and philosophical ideas, even the controversial ones.



The only time it's ok to shut down a speaker is when that speaker is making death threats, calling for other acts of violence to be committed, or commits other illegal offenses during their speaking engagement.

Public universities should strictly adhere to the 1st amendment in these cases.

OK. So the Constitution doesn't apply at private universities? Why not?

So if UC were to invite Ahmedinajad to speak, as long as he doesn't advocate violence against anyone, he should be received politely? Or Raoul Castro, or his representative? Just checking. Would it depend on whether public monies were being spent to pay their honorarium? What if they spoke for free, would that make a difference?

[silverkris]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

They don't cancel all conservative speakers, as if it were a policy. They've cancelled two speakers who admit that they try to be prevocational. They cancelled them after the first one resulted not only in student protests, but in the infiltration of the protest by a violent anarchist group from the neighboring city, that caused mayhem. The university apparently was concerned about the same thing occurring with the currently invited speaker, and took steps to minimize the danger.

What your question really boils down to is: why are only conservative speakers met with student protest? And as others have pointed out, why bother to protest at all? Why not simply avoid the occasion, and attend the lectures one wants to attend?

Those are good questions.

Point is - folks like Milo Y. and Coulter are agent provocateurs. They feed on rancor - and they deliberately book events at places like UCB to get attention. Protests (especially those which are a bit violent) help make their point.

Best way to deal with them is to IGNORE them - and that will take the oxygen from them.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

"Starting to look like giant trolls?" Starting? Always obvious since Obama took office in 2009. Rightwing extremist militias have doubled in number to 500 since 2008. The Oathkeepers and others travel from cross country to these events. Why else would a person travel thousands of miles to "hear Coulter speak" when she speaks all over the country at the drop of a hat? This is all about creating physical confrontations.

Sad.

I meant very specifically the Berkeley Republicans. This was not a comment about right wing groups in general.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I had to look Ann Coulter up, as I didn't know who she was.

Really? It's impossible to have followed American national politics these past 20 years and not know who Ann Coulter is. She's long been one of the more famous conservative authors, columnists, and TV pundits, appearing on all the cable news channels -- Fox, CNBC, C-Span, et al.

She not only analyzes the news, she often makes news through her outrageous statements (e.g., calling the 9/11 widows greedy; complaining about the GOP pandering to Jews -- see below links).

Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows - CBS News

Coulter Doubles Down on 'How Many F-ing Jews' Tweet - Breitbart

Sorry, I just don't buy that you never heard of Ann Coulter.

[Perma Bear]

This topic is barely related to the Bay Area, it's way more political. It would be like me making a topic about Robert s McNamara and claiming it's an sf topic because he was born there.

[Masterful_Man]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

OK. So the Constitution doesn't apply at private universities? Why not?

It depends.
As long as the private university isn't accepting federal or state money, then they are not bound by the constitution in the same way that public universities are.

Think of a private university as a private house. I'm not legally obligated to allow freedom of speech within the confines of my own home. Since a private university is private property, neither are they. But most private institutions allow freedom of expression because that is generally an intellectual tradition.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

So if UC were to invite Ahmedinajad to speak, as long as he doesn't advocate violence against anyone, he should be received politely?

That would be the civilized thing to do. You can politely disagree with him and engage in discourse if you wish, but there's no point in rioting or making a fuss just because you disagree with his views.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Or Raoul Castro, or his representative? Just checking. Would it depend on whether public monies were being spent to pay their honorarium? What if they spoke for free, would that make a difference?

Whether they're getting paid or not makes no difference. A public university is public ground, not private property, therefore the 1st amendment always prevails.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Masterful_Man

Think of a private university as a private house. I'm not legally obligated to allow freedom of speech within the confines of my own home. Since a private university is private property, neither are they. But most private institutions allow freedom of expression because that is generally an intellectual tradition..

"Freedom of speech," as a "right" in the US is only a legal, constitutional protection against interference by the government. Not by restriction from individuals or businesses, nor non-governmet institutions.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Cinema Cat

Really? It's impossible to have followed American national politics these past 20 years and not know who Ann Coulter is. She's long been one of the more famous conservative authors, columnists, and TV pundits, appearing on all the cable news channels -- Fox, CNBC, C-Span, et al.

She not only analyzes the news, she often makes news through her outrageous statements (e.g., calling the 9/11 widows greedy; complaining about the GOP pandering to Jews -- see below links).

Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows - CBS News

Coulter Doubles Down on 'How Many F-ing Jews' Tweet - Breitbart

Sorry, I just don't buy that you never heard of Ann Coulter.

Well, I don't have cable, for one thing. I'm glad I missed out on all that stupid flack you're referencing here. It makes for a much more peaceful life.