Ann Coulter speech protests/cancellation

[Segnosaur]

Haven't seen any threads regarding this, but if there is, my apologies...

There is currently a controversy here in Ottawa where Conservative author/columnist Ann Coulter was supposed to give a speech at the University of Ottawa. However, the talk was canceled after protests by students (including a falsely-pulled fire alarm).

This was not the only negative reaction to Coulter... posters of the event had been banned from certain buildings, she's been criticized in our house of parliament, and one of the professors at the university mailed her a letter suggesting she "tone down" her comments.

As a result, Coulter has labeled the Canadian university as 'bush league', pointing out that such protests would never have happened at the more high-quality colleges in the U.S.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5grH5rnCyMoqFbARVHi9zhJY-kQnAD9EKVOKG1
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/always+bush+league+schools+Coulter+contends/2720460/story.html

Now, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. I have never read any of her books, watched any interviews with her, or read any of her articles. From what I have heard of her, she sounds like an idiot in so many ways.

That said, I think she's right... cases like that do reflect very badly on our universities (and by extension our population). The proper response to bad speech is to counter it with good speech. Yes, Ann Coulter says dumb things. Best way to handle it is to let her rant and rave, then bring in your own speakers, or write a letter to your local newspaper pointing out all the stupid things she said.

Unfortunately, now she has the "moral high ground", and Canada looks like we don't respect the concept of freedom of speech.

 

[GreNME]

Unfortunately, now she has the "moral high ground", and Canada looks like we don't respect the concept of freedom of speech.

I don't see how either of those cases are so. Coulter backed out, and is trying to claim that the criticism stopped her from appearing when it didn't. It just shows how much of a liar and a wimp she really is.

 

[pgwenthold]

As a result, Coulter has labeled the Canadian university as 'bush league', pointing out that such protests would never have happened at the more high-quality colleges in the U.S.

Wasn't she the one who got hit with a pie in the face on a University visit once?

 

[Praktik]

I understand the ideal of Universities as being sites where all ideas are welcome. That being said, the base nature of Coulter's comments belong in a bar, not in a university where we hope that discussions occur at a much higher level.

The only place for Coulter in University is as an object of study in a course on political discourse, where she would fit in under the portion of the class dedicated to mass media debasement of politics, she doesn't fit in as a speaker, since the quality of her ideas is just "bush league" when it comes to intellectual authority.

 

[Buckaroo]

Her fake indignation is priceless. She's loving this.

 

[lomiller]

I think there is plenty to dislike about Coulter and the protesters were well within their rights for the most part. The university was also well within it’s rights to respond the way it did and I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with a university avoiding some controversies.

The problem is that this was part of a free speech series specifically aimed at putting controversial figures up and allowing them to talk with the overall message that even controversial voices should be allowed to speak. If the university wasn’t willing to weather the controversy they should have never agreed to take part in the series to begin with. It amounts to them saying they support controversial free speech, unless it turns out to be controversial.

Naturally the conservative pundits on corus radio have missed the point and are trying to tout this as some type of “anti-conservative agenda” it much more a case of the university wanting to be bold and controversial until they realize what that implies. They should have thought it though before they decided to participate, not after.

 

[Praktik]

ya if they wanted controversy they coulda picked someone who doesn't conceive of politics as a form of schoolyard taunting.

There's plenty of controversial figures out there that are still intellectually coherent and worthy of respect.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The problem is that this was part of a free speech series specifically aimed at putting controversial figures up and allowing them to talk with the overall message that even controversial voices should be allowed to speak.

... ouch.
Yeah, the University loses on this one.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I think there is plenty to dislike about Coulter and the protesters were well within their rights for the most part. The university was also well within it’s rights to respond the way it did and I don’t necessarily think there is anything wrong with a university avoiding some controversies.

I'd draw the line at pies-in-the-face and false fire alarms, though.

Protesting against giving a disingenuous hatemonger a platform is fine. I support free speech, but that doesn't mean I'd let someone put up a racist sign on my lawn.

However, there are lines as to what acts of protest are acceptable.

The problem is that this was part of a free speech series specifically aimed at putting controversial figures up and allowing them to talk with the overall message that even controversial voices should be allowed to speak. If the university wasn’t willing to weather the controversy they should have never agreed to take part in the series to begin with. It amounts to them saying they support controversial free speech, unless it turns out to be controversial.

I think there's a difference between a speaker whose ideas may be offensive and a speaker whose idea is to be offensive.

 

[Thunder]

Canada is not the USA. I don't know what your Freedom of Speech laws or principles are.

However, I believe in her right to speak, and the right of protesters to call her names and yell.

 

[TraneWreck]

This is very, very shaky ground. The beginning of this trend was the German prohibition against Halocaust denial. ONe can certainly understand their sensitivity, but I believe we're coasting down that infamous "slippery slope" as we speak.

 

[Segnosaur]

Unfortunately, now she has the "moral high ground", and Canada looks like we don't respect the concept of freedom of speech.

I don't see how either of those cases are so. Coulter backed out, and is trying to claim that the criticism stopped her from appearing when it didn't. It just shows how much of a liar and a wimp she really is.

First of all, yes, Coulter did back out, but that may have had something to do with the strong possibility that any protests would get out of control. (Remember, at least one of the protesters thought pulling a fire alarm was a 'good idea'.) I'd also have to wonder if she would have even been able to give her speech or if she would have had protesters shouting at her all through her speech.

Secondly, remember, it was not just the protests, it was the fact that we have hate speech laws, and the fact that a professor at the university took the time to write her suggesting she 'tone things down'.

 

[AvalonXQ]

However, I believe in her right to speak, and the right of protesters to call her names and yell.

How about the right of protesters to physically block the event hall so she and others can't get in?
How about the right of protesters to create a false alarm to force the event to adjourn?

 

[Segnosaur]

I understand the ideal of Universities as being sites where all ideas are welcome. That being said, the base nature of Coulter's comments belong in a bar, not in a university where we hope that discussions occur at a much higher level.

The only place for Coulter in University is as an object of study in a course on political discourse, where she would fit in under the portion of the class dedicated to mass media debasement of politics, she doesn't fit in as a speaker, since the quality of her ideas is just "bush league" when it comes to intellectual authority.

Just wondering... who exactly do you suggest is responsible for making a decision about what is "bush league" when it comes to free speech? How do you determine what is acceptable for universities and what should be restricted to just 'bar talk'? Where do you draw the line, and how do you guarantee that whatever 'criteria' you use to filter out the riff-raft at universities doesn't result in some borderline ideas being condemned?

There's plenty of controversial figures out there that are still intellectually coherent and worthy of respect.

Respected by whom? Who decides who's worthy of respect? And doesn't that mean that you could miss out on 'valid' ideas just because they're spoken by someone not worth respect? (Remember, the saying... even an blind squirrel can find an acorn.)

The people who invited her to speak probably felt she was "worthy of respect". I certainly don't agree, but do you think your opinion on respectability should always override others?

 

[Thunder]

How about the right of protesters to physically block the event hall so she and others can't get in?
How about the right of protesters to create a false alarm to force the event to adjourn?

um...that's not speech. one person's speech should not violate another person's ability to use the same right.

 

[AvalonXQ]

um...that's not speech.

I'm glad we agree.
The college messed up on this one.
Oh, well. They'll learn.

 

[lector]

As a result, Coulter has labeled the Canadian university as 'bush league', pointing out that such protests would never have happened at the more high-quality colleges in the U.S.

That, of course, is pure bull pucky. This sort of thing has a long history on U.S. campuses.

Typical of Coulter to whip out the gratuitous xenophobe card.

 

[AvalonXQ]

That, of course, is pure bull pucky. This sort of thing has a long history on U.S. campuses.

I doubt the people at this university dislike Coulter any more than the Ivy League, but she's never been physically blocked or sabotaged from giving talks at any of those schools.

 

[Segnosaur]

Canada is not the USA. I don't know what your Freedom of Speech laws or principles are.

Well, we do have "freedom of speech" in our constitution, but we also have an article in our charter of rights that states:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
So, the government can pass laws against 'hate speech', pr0n, or anything else, and claim those are 'reasonable limits' to free speech. (That would leave it up to the supreme court to decide what is 'reasonable'.)

Of course, in this case, it wasn't necessarily the government that was shutting her down. Instead, it was a group of protesters.

However, I believe in her right to speak, and the right of protesters to call her names and yell.

Well, as others have asked, does that include the right to set off false fire-alarms?

And does that also include the right to yell loud enough to disrupt her own speech? Do I really have "free speech" if, every time I open my mouth someone over-shouts me with a bull-horn?

 

[Praktik]

Just wondering... who exactly do you suggest is responsible for making a decision about what is "bush league" when it comes to free speech? How do you determine what is acceptable for universities and what should be restricted to just 'bar talk'? Where do you draw the line, and how do you guarantee that whatever 'criteria' you use to filter out the riff-raft at universities doesn't result in some borderline ideas being condemned?




Respected by whom? Who decides who's worthy of respect? And doesn't that mean that you could miss out on 'valid' ideas just because they're spoken by someone not worth respect? (Remember, the saying... even an blind squirrel can find an acorn.)

The people who invited her to speak probably felt she was "worthy of respect". I certainly don't agree, but do you think your opinion on respectability should always override others?

All good questions and should be determined by the university administration - but I don't think people like Coulter are at the level of discourse that universities should be fostering. She's a cable-TV, bite-size zinger person - might as well invite the anchors of E! Hollywood to come talk about politics...

The one problem with going down the "who determines what is respectable" route is that if this becomes our overriding fear, then the logical end of that route is an open-season in which any and all speakers are invited to speak at the university, even if their intellectual worth is at the level of WWE pre-match speeches...