So any speech by anyone must be allowed an audience and center stage at a

[Eliot Rosewater]

University?

Simple question.

[sharp_stick]

1. If they've been invited by

a member of that university with the ability to book a room and invite speakers. Most universities have rules that regulate which groups may and may not form. Those groups that are allowed to form should be able to invite a speaker.

[mythology]

5. This. Free speech means sometimes assholes have something to say

College should be about hearing ideas, learning how to think, how to defend your beliefs/work.

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. What if they invite me and I promote the death of Jews?

[sharp_stick]

15. Which University group is going to invite

you and allow you to promote the death of Jews?

Universities have rules about the groups that faculty and students can form.

[maxsolomon]

22. The College Republicans?

They invite Yiannopoulis, they invite Coulter.

Slippery slopes...

[sharp_stick]

23. Slippery Slope?

You ban people from speaking and more and more people are going to get banned. Everybody is going to have a handy little list about who they don't want to speak.

[maxsolomon]

38. I'm saying that The College Republicans

would invite Holocaust Deniers (or MRAs, or 9/11 Truthers, etc.), just for the LULZ they get trolling Liberals.

You wanted to know who'd invite them. It won't be the Cal Anti-Semite Club.

[NunnesBuznat]

45. You do realize that you're allowing them to succeed?

They want to get a rise out of you. They want to see a protest. Otherwise they spend the afternoon being really uncomfortable with a neck-tatooed neo-nazi convict angrily ranting to a room of 5 internet trolls. If you don't care or even bother to notice them in the slightest they have failed. With the added benefit of wetting their pants because a skinhead is screaming at them.

[maxsolomon]

49. I am allowing it? Slow your roll, 3 posts.

I'm not calling for banning Coulter or the College Republibros.

BTW, your "ignore them and they'll go away" theory is utter crap. That's how Liberals have dealt with Hate Radio for 30 years. How'd that work out?

[melman]

17. Would you be likely to promote that?

What an odd thing to post.

[Eliot Rosewater]

21. Why would you purposely completely change the point of my message?

What is YOUR agenda?

[beam me up scottie]

44. Indeed.

[Azathoth]

79. That would likely crossover into incitement n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

13. Anybody? Could I form a group that promotes an agenda that is anti gay and gay marriage

and invite anyone of thousands of white supremacists who hate gays to the point where they think extermination is necessary?

[sharp_stick]

18. As I said in the earlier post

Universities have rules about which groups can form. The KKK is not going to be one of them and neither is Stormfront. Unless the group is approved they won't be able to book a room or a speaker on campus.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. What about anti gay groups, disguised as pro traditional marriage who would

promote harm to gays?

Is hate speech protected where it can cause harm to others directly?

[onenote]

58. If it doesn't meet the incitement standard (imminent violence)

And prior restraints are almost always unconstitutional

[pnwmom]

28. But the students HAD NOT booked a room. They had made a request and then,

without waiting for a response, announced the speaker in the media. Berkeley learned about it through the newspaper.

Berkeley said no to the April 27th (evening) date and then offered a May 2 (afternoon) date. They didn't have an appropriate venue open on the 27th but they did on the 2nd.

The students were wrong to sign Coulter up and announce the meeting before the time and date had been approved by Berkeley

[onenote]

68. My understanding is that Coulter had agreed to an afternoon time slot

The burden is on the university to explain why it is reasonable to insist on May 2 instead of April 27.

[pnwmom]

95. The U has already explained. The appropriate venues (based on size and safety)

were already booked on April 27th,, but there was one open on the afternoon of May 2.

[sharp_stick]

112. The thing with Berkeley and the Repuke students

is that afaic they don't even care if Coulter speaks. They booked her knowing and especially hoping that there would be pushback.

Coulter would have been pissed if she just showed up and gave a speech where nobody except the student pukes showed up.

One thing Republicans are good at is media manipulation and they play it over and over again forcing the school to make multiple announcements that eventually sound like a cover up.

I may have missed it but didn't Berkeley in one of their statements say they couldn't, or wouldn't, accommodate the talk because of security issues?

Berkeley should never, IMO, use the term "security" as a reason. Even if it is a concern it sounds like an easy cop out. Berkeley has a well equipped police force and should be able to secure a stupid speech by a shill like Coulter.

[pnwmom]

115. You must have missed what happened when Milo Y. arrived -- $100,000 worth of physical damage

to Berkeley. Windows were broken, fires were set, as the police concentrated on keeping students uninjured, rather than the facility.

The violence was believed not to have been done by Berkeley students, but by outsiders who drove in from outside the campus.

I think Berkeley, which has an open campus, is completely justified in wanting to hold the event in a building that can be better secured and at a time (the afternoon) that will make security easier and also cut down on outsiders.

[sharp_stick]

116. You're right, I've been trying to discuss this

from two different positions (the school and the ability of school groups to schedule who they want) and unfortunately I've had trouble closing the circle.

Berkeley has the right to decide how it's population invites speakers and they seem to have done a very bad job of getting the message out about what the rules are. They have to either tighten up the rules, or make damn sure everyone including the media knows what they are. Something like saying any accredited group on campus like the young republicans or any other may not advertise a specific date with any speaker until a room has been secured and approved by the University. The school also has to put some teeth in this rule, if the pukes did invite Coulter and put out a date when she was coming to spew idiocy without first getting a date and room the speech is off and the pukes can't offer another speech for 6 months or something. This has to apply to everyone, if the campus hibiscus lovers book someones aunt to speak to the group and don't have the requisite permission, they can't do it again for 6 months.

Where this whole thing gets hairy is when security is involved. The alt-right and their pedophile poster boy are really good at inciting violence and I don't have a good answer on how to minimize the risk. Mandatory tickets to the event and closed streets? Zero tolerance against violence, get arrested you get charged and if found guilty have to make restitution? No masks / face coverings at demonstrations to give the police a better chance of IDing people?

A way has to be found short of what seems to be arbitrary cancellation of speeches. In this case it's looking more like Berkeley is just being outgunned on the perception front. I would have preferred if the school had a boiler plate response to this kind of thing.

Something like. "Unfortunately, the group inviting Ms. Coulter did not secure a room or date prior to the advertising the invitation. We are unable to accommodate a speech at that date and time. If this group would like to work with us to find a suitable date and time we are happy to do so."

Then in a more private way, and probably with more legally correct language contact the campus young republicans with a note saying. "The next time you entitled little shits try to book a speaker without first securing a room and time you will be suspended from meeting on campus or inviting any speakers for the next ## months." Personally if I was an official I'd probably leak the second letter to the press as well.

[pnwmom]

118. Yes, the Berkeley administration botched their response, and they're realizing that now.

I've read a lot about the incident and their response, so I don't know where I saw this, but one of their administrators said that they've recently had a level of violence unlike anything they've seen in decades -- so they are in the midst of deciding how to change their policies to deal with this. But before they could do so, this happened.

[pnwmom]

104. Should they be allowed to book speakers BEFORE getting approval for a venue at the University?

Because that's what the Berkeley students did.

[phylny]

2. Not so simple. What are you saying? n/t

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Either anyone and everyone who could be invited must be allowed to speak

including someone who outlines a plan to kill all Jews, for instance, or not.

Which is it?

[Voltaire2]

35. The government is restricted by the first amendment.

Private organizations are not. Public universities are in a grey area where they should take care to not infringe on free speech but also can determine what is acceptable on their campuses and what isn't. In this case there is no simple answer despite your insistence on one. You have proposed a false dichotomy.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Exactly.

[Thomas Hurt]

3. None of your constitutional rights are absolute

as state schools most universities can not violate individuals free speech but they can regulate them as long as the restrictions....

Be content neutral
Be narrowly tailored
Serve a significant governmental interest
Leave open ample alternative channels for communication

at least I think this is still the test.

[kentuck]

37. A similarity to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

I lean more to the free speech aspect of the argument.

However, there should be enough people to boo vociferously, in my opinion.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. The world's most torturously mis-and over-used anti free speech metaphor.

For one, "yelling fire in a crowded theater" wouldn't even necessarily apply to actually yelling fire in a crowded theater.

It sure as shit doesn't apply to the fifty bajillion other examples people invariably try to invoke it around, mostly some variation of "person A says or writes or sings or films or draws something that person B finds offensive"


https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2013/03/04/please-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-metaphor/

[Atman]

4. I'll listen to anyone.

Doesn't mean I have to like them, or agree with what they're saying.

[Kentonio]

83. Likewise

[hunter]

93. I do not listen to anyone.

It's a waste of my time.

I'm not rude at first, but some persist (typically Prosperity Gospel Christian types, Right Wing Catholics, and Creationists...). Eventually I have to tell them explicitly to go away, and I can be quite intimidating about it.

I've got a few in-laws and acquaintances who used to email me those insipid Christian stories that are meant to be "inspiring." They don't anymore. I'm especially hostile to Creationists who attempt to weasel their way into public schools posing as geologists. We had a "fossil guy" like that in our community and it's possible he quit coming around because he was afraid of me. I don't feel bad about that.

It's too bad naked protests aren't a thing anymore except among the most radical of greens. I'll bet a hall full of naked people, backsides turned to Ann Coulter would greatly unnerve her and her supporters.

[vlyons]

6. I really don't care

if asshole students invite asshole speakers. I strongly support free speech. I also support students skipping the event if they so choose. When time after time, speakers like Ann Coulter can only attract a handful of people for an audience, she will no longer get those big speaker fees.

[maxsolomon]

16. a metropolis as large as the east bay will fill a hall to see Coulter every time she wants to speak

even if 99% of the campus ignores it.

this is provocation by Trumpist College Republibros.

[maxsolomon]

7. Public school, yes

But even that has limits.

Cal is within their rights to cancel the speech over safety concerns. There WILL be confrontations between these Fascists and Antifa. That's what Antifa does, and bringing Rightists to speak at Berkeley is trying to land a beachhead at Ground Zero of Liberal America. Fuck that. No Thugs in Our House.

That tactic deserves a vehement response. It doesn't have to be violent; but that's what they're trying to provoke. Look at the shooting that took place on Univ of Washington's campus on Inauguration Day: a Rightist was pepper-spraying the protestors, and an Antifa member took the canister away, at which point the man's wife pulled out a gun and shot him point-blank "in self-defense", with riot police just yards away. Who walks away a hero of the right? The woman with the gun.

Solution: allow the Speech, put the College Republicans on the hook for increased security, including OT for the police.

[onenote]

8. Heckler's Veto

As a general matter, the First Amendment does not allow the state (and in the case the University is the state) from engaging in a prior restraint of otherwise permissible speech because of the reaction in might evoke in others. If the speech does evoke a violent confrontation, the authorities can silence the protesters if they are engaging in disorderly conduct. If necessary, the authorities can also shut down the speaker. But not in advance.

[maxsolomon]

14. thanks - good info

however, that's NOT what the police did at UW. they let rightists deploy pepper gas on Antifa, and let a protestor get shot - on a campus where guns are banned.

[pnwmom]

31. But the first amendment doesn't require the University to schedule a speaker for April 27 at night

(Coulter's preference) instead of May 2, in the afternoon. (Berkeley's.)

That's what the fight now is about -- not whether she can speak at all.

[onenote]

46. The issue is whether there is a reasonable basis for the date choice

Or to turn it around-- is there a reasonable basis for not allowing the speech on the date selected by those sponsoring the speech.

[pnwmom]

96. And there is. There wasn't an opening in an appropriate venue on May 2. nt

[geek tragedy]

9. the presumption should be that the speech be allowed. nt

[Softail1]

10. the way to win the cultural debate...

is NOT by crushing free speech...it's with better arguments. Universities are not supposed to take sides here..

[maxsolomon]

19. Private Universities get to take sides.

Cal Berkeley offered a daytime event to limit the possibility of violence. That's not good enough? That seems reasonable.

We HAVE vastly better arguments. We don't have a national media (Fox, RW Hate Radio, even Churches) to catapult the propaganda.

Their lies are louder than our truths.

"Crushing"

[Softail1]

25. yes..private ones do...I was refering to Berkley which is public

and public ones don't get to take sides...or shouldn't anyways...since they take tax dollars

[pnwmom]

33. But Berkeley WILL allow her to speak on May 2 in the afternoon, in a venue

that the University feels can be made secure -- for the sake of both Coulter and the students.

[davsand]

24. I may hate the content but I'll defend the right to say it.

One of the problems with defending free speech is you often have to defend people that you find to be outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting.

Salman Rushdie

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/salmanrush580393.html

______________________


Having offered that, do I agree with the decision to invite her to speak? Nope. not one bit. I personally find her offensive. But, somebody did invite her, and they are the ones to rail at. At this point, she's already been invited to speak, she has the right to do so, and every sane person has the right not to listen.


Laura

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. Doesnt apply here. AT all.

What legal reason can ANYBODY have a stage to speak at any university?

What legal reasons require they MUST be allowed?

[NunnesBuznat]

36. Nobody disputes the illegality

It's the efficacy. You're making us the bad ones. If a speaker you vehemently oppose is invited to your college, try to engage in civility and debate instead of denial and intolerance. Frankly you're hurting the party, really, really badly.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. Uh huh, you betcha!

[moriah]

43. That's not what the current argument is about re: Coulter...

... as it's now about them offering her a slot at a time she doesn't prefer (and probably always was), demonstrating that obviously yes the University believes they have the choice of who should be allowed to speak and when.

Bernie called out the people who used violence to stop free speech (violence is not protected free speech) and are giving the entire protest movement a bad name. I strongly suspect if they ever figure out who hss been stirring up violence amongst protesters we will find those groups have been infiltrated by outside agitators deliberately trying to make laws against protests be considered reasonable by the majority of the public.

Bernie's criticism of refusal to allow speech you disagree with as as "sign of intellectual weakness", though, rings true. And if we want the right for Bernie to speak at a public university in Arkansas where I live, letting Propaganda-Bot, Ann Edition, speak is probably a wise way to avoid hypocrisy. She can't demand a specific date or time, though.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Well said.

And it's fairly obvious that violent anarchists are being used to discredit the protesters.

Same as it ever was.

[NastyRiffraff]

47. What legal reason? None

Free speech, as I've posted elsewhere, is a function of government; i.e. the government can't arrest you for saying things, even stupid things. It does NOT guarantee that you must be given a venue, that your book must be published or your show cannot be cancelled. It doesn't mean that there will be no controversy. There are exceptions to free speech, but not very many. But the point is simply that you can't be thrown in jail even if you spout pure shit.

As far as I know, Coulter has not been threatened with arrest.

[Eliot Rosewater]

50. Right, so there is no reason why the university must give her a venue.

Glad we all agree.

Whether they should or not, before trump I would have said yes.

But I also thought that even with endless PR free from all the networks there were not enough americans so dumb as to elect him

wrong

So are there enough americans dumb enough to buy into her horror show?

[NastyRiffraff]

51. Exactly, there is no legal reason

Whether or not she SHOULD be given a venue can be argued, but it's not a free speech issue, or argument.

[onenote]

107. Actually, there is. The First Amendment.

The University is a state actor. It has established venues within the University that are "designated public forums" for purposes of the First Amendment. As designated public forums, the University can set certain content neutral, non-discriminatory reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on the use of those designated public forum. But the University does not have carte blanche to refuse a request from a student group to invite a speaker because the University doesn't like what the speaker is going to say or because they are concerned about the reaction of third parties.

[SomethingNew]

94. Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding free speech jurisprudence.

Free speech isn't just that the government "can't arrest you." Free speech, in the context being discussed here, relates to a government venue imposing either (a) content based restrictions on speakers—obviously not allowed or (b) restrictions on speakers due to the threats of third parties. If you are seriously supporting the latter, you should note that it comes from Feiner v. New York where the cops shut down a speaker who was arguing for equal rights for blacks since a white racist in the crowd starting shouting threats at him. I don't think anyone seriously thinks Feiner is still good law. Black and Douglass got it right in their dissents, arguing that the police have a duty to protect the speaker by arresting the violent third parties, not by shutting down his/her speech.

Berkeley is a public university with established methods of inviting speakers. I don't know all the circumstances surrounding Coulter's invitation but if it was made in accordance with those procedures, Berkeley should not be shutting down here speech and doing so is arguably unconstitutional. Furthermore, and more importantly, Berkeley should not be doing this even if it is within the rules. We have crossed over into Bizarro Wold where liberals are arguing against free speech. Liberal giants of the past (like, for example, J. Douglas) are probably spinning in their graves. I can only imagine the disappointment of old school liberals who fought for civil rights like my old 1st amendment professor when they see things like this in the news and hear opinions championing Berkeley's behavior from so-called liberals today.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

114. Thanks. Bookmarking. NT

[onenote]

60. If they allow anyone, then they have an issue about not allowing some speakers.

It's immediately suspect under the First Amendment.

[davsand]

100. If you don't grasp the intellectual argument here there's no reason to continue.

Academic freedom and intellectual freedom are at play here not just the single shade of Freedom to Suppress speech we hate. These people invited to this ceremony (presumably) have the mental faculties to form their own opinions in the face of contradictory statements. You not only argue to deny her a fundamental right, but you also argue to deny the audience the freedom to form their own opinions. They are not toddlers to be protected and arguing to the contrary shows a disrespect to them.

She can say any damn thing she wants as long as she's there by invitation. Nobody has to like it, nor do they even have to listen to it. they chose to invite her this time and they can choose NOT to invite the next time.

YMMV, but I am done with this discussion.

[X_Digger]

102. We're not dealing with *any* university, we're dealing with a state university.

Therefore they're an extension of the state, which must abide by the first amendment.

Private college? They can do whatever the fuck they like.

[JHan]

26. Trolls are not entitled to rarefied platforms

Impossible to engage seriously or fruitfully with a troll - and Ann is a Troll.

Ann's free speech has never been under threat and she is not entitled to spew her trolling everywhere.

[Eliot Rosewater]

32. People confuse the right to stand in the public square and having speech with

any other venue.

If we have a lawyer about she or he could explain why a university is not a public square.

[JHan]

56. Not sure, if arrangements had already been made then maybe she'd be the wronged party here..

but I'm not a lawyer.

It is disturbing tho that Trolls are being treated as though they approach a debate in good faith.

On the other hand, I thought the resistance to charles murray not helpful. He wrote one of the most influential books of the (latter) 20th century and needs to be challenged thoroughly to expose his specious arguments.

[onenote]

61. A University may not be the "public square" but they almost always have areas that are "designated

public forums" where the Constitution limits the types of restrictions that can be put on who can use them.

[WinkyDink]

77. EXACTLY.

[lies]

27. Here's the thing

As long as the University is ok with it, yes.

There's basically no limits on free speech in America, except for a few well carved out exceptions.

What people can do is try and pressure the university to withdraw the invitation. And then they can PEACEFULLY protest the event if they want. They can even arrange a counter event on the same day.

What America doesn't believe in though is silencing people they disagree with. Imagine if the President could do that.

Other countries have more carve outs though. You can't be a Holocaust denier or rather, promote that view, in multiple countries. It's unprotected speech, like threatening the President in the US.

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. So any speech including an outline of how to exterminate all people with brown hair must

be allowed?

Who says the university is OK with it?

Again, the pro traditional marriage group at your university wants to invite a white supremacist who supports sterilization of gays, can he speak?


Let me make this easier, you want to speak there and talk about how lovely green flowers are, is there some law that guarantees your right to speak on a stage at that university?

[NunnesBuznat]

41. Stop taking things to the 11th degree; it's childish

If they advocate violence in public they're open to lawsuit and misdemeanor. If they preach abhorrence any respectable institution will blacklist them thereon , and failing to do so will result in a decline in admissions. It isn't your job to police the world and get it to conform to your (likely correct) viewpoints. This behavior has cost us elections.

[Kentonio]

87. Exactly

It's high time we went back to convincing people to share our opinions by making the most compelling case, not by telling them to agree or else they're terrible people.

[Eliot Rosewater]

91. LOL

Since that is what attorneys and courts do all day long, everyday...you best let them know they are being childish

[onenote]

62. Yes. The United States Constitution

protects speech in designated public forums, which include areas within a public university where speech is allowed. Once the university allows groups to invite speakers to venues within the university, it cannot simply ban others from making use of the venue - they can restrict the use to student-approved groups and must not discriminate based on the content of the speech and may not impose a prior restraint based on what they think the reaction will be to the speech.

[lies]

90. No

People aren't just allowed to barge into University halls and speak.

I know you just know that.

The only way she is allowed there is either she was invited and has permission or she rented the space and has permission.

Once she has permission she can say anything she wants aside from a fee things like threatening the President's life.

This is what the first Amerdment guarantees.

Because - and this is the important bit - once you start letting courts silence unpopular speech where does it stop?

It doesn't mean you have to like it, but you can't silence it.

But that's only if the venue gives you the slot.

[pnwmom]

34. Berkeley is not silencing her. They've offered her a venue for May 2nd in the afternoon

instead of April 27th at night. Big deal.

[Eliot Rosewater]

40. Ultimately they did but they did not have to legally.

[onenote]

63. You're almost certainly wrong about that.

[ileus]

52. In a perfect world, they would be allowed to give a speech anywhere...ever.

Their Speech should not just be limited, but banned. We could dry up RW thoughts and ideas in one generation with the right laws.

[Warpy]

53. People can be hired and speak all they want to

It doesn't mean I am forced to listen, or even forced to attend.

It means the government can't prevent even the most odious political speech. Do consider that most of what is posted on DU is deeply odious to right wingers, so it works both ways.

Unless she causes panic or incites riot, she should speak.

[Eliot Rosewater]

54. Government prevented her from speaking before a venue was agreed on?

The university is the government?

[Warpy]

55. The university is on the line between private entity and governmental entity

Having originally invited her, they should go ahead and let her speak. Not to do so implies a a certain amount of intellectual cowardice as well as a betrayal of the First Amendment.

Any masked morons trying to provoke violence should be dealt with on that level. After all, the next speaker they decide to silence might be one of ours.

[GulfCoast66]

82. Your last sentence

Is the most pertinent one I have read on this thread.

[Warpy]

84. It's the point of the First Amendment

Yes, I'm a card carrying ACLU pain in the ass.

[beam me up scottie]

85. "After all, the next speaker they decide to silence might be one of ours."

It's weird that people don't see how this tactic can be used against those on the left as well.

[onenote]

64. Yes, public universities are considered "state actors."

Well settled.

[WinkyDink]

75. She can speak as well on a street corner anywhere.

[Warpy]

81. And eventually, that will be her only venue

when she can no longer sell herself as a bright young thing.

However, she was hired by the university and that contract should be honored.

[fantase56]

57. Evelyn Beatrice Hall

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

[Eliot Rosewater]

59. Has nothing to do with this.

She can stand in the public square and spew her garbage all day long.

Nobody is stopping her. Or anybody who likes what she has to say.

[onenote]

65. You are under the mistaken impression that only speech in traditional public forums is protected

You're wrong about that.

[Eliot Rosewater]

71. OH if it were only that simple...it is not.

[onenote]

73. It is. Designated Public Forum doctrine.

[Eliot Rosewater]

78. More to it than that, though

http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-speech-2/free-speech-on-public-college-campuses-overview/

[onenote]

108. As the article points out, the First Amendment applies to designated public forums

and venues at public universities that are used for speaking activities are designated public forums. Thus, Berkeley can regulate the use of such a venue only to the extent such regulations are content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

[Eliot Rosewater]

72. OH if it were only that simple...it is not.

[Warren DeMontague]

66. Not necessarily. Still, Free Speech threads on DU are invariably depressing.

Witness all the allegedly progressive people who are gung-ho to censor everything from "blasphemy" to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue.

Beyond that, everyone should remember the Streisand Effect: I would think we all would have learned from Milo, that trying to shut people up only gives them a bigger audience. Paradoxically, shining a light on their words often destroys their appeal.

[beam me up scottie]

69. Yep. Remember the Charlie Hebdo threads?

And the ACLU bashing? Free speech that's pleasant doesn't need protecting.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. Yep. The people who were arguing that blasphemy should be illegal because it might make someone mad.

Hell, just a month or so before the election we had people here complaining that the "addle-brained ACLU" defended porn as free speech.

I've noticed that since Trump got in we're allowed to support the ACLU again, so at least there's that.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Always looking for a silver lining.

Yes, the ACLU does seem to be popular again. Until next time anyway.

[riderinthestorm]

103. Oh gawd, I forgot about those. Demented days nt

[beam me up scottie]

105. Yes they were.

?1421596502

[PatrickforO]

70. If they are invited. See, the thing is that by being so intolerant of right-wing

messages that we scream, disrupt and eject rather than refuting with argument, we are doing a profound disservice to this present college-student generation. How, I ask, will they be able, then, to refute some Ku Kluxer or white supremacist or libertarian capitalist if all they do is engage in infantile and violent tantrums. Which is basically what seems to be happening.

Very bad ju-ju. Bad for our children and grandchildren, bad for this nation.

[WinkyDink]

74. No. And it isn't a right to be paid, either.

[aikoaiko]

86. No, but a legit univ group should be able to invite and listen to any guest speaker they wish

Without being threatened with physical harm or shouted down so as to not be heard.


It's basic to free assembly and expression.

[Kentonio]

88. +1000

[Eliot Rosewater]

89. liberals dont do violence, so I will assume that was done by plants

At least not most American liberals, vast majority anyway.

[aikoaiko]

99. There are more groups on the left than liberals; Almost anyone can be violent.

Surely you know that.

[tammywammy]

98. Agreed. n/t

[Azathoth]

92. As a general rule, yes

People often misunderstand the First Amendment as guaranteeing everyone the right to a platform for their speech. It doesn't. A radio host is not entitled to say whatever he wants on the air without fear of being fired. But universities are a special case. The hallmark of a university is free inquiry, the open and equal sharing of ideas in the search for knowledge... specifically without the requirement that a majority of people like or agree with the ideas being shared. Hence tenure. And hence the long tradition of inviting speakers with radical and often distasteful ideas.

I'm personally sympathetic to the notion that serious ideas and serious speakers should be given priority over entertainers and provocateurs. I would take a sincere Nazi philosopher over Ann Coulter any day. But since the definition of "serious" is inherently subjective, it's impossible to enforce that principle in practice. So yes, anyone whose words stay within the boundaries of protected speech is eligible to be invited to speak at a university, and once invited the university has a moral and professional obligation to allow them to speak.

[VOX]

97. Point about UC being a public university...

Nominally and in a legal context, yes, they are. But over the decades, state funding has virtually dried up. State funds constitute less than 25% to the overall budget (40 years ago, the UC system received about 87 percent of its core budget from the state’s general fund). There is also heavy reliance on federal funding for research (mostly medical), which #45 has threatened to cut off. Most other monies have to be raised.

The UC campuses rely HEAVILY on funding from influential individual donors, foundations and corporations. That accounts for the acknowledgment-naming of every structure, anteroom, wing and even elevator banks. These donors just don't shell out millions for nothing. They are stewarded, coddled, entertained and allowed input. It's a sad reality of today's world. (BTW, I know all this as I spent 31 years in an institutional advancement career at one of the UC campuses; where you're NOT a state employee, but rather you're employed by the Regents of UC.)

It's within the realm of possibility that, if one or more multi-million dollar donors did not want someone like Milo Y. or Ann Coulter to speak, those individuals might have some sway as to what happens; they would certainly be listened to, especially if they threatened to cut off installments of their gift(s). As I said above, "public university" in name, but it can get sketchy in certain situations.

[X_Digger]

101. It's simple. A state run university, hence organ of the state, cannot regulate protected speech...

... based on the content of said speech. Time / place / manner restrictions? Cool. Speech someone doesn't like? Fuck off.

What's so fucking hard to understand?

[WinkyDink]

111. I don't understand your point, for one! Nobody has a Constitutional "right" to speak in a college

forum.

And BTW: You might want to re-think that part about " A state run university, hence organ of the state, cannot regulate protected speech..."

Bear with me:

Years ago, Dubya campaigned at the STATE-RUN Kutztown U. of PA.

ONLY TICKET-HOLDERS (and THEY were only Republicans) could enter the venue.

Nay, it was worse: Only ticket-holders COULD STAND ON THE CAMPUS LAWN LEADING TO THE VENUE.

But why limit it? I assure you, as I WAS THERE AS ONE WHO TRIED: Only ticket-holders could CROSS OR EVEN WALK IN THE PUBLIC STREET that bordered the public lawn that led to the state-run venue.

And the police were out in force to ENforce.

IOW: Dubya's speech was not infringed......but the govt agents did what they could to "regulate protected" protest speech on public lands.

[X_Digger]

119. The state cannot regulate speech based on content, generally. That includes state institutions.

I like how you left out the 'based on content' out of my quote.

Fucking duh.

[PufPuf23]

106. I think Coulter and more so Milo are professional shit stirrers and have no favor in my view.

That said, if a speaker is invited to a campus venue, they should be allowed safe and secure passage.

This is not the same as "anyone must be allowed an audience".

I was an undergrad at Cal in the 1970s and a grad student in the 1980s.

I spent two years as a grad student as a Graduate Assembly delegate (graduate student government) and those two years on the Finance Committee, the 2nd as Finance Committee Chairman.

One of the main tasks was to approve grant requests from various grad student groups for activities and speakers. Back in the 1980s there was a wide variety of folks, some controversial, invited on campus. One thing was there was paid GA staff that actually went through the many grad student proposals. Nancy Skinner was the GA Executive Director then.

I assume that there is a similar method in place as there was 30 years ago regards events sponsored by student groups. My understanding is that Coulter (and Milo) were invited by the Campus Republicans. There was probably some level of review and debate (heated in these cases) before extending the invite. There are also no doubt policies regarding invites and campus security. Sometimes students do not agree with university administrators. In my time there was a strike for unionization of grad student TAs (that was supported by GA, some of leaders were GA delegates).

Also as a grad student I was part of several student clubs in my program that banded together to organize "mixers" where students needing masters projects mixed with folks who could provide projects and preferably paid internships. We charged fees to the folks looking at the students to be interviewed for invites to the "mixers" and also to pay for refreshments including wine (thus self funding) if they passed the first interview. The "mixers" were held in a lounge in the department building. It did not take long before we were invited to the Dean's Office and told we needed a faculty sponsor and other items were problematic for the university and department including serving of alcohol. But the student initiative was generally viewed with favor and continued. What started as a student club activity became part of the general program and was incorporated into course work several years later (one could argue coopted but that is a different issue).

I have not visited Berkeley since 2003. There is certainly still and was then tremendous diversity at the university and in the city of Berkeley. Folks confuse Berkeley citizens with Berkeley students. Many urban professionals have followed the gentrification. Attitudes vary between departments and over time. The university and Berkeley itself are magnets many people of strong opinion not just students.

[Meowmee]

109. Universities and such

Have a moral obligation imo not to promote people who promote hatred and bigotry & lies etc. They should be more discerning about who they invite to speak.

[fleabiscuit]

110. No. I only half kiddingly say I have gone to my local college for 44 years.

College administrators, usually governed by a board, have complete control who uses the college facilities and how they are used. Speaking generally, that use is determined by college and community standards, and law. Those standards will also usually have a mix of relavence, educational goals, community goals, and accommodation requirements and availability. If a speaker request is rejected he has the option of seeking judgement of relief and perhaps a civics lesson.

[MineralMan]

113. Universities are all about thinking about ideas.

That's why academic freedom, as a concept, was established.

Here's how I look at Ann Coulter giving a speech in some venue on a campus: I don't care. I've heard Ann Coulter more often that I wished to. If she comes to speak, I won't attend.

However, if she is barred from speaking at this university, anyone else might also be banned, including someone I would like to hear. If the institution can ban one person's expression of ideas, no matter how noxious they might be to some, it can ban anyone it wishes.

Freedom is freedom. Universities are about the open presentation of ideas. Ideas encourage thinking. Ideas are the merchandise of a university. Ann Coulter's ideas are deplorable, in my opinion. In someone else's opinion, ideas that anyone might present might be deplorable.

Ideas are ideas. Expose them all and let people think about them and analyze them.

If Ann Coulter is banned, anyone can be banned. Banning the expression of ideas is a bad idea.

[Smickey]

117. So have we past the point...

where light of day is the best disinfectant?
hmm...