In Support Of Coulter's Right To Speak
Decades ago, a group of American Nazis wanted to hold a march, complete with swastikas and all the rest of the Nazi regalia. The city they wanted to march in turned their request down. The Nazis fought in court, and they were aided in doing so by the American Civil Liberties Union. That's what an unshakable commitment to the First Amendment means -- defending those with whom you do not agree. Which is why I support Ann Coulter's right to speak at the University of California, Berkeley. I certainly don't agree with a single word that comes out of the woman's mouth, but I have to defend her right to spew her bile in a venue supported by my tax dollars.
The Nazi case was a shocking one for many reasons, and anyone who uses the term "trigger warning" today will be horrified (perhaps this sentence should have been preceded by a trigger warning for those who support trigger warnings?) to learn that the city in Illinois where the Nazis wanted to hold a swastika-bedecked march was not only 40 percent Jewish, but by some estimates one out of every six was either a Holocaust survivor or a family member of a Holocaust survivor. In other words, the Nazis weren't just trying to be as offensive as humanly possible, but they also were hand-picking their venue to maximize how offensive their march would be to the residents. But they still had the right to march, and the Supreme Court ruled they would be allowed to display swastikas, as well.
Free speech isn't absolute. There are restrictions on the First Amendment. The biggest of these is speech that incites violence. Call it "fighting words" or call it "incitement to riot," speech that directly leads to violence is not protected free speech. Speech that causes unsafe panic is also not allowed -- the famous "falsely shouting fire in a theater."
Beyond those two reasonable restrictions for public safety, things get fuzzier. Actually, even those two still have some fuzzy edges. There are people currently arguing in court that Donald Trump incited violence at his presidential campaign rallies, for instance. And the Schenck case that birthed the phrase "falsely shouting fire in a theater" (the word "crowded" did not appear in the original) would be seen as laughably dubious in today's world (I've written about this case previously, which involved a protester handing out a flier with a legal argument that a military draft was unconstitutional, during World War I).
Getting beyond public safety limits, what other limits on free speech (most especially political speech) exist? Is it allowable to ban "hate speech"? Do the students have a right not to be offended by a speaker? Well, no and no. Because Berkeley is a public school -- supported by government tax dollars, in other words -- it is considered a branch of the government. As such, it can either allow everyone the ability to speak, or no one.
This has already been adjudicated, in slightly different formats. For instance, a KKK group applied for a "adopt-a-highway" program, and were denied. They wanted to pick up the trash on a few miles of state road, and also get the privilege of a little sign by its side with their name on it -- the same as every other group that picked up trash in the program. The state made a convincing argument in court for why it turned the group down -- because, they said, motorists would go out of their way to litter on that stretch of highway to protest a KKK group's sign. As I said, that's a pretty reasonable argument. But they were ruled against. The judge ruled that the state could either accept all groups or none, period -- without regard to their beliefs or political views. This "all or nothing" rule also applies to states' afterschool groups in K-12 schools. A while back, several states' school systems tried to ban gay support groups from having access to meeting rooms, while at the same time allowing the Boy Scouts (who at the time still banned gays) to meet. The states lost in court, because they could either allow everyone or no one, period.
This all may seem pretty extreme, but then the First Amendment is pretty extreme, when it comes to government regulation of speech. Free speech means nobody gets arrested for their political views. But, as many have pointed out, popular political speech doesn't really need protecting -- it is unpopular speech that needs protecting the most. This even includes arguing that certain laws should be changed. Which means that Berkeley cannot even ban a speaker from NAMBLA, who argues pedophilia should be made legal. If they can ban NAMBLA, then they could also ban a marijuana reform activist or a transgender activist or indeed anyone at all arguing that our laws needed changing (for better or worse, in other words).
The university is at one remove, in the Coulter case. The university itself didn't invite her to speak. It's hard to imagine Berkeley officially inviting someone like Coulter (or a NAMBLA activist, for that matter) to speak. Then again, torture-rationalizing John Yoo was invited onto the faculty of the Berkeley law school, so who knows? My point is the university can set any standard they want for who they choose to invite to give an officially-sanctioned speech. In Coulter's case, however, it was a campus group that invited her. It was the students' initiative, not the university's. And, much like state high schools, the administration can either allow all student-invited speakers, or none. What it cannot do is pick and choose on purely political grounds.
There is the safety argument, but even that has its limits. Even public high schools have to allow a certain amount of free speech from the students. The Supreme Court ruled public school students -- even though minors -- still had the right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling against the schools' argument that it was a public safety risk (because it would provoke fights). However, schools today routinely ban gang colors using the same reasoning (to prevent violence), which is allowed. Berkeley is right to worry about the potential for violence if Coulter speaks, given what happened when another controversial conservative speaker was scheduled a few months ago. Two groups -- mostly not even students, but outside agitators -- have faced off several times on the streets of Berkeley in the past few months, with violent consequences.
Which brings me to my final point. The answer to offensive free speech, it has been said, is more free speech. Don't like what someone advocates? Let your voice be heard! But this gets a little tricky in the real world. After all, what is the acceptable way to protest a speaker with whom you do not agree? Stand outside the venue and protest loudly? Attend the speech and protest loudly? Fight for what you think is right, even if it means violence?
There are lines that should be drawn, obviously. Violence, to me, is completely uncalled for no matter what a speaker is advocating. Protesting -- as loudly as you like -- outside the venue is entirely acceptable, however. Let the audience walking in hear an earful! But I would also argue that blocking the entrances to prevent an audience from getting in is over the line.
Physical intimidation or physical violence to achieve political ends can be called by two words, neither of them good. If you want to be polite, you can call it "bullying." The message is clear: we're stronger than you, so you don't get to hear somebody speak. The uglier term for violence to further political means is "terrorism." Now, even a street riot outside a lecture hall isn't normally a deadly level of violence, but the level doesn't really matter. Making someone fear violent retribution for their political beliefs is one functional definition of terrorism. This is what I believe, at any rate, which is why I draw the line at politically-inspired violence.
The grey area, for me, is what happens inside the hall. Do students have a right to a "shouter's veto" over someone else's free speech? Isn't that just more free speech? Or is it further bullying -- denying a speaker her voice because ours is louder?
This is a tough one, and different people have different opinions. It's not a legal matter, it's more a matter of politeness. But everyone has their own lines on the issue. If I had been standing on a sidewalk in Skokie, Illinois and a bunch of Nazis in full regalia marched by, I most probably would have very loudly voiced my displeasure and disgust. I might have even followed them to where they were holding a rally and continued to shout them down. I would consider that the most moral thing to do, really. So I can understand how some people feel Ann Coulter deserves nothing more than the same treatment, even inside the lecture hall.
But I can also sympathize with those who feel that the real way to counter a speaker like Coulter is to listen to what she has to say (allowing her to speak) and then refuting it point by point afterwards. That is a debate, and is two-sided. Those who feel this way have every right to be annoyed when others deny a speaker the chance to even make her case. If audience members are so disruptive that they are denying the speaker the chance to be heard, then they should be removed by security so the rest of the crowd can hear the speech. That doesn't seem to be unreasonable, but again, I realize that everyone draws these lines differently.
Ann Coulter lives to be provocative. It's really her whole shtick. The more she can rile up the liberals, the more fun she has. On the level she cares most about, she's already chalked up Berkeley as a roaring success, even though it looks like she won't be giving her speech at all (in a twist, the group that invited her has now disinvited her, for some reason). If she had been allowed to speak and no news was made, her speech would have been a failure, to put it another way. Instead, she's made nationwide headlines.
The cruelest thing liberals could have done to Coulter in Berkeley would have been to completely ignore her, which would have starved her of the attention she craves. At this point, whatever speech she gives or doesn't give is going to be nothing more than a footnote to the controversy she's already created. Berkeley did not try to ban Ann Coulter, but they did mishandle the process. Because Berkeley seems to be the new battleground for both left and right, though, Coulter's not going to be the last chapter in this drama. As long as student groups are allowed to invite people to speak, speakers who are even more provocative can be expected in the near future. But, really, that is what free speech is all about. Remember, political speech that everyone agrees with is not what the First Amendment is there for. It's there for the most extreme and provocative speech, because that's what needs protecting the most -- whether you agree with it or not.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I think going to an Ann Coulter event would be a real hoot!
nypoet
response to comment 36 from A very busy week
Mattis was definitely legitimizing Avigdor Lieberman by participating in an optional event with him.
And as much as you want to believe or spin that Israel aiding our enemy al Qaida is a humanitarian position, and that it isn't "taking sides" in the proxy war in Syria, I think you're position is crazy.
Likewise, Israel and AIPAC lobbying for a US regime change war in Syria is "taking sides".
Lieberman stating he prefers ISIS to Assad is "taking sides".
Israel buying oil from ISIS via Erdogan's son in Turkey is "taking sides".
I don't know why you think propaganda that ignores reality would be convincing. You should know me better than that by now.
And do you have nothing to say about Bibi refusing to meet the German foreign minister if he dares to meet with Israeli human rights groups?
A
The whole thing is a moronic kabuki.
Anybody with a brain knows that the best thing to do to Coulter is ignore her. And everybody knows that the only reason she wants to go to Berkeley is to be provocative. As you say, that is her schtick.
This will sell her a few more books and give her the airtime she desperately needs for her sad little ego (I assume she already has enough money to retire if she was just being mercenary).
At the same time it will allow some unimportant little people to puff out their chests and get indignant.
Sadly, the indignant are running the show at the moment.
@liz,
I think going to an Ann Coulter event would be a real hoot!
for all i know it could be a rip-roaring good time, but i still wouldn't go.
hey, sewer rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but i'd never know 'cause i wouldn't eat the filthy muthaf*cka
~pulp fiction
@a01,
wrong thread.
@neil,
given the current state of affairs, how can one be anything but indignant?
JL
@a01 ...wrong thread.
Indeed.
And, I think you meant @a02. :)
CW - One of your best columns, complete with pointing out a famous pseudo quote!
Ann C. is by her own description a "political polemicist." Anyone with said description has powerful vested interest in free speech. As far as I can determine, Coulter has been very silent about other people's rights to free speech. She is not very strong on a Muslim's right to air travel, which can seriously hamper a Muslim's ability to make a free speech. Can anybody cite an incidence where she actively defended a political opponent's free speech rights? I can't find one. Free speech for me - but not for thee?
@ts,
Free speech for me - but not for thee?
coulter is far from unique in that respect. as CW pointed out, it can be extremely challenging to stand up for civil liberties when those liberties are being exercised by groups like the nazis or the klan. further, the waters get muddied when there's harassment or trolling associated with the speech, but the hate group tries to claim plausible deniability.
JL
For 10 years, the 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association has kicked off the city of Portland’s annual Rose Festival with a family-friendly parade meant to attract crowds to its diverse neighborhood.
Set to march in the parade’s 67th spot this year was the Multnomah County Republican Party, a fact that so outraged two self-described antifascist groups in the deep blue Oregon city that they pledged to protest and disrupt the April 29 event.
Then came an anonymous and ominous email, according to parade organizers, that instructed them to cancel the GOP group’s registration — or else.
“You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely,” the anonymous email said, referring to the violent riots that hit Portland after the 2016 presidential election, reported the Oregonian. “This is nonnegotiable.”
The email said that 200 people would “rush into the parade” and “drag and push” those marching with the Republican Party.
“We will not give one inch to groups who espouse hatred toward LGBT, immigrants, people of color or others,” it said.
On Tuesday, the business association buckled, announcing it would cancel the parade altogether.
“Following threats of violence during the Parade by multiple groups planning to disrupt the event, 82nd Avenue of Roses Business Association can no longer guarantee the safety of our community and have made the difficult decision to cancel the Parade,” the group said in a statement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/27/portland-rose-parade-canceled-after-antifascists-threaten-gop-marchers/?utm_term=.f86dad9ffb50
Congrats, Left Wingers and Democrats...
This is the country (and Weigantia) ya'all have made...
Enjoy it... :^/
nypoet
from comment 37 in A very Busy Week
I've been bringing discussions forward to the new thread for months, because comments on old threads are often missed (and I seem to recall Liz commenting favorably on the idea).
And I would argue that a discussion about extremists like Avigdor Lieberman and Bibi Netanyahu is more relevant to the current column... but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, Mattis isn't legitimizing Lieberman's office, but rather his views... and a "crazy" "nutjob" (as you put it) does need legitimizing. And a joint public appearance is not "demanded by propriety", it's optional... a choice Mattis made.
I think it's an inane argument to suggest that a parliamentary system is somehow relevant to Israel aiding al Qaida.
"of the sixty or so rebel groups in syria, less than half are affiliated with AQ or ISIS"
Yes, well, the Israeli media reported that Israel was covertly aiding al Qaida fighters, so claiming otherwise based on the makeup of the number of groups just qualifies as a cute dodge, not something that is factual or relevant.
Your rationalization that because Israel is "demonized", it is justifiable for Israel to buy oil from ISIS via Turkey might make sense if they were unable to buy oil from other sources... which is not factually accurate.
It certainly doesn't justify our "allies" providing funds to our enemies.
"any opinion you disagree with seems to go into the propaganda category"
It could be related to your arguments tending towards a reliance on propaganda, and in this case, the article that claims Israel is "not taking sides" in Syria while they aid al Qaida and lobby the US to engage in a regime change war in Syria absolutely qualifies as propaganda.
"petty use of foreign policy to drive domestic politics. netanyahu has been very skilled at maintaining his ruling coalition"
You think Bibi refusing to meet the German foreign minister if he dares to meet human rights activists is "petty"?
And you ignore the hypocrisy exposed about your "demanded by propriety" claim regarding Mattis and Lieberman?
Of course, needing to appoint a "crazy" "nutjob" like Lieberman as his minister of defense doesn't exactly make Bibi look all that skilled either, but that's just my opinion again.
A
Ann Coulter is a guilty pleasure for me, and has been ever since her days as a regular panelist on Maher's Politically Incorrect. I get that she's a 'performance artist' in a sense that Alex Jones could only aspire to. "The Queen of Mean", right? If politics were a WWE event(a premise that's surely Viagra to Trump), Coulter would be a star.
Maher recently brought another right wing provocateur (and performance artist), Milo Yiannopoulis, on his HBO show, and the response from the right was - to punish Milo. It appears the humorless Right doesn't even appreciate its own jokes if it involves making nice with a liberal for thirty minutes.
I am pretty sure that the groups that invited Coulter pulled their invitation after the school informed them that THEY would be responsible for paying for the extra security needed, not the school.
One thing I have noticed lately reading posts from my conservative friends and family is the increase of postings claiming liberals are out to destroy free speech! I'm talking about a very large increase in the number of different posts attacking the Left on this issue.
It seemed crazy at first, but then I realized that this is being done as a buffer for Trump's commenting habits. If they believe that the Left is just out to destroy Free Speech, then the content of what Trump says - no matter how horrible - won't matter to the Right. It really is amazing to see how differently both sides view Trump.
One thing I have noticed lately reading posts from my conservative friends and family is the increase of postings claiming liberals are out to destroy free speech! I'm talking about a very large increase in the number of different posts attacking the Left on this issue.
One thing I have noticed from reading the comments for the last year is the complete ambivalence and total ignoring of the FACT that the Left *IS* trying to destroy free speech...
We see it all around us, even here in Weigantia...
This commentary is but one of MANY examples..
Notice how NO ONE (sans CW, of course) takes the Berkeley Administration to task for their actions in limiting free speech..
No, everyone here blames Coulter and/or the Right and/or Trump...
The facts clearly show that Democrats and the Left only care about protecting APPROVED speech....
@michale,
welcome back! hypocrisy on protected speech spans the entire political spectrum. it's always protected when one agrees; the constitutional arguments on limitations to free speech tend to come out only when one strongly disagrees.
JL
welcome back!
"I'm not back!!!!"
-Bill Paxton, TWISTER
:D
Michale,
There is no blame to place as this story was nothing but fluff! The school had every right to put the safety of the students as their highest priority.
Coulter was not invited to speak by the school, but by a student group on campus.
The school said they could not provide the security needed the date first proposed, and they suggested a date when they knew they could provide adequate security, but Coulter refused claiming it would be the week before finals and that would keep people from attending.
Now, had it been finals week, that argument might have had some legitimacy to it... But not the week BEFORE finals!
Instead of working with the school, Coulter ran to file a lawsuit against the school. The school claimed that Coulter had not bothered to speak directly with them about the issue, and they refused to communicate via social media.
hypocrisy on protected speech spans the entire political spectrum. it's always protected when one agrees; the constitutional arguments on limitations to free speech tend to come out only when one strongly disagrees.
That's all well and good..
But when violence is used to prevent others from exercising their free speech, it should be condemned in no uncertain terms..
That's the problem with the Left...By their silence, they give such violence their approval..
There is no blame to place as this story was nothing but fluff! The school had every right to put the safety of the students as their highest priority.
That's my point... Because it's a Right Winger, their school's refusal is perfectly acceptable to you..
But if a public university in Texas had done the same thing to Rachael Maddow or Bernie Sanders, ya'all would have been apoplectic..
THAT's my point..
Instead of working with the school, Coulter ran to file a lawsuit against the school. The school claimed that Coulter had not bothered to speak directly with them about the issue, and they refused to communicate via social media.
Actually, it was the student group that filed the lawsuit, not Coulter..
And Coulter had no business communicating directly thru the school, as it wasn't the school that contracted her...
The point isn't Coulter OR the school...
The point is the blatant hypocrisy... The attitude that Free Speech is ONLY for Left Wingers..
If your speech is not approved by the Left Wingery, that speech will be censored and the person(s) making the speech will be stopped with violence and threats of violence..
And no one here seems to care about that, as the violence and threats of violence are ignored ignored..
And such ignoring renders approval..
That most entrenched bastion of the progressive left, America’s great universities, has been swept by . . . well, one hardly knows what to call it. “Political correctness” is too old and doesn’t do it justice. It is a hysteria—a screeching, ignorant wave of sometimes violent intolerance for free speech. It is mortifying to see those who lead great universities cower in fear of it, attempt to placate it, instead of stopping it.
When I see tapes of the protests and riots at schools like Berkeley, Middlebury, Claremont McKenna and Yale, it doesn’t have the feel of something that happens in politics. It has the special brew of malice and personal instability seen in the Salem witch trials. It sent me back to rereading Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible.” Heather Mac Donald danced with the devil! Charles Murray put the needle in the poppet! As in 17th-century Salem, the accusers have no proof of anything because they don’t know, read or comprehend anything.
The cursing pols, the anathematizing abortion advocates, the screeching students—they are now the face of the progressive left.
This is what America sees now as the face of the Democratic Party. It is a party blowing itself up whose only hope is that Donald Trump blows up first.
He may not be lucky in all of his decisions or staffers, or in his own immaturities and dramas. But hand it to him a hundred days in: He’s lucky in his main foes.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-has-been-lucky-in-his-enemies-1493331572
If your speech is not approved by the Left Wingery, that speech will be censored and the person(s) making the speech will be stopped with violence and threats of violence..
In other words, the Left is acting *EXACTLY* as the Left accuses the Right of acting.. The Left Wingery are the fascists.... The Left Wingery are the goose-stepping morons who should try READING books instead of burning them...
And no one, sans our own Grand Poobah, says BOO about it...
THAT's the point...
In other words, the Left is acting *EXACTLY* as the Left accuses the Right of acting.. The Left Wingery are the fascists.... The Left Wingery are the goose-stepping morons who should try READING books instead of burning them...
Don't like the Nazi references??
Do you think that they are over the top and outlandish???
Ridiculous and boorish???
Perverse and disgusting??
So do I..
Another "gift" from the Left Wingery and the Democrat Party...
When in Rome......
OK... Maybe I am back.. A little... :D
Michale,
Coulter tweeted on the 26th that she was waiting for Berkeley to tell her when and where she was to speak.
She tweeted on the 24th, "Our lawsuit agst Berkeley filed moments ago."
Listen,
Coulter taking credit for someone else's actions!?
Say it ain't so!! :D