Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter

[SecularMotion]

in a surprising turn of events, every millennial’s favorite old man, Sen. Bernie Sanders, has come out in defense of Ann Coulter, denouncing threats that forced the University of California, Berkeley, to try to postpone her appearance at the college.

“I don’t like this. I don’t like it,” Sanders told The Huffington Post in response to the security threats that forced the university to put off the conservative firebrand’s event.

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.

The senator from Vermont also slammed protesters who said Coulter shouldn’t be given a platform to speak at the university, calling them “a sign of intellectual weakness.”

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/bernie-sanders-defends-ann-coulter-slams-intellectually-weak-student-activists/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No, he defended her right to speak.

And I agree with him, as should we all.

[spanone]

2. precisely.

[Wounded Bear]

3. This...

Being a progressive requires a bit of subtlety and nuance that the reactionaries of far right and left cannot summon.

[mountain grammy]

4. +1

[emulatorloo]

5. Yes.

[uponit7771]

9. Which goes without saying, like defending her right to inhale air ... so why say anything at all!?!?

[whathehell]

56. Obviously, it does not "go without saying" or she wouldn't have been getting threats..

Just a thought.

[brush]

115. Why say anything at all, why interject oneself into that?

Of course there should be free speech but come on. Doesn't he have anything better to do?

He couldn't be bothered to endorse Jon Ossoff, a Dem in a special election to Congress but he can speak up for effin Ann Coulter?

God!

[JCanete]

119. because we are handling hate speech wrong. This puts us on the wrong side of an issue, and gives

GOP frat boys pseudo-intellectual talking points. It is actually a poor strategic move. We should be thinking about this. I grant that it's more complicated than that, and that paid-for venues of political shills is going beyond simple free speech, but this is still bad optics, again, far far far too easily packaged into sound=bytes for the masses who are already eager to disavow the "librul elite" and their book learning, etc. and to make false equivalences about our own intolerance. Why are we giving them that fuel?

Sanders is if nothing else, making a distinction that there are liberals who do not want free speech threatened, even to prevent someone as despicable as Coulter from speaking.

[brush]

133. Again, why say anything. If your opposition is having problems...

let them figure it out themselves. No need to get involved. There are more important things for the Dem outreach chairman to take care of than coming to Ann effin Coulter's aid.

Stay out of it and there is no story for repugs to use. Not rocket science.

[QC]

134. Apparently he was asked. Would it be better to refuse

to defend the First Amendment?

Honestly, can you not find a more plausible pretext to find fault with him than this? It's just sad and desperate.

[brush]

138. Just say of course she has First Amendment rights and move on to next question.

Why get involved with Ann Coulter's problems?

[QC]

141. It's not Ann Coulter's problem. It's a key American value.

It's also a terrible, awful, dumb strategy to allow people like her and Milo to portray themselves as free speech martyrs. They're nothing more than trolls.

[brush]

176. I agree they are little more than trolls. What I don't get is why get involved?

[cloudythescribbler]

237. The idea of repressing RW free speech's widespread among Lefties, both authentic & not, & is serious

The notion of why get involved -- categorically, suggests that this is merely the action of a few "trolls" who are not worth the attention of Bernie Sanders. The opposite is the case. The issue of not allowing RWers like Ann Coulter ('no free speech for fascists') is a long-standing view of some on the Left (both authentically left & not) and is becoming more predominant among progressives in the current era than was true, say, 30 years ago. The overall issue is of importance and Bernie Sanders, as the best-known socialist in the US today has every reason to address it -- on his terms, when & where it is most favorable. It is important that it is known that progressives do indeed believe in free speech, even for vile characters like Ann Coulter. This is why the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie (which was pushing the envelope in terms of provocation, but was nevertheless within bounds of expression that was rightfully defended). Remaining silent as an overall strategy for leading leftists, as you seem to suggest is the right way, leaves the field only to those -- who are more than a few trolls -- who do not believe in free speech.

A couple of other points. The right of demonstration against this speech should also be recognized, including even militant demonstration (like there was in Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolous was there -- and now he plans to return for a whole week of events -- though of course attacks against persons that are not like self-defense (eg from police assault) are NOT a protected right). Sorry about all the parens but there are exceptions to general rules and exceptions to exceptions. And if the militancy of the demonstration, even to the point of vandalism and other acts of uncivil disobedience that are short of real violence to persons creates problems for some speakers, that is all part of the conflict-allowance that is part of the First Amendment and the kind of society it presumes. Sure, some people might get prosecuted for "failing to disperse" or something, and then a jury might exercise the right of juror nullification and so forth. Often these demonstrations are treated as "violating" the free speech of speakers, as if there were some Constitutional prohibition of heckling.

But threats against and assaults against persons DO violate a person's right of expression, and it is important that progressives visibly are known NOT to universally embrace that (or remain conveniently silent). It is not sufficient to say that advocating higher military spending or Islamophobic views are automatically "assaults" and can be treated with violence, like "fighting words". The breakdown of this system of allowing speech and protest but disallowing personal assaults is perfectly comfy for the right.

There is the question of WHEN to be silent and WHEN to speak up about this. That is a strategic question. Bernie Sanders in this situation seemed to have been in a favorable enough environment where he could be free to express his views fully and they would reach his intended audience. HE chose to answer the question, a strategic question, and I have no reason to believe it was an egregious error in principle OR strategically for him to do so. I also think that other progressives should, without "Gitlinizing" (finger-wagging at militant Leftists generally) defend NOT Ann Coulter but the system of free speech.

I would also add that SOME kinds of speech, speech that as a practical matter seriously threatens persons within the community in the ways that Milo Yiannopolous does, like outing transgender people by name, or the threat (apparently) to do so with undocumented students and others in the campus community, also crosses a certain line that Ann Coulter (or what I've seen of her on Bill Maher) does not. I will never forgive her for her gloating response to the Nov 13 2015 attacks in Paris (which were on my birthday, as it happens), saying at that time that that day, Trump was elected president of the US. Vile creature. But that doesn't change the arguments here, which attempt to lay out some kind of principled basis for distinction b/t the allowable and the non-allowable.

Also, it should be noted that RWers come to Berkeley precisely TO provoke a response and to exploit it. That's why the Republican Club made the invitations -- to drum up support in the name of free speech. At the April 15 clash, there were MAJOR "alt-right" (neofascist) leaders from across the country. They knew a great photo op when they see one. The Leftists were mainly from the Bay Area. The tactics of physical assault are an arena where the alt-right people are very much at home (and even many Leftists conceded afterwards that the RWers got the better of the violent confrontations, aside from whatever the police did or did not do). It is a case of the maxim that when you wrestle a pig, both of you will get covered in mud & the pig will be right at home.

So the whole issue is one of many nuances and complexities, and it is very important, and Bernie was totally right to speak out about it

Lately there has been a lot of sniping at Bernie, the underlying agenda of which is to weaken his role as one leader of the progressive mobilization within and outside the Democratic Party. Much of this sniping comes at least ostensibly from the Left (many on the Left think that ANY effort w/in the Democratic Party whatsoever is anathema, but THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE PROGRESSIVE MASSES WHO ARE WILLING TO EVEN VOTE OR BECOME ACTIVE ARE.

[kcr]

143. Exactly

Like it isn't bad optics for Bernie to be calling the victims of hate speech standing up for themselves intellectually weak? There's his foot in his mouth, yet again. But somehow that's ok.

[whathehell]

213. I can't speak for him on Ossof, but

I reject the idea that he was "speaking up" for Coulter, rather than defending free speech.

[TheFrenchRazor]

221. sillence means consent, that's why. nt

[kacekwl]

222. Give it a rest my god

this crap is getting out of hand.

[brush]

224. I'll say. Foot in mouth disease is rampant.

[Dr. Strange]

73. It doesn't go without saying.

Howard Dean, for example, doesn't think she has a right to free speech. Bernie Sanders does.

[mythology]

18. You mean this isn't lauding Coulter?

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.

This silliness of Sanders is perfect/evil needs to stop. Drop the feud. It's not useful.

[guillaumeb]

36. The feud seems to be spreading at DU. eom

[Raster]

209. Yes, because the hardcore anti-Sanders faction that still holds him responsible...

...for Clinton's loss IS STILL ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON DU. Still.

[m-lekktor]

41. Defending Sanders against ridiculous attacks is not implying he is perfect. nt

[kstewart33]

50. This is getting ridiculous.

Posting Bernie stuff and re-igniting the debate about who/what Bernie is and is he good or bad.

A complete waste of time.

[AJT]

29. Exactly

[LovingA2andMI]

35. EXACTLY....

And now we are quoting Blogs for Clicks as Facts.....The Slippery Slope is falling down the mountain faster than a speeding bullet.

One would think this "Renewed Throw Bernie Under The Bus" Stance of some is an effort to SERIOUSLY DIVIDE the Democratic Party and DNC Chair's Tom Perez stance to UNIFY the Party for the 2018 Election Cycle.

And If That Is It, How Is It Any Different Than What Happened In Election 2016 with the Fake News and Trolling of Democratic Websites In Other To Un-Unify The Base of Liberals, Progressives, Left of Center Democrats and Independents -- some of whom stayed home in Election 2016 due to the planted barrage of "Fake News" information on Social Media Sites -- that sadly and unfortunately led to Trump being in the White House.

#FoodForThought

[True Dough]

51. YES!! Absolutely this!!

There is a major distinction and an important one!

[J_William_Ryan]

53. Nonsense

No one's rights are being violated, including the right to free speech.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Berkeley is a public university. As such it may be considered

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:17 PM - Edit history (1)

an instrumentality of the government, which may not suppress speech protected by the First Amendment. Even more important is the fundamental principle that the remedy for offensive speech is more speech, not suppression. The ACLU defended the right of the American Nazi Party - an organization even more offensive than Ann Coulter, if that could be possible - to hold a parade through the largely Jewish town of Skokie, IL. If the ACLU decided to defend Ann Coulter I'd be fine with it.

[emulatorloo]

81. Berkeley reversed this and invited her back, which is the right thing to do.

They came to their senses apparently.

[Trumpocalypse]

229. They are not supressing her rights

They are just not giving her a platform. There's a difference.

[uponit7771]

83. Right !!! No one is guaranteed all FORUMS to spew hate speech and neither is Coulter

[QC]

80. Yep, but that interpretation of the matter

doesn't serve the purpose of vilifying him and dividing Democrats.

[sammythecat]

126. How can anyone honestly take it any other way

Good God this shit is getting old. Anymore, coming here is just a big fucking downer. I hate this OP. It's the result of flat out stupidity or else flat out dishonesty. It could be both, because it is stupid and it is not true.

[beam me up scottie]

152. + 1,000,000

[Eliot Rosewater]

128. She has a right to speak! If I wanted to do a lecture at

Berkeley about why the holocaust happened, that it was a good thing and we need another one for Jewish people, Muslims and gay people, and the university told me I couldnt speak there, what would that be?

[pnwmom]

131. I wonder why he didn't defend Dolores Huertes's right to speak? As it is, the Repub Club

is objecting to a date 5 days after the original date. But she's not being denied a chance to speak.

[ehrnst]

194. +1000 (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

150. Exactly.

[elleng]

153. Yes. Remember Skokie.

'In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago.'

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

A former colleague of mine represented ACLU in the case.

[katmondoo]

155. It is OK but not if you are provoking violence AKA Trump

[stopbush]

164. Exactly. I'm not a Sanders fan, but he was defending her right to speak,

not what she usually says.

[ThoughtCriminal]

166. +1

very Trollish and misleading headline in the OP. This needs to stop. And DU members should stop giving this sort of garbage recs.

[kacekwl]

227. +1000

[ehrnst]

196. And called Berkeley "intellectually weak" which is something else. (nt)

[Dustlawyer]

228. +1!!!

[Eko]

238. She didnt have a right to speak.

Period.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

239. Everybody has a right to speak. That's what the First Amendment is about.

Period.

[Eko]

242. So,

When am I slated to speak there? Or you? I think you are confusing the right of the government not to stop you speaking with the right of a university to not give special treatment for someone to speak.

[ProfessorPlum]

259. It's a government run university

[Eko]

262. Still no.

Using the commons area of a university to speak is a protected free speech area, declining to have a speaker at a forum is not. The university also has grounds to halt/stop someone from speaking if they believe there is a threat from that speech. Someone's right to free speech does not override others right to life liberty and happiness.

[ProfessorPlum]

263. that may be technically true

but the university obviously thought that making a first amendment martyr of Coulter was an even worse outcome.

The appearance of free speech, even if it isn't technically required, is probably a good move for a government organization.

Much as it galls me to have her invited to speak anywhere, except to herself from her straight jacket.

[Eko]

264. Yes, it is technically true.

Therefore she has no free speech rights to speak at a forum on a university. Not a free speech issue. If they let her speak and there were riots and people got hurt would that be better? of course not. Then the university could be held liable for that if it was shown that they had knowledge that it was probable.

[ProfessorPlum]

267. If that's the hill you want to die on

It seems that the people actually empowered to make the decisions disagree with you.

[Eko]

268. You mean

like the university or the law or the constitution? Wow.

[ProfessorPlum]

269. yes, the university

why am I in this dumb conversation anyway? Berkeley couldn't give two figs what either of us think.

dopey.

[Eko]

270. Because

You thought she had a right to speak at the forum when she didn't. Now you know. Sure, I'm dopey for knowing the law when you didn't,
Whatever.

[boston bean]

6. But some other woman giving a speech was heresy!

[karynnj]

89. If you mean HRC giving speeches in 2013 and 2014, NO ONE thought it was "heresy"

What I think is that when since at least 2008, Goldman Sachs and big banks, were seen as the cause of the painful economic crash for which they seemed to pay no price, it is tone deaf for a person planning to run for President to earn a large amount of money giving private speeches giving them access and then not providing the transcript.

All totally legal .. not immoral .. not unethical -- definitely tone deaf.

[boston bean]

92. Not at all what I meant.

[karynnj]

95. Sorry - I assumed that the reference was to Clinton as I know of no other controversial speeches nt

[Cha]

234. The Speeches!

[athena]

247. Excellent point.

[Exilednight]

250. What woman and what speech would that be?

[TNLib]

266. I believe the students who pay tuition should have say in the quality of speakers on their campus

They pay dearly for the college experience and Universities should listen to their students.

[uponit7771]

7. No one owes hate talk the benefit of the doubt or a chair at the table

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. The right to free speech includes the right to say bad things.

The remedy for "bad" speech is more speech. What happens if the tables turn and someone decides your speech is bad? As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis pointed out in Whitney v. California: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

[uponit7771]

15. Strawman, I'm not NEEDLESSLY talking about the obvious right to speech

[Kentonio]

17. If you deny people the right to public speech

Then their ideas end up growing underground and causing far more damage. Let them speak in public and destroy them with reason and logic. In an open debate, fairness and justice win.

[uponit7771]

21. Again, overt strawman no one is NEEDLESSLY talking about the obvious right to speech

[Kentonio]

22. Except for you and the op creator you mean?

[uponit7771]

23. No, please learn the difference between the act and the forum ... on is given the other is not

[Kentonio]

31. Colleges are supposed to be places of learning and discussion

Students need to be faced with a whole range of opinions, including those that are abhorrent to them. The important distinction however is that those opinions do not and should not go unchallenged (and that goes for opinions from all parts of the spectrum).

I hate seeing these protests trying to prevent people from making speeches or taking part in discussion panels at colleges because its little more than intellectual cowardice or childishness. If something is going to upset you, don't go. If something offends you, go along and make a better case whether its in a debate or in the questions following a speech.

[uponit7771]

49. We agree on what forum college is, we might NOT agree that hate speech is GUARANTEED a forum there &

... here's another thing that kills me... its usually white supremacist who are invited to spew their ideas in this forum.

RARELY if ever do we here other than non white supremacist invited to this forum or someone explaining that we should listen to non white supremacist at these forums.

I might have this wrong but in deed it seems like these forums are asking for one side to be listened to ...

How about invite the racial supremacist all on stage at once ?!!?

Give them guns and some alcohol and film the forum live ?!!?

I'd pay money to see that

[Kentonio]

75. You don't hear about the other ones because they aren't newsworthy

You should check out some of these kinds of forums though. There's usually robust opposition and the hate mongers just end up looking quite pathetic. The problem when you have protesters is that the hater can play the victim card and post videos of 'liberals trampling on free speech'. It's much better to just calmly and politely eviscerate that speech instead.

[JCanete]

121. the problem though uponit7771, is that if something hasn't crossed into legal hate-speech,

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:07 PM - Edit history (2)

as in explicitly inciting violence, then it is up to interpretation. If that interpretation is spun as "you just don't like what we're saying so you're calling it hate speech," that undermines us. It does not help us when we cede this kind of ground on democratic principles when such a thing is so easily spun as us being intolerant and controlling what free speech is free speech.

You are right though, when someone, who really in Coulter's case has nothing of intellectual value to say(but that's my own value judgement) is given a forum, and on a campus that people pay tuition to, what is the recourse? You are right, that "free" speech is not equally made available. I think if there's that much fervor, and that many people willing to get out there, the alternative would be to have an alternative forum, bigger and louder and to let Coulter speak to her room of fifty or so.

[panader0]

8. Misleading OP title

Trying to fit in?

[Nanjeanne]

10. I think you missed a few words in the title . . . defends "her right to speak". But keep trying.

[NurseJackie]

99. I checked, and it appears those words were not part of the original headline. Here it is...

... the full original headline:

Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter, Slams ‘Intellectually Weak’ Student Activists

... and it appears that the words you think are "missing" weren't actually there in the first place.

[Nanjeanne]

111. Sorry I didn't spell out more clearly what I meant to say so you seemed to have

Misunderstood completely. OP title made it out that Sanders was defending Ann Coulter when it was quite apparent that he stated he disagreed completely what she was saying but still believed in her right to speak. But then I have a feeling you actually knew that .. but whatever. It's Bernie Sanders - so ...

[NurseJackie]

114. So, you had "a feeling" of what I knew? Does that mean you're a mind-reader? ;-)

I guess it makes sense that someone who's a "mind-reader" would automatically assume that everyone else is also a mind-reader and would therefore instantly understand what they were thinking (instead of what they actually wrote.)

[Nanjeanne]

206. I'm sorry. Were you talking to me? I fell asleep trying to read your comment. I'll just use my

Mind reading skills to figure out your post. No need to respond again. I think I get it. It's something rude and probably something about Sanders. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz. 😴

[beam me up scottie]

210. LOL! Nicely done!

[NurseJackie]

212. Yet in spite of your "boredom", you still cared enough to reply. LOL ;-)

[Nanjeanne]

214. Yes. I'm very vain. I love it when people respond to my posts. Even you. And the waving woke me up.

[NurseJackie]

218. I'll take your word for it.

I love it when people respond to my posts. Even you.

Awww. Thank you!

And the waving woke me up.

I'm sorry, I'll try to wave quieter.

[JustAnotherGen]

255. Ha!

I'll try to wave quieter!

[ehrnst]

217. Yep. (nt)

[Cha]

235. Touche, Jackie!

[beam me up scottie]

148. +1! Heat Street is a right wing extremist website - Trump uses it against Obama.

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 07:29 PM - Edit history (2)

They use misleading headlines to promote their agenda.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/

Thank you for calling it out.

[George II]

223. That Heatstreet article is rife with interesting quotes. And correct or not, what you say IS...

....the exact headline:

"Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter, Slams ‘Intellectually Weak’ Student Activists"

[Ace Rothstein]

11. False Title

Trashed

[TexasProgresive]

13. Is this like hating on the ACLU because they defended the KKKs rights?

Defending someones right to speak doesn't infer accepting what that are saying.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" The Friends of Voltaire by Evelyn Beatrice Hall aka S. G. Tallentyre

[Demsrule86]

54. It was the Nazis in Skokie Illinois...the governmentrefused permits for assembly.

This was an area where holocaust survivors lived...but the Nazis had constitutional right to assemble...the ACLU did defend them. But Berkeley is not the government, and they can disallow Coulter's speech if they choose...and they should...her hate speech should not be encouraged by anyone.

[Glassunion]

65. I hate Illinois Nazis

[Demsrule86]

67. I hate them too...

[TexasProgresive]

107. It is not the government disallowing free speech.

What has happened is there are very few spaces where free speech is allowed because most "commons" are privately owned. There was a time when a person could go into a public space and speak, not any longer. Berkley is a publicly funded university and as such should make allowances for free speech.

As to Ms. Coulter, I think she is a reprehensible human being. I bought one of her books used so I could read her without giving her a boost. It was awful, never again.

[Demsrule86]

129. I disagree...there is no need to include hate speech at any University.

No one has a right to spew hate in any venue.

[Exilednight]

251. Censorship comes full circle when the only speech allowed is the only speech no listens to.

[Demsrule86]

172. I agree. Ann Coulter doesn't have a right to speak at any university...there is no such

constitutional right...

[HopeAgain]

14. Most misleading Topic of the Year candidate.

I vote for this OP.

[LovingA2andMI]

39. Second That!!!

n/t

[demmiblue]

40. Anyone who didn't vote to hide this should be exempt from jury duty, imo. n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

77. Agreed.

I voted to hide as it CLEARLY breaks the rules.

[beam me up scottie]

154. Absolutely.

[Demsrule86]

175. What is wrong with the thread...I went to the google Gods...to see what the issue is...

The OP uses direct quotes from Sen. Sanders...now I don't agree with him... I am sick of conservative hate speech, and this is not protected by the constitution as the government is not silencing and/or jailing her. Why does this deserve a hide?

[grantcart]

117. Yep

[bullwinkle428]

16. "Fake news" has become ridiculously cliched, but at the very least,

this is clearly a CRAP HEADLINE. It wouldn't even pass the smell test at Cheetolini's precious National Enquirer.

[Dr. Strange]

123. Are you questioning the veracity of the source?

Might I suggest you read more from that website before judging so harshly?

https://heatst.com/politics/weirdly-sexual-bernie-sanders-coloring-books-are-now-for-sale/

Okay, never mind.

[pangaia]

19. I have trashed more OPs in the last month than in my entire previous years of coming here...

Misleading title..

[demmiblue]

20. heatst.com...

yet another laughable source.

What the heck is going on here?!

[beam me up scottie]

193. Heat Street is right wing extremist website - Trump uses it as a source.

They use misleading headlines to promote their agenda.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Factual Reporting: MIXED

Notes: Heat Street is a conservative opinion and commentary website. Launched in February 2016, the website is headed by British writer and former politician Louise Mensch. It is owned by News Corp under Dow Jones & Company. This source has a right wing bias through wording and story selection. Heat Street was also one of the sources Donald Trump quoted for his debunked claim that his phone was wiretapped by Obama.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/heat-street/

[retrowire]

24. I am relieved to see how many common sense DUers

Posted here to say that he was protecting freedom of speech.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

25. Why are we sourcing RW garbage on DU?

Heat Street, started by Louise Mensch, owned by News Corp.

Bullshit source.

[m-lekktor]

42. Louise Mensch, her tweets anyway, is a favorite source here these days. nt

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

[Dr Hobbitstein]

74. I know. Just because she doesn't like Trump doesn't make her any less

of a deplorable.

She is NOT our friend.

[KittyWampus]

26. HeatStreet is a rightwing rag and its choice of story title is deliberately misleading.

I may have a beef with how Sanders talks about Democrats and the Democratic party but he was not defending Coulter.

He was defending her right to free speech.

However, protestors should be allowed THEIR free speech so Sanders really shouldn't attack them as being intellectually weak.

[Kentonio]

34. It is intellectually weak.

There's nothing intelligent or challenging about trying to stop someone being allowed to speak. As college students they should be devising the strongest, most robust counter arguments to utterly destroy the nonsense Coulter comes out with. Hell, its not exactly difficult.

[HoneyBadger]

46. And they should do it without violence

[KittyWampus]

87. There is nothing intellectually weak about protesting hate speech.

[Kentonio]

97. Depends on the forum

If its people protesting in the streets about hate speech from an elected politician then great. If its protesting someone speaking in a university though, its basically cowardly. There's no need to protest when you can walk inside, listen and then tear those ideas apart intellectually. That takes more courage though than standing outside in a mob screaming at someone.

[kcr]

108. People who usually tend to hold your opinion are those who have never been a target of hate speech.

Holding the view that hate speech mongers are merely presenting their side of a reasoned debate is really easy to do if you've never been the victim.

[Kentonio]

109. I didn't say they were presenting their side of a reasoned debate

I said you can use the format of a reasoned debate to destroy their feeble nonsense, and do so in a way that makes them look foolish. People who look foolish people are far less likely to attract supporters. People who are shouted out of town are much more likely to.

What do you think happens after one of those hate mongers gets shouted out of a university or uninvited? They get free press, more money and sympathy support from likeminded assholes. They also get to use video footage and press coverage to convince gullible people that they're the good guys and we're the violent extremists.

Being the better people isn't just about being nicer, its about tactically undermining these hate merchants in the most effective and efficient way possible.

[kcr]

110. So, what you're saying is actually worse

It's not just feeble nonsense. People's lives are directly affected and destroyed by what you deem feeble nonsense. Your willingness to concede the format of reasonable debate is easy to see when you make it obvious that you minimize it. It's obviously not a concern in your world.

While it is true that everyone is protected by the first amendment, even hate speech mongers, it therefore does NOT follow that everyone is entitled to all platforms and that everyone must willingly assent to give them over, even to hate speech. It's as I said in another post; those who make that claim rarely subject themselves to this "nonsense" as you call it. And it is beyond the pale that one who proclaims themselves a fighter for the little people would call the targets of this hate speech intellectually weak because they refuse to do so.

[Kentonio]

112. I'm using 'feeble nonsense' in the sense that their arguments and positions have no strength

Or intellectual reason to them. They're easy to demolish because they stand on pathetic and weak foundations that don't hold up to scrutiny.

I have no idea why you're trying to make this personal.

[kcr]

118. You really think that it's just a matter of Debate Club! Best argument wins!

That's not how it works with these people because that's not their intention. And that matters. If that' how you engage them, you're taking a knife to a gun fight. You'll never win. All you're doing is giving them more publicity and that's what they want. Only you're serving them up their victims against their will when you let them have their pick of their forums under the guise of free speech! That's why Bernie's argument is especially egregious. This idea of giving them legitimacy as if they really want to just debate, and then setting them loose on college campuses? Yes, they're places of education and exchanges of ideas. That's NOT what hate speech mongers do! Just because it's words coming out of their mouths. It's nothing better than saying stalkers should have access to their victims because they just wanna talk! That's all! Come on, you're repressing their rights!

[Kentonio]

120. You're wrong I'm afraid

It was the accepted way of dealing with these kinds of people for centuries and it actually works. It doesn't matter what the hater's intentions are. As for 'setting them loose on college campuses' that is you giving them far more credit than they deserve. College students are not gullible idiots, they're supposed to be there to learn to think for themselves. They're young adults, not a bunch of kids who need to be carefully guarded from any bad words.

As for publicity, which do you think gives them more publicity? 'Hater x goes to college and gets made to look a fool' or 'Hater x faces massive violent protests and is prevented from speaking at a college'? Which of those do you think the press is going to run with more, and which do you think gives the better optics?

[kcr]

122. There's been a one true accepted way? Really? So, where is this written?

"The Kentonio Way of Dealing with Hate Speech, VOL DIV" I think a whole lot of people might be missing it.

It doesn't matter what the hater's intentions are? Well, that might be a chapter in KWDHS. I would have missed that, see. But honestly, I fail to see how their intentions wouldn't matter. See, if they don't want to debate, they won't engage in the debate. Which is exactly what happens. They aren't interested. They just blather their hate, which, because it isn't nonsense, actually has an effect. It's why college campuses aren't keen on actually inviting them! I'm beginning to see why KWDHS maybe isn't a best seller...

[Kentonio]

127. You can look up hundreds of examples of extremists speaking at colleges

And getting their asses handed to them by the highly intelligent and motivated young adults studying there, who are fully capable of both recognizing and demolishing hate speech when they hear it.

What is KWDHS? The only return on google was 'KAMBALDA WEST DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL' which I'm guessing isn't what you're referring to. Educate me please.

[kcr]

132. I'm sure one can! That doesn't change the fact that colleges shouldn't have to be compelled

to have them. There are plenty of places for those who want to hand asses oh so intelligently and look oh so brave and intelligent while doing so. But I have to question their motives when they insist that it has to be done where others have to be subjected to that hate against their will. There are plenty of instances where it didn't go so neatly. These people have had a history of bringing along violent provocateurs, for example. Because their intention is NOT innocent debate. And that's not even counting the after effect of hate they leave in their wake.

The argument that colleges are supposed to be about exchanges of ideas doesn't cut it. I can't simply wonder into a college uninvited and express myself. Why not? If the argument is college is about exchange of ideas, then why can't I go in there and express mine? Because that's not the entirety of the reason of their existence. It's obviously curated and selective. So, there is no reason to insist that part of the curriculum HAS to include hate speech. Or that students who wish to pursue their education unaccosted are somehow weak.

[Kentonio]

137. They aren't being accosted

Those kind of forums aren't usually a mandatory thing, unless the student is part of a course where its a relevant topic that they're expected to understand thoroughly.

The reason colleges occasionally invite controversial speakers, is because it gives willing students the opportunity to debate subjects from angles that they might otherwise come into contact with in their studies, and give them new perspectives, not least on how some extreme people and groups frame their arguments. It's actually a great way for young people to learn about the more extreme opinions out there, and prepare them for dealing with those in the real world.

I do understand why you don't want people given a platform for hate, but I'm a huge believer in reason and knowledge being the best tools for beating hate. We live in such a shallow and facile society these days where idiots ranting on the radio have a bigger platform than professors, and on the radio or on their websites there's no counter arguments allowed. Just please trust our educated youngsters to be able to not only survive exposure to this stuff in colleges, but also be smart enough to destroy it.

[kcr]

139. Yes, they are.

Why do you think colleges reject them? There is a reason, and colleges should absolutely be allowed to do so. Allowing hate speakers to have free reign over colleges and taking away the ability for colleges to reject them will shut out college as an opportunity for many students. It will be just one more area where they are subjected to the same repression they are everywhere else. College is one area that can afford everyone economic and social mobility but it won't be able to do so effectively if it becomes just one more institution where the privileged reign supreme. Hate speech is just one tool that ensures this happens. It's the reason hate speakers are targeting it specifically. They know what they are doing. And they're unfortunately getting the help of some people who should absolutely know better. It's shameful.

[Kentonio]

233. What are you talking about?

Colleges are the ones inviting them to speak, and withdrawing invitations when large student protests make their visits untenable. No-one is forcing the colleges to do anything.

[PJMcK]

27. The OP's title is misleading

And the source is crap.

[MicaelS]

187. You will notice that the OP has NOT replied..

To any of the posts made in this thread. This is his tactic. Posts something inflammatory, and almost never replies.

[Kali]

28. OFFS!

[Bradical79]

30. Very misleading headline

I don't know that I agree with him, but he's defending her right to speak and how it looks to silence people like her rather than challenge them intelectually. I can see his point, but I don't think anyone is obligated to give a platform to outright hate speech. She can have a public speech not taking up student facilities, imo. I'm also not sure anymore that such an idealist approach is practically effective.

That said, I don't know what's right regarding the university's policy or legal obligation towards invited speakers.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. Berkeley is a public university.

As such they may be considered an instrumentality of the government, and have to be damn careful about how they treat free speech issues.

[asiliveandbreathe]

32. Ann Coulters only claim to fame is stirring the pot...she is offensive, and

offends intelligent people...she can say anything she wants, just not at Berkeley - she does this just to raise a ruckus....

This is not intellectual weakness, it is intellectual strength - go muddy the waters someplace else..just like I tell my neighbors who want to bring their RW rhetoric to my backyard...you haven't got anything good to say - stay away...NO diff..

[Dr. Strange]

82. Ah yes, Free Speech Zones.

So glad to see our side adopting the worst ideas of the right.

[MichMary]

96. Why not at Berkeley?

Which is a public--government--entity.

You, as a private individual, have the right to tell your neighbors to stay off your lawn, or whatever; but the government, in this case Berkeley, has an obligation to observe AC's Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

[moriah]

33. Okay, no offense, but I have to call bullshit.

He's defending the right to free speech and condemning threats and violence for a VERY good reason -- if people have to threaten or use violence to suppress even the off-the-wall outrageous speech of Propaganda-Bot, Ann Edition, it DOES show intellectual weakness.

I was a Hillary supporter even back in 2008 and to suggest this is defending Ann herself or her beliefs, vs Constitutional rights, is a stretch that almost exceeds how far Ann herself stretches the truth.

[demmiblue]

37. Well, at least only one person has recced this thread so far.

That is promising.

[Demsrule86]

43. Wow just wow. nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. I agree with Sanders and Marr on this issue.

As a civil libertarian, I believe that Ann Coulter and even Milo Assbutt has a right to speak at a University that they have been invited to. And listeners have a right to object to and protest that speech.

It the tables were turned and a Norm Chompsky or Malcom X-like speaker weren't allowed to talk at a University there would -- correctly -- be outrage.

Charlie Chaplin showed us in "The Great Dictator" how to handle asshats like Coulter and Milo.

[Orsino]

45. Bernie Sanders Defends Not Un-strangling Kittens n/t

[delisen]

47. By extension, Sanders has defended our right to speak.

If only some of his followers would listen to his advice.

[NurseJackie]

60. Amen.

[Voltaire2]

48. Aren't the primaries over?

I guess I just don't understand du.

[leftstreet]

58. The beatings will continue until morale improves

Welcome to the never ending primary at DU

[A-Schwarzenegger]

52. Looks like this didn't quite pann out.

[PatsFan87]

57. People are really reaching for reasons to hate on Bernie these days.

Yes, people should be allowed to speak even if you disagree with them. Put on your big girl/big boy pants.

[whathehell]

61. You've noticed, huh?

It's all useless garbage.

[leftstreet]

63. They hate Sanders more than they hate Trump

Each day I get less enthused about logging on here

What a waste

[Glassunion]

79. Plus 1

I've been away for quite a while and now I'm remembering why.

[QC]

98. Yep. n/t

[HughBeaumont]

116. +1,000,000,000,000.

It's getting fucking annoying, to be honest.

The other day, there was a thread that more or less stated that Progressives and the Alt-Right are the same thing.

Guess it's easier to blame an imagined powerful "progressive left" for a near-consecutive six-year streak of failure rather than look in a mirror or even so much as acknowledge a groundswell of progressive sentiment.

[beam me up scottie]

160. I think that's the idea.

[Nanjeanne]

208. Yeah. I forgot to remember why I stopped reading here. It's coming back.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

88. It's almost as bad as the primaries. Don't we have bigger fish to fry?

Donald Trump is in the White House and he has control over nuclear weapons, and people are whining about mean ol' Bernie? SMH

[Warren DeMontague]

256. are you saying you didn't enjoy 2016????

Look here, this way you get to enjoy it over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again!

[uponit7771]

113. Or LPC trolls are trying to front click bait by ignoring Sanders own statements

[whathehell]

59. He is NOT, he's defending free speech..

Can we stop this useless, divisive Bernie-bashing?

[G_j]

62. OP subject lines that are blatantly false

remain and continue to take up people's time and energy.
It would be a real challenge to be less productive.

[kcr]

64. If he stopped at no one should make threats, I'd be fine with that.

Last edited Mon Apr 24, 2017, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

But this: "The best way to counter Coulter is to politely ask her “questions which expose the weakness of her arguments,” he said:

“What are you afraid of ― her ideas? Ask her the hard questions. Confront her intellectually. Booing people down, or intimidating people, or shutting down events, I don’t think that that works in any way.”

is utter nonsense. I bet he doesn't sit around and willingly expose himself to her bullshit and ask her questions and listen to her answers. Why does he think anyone else should have to? It's really easy for people who arent' being targeted by Ann Coulter to be subjected to her swill to those who are: You have to sit down and listen to her nonsense and take it! Because she has a right to speech! So, just be polite and ask the questions! That's all ya gotta do! Then they can go home to their nice, comfy Ann Coulter free zone and chill and it's all good for them!

And to call these students intellectually lazy. Wow. He just exposes himself more and more each time he opens his mouth. Standing up to hate speech is not intellecutally lazy!

[Hassin Bin Sober]

101. Lol.

[kcr]

106. Now there is some intellectual strength right there.

"Lol." You sure showed me with that display of intelligence. Bernie would be proud.

[NastyRiffraff]

66. NOBODY has the right to "a platform"

Free speech does NOT mean that. The right of free speech is simply that the government can't arrest you for saying things, no matter how stupid. It doesn't mean that you must be given a platform or venue, or that your book must be published or your show cannot be cancelled. It doesn't mean there will be no controversy or that people must agree with you or shut up.

Coulter, as far as I know, has not been threatened with arrest, and I'd venture to say that she wouldn't be if she did speak at Berkeley or anywhere else. Certainly she's said unbelievable stupid and deliberately provocative stuff before and has managed to stay out of jail.

[NurseJackie]

86. Thank you! That's exactly correct.

I remember when Ellen cancelled Kim Burrell's appearance and the gnashing of teeth and the wailing commenced about how Ellen was taking away Kim's "First Amendment rights".

Link to tweet

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/news/a818286/pharrell-williams-ellen-degeneres-comfort-cancels-guest-homophobic-rant/

Speaking on Thursday's show, Ellen said: "She said some very not nice things about homosexuals so I didn't feel that was good of me to have her on the show to give her a platform after she's saying things about me."

Pharrell replied: "There's no space, there's no room for any kind of prejudice in 2017 and moving on. There's no room.

[mackdaddy]

68. "Bernie Sanders ATTACKS Ann Coulter!! Calls her 'Outrageous... Off the Wall"!!

There, I fixed the title for you.

[aquamarina]

69. So defending free speech is a thing now?

I've been here for 15 years and I never thought I would see the day that at DU we would criticize people for defending the right to speak.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

85. I guess for some it depends on who's speaking and what they're saying.

If students at some university protested a speech by Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore, for example, and caused the speech to be canceled, we'd be having a huge collective hissy fit. Is it OK for our guys to speak because we like what they say, but not their guys because we don't?

And that's why we liberals - or most of us, anyhow - defend free speech. Because you never know when somebody is going to try to suppress our speech.

[aquamarina]

163. It really is something and not a little concerning

I'm reminded of that Martin Neimoller quote, first they came for the socialists...

[ehrnst]

192. Not seeing that. (nt)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

70. Dennis Prager would show up at my university at least once or twice a year

He would speak to a mostly empty room of about 15-30 people and then go home.

The violent lashing out does nothing but build the individual's stature and gives Fox News new B-roll of "violent leftists".

Although it's the protests of Charles Murray that really have me scratching my head since his shtick these days is basically shitting on privileged cloistered white people, then shitting on unskilled white men and then advocating for a universal basic income. You would think that would make him as popular a campus speaker as Jon Stewart.

[forjusticethunders]

94. "Scratching your head"?

Charles Murray literally thinks black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people. And you're shocked that people are protesting?

So many "progressives" don't give a shit about racism and sexism because it doesn't affect them. But then again, Andrew Sullivan is still considered "liberal" so that doesn't surprise me.

You are exactly the kind of person that needs to get their "progressive" card revoked.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

100. Was the sarcasm not obvious enough?

[forjusticethunders]

258. good old poe's law

sorry though

I really could see some jacobin type say that unironically.

[SixString]

71. DU wRECk.

[Volstagg]

72. I'm glad he is defending the First Amendment.

People have the right to speak. It's easy to support the free expression of those you agree with. It is much harder to support the free expression of those you disagree with. Even white supremacists have First Amendment rights.

[retrowire]

76. Definitely taking note of the 3 users that have rec'd this thread. Nt

[Demsrule86]

151. I rec'd this OP...I stand against hate speech at Universities.

I think Sen. Sanders is wrong about this. But hey this is America and everyone has the right to their opinion. But Ann Coulter has no constitutional right to speak at any university...and I fail to see why my beliefs are objectionable to you. feds can not drag you away in the night for speech, but that doesn't mean we need the far right hate speech on college campuses.

[retrowire]

156. No we don't need the speech.

But the federal government cannot suppress it. Which is what Bernie is saying.

He's not saying hey let's all hear what she has to say. He's not saying not to oppose her.

By reccing this blatantly mistitled thread, youre pushing forth the idea that Bernie supports this. And that's an agenda that I take note of.

[Demsrule86]

169. The federal government is not suppressing it...Berkeley is.

Unless I was misled...he supports Ann's right to make a speech at Berkeley. I don't think she has any such right? I agree that the feds can't restrict speech, but that is not what is happening...and GOP hate speech has all but destroyed this country. What am I missing?

[QC]

173. Berkeley is a public institution.

If this were, say, Stanford, the legal situation would be different.

In any case, the best response to Coulter is to stand united against her and argue against her hateful trollery, not let her play the martyr.

[Demsrule86]

179. It is still not the government...where my kids go to school we had Drumpt supporters

harassing my gay daughter and her unity club...I went to school and the protests stopped...this is a public university too. Ann has no such right...she has the right to say what she wants but in this case she is in no danger of being silenced by the government .

[QC]

185. Yes, a public university is "the government."

It has very different responsibilities regarding speech than, say, a garden club or, to use an example that came up in this thread, Ellen's tv show.

There are only very limited circumstances under which a public institution can forbid speech based on content.

[Demsrule86]

186. No it is not.

It is a university...the government is the state houses, and the feds...and there is no right to any speech you want on a college campus.

[QC]

188. The courts disagree. n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

225. Wrong. A public university is considered an instrumentality of the government

and as such may not restrict the constitutional rights of its students, faculty and others who deal with it. This has been settled law, according to the SUpreme Court, for decades - see Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957) and Keyishian v. Board of Regents, State Univ. of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589 (1967)

[retrowire]

174. ...She does have the right. Berkeley can refuse it.

Berkeley isn't a federal party so they can do something about it.

Bernie is just saying she has the right, which she does as long as berkeley allows it.

[Demsrule86]

178. I agree with you...she can say it elsewhere...but she has no particular right to say it at any

university.

[retrowire]

189. Facepalm* nt

[Demsrule86]

181. The quotes in the OP are directly taken from Bernie's own words.

I checked because I wanted to make sure this was not bull shit. And he clearly says he doesn't agree with her but that she has the right to say it at Berkeley ...I just don't agree.

[Lotusflower70]

78. Don't get it twisted

He defended her right to speak not what she says. UC Berkley is pissing me off. They invited her then uninvited her. That's ridiculous and hypocritical.

[lies]

84. Hey look

another dishonest shit stirring post predicated of an attack on Sanders.... quelle surprise.

[Adrahil]

90. Bernie has pissed me off a lot lately....

but he's right on this one.

OTOH, it's always okay to punch a Nazi.

[Dem2]

91. He didn't defend her.

He essentially said we have a 1st Amendment.

[beaglelover]

93. GOOD! I'm glad Bernie defends free speech in the USA!

[bettyellen]

102. Needlessly divisive crap- no thanks.

[bobalew]

103. This whole thread looks like a TROLL BAIT Rabbit Hole to me. Just Sayin'.....,

NT

[liberal N proud]

104. I defend UCI Berkeley for confronting hate speech.

BS is wrong.

[benpollard]

105. Ann Coulter should speak at a conservative safe space

“Obviously Ann Coulter’s outrageous―to my mind, off the wall. But you know, people have a right to give their two cents-worth, give a speech, without fear of violence and intimidation,” he added.

Some of the violence that is occurring at right-wing rallies is questionable, but "intimidation?" Coulter's entire spiel is based on intimidating liberals.

[RhodeIslandOne]

124. "Two cents worth"

Ann Coulter has been given a platform to give more than that (yet it adds up to less than two cents) far more tha far more intelligent people. One could argue that she has overdone her free speech. To argue she hasn't gotten enough of her bullshit out there is outrageous.

[nini]

125. That's the funny thing about the 1st Amendment

Even those we disagree with have the right to talk their nonsense.

HOWEVER, those who people who are against Coulter also have that right to say what they want.

[Arazi]

130. Just when I think the BDS can't get any worse here. SMH

[cwydro]

135. I'm no fan of Bernie, but I have to agree with him.

Shutting down free speech is not what we should be about, no matter how vile the speaker.

[onecaliberal]

136. Oh for fucks sake, he defended the first amendment.

republicans are DESTROYING the country.. STOP THIS!!

[kcr]

140. Except this isn't a first amendment issue

The first amendment doesn't state that everyone must give speakers a platform. And where in the first amendment does it state that it makes a person intellectually weak because they stand up to hate speech? I'd like to see that.

[QC]

144. Berkeley is a public institution that allows outside speakers.

That means the university has to be very, very careful about trying to exclude speakers based on what they might say. There are circumstances under which they can do that, but very limited ones.

Worse, excluding someone like Coulter makes a martyr of her, rather than the troll she is.

[kcr]

146. Then that's especially egregious that Ann Coulter is being defended here. Because guess what?

Berkley fought the idiots claiming she had a right to be there. So, she's an especially bad hill to die on in this fight. If Berkely, a public institution that allows outside speakers (what college doesn't, btw? Is there a college that never ever allows any outside speaker, ever?) and has to be very very extra special careful, then the fact they were saying no to Ann Coulter should have been a big, fat clue on the clue bus of SHE'S INAPPROPRIATE!!! Jesus fucking christ...

[QC]

149. No one is defending Ann Coulter here. n/t

[kcr]

159. It is a form of defense that renders actual disagreement of her ideas meaningless.

If you defend inflicting her damage on students who simply want to persue an education, to me, it doesn't matter. Colleges should be a place for all students regardless of their background to feel safe because it is integral to American society as an equalizer. The fact that Bernie takes this position is particularly bad, IMO. He wants to make college free for all. Yet doesn't care to make that a place that's welcoming for all persons regardless of their background. Hate speakers target college for a reason. His stance makes it so that colleges will be yet another bastion of the privileged. That is the hate speakers' intention and if free speech absolutists who don't understand how the first amendment actually works want to hand them over? It doesn't matter if they actually agree. It's irrelevant. They are defending the hate speakers.

[QC]

161. Is Berkeley requiring students to attend her performance? n/t

[kcr]

165. Is Berkely going to boot every single person interested in attending her performance?

Or keep tabs on them to ensure they aren't spreading the hate and inflict it on others? Of course not. Nor should they. But this isn't about Ann Coulter specifically. This is about the notion that colleges don't have the right to reject speakers. They absolutely do, because hate speech does hurt and even kill. Even if they deem that Ann Coulter doesn't quite rise to that level and changed courses. They have that right. There are speakers much worse than Ann Coulter. Why does Bernie maintain that it's intellectual weakness to stand up to them?

Where Bernie really showed his hand is his comment about the students who objected. Calling them intellectually weak because they booed her. I have to wonder why he didn't have similar judgment for those who booed Hillary? That's telling. In fact, he's shown he's rather fond of it when it's is own supporters behaving similarly. His comment about the supporters who booed at a Hillary supporting child for example? Something to the effect of Dems should learn to harness that enthusiasm! Booing a child is enthusiasm! Not intellectual weakness in that case. Why is that? Why disdain for Ann Coulter booers?

[QC]

171. Hold teach-ins to discuss the ugliness and emptiness of her "ideas."

Have a thousand people holding hands outside singing "I Shall Not be Moved." Raise funds for local charities outside her hate rally.

There are many alternatives to playing Coulter up as a free speech martyr.

And for heaven's sake, let go of the primary. It ended about ten months ago and we have far bigger problems now.

[kcr]

180. That is so completely tone deaf

First off, why invite the beast in to create the problem in the first place and subject a significant portion of the student population to the damage of the hate? And then think simply slapping on a bandaid with teach-ins is going to fix it? Here's a better, simpler idea. How about not letting in the hate-mongers in the first place? Then you don't have a problem to fix. There! Much easier.

[QC]

183. Take it up with the courts. And remember that it wasn't long ago

that university administrators were going after lefties like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky. We have far more to lose in a conflict over free speech than do those who carry water for the right wing establishment.

And no, teach-ins aren't a band aid. Knowledge still has some power.

[Cha]

253. Quit Blaming everything BS says on the damn Primary..

Your Strawman is NOT WORKING.

[QC]

260. We should all move past the primary the way you have!

Mahalo!

[beam me up scottie]

271. *snort*

[Ms. Toad]

201. That's the essence of the first amendment right to free speech.

If Berkely, a public institution that allows outside speakers . . . then the fact they were saying no to Ann Coulter should have been a big, fat clue on the clue bus of SHE'S INAPPROPRIATE!!!

When a public institution permits outside speakers, it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint.

She is highly inappropriate. You won't get an argument from me on that. BUT disagreeing with her viewpoint is not a constitutionally permissible reason to prohibit her from speaking at a state institution.

[moriah]

246. She's a troll, but if I want to get to hear a liberal speaker at...

... any of the public universities in Arkansas, I've probably got to hope that universities can invite politically disagreeable people in this region of the country without having threats of violence shut down an appearance -- and that people would criticize the people threatening violence. Ann would get an invite easily here.

To me it's a matter of avoiding hypocrisy, or as Bernie put it, "sign(s) of intellectual weakness". Now, I'm going to say right here that Coulter's target demographic eats everything she says like it's the Gospel, but if having her speak is so threatening to an actual thinking person's ability to refute her verbal excrement with sources and logic.... it IS a sign of intellectual weakness. In fact, that was a very subtle barb to people who actually buy Ann's crap, when thought of that way. They're the ones intellectually weak.

[ehrnst]

219. But no one is guaranteed or entitled to a speaking gig, even at a public university. (nt)

[Ms. Toad]

236. The way Universities work is that some university group sponsored her.

She didn't just demand to speak.

The University (as a state actor) is not permitted to make decisions about who their constituent groups invite in as speakers based on the viewpoint of the speaker.

It's not about her (or anyone else's right to walk onto campus and make a speech). But once the campus opens itself up (as it does when it permits student and other groups to invite speakers), it must make the decisions as to whether the speaker is permitted to come to campus without reference to the viewpoint she is expressing. (And using the possiblity that her presence will provoke an unwanted response is legally just as bad as directly repressing it for the content.

[ehrnst]

241. They did reverse the decision, didn't they? (nt)

[QC]

245. This is the consensus of people who know the actual law. n/t

[onecaliberal]

145. Trash thread

[kcr]

182. Excuse me? n/t

[Cha]

254. Please Don't Wag your Finger @ KCR..

[Cha]

252. THANK YOU KCR!!!

"The first amendment doesn't state that everyone must give speakers a platform. And where in the first amendment does it state that it makes a person intellectually weak because they stand up to hate speech? I'd like to see that."

[Starry Messenger]

142. Is he going to demand the transcripts?

[trueblue2007]

147. WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH BERNIE? Berkely Liberals hate Coulters guts and there will be violence

does he want blood in the streets?

Bad judgement. let her speak someplace else

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

190. Maybe Berkeley conservatives want to hear her and want to pay for the privilege.

Berkeley Liberals are free to attend, ignore it, or demonstrate.

The Berkeley Liberals are not likely to cause violence. That will be the Berkeley Anarchists and right-wing hooligans.

[beam me up scottie]

205. +1

[riderinthestorm]

157. Lol. Ok, now this is ridiculous nt

[Snackshack]

158. OMG...

Bernie defends the right to free speech...

Horrible!

[redwitch]

162. He's defending free speech.

[Softail1]

167. how is this even DEBATEABLE???

my god...what is wrong with some people...the thought that we should eliminate someone's free speech because we don't like what's being said is despicable to me. College kids need to get a spine and deal with differing views...as despicable as Coulter is, last I checked she is a citizen who has a right to speak her at a public college, just like any other political activist does there....wow...hope the far left stops this violent direction they seem to be heading in..liberalism is better than this. And yes, I agree with whoever said Bernie is not defending her..he's defending free speech...

[Tarheel_Dem]

168. Well, we all know the good Senator deplores "identity politics".

[Warpy]

170. Freedom of speech isn't absolute, but the most odious speech is still protected

and it's hard to find speech more odious than Coulter's.

The agreement is that the government can't silence her the same way it can't silence us when her gang is in power, the way they are right now. One thing to remember about her right to speak is that it doesn't include forcing us to listen. It just means the government can't step in to silence her.

That doesn't mean you can cause panics or incite riots. That is not protected speech.

However, political speech is protected speech.

[ehrnst]

191. Well, I guess this means that he's really concerned about women's rights.

And really thinks that Berkeley isn't intellectual enough.

[Warpy]

197. Red herring and you know it.

This is a free speech issue, nothing more and certainly nothing less.

[ehrnst]

200. I disagree. The "intellectually weak" jab was telling. (nt)

[Warpy]

202. And another one.

One trolling post after another! A twofer!

Oh, forget it.

Buh-bye.

[beam me up scottie]

203. Yep.

[ehrnst]

215. Buh Bye. (nt)

[beam me up scottie]

204. ...

?w=650&h=558

[lovemydogs]

177. Please. You know he is defending the right of Free Speech

He also said she was outrageous but, he is defending the right to free speech.

I really feel this whole anger and rage thing is not even about what people are saying it is, like pro v anti choice democrats.
If it was really an issue then many would have slammed and wanted Sen. Bob Casey drummed out of the party.

I think this is mostly over unresolved issues from the Primary.

I think many still are angry that Bernie ran against and had success in running against Hillary.
Why that was a problem, I don't know.
Everyone is entitled to run for President and if a person's message catches on, so what?
Why is it something to hold against anyone and to hate that person for?
There is no rule saying no one can run against Hillary.
People really need to think and come to terms with their anger and why running for president was such an awful thing when it is the right of someone to do so.

[ehrnst]

216. Free speech doesn't being guaranteed a speaking gig even at a public university.

That's an important distinction to be made...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

226. But it does mean that if someone has been invited to speak

by an authorized student group and the university shuts down the speech because they don't like the speaker or the contents of the speech, the university, in its capacity as an instrumentality of the government (which is what public universities are), has then arguably violated the First Amendment. It's true that people can't just march onto a campus and "demand a speaking gig," but if they've been invited to speak and the university steps in and says they can't, there's a problem. And there's the distinction in this case.

[ehrnst]

184. Well, this is something new and surprising. (nt)

[William769]

195. Now there's a racist we all can get behind!

[ehrnst]

199. But this is a moot point - they are going forward with letting her speak.

[MyNameGoesHere]

207. Must have been a lot of alerts on this one

First login and I got jumped for service. I democratically voted for a bad faith reporting and leaving this gem of an article and great post standing. Russians don't sway me away from my party.

[Raster]

211. No he didn't. He defended her right of free speech...

...how's that anti-Sanders agenda workin' for ya?

[Soxfan58]

220. My dad use to say

If you want to make a republican sound like a idiot, you just hand them a microphone. Let her speak the more vile she spewed, the more vile she seems.

[CajunBlazer]

231. I'm not a Sanders fan, but he's right on this one!

I agree with the statement originally accredited to Voltaire: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

(Voltaire's actual statement in a letter was, “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”)

Aren't we supposed to liberal who defend the 1st Amendment. Apparently when we drift too far to the left we begin to resemble our counterparts on the right fringe and try to silence anyone who disagrees with us.

[Beartracks]

232. "RW Rag Sourced at Online Progressive Forum"

There, I fixed the OP's title.

Gosh, you'd think "news drops" like this would cause DUers to start squabbling amongst themselves, taking their eye off the real problems of the country...

Oh.



By the way, you'd think the description "every millennial’s favorite old man" would've given the poster pause.

==========================

[beam me up scottie]

244. Yep. Agree 100%

[Dorian Gray]

240. I agree with him here....

and I think that those who don't regarding free speech are dangerous.

[X_Digger]

243. Oh look, another shit article from the same source.

Anything in furtherance of the goal, eh?

[Raster]

248. Not one response from the poster...

...classic hit and run.

[Egnever]

249. And another vapid ridiculous post graces the pages of DU

When you have to twist comments to make them say what you want you are as bad as the fake news hucksters that got Cheeto elected.

[stevenleser]

261. This is a bit more complex of an issue. University free speech has historically been nearly absolute

or at least that was the desire.

Professors could have and express virtually any viewpoint, speakers of all stripes could be invited to speak, even racists and bigots.

I remember the brouhaha when Ahmedinejad was invited to speak here. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/24/us.iran/

The issue is complex because the idea of campus free speech isnt a simple one and not universally supported anymore. We have had protests and cancellations of many speakers recently.

When a racist or other figure with ugly views is invited to speak on campus, IMO the university has a number of responsibilities that need to be met. Some senior figure from the University should speak before and after the speech and offer a counterviewpoint and conduct discussions on what the speaker said.

The purpose of campus free speech is to promote learning, not endorse the ugly views.

I am generally in favor of campus free speech when conducted the right way.

[romanic]

265. He's defending free speech as we all should.