Ann Coulter cancels Berkeley speech over campus safety concerns

[mystery-ak]

Ann Coulter cancels Berkeley speech over campus safety concerns
By John Bowden - 04/26/17 01:17 PM EDT

Conservative author and speaker Ann Coulter has canceled a fought-over appearance she was set to make Thursday at the University of California, Berkeley.

"There will be no speech," she told The New York Times and Reuters on Wednesday.

She said the conservative groups sponsoring her remarks withdrew their support on Tuesday, citing security concerns.

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/330680-ann-coulter-cancels-berkeley-speech-due-to-riot-concerns

the little fascists have won again..

[geronl]

the little fascists have won again..

commies won, fascists lost

[Joe Wooten]

commies won, fascists lost

No, the fascists in question ARE communists. There ain't a difference between them worth mentioning....

[endicom]

the little fascists have won again..

Maybe not. The squadristi have shown what they are without Coulter having to say a thing.

[geronl]

Ann Coulter is Big Bird

[jmyrlefuller]

She said the conservative groups sponsoring her remarks withdrew their support on Tuesday, citing security concerns.

So she has no problem going on campus without the campus permission, but she'll chicken out if she doesn't have "conservative groups" supporting her in the shadows?

That, ladies and gents, is chicken.

[Sanguine]

Yes, I'm surprised Coulter chickened out.  I thought she really enjoys confrontation.

[Just_Victor]

Ann Coulter is Big Bird

This isn't really about whether or not we like Ann Coulter.  It's about whether or not we are going to let the left's threats of violence, and the powers that be at Berzerkeley, get away with silencing voices they disagree with in violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Just_Victor]

Yes, I'm surprised Coulter chickened out.  I thought she really enjoys confrontation.

The Young Americans Foundation which was sponsoring Ann's appearance, backed out because they really didn't want anyone to get hurt.

[Cripplecreek]

Ann Coulter is Big Bird

She's manipulative charlatan and this "Help help I'm being oppressed" is part of her game. She was happily setting fire to the bridges behind Trump and she can go to hell.

[guitar4jesus]

She's manipulative charlatan and this "Help help I'm being oppressed" is part of her game. She was happily setting fire to the bridges behind Trump and she can go to hell.

[truth_seeker]

This isn't really about whether or not we like Ann Coulter.  It's about whether or not we are going to let the left's threats of violence, and the powers that be at Berzerkeley, get away with silencing voices they disagree with in violation of the 1st Amendment.

Precisely. I would pay to attend events  in public venues, to listen to Conservative speakers. Libertarians, too.

Maybe people like Levin, Coulter and others with Heritage-type organizations, rent the ball stadiums, and give their pitches.

Or they can just bitch about it.

 

[Cyber Liberty]

"Heckler's Veto." 

Expect to see a lot more of this, now that's it's a proven winner.

[geronl]

"Heckler's Veto." 

Trumpers got a lot of practice with that

[Cyber Liberty]

 

Most of us are pretty tired of the act. 

[Smokin Joe]

So she has no problem going on campus without the campus permission, but she'll chicken out if she doesn't have "conservative groups" supporting her in the shadows?

That, ladies and gents, is chicken.

Sponsoring groups were likely the ones writing the check, the honorarium.

No free lunch.

[Smokin Joe]

This isn't really about whether or not we like Ann Coulter.  It's about whether or not we are going to let the left's threats of violence, and the powers that be at Berzerkeley, get away with silencing voices they disagree with in violation of the 1st Amendment.

I agree. It will, unfortunately, likely take a vicious confrontation or law enforcement ready to rumble with the Left, in order to dispossess the Left of their delusion that this can continue. Either that or it will continue.

Ann's supposed to be an attorney. I'd be looking into who the ringleaders of the threatening group are and looking to have them prosecuted under 42 U.S. Code § 1985 (conspiracy to deprive someone of a civil right) or sue them for losses of speaking fees. She should have standing because she can show a loss of income.

[Doug Loss]

You haven't seen this in the MSM, but the rally is still on, just without Ann Coulter:

Help Defend Free Speech in Berkeley

[pjohns]

It does seem rather ironic that this all took place at UC-Berkeley: the very home of the free-speech movement (1964-65).

Evidently, however, liberals believe strongly in free speech--just as long as it is limited to themselves, and their fellow liberals.

But that begs the question: Why?

It is really not that difficult to answer.

Progressives (a.k.a. liberals) believe in the natural progression of philosophical thought. Given this assumption, therefore, conservatives are not merely wrong; they are actually illegitimate, as they stand as impediments to this "natural progression."

We conservatives, on the other hand, simply see liberals as being wrong.

I suppose it does make some sort of sense--twisted, though it may be--for liberals to reject the legitimacy of us "impediments" to their posited utopia...

[Sanguine]

It does seem rather ironic that this all took place at UC-Berkeley: the very home of the free-speech movement (1964-65).

Evidently, however, liberals believe strongly in free speech--just as long as it is limited to themselves, and their fellow liberals.

But that begs the question: Why?

It is really not that difficult to answer.

Progressives (a.k.a. liberals) believe in the natural progression of philosophical thought. Given this assumption, therefore, conservatives are not merely wrong; they are actually illegitimate, as they stand as impediments to this "natural progression."

We conservatives, on the other hand, simply see liberals as being wrong.

I suppose it does make some sort of sense--twisted, though it may be--for liberals to reject the legitimacy of us "impediments" to their posited utopia...

That does make sense though I suspect that most of them are not very deep thinkers and reject us on a more visceral level.

[Cyber Liberty]

That does make sense though I suspect that most of them are not very deep thinkers and reject us on a more visceral level.

Most can't get deeper than "basket of deplorables."  Those who think they can just call us "evil."

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@Smokin Joe

Ann's supposed to be an attorney. I'd be looking into who the ringleaders of the threatening group are and looking to have them prosecuted under 42 U.S. Code § 1985 (conspiracy to deprive someone of a civil right) or sue them for losses of speaking fees. She should have standing because she can show a loss of income.

I'm not aware of any Section 1985 claims being brought on something like this, but I think it is something worth pursuing.  There's a decision from the 80's, Scott v. Carpenters (or something like that) which made it difficult to bring these kind of claims that didn't involve state action.  But maybe what needs to happen is for Congress to pass an additional civil rights law permitting prosecutions for private citizens attempting to prevent, through violence, lawful assemblies by others.

[Smokin Joe]

It does seem rather ironic that this all took place at UC-Berkeley: the very home of the free-speech movement (1964-65).

Evidently, however, liberals believe strongly in free speech--just as long as it is limited to themselves, and their fellow liberals.

But that begs the question: Why?

It is really not that difficult to answer.

Progressives (a.k.a. liberals) believe in the natural progression of philosophical thought. Given this assumption, therefore, conservatives are not merely wrong; they are actually illegitimate, as they stand as impediments to this "natural progression."

We conservatives, on the other hand, simply see liberals as being wrong.

I suppose it does make some sort of sense--twisted, though it may be--for liberals to reject the legitimacy of us "impediments" to their posited utopia...

That problem arises when "Truth" is subjective, as it is for Liberals.
Conservatives believe in absolute and immutable truth, which applies regardless of the trimmings.
That is the mortal enemy of the whole progressive concept.

[Hondo69]

That problem arises when "Truth" is subjective, as it is for Liberals.
Conservatives believe in absolute and immutable truth, which applies regardless of the trimmings.
That is the mortal enemy of the whole progressive concept.

Just a thought . . . What if these protestors were wrapped in robes screaming Alah Akbar?

Outside appearances would be different, but beyond that there wouldn't be much difference.  They only believe what they believe and not the Constitution, state law, federal law or the Bill of Rights will get in their way.  What we're witnessing is essentially Sharia Law in different packaging.

[Smokin Joe]

Just a thought . . . What if these protestors were wrapped in robes screaming Alah Akbar?

Outside appearances would be different, but beyond that there wouldn't be much difference.  They only believe what they believe and not the Constitution, state law, federal law or the Bill of Rights will get in their way.  What we're witnessing is essentially Sharia Law in different packaging.

Yep. Sharia is based not just on the Quran, but how it is interpreted by the Imams and Mullahs. It is what they say it is. The book may be protected by the admonition that any changes are punishable by death, but the interpretation is wide open.