19 9

As a progressive liberal I just want to point out that we should not permit anyone who has opposing views from speaking. These universities that will not let people speak like Ann Coulter are simply wrong. Remenber when you were a kid and your parents said no. It just made you want to date her or run with that crowd. The same applies to the opposition. We need to defend their right to speak and our right to contest their position.Universities especially are supposed to broaden one's experiences in life not show a narrow point of view.

Marine 8 Mar 18

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I agree. I remember the shit fit that folks threw when Milo Yannopolous was going to speak at Berkeley. I also remember hearing about a time when there was a conference being held on men's issues and some protesters broke in and pulled the fire alarm. Some liberals they are! So pathetic.

I consider myself a liberal too but I just can't get behind this SJW nonsense!


I agree. If you disagree with someone like Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos, don't try to silence or ban them because that will backfire. You have to put them up on stage and then destroy them intellectually with your well researched and well documented argument. You have to be able to refute them point by point and make them look like fools with facts and ideas. If you can't do that, then you haven't thought your side of the story through carefully enough. If you don't show up for a debate, you lose.


Your constitutional freedom of speech guarantees the government will not arrest you for speech. It does not give you a right to speaker fees or an audience. In most cases, these speakers are paid trough fees charged to students. The students have every right to have a say in how these funds are spent. And in most cases, the speaker could "Espouse conservative views" all day long and they're would not be an issue. It only becomes an issue when they move into the territory of hate speech.

The Constitution as they view it allows for even hate speach as long as there is no riot.


In all the cases I have seen where a university cancelled a speech/rally/talk by a controversial person it was done after protests from their own student body. Should the university prevent the students from expressing their views on the speakers the university has choosen to invite?

How is students protesting the previously expressed, radically hateful views of a speaker their school invited to speak not a good thing? They are expressing their opinions in opposition to the extreme views of the invited speaker.

@jorj Ultimately, it does not matter. The decision belongs to the university that issued the invite and it is their right to rescind that invitation.

@jorj Unless Lena Dunham has a history of extreme hate speech the comparison is not equivalent. If the men on campus were just protesting her speaking because she is a woman, they would be intolerant, sexist bigots and the university would be unlikely to cancel the engagement.

In the case where the speaker is a known extremist and has publicly made racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. remarks, then the students have a right to protest the university's invitation to speak and the university has a right to rescind that invitation.

There is a very big difference between forcing people to believe an ideology, or silencing the opposition and not giving extremists a platform to spout their hate.

Students protesting the actions of their university when they don't agree with them is a protected constitutional right and has proven to be the only way to effect change in this country. It is not silencing the opposition, nor is it forcing people to believe an ideology.

Was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. forcing his ideology on people when he led the marches in the '60s? No, he was protesting to effect change and people believe his cause was right so change happened, albeit slowly.

It is no different here, this is university students protesting their school providing a platform for hate speech and the university taking action as a result of those protests.

@jorj So who did the university students silence? It was not their choice to rescind the invitation, the university did that. The students exercised their right to protest, that they got their way does not mean that they are forcing their ideology on someone else or that they are silencing the opposition. They protested the same as MLK, and just like his movement they got their way because the university came to agree with their position.

How are the university student's protests any different than the protests lead by MLK?

Hate speech is not a matter of opinion, hate speech is speech designed to incite hatred and/or violence against a minority group. It is a very specific type of speech, and if the men in your example were protesting against a speech by Lena Dunham because she is a woman then they are engaging in hate speech, if they are protesting against the content of her speech then they are within their rights.

@jorj If you have not seen the violence perpetrated by the racists in this country you are blind, and I am done talking to you.


The right to speak is not a right to a microphone. Why should my tax dollars go to letting a nazi speak whose followers cause millions in dollars in damage?

Places like Charelstown are being bankrupt over this stuff and no one cares. Are you going to send them a check?


I completely agree with your position, but I think you need to change the word "permit" to "prevent."


As a human we all have different opinions so why would mine be the only correct one?

there is no moral equivalency between being a nazi and being slightly rightwing. We need to stop treating people who plan genocide as if it is just a matter of opinion. No one wins from willful ignorance, which is what we are doing when we pretend.

I never pretend

God relationship


I couldn't agree more. I grew up in a conservative Christian household that isolated me from opposing beliefs. It is always better to get the opposing views, because how else can you know whether or not your POV holds water? If you push people away with opposing views, it seems like your views have something to hide.

There is a difference between being exposed to opposing views, or even debating opposing positions and giving a platform to hate speech.


I disagree. Some people, including Ann Coulter, have nothing useful to say and to try to discern truth from opinion from outright lies of such speakers is not worth the effort of the listener.

Of course, there is their first ammendment rights. Let them speak. Students need entertainment, like laughing such idiots off stages...for anyone who bothers to attend at all.

I won't even bother to listen...but how convincing do you find this speech a convincing argument that Trump is a gentleman?


The first amendment does not come into it at all. The university has invited a person to speak and can rescind that invitation at any time.

The first amendment prevents the government from censoring or blocking an individual or group's freedom of speech, universities are not government entities even the state funded ones.

I missed that. Not permit I misunderstood the question and basically the wording throughout is confusing.

To clarify. people have the right to speak but they can't require anyone listen. Of course there are legal issues of where they are allowed to speak, much less where they will be paid for doing so.

My opinion...and it is my opinion, mind you...that a person should expose themselves to varied points of view. In the case of Ann I have and I've simply heard enough.

That is far from saying they should have to however.


In the UK we have/had Katie Hopkins..a lot defend her right to free speech...I don't know this Ann Coulter, but now having read up on her..she appears almost the same(albeit pretty lol). In the US you have a fucking twat of a president that acts like a child on twitter, even promoting far right hategroup( britian first) speech comes with great responsibility and these days it is becoming more important in my opinion with the amount of fake news(from sites promoting hatered).If the facts are there and there is statistical data that supports a right wing argument..I will look at it objectively from various sources.Anyway, in the research I just looked at, ann coulter appears on that spectrum of right wing christian speech to shock type...probably even a less devout christian as she believes.

Ann Coulter is a far right-wing "intellectual" who values notoriety more than decency. Like Donald Trump, fame -- to her -- is more important than compassion, truth or traditional human values.


Let the students run them off campus once they are allowed to speak.


i hear what you are saying. its crucial that the thoughts of everyone be heard. Just to bring an element of debate to the fore on the's Ann Coulter. Her words and politics are well documented I'd figure. She's already old hat. So, if she wanted to defend her thoughts town meeting or debate style and discuss...ok. If nothing new is really gonna be realized, what university wants to host fox news style speeches?


Absolutely not! If you've heard or read it once that's enough and if you don't want that message to spread you do what you can to shut that down.

That's like saying church people can preach to you and you're just supposed to listen to that again and again and again because they have a right of free speech? No way.

People should say or write something once then it's my choice if I let them inflict there point of view on me or my children ever again.

Do I have to give racists and opportunity to tell my kids that black people are bad people?

As in, no one should be forced to say their wedding vows more than once or the pledge of allegiance or citizenship oath. If those are things you choose to do.

And I'll repeat that as many times as I need to! ? But only if I'm asked to.


I do not believe that universities should ever allow a person from an extremist point of view -- left or right -- speak, except in the framework of a real debate in which a person of equal or greater stature and intellect also provides an opposing point of view. Otherwise, it is license to engage in demagogery.

interesting point, wordy.

The only thing that should not allow is shackling. Allowing extreme speech is what creates the debate.

@norealgod so long as it is in the context of a real debate. Otherwise is it demagoguery.

That is censorship of the worse kind let them bury themselves.

@Marine Your statement is a deliberate misrepresentation. You are saying that demagoguery should be condoned in our institutions of higher education. That is repugnant!


You are truly liberal, but the so called liberals are anything but. Their religion is every bit as consuming as radical islam, or evangelical christianity. Trully religious fanatics hate opposing views and "liberals" are exatly like them

norealgod you obviously do not know any liberals or at least not many. Conservatives hate to listen as they are religious nuts with god on their side.

I know plenty of "liberals" the vast majority of the people I know are so called liberals. Conservatism does not imply religious. Many of my conservative friends are truly liberal.

I know plenty of "liberals" the vast majority of the people I know are so called liberals. Conservatism does not imply religious. Many of my conservative friends are truly liberal.


So true,as the Mafia says,keep your friends close,and your enemies closer !


Speech should be allowed and rebutted. Let em make their point and then show em the facts.

How many times?

@Anonbene as many as they want. When faced with facts that should make a bigger impact.

@Cwag515 The problem is for people who spout bigoted hate speech, the facts don't matter, they never have and probably never will.

So, if you keep giving them a platform to speak, even if you rationally counter the arguments every time, you are giving them a platform to spread their extremist agenda.

@icolan yes sir but, by them opening the platform we get to relay and correct the message to the people who simply don’t take the time to look into this subjects. We might even change the minds of the bigots who haven’t had the chance to see someone else’s point of view.

@Cwag515 By giving them that platform at institutions of higher learning their speech takes on greater weight because it carries the appearance of legitimacy from the university that issued the invitation and because they were invited to speak not debate.

We cannot stop them from speaking in the public square and that is the only place they should. They can be countered by facts there but in a single sided speech at an institution of higher learning they are being provided with an unopposed platform.

@icolan I see what you’re saying. Yet I think we should be more vocal with the facts that we have. By constricting the first on em, we open the door for our freedom of speech to be constricted.


I’m guessing you didn’t mean “not permit” but I get your point and I agree.

skado Level 8 Mar 18, 2018

Big thing speech happened today with a guy called Tommy Robinson @ Hyde Park speakers corner. In attempt to liberate the people's right to free speech with is being encroached on my the government under the PC guise. Seems there's a big Secular/Christian movement against Islam in Europe atm.

Many countries in Europe have seen a rise in muslim immigrants with a corresponding rise in islamic terror attacks and attacks on Jews leading to nationalism counter-movements (neo nazis and KKK like groups, Tommy Robinson types). Lump Tommy in with KKK. We have free speech in this country, generally. There'd have to be violence in order to shut down a rally etc...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:39239
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.