Canadian Provost warns Ann Coulter about the dangers of "free speech" - Page 3

Sorry ElCap - I was just looking for any excuse to post that pic cause I think it's adorable.

I absolutely agree, but I don't think that she deserves to reap the rewards that she has for uttering such nauseating bullshit on such a consistent basis. I talk a lot of shit but I ain't made a dime and I'm way cooler than Anne Fucking Coulter.

Jake you're cooler than tank tops bro.

By "holier than thou" I mean that you emphasize the moral "value" of your views over the actual ethics of the situation; that is, for you this seems more about you being staunch defender of the marginalized — and their feelings — than it is about practicals. I certainly am not suggesting that this is a you vs Coulter situation, though your assumptions are telling.

What depresses me the most is that it takes Anne Coulter for Canadians to "debate" free speech. Freedom of speech exist as much for the speaker as it does for the listener; free speech means we, democratic citizens, always have the right to access all opinions and arguments. Condgruently, the undemocratic silence on parliment hill is far more disturbing than anything that comes out Anne Coulters' maw, yet we pat ourselves on the back for "progressivesly" gagging an idiot. And then use our "success" as an example of we are a more civilized nation than the US.

Of course this is all bullshit and it's not a free speech issue at all - it's an institution deciding to cancel her public appearance. If she wanted to set up a soapbox in the centre of Ottawa and spout her bullcrap I'm pretty sure she wouldn't get arrested.

I'm actually cringing at myself now.

In Ann Coulter's world do the Muslims get to keep their right to free speech while we're wiping them out for their differing point of view?

El Cap made a good point. Freedom of speech exists so people can say very nearly anything they want. You have no right to not be offended. You do have a right to not listen. That, I think, is where leftists and political correctness advocates miss the mark. You don't have to listen if you don't want to. If her words offend you put her on ignore ala Princess Wiki.

If you think hate-speech laws have to do with not being allowed to offend people you don't know what you're talking about either. But don't let your ignorance keep you from whining about leftists.

Actually leftists prefer to listen and then respond. That's what is known as engaging in an open dialogue. Placing your hands over your ears and saying "I can't hear you" is absurd and counterproductive.

He can't hear you Doug.

Wikipedia? Seriously?

Why can't Americans get that different countries have different yardsticks by which they measure their freedom of speech? Subjects that are considered taboo for the US are freely discussed about in Europe and vice-versa. It's called having a different culture. Just because a large enough percentage of US citizens condones racist propaganda to make it a viable public viewpoint to have, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to bend over and tolerate it.

Stelios: a scholar and a gentleman.

Not commenting on the page itself, just the notion of posting a link to fucking Wikipedia as an infallible summation of the world's various hatespeech laws.

The discussions don't bother me. What bothers me is the didactic tone present from the US part of the conversation. "See you're doing freedom wrong. That's how you should do it." Also the fact that discussion only occurs in similar incidents. "Oh, no UK why won't you let Michael Savage (or whatever his name is) speak in your country?""Bad Canada, why are you stifling Anne Coulter's freedom of speech?"

And let me assure that you as far as I know there is zero debate or controversy in Europe about whether we should tolerate people like the two previously mentioned assholes. We won't.

For the record, in most academic circles, Wikipedia's generally considered to be an perfectly fine first step in the information research process. It's not an authoritative source that would hold up as a citation in a paper, but it can lead to them. So if anyone's planning on writing this discussion up as an academic paper, I wouldn't suggest backing it up with Wikipedia; basically, Cap's link to it is perfectly reasonable.

On topic, it should be noted that one of the most vociferous defenders of absolute free speech in this thread is Adam, who's Canadian. I don't think any arguments for or against free speech need be polluted by "America's being a dick about it."

There are good and bad features of a society that tolerates absolute free speech and the same goes for a society that doesn't. In both cases, there's great potential for harm to minorities - absolute free speech allows for hate speech that victimizes minorities, provisional free speech can easily be tweaked so that minority voices aren't allowed. The difference, for better or worse, is that the former takes the government out of the equation for the most part, while the latter puts an enormous amount of faith in the government (at it stands at any given moment) to decide which voices are worthy of censorship.

Since there's no true moral 'gauge' in public discourse (or otherwise but ah, let's not get into a debate on morality) how is it illegitimate to try and kick Ann Coulter out of the school? It doesn't make one a great person to buy into her shite and discriminate, either (though her discrimination is focused on people of different heritage, while the "leftists" are discriminating against those perceived to discriminate).

This wasn't gov't censorship - but a volunteer protest. And her appearance was canceled by her people. Regardless of whom you're partial to, you're fighting another viewpoint to have the opposite heard, through hopefully well-reasoned argument. Now, Coulter has her stage, and I recognize she's not engaging in a debate on her podium - but these protesters the Neo Cons are so afraid of were outside and well-behaved. This isn't unethical behavior.

Libel laws have little to do with the intentions behind the concept of free speech. And since you're speaking about the UK, their libel laws are pretty much a local thing and have been put in place as a reaction to the flood of unsubstantiated bullshit that was spewing from the tabloid press. Since they're laws of a democratic country though, it is certain that if they're deemed too restrictive they will be pushed back to more reasonable levels.

No, the mayor of London isn't a nobody, obviously. But if you read the article you also notice that in this particular subject he's an aberration. The whole point of the article is him whining about no one being brave enough to 'stand up for free speech'. So, isolated differences of opinion? Yes. A major issue of discussion? No.