Free Speech? [Updated]
Either we believe in free speech. Or we don’t. I find Ann Coulter to be a buffoonish political idiot. I suppose if I took her seriously enough I would also find her views to be repulsive.
But the brain dead students at the University of Connecticut who shouted her down in front of a crowd of 2000 the other night make me shiver.
Who in the hell do these kids think they are in deciding what people can and cannot choose to say and hear? Who appointed them censors?
Newsday quotes a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major named Eric Knudsen saying: "We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech." This kid heads up a group called Students Against Hate – a group that evidently believes you combat hate with louder hate. And this boy’s a journalism major to boot? When he grows up will he decide to cover news only he deems won't offend anyone?
If you can’t come up with arguments to defeat the stupidities that roll out of the mouth of Coulter, it’s probably better you just check out of the university.
Knudsen is reported to have not attended the Coulter talk. Excellent. All those who shouted her down had the same option. You don’t like her? Great. Don’t go. Stay in your dorm and watch a DVD of Fahrenheit 911 and hope no one comes crashing through your window to smash up your TV.
As someone who has done a good deal of public speaking, I can tell you from first hand experience how 2 or 3 determined hecklers can ruin an event for hundreds of others. When that’s happened to me, my personal reaction is “What little fascists!” Same goes for the supposed anti-haters who broke up Coulter’s speech. (And you can be sure Ann Coulter just loved this. What better propaganda for her than to have her opponents act as if they’ve just been released from a zoo?).
Shame on Ann Coulter for everything she says. A double-dose of shame on the little fascistoide students who won’t let her say it.
On a related matter: Lefty blogger Nathan Newman has put up a wonderfully provocative post on why he hopes the military wins the recent Supreme Court case over its right to recruit on law school campuses. Newman argues that any so-called “right not to associate with speech I don’t like” is one that has been historically used against the Left; and that extending that doctrine to bar military recruiting opens the door to, say, corporations barring union recruiters or anyone else they don't like from their private property. Kudos to Newman for be willing to break with the orthodoxy over recruitment on campus.
There are additional, deeper, issues raised by the controversy over military recruiting that have been insufficiently addressed. In his fine new book, “The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War," former professional soldier-turned- professor Andrew Bacevich argues that in a truly democratic society, the military must be more integrated – not segregated—from mainstream civil society. He specifically argues that anyone intending to join the officer corps be required to complete studies at a civilian university, not just a military academy.
Gays and Lesbians are fighting hard for an expanded participation in the Armed Forces. So do liberals and progressives think we are better off with a military whose ranks include fewer --or more-- liberals and progressives? Putting up higher walls between the military and academia seems like something that would please the most reactionary sectors of the military – just like shouting down Ann Coulter plays right into her hands.
Yes, I know all of the very real problems with recruitment tactics. Those are serious, crucial matters that demand our full attention and reform. Let’s do that. Not build more walls.
UPDATE: Nathan Newman puts up another post politely clarifying why he supports the military's right to recruit on campus -- it's got a twist to it. It contradicts my interpretation of his first post. Nice to hear the dispute and not shout each other down.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
About Ann Coulter only, not the rest of your post…………
In general I might agree with you, however there are certain folks who are running around instead of being in an institution, and Coulter qualifies for a straight jacket and permanent instituionalized care taking…not to mention her anorexia, which is not a fair thing to mention, her anoreixa, but so what…it is part of her illness.
She has only become legit on the news, or on any speech circuit because of the unending madness for ratings. In rational times gone by, she would by now have been locked up somewhere, by her very own family no doubt, as in rational times…decades ago, before the need to fill one thousand channels 24/7..she not only could not make a dime, writing or talking, but would be what she is: An outrageous lunatic, running freely…no Marc not even similar to a Nazi or whomever you or someone else might want to use as a simily…this woman is of the ledge entirely. Plain Bonkers without a dynamic or a real philosophy, just Bonkers…
December 8th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Let’s keep this in perspective - Coulter spoke for fifteen minutes at which points boos and jeers persuaded her to switch gears and hold a 30 minute question and answer session. Then she stuck around for the raison d’etre, a book-signing. Coulter wasn’t exactly driven from the campus by Brownshirts. Frankly, after fifteen minutes of Coulter’s vicious, cynical hatemongering and name-calling, I’d be throwing shit at her. She’s fascist scum and while that doesn’t mean she doesn’t have first amendment rights, so do the people who are sitting through the crap she purveys. You’re making this sound far more dire than it is - if I went in front of a black audience and started ranting about how they’re a bunch of morons with low IQs, I’d expect to be run out on a rail. Same for some idiotic bitch who calls liberals traitors and makes dumb statements like Tim McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times and perhaps Clinton should have been assassinated rather than impeached. The only thing wrong with the scenario of people booing and jeering this WASP minstrel is that it plays into her strategy and her “victim” status. Presumably you also think that the British Parliament is a bastion of intolerance and proto-fascism because they don’t treat free speech like it’s a one-way street. What about the response in Congress to the execrable Jean Schmidt when she attacked Murtha ? I wasn’t at the event, but from the news item it seems that Ann had her payday and got to have her say. What didn’t happen is people sitting politely on their hands while she threw moronic insults at them.
December 8th, 2005 at 9:38 pm
Newman and Bacevich are both right, IMHO. Liberals need to embrace the military as an institution, not demonize it. (My son is thriving in the Navy incidentally. We had a great Thanksgiving and I realized that this is an excellent experience for him and he has strengths and a level of commitment that will be an asset for the Navy.
Now if you really want to furrow your brow over “fascistoids”, here’s something that’s far more worrisome than the psuedo-travails of some floosy who’s getting paid out of state funds to hawk her cynical psycho-screeds.
http://tinyurl.com/8vzyj
December 8th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Ann Coulter is funny, I suppose. At least, she retreats behind that defense whenever it’s convenient. Nevertheless, she is in business and her product is hatred — and it’s quite a lucrative business, one that gives her views ample exposure. Was it censorship when an Arizona newspaper cut her column, citing, in part, the many disgusted letters from *conservatives*? Was it censorship when NRO cut her? Whatever — she’s still making money hand over fist, in the way that works for her: going up to the brink of (and occasionally beyond) what we consider acceptable opinion.
I really can’t cry bitter tears for the “censorship” by jeers and catcalls of anyone who is perpetually on the NYT bestseller list. Not for someone who gets airtime on national television because those who HATE her, not just those who like her, ALSO boost ratings.
If universities want to avoid this kind of embarrassment, they can be very clear: they can post campus cops in the lecture hall, and eject anyone that a moderator points out as being too disruptive. And make it clear ahead of time that this is what they’ll do. You might object that this kind of thing shouldn’t be necessary on a campus. That we should expect better of students. But shouldn’t we expect better of the speakers as well? And didn’t this school realize that, in her case, they couldn’t expect better? Academic freedom is a great ethos, but you don’t get to be a professor before willingly submitting the considerable “censorship” in the form of blind peer review. The legitimacy of that freedom is earned.
I don’t think Coulter is an idiot. She apparently sincerely believes some stupid things, of course. But she’s also very smart. If there’s anyone in America who is only too happy to be booed and jeered from a stage, it’s probably Ann Coulter — it works perfectly for her business model.
I support Coulter’s right to publish wherever she can. I support her right to speak wherever she wants. However, by her very modus operandi, I think that any institution that invites her opinion in any form as unilateral as a lecture format had better be prepared to restrain the audience. And also to admit that they are hosting Ann Coulter not for the benefits of freedom of discourse, but for auditorium ticket sales, and thus are coming from at least one of the motives that she is, when they invite her to speak.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
I had read this story earlier in the day and found it pretty depressing.
There are few topics that get me more riled up than this one, and I’m referring to the Coulter shout-down.
I should start by saying that I was for many years, a debate coach, and so the notions of fair play, and respectful argumentation, and civil discourse are near and dear to me, and I get pretty steamed up at the morons who think they don’t have to engage an idea, or who think so-and-so isn’t worthy of even being invited to give a talk, or that mooing like cows is an appropriate response to someone. And I reserve the right to call these people morons because they refuse to engage an idea and instead just pugnaciously and thuggishly heap it on until they drown out ideas they don’t like. What cowards. But even worse, they’re authoritarian conformists.
The ideas expressed may be crass and stupid, as Coulter’s are uniformly, but that should make them all the easier to dismiss or dismantle, and nary a “wingnut” need be uttered in the cause.
I do like a little give and take and find the House of Commons, as reg points out, pretty entertaining. I liked it when the Dems went after whats-her-name calling Murtha a coward. But this all needs to be done within pretty narrow bounds that allow the person to speak and make their case. A little mumbled disapproval is OK, even a little fun, but Engage The Argument. John Stuart Mill has some nice things to say on the value of this practice. It’s worth a read.
I just don’t approve of little self-appointed thugs trying to decide what ideas are even acceptably uttered let alone engaged. Lefty thought police ought to know better.
As an aside, I think there are few things more offensive than the idea of hate speech, denounced by young Mr. Knudson. Speech should have few limits at all, and if I drop an N-bomb on someone while pounding the tar out of them, I fail to see how assault, or any number of other charges, are not up to dealing with the crime.
If more people formally learned how to argue they might feel less need to shield their virgin, delicate minds from ideas that they don’t approve of (and probably have never actually wrestled with). I think college students ought to be made of sterner stuff.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Kudos to you Marc for holding to true liberal principals. Too bad the same can not be said for the rest of the commenters thus for.
You all found various ways to say “I am all for free speach but”.
I call it “The Chris Rock / OJ Defense” If you ever saw the bit Chris says “I ain’t sayin he shoulda killed her….. But I understand”
It is sad that so many who consider themselves liberals try to justify what happened / happens regularly to Ms. Coulter.
Oh and btw I am no fan of Ann Coulter. She is no more than a cheap opportunist, and you folks are the fools that give her the opportunity.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Free Speech, as enshrined in the First Amendment, is there to ensure that the State and public institutions cannot and will not punish someone for something he or she has written, spoken or otherwise expressed.
It is not meant to protect anyone from the logical repercussions of their own stupidity.
You cannot go to Anacostia, Long Island City, Liberty City or wherever holding up a giant placard which reads “I Hate Niggers!” and then later on, while recuperating in the hospital, attempt to portray yourself as some sort of “free speech martyr.”
I’m sorry folks, but it just doesn’t work that way.
So government and institutions can’t deter you from expressing whatever foulness you desire to express, but pie-throwing avengers, for example, can sure as hell let you know what they think of your horses**t.
“Kudos to you Marc for holding to true liberal principals. Too bad the same can not be said for the rest of the commenters thus for.”
Pardon me while I stick my finger down my throat.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
Bravo to the Students at the University of Connecticut. Ann Coulter is nothing more than a shrill shill for neo-conservatives. In 2001 referring to Muslims, she proudly stated: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. She is an anorexic female version of Rush Limbaugh–they share the same political ideology–how can I exploit my conservative point of view, make a shekel or two and be as obnoxious as possible.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Well, AAA, how terribly disappointing. Somebody standing in public on a street corner taunting or insulting passersby certainly runs the risk of getting thumped. But of course, an intelligent or civilized person seeing someone holding a sign saying I hate Niggers would walk right on by. Just like we hope someone who holds up a sign saying Stop the War or US Troops Are Babykillers would not get thumped.
Now, if someone is something offensive in a closed room, as an invited speaker, in which there are NO passersby and then gets shouted down… well then.. all I will say you don;t know what you’ve got until you’ve lost it, my friend.
Encouraging the infringement of speech is god damn stupid road to go down under any circumstances — but especially so when u consider yrself a dissident or when u hold minority views.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:22 pm
So far as I can tell form the article, there was actually MORE free speech rather than less because Coulter was forced to hold a Q&A rather than engage in a diatribe. What would be a better example of “free speech” - Hitler ranting at a silent audience or Hitler being forced by an angry crowd to engage in a dialogue and take questions ? And the comparison of Coulter with Hitler isn’t even a little bit of a stretch…except that Hitler had more integrity. He really was an insane maniac, while Coulter only plays one on television. Frankly, bemoaning Coulter getting jeered and booed makes as much sense as getting upset if Andrew Dice Clay had been booed and jeered for one of his garbage performances back in the day. The kids didn’t shut down a speech by George Will or Charles Krauthammer…they responded appropriately to a parodistic clownshow that’s insult driven, not scholarly or even based on an argument. Let’s get real about the nature of her rants. Ugly’s bullshit concerns about the state of liberalism are as hilarious as the disingenuous spew from Ledeen the other day bemoaning the priorities of “the left” because they don’t want to launch invasions of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Disingenuous crap. Coulter has made it crystal clear that her mission is to create a climate of fear and loathing for liberals. I say we should return the favor.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:23 pm
Yep, Ann Coulter has the right to freedom of speech. Yep, so do the students. They acted well within their, and her, rights. The clause is to stop the government from censoring. It is not to stop people from shouting at each other.
Her comments make it clear she enjoyed the situation. Something the students should have been able to predict.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:25 pm
The armed services are becoming somewhat separated from civil society, and I agree that this is a potential problem.
The good news is that many officers start with a degree from a civilian university and then go to OCS.
Also, higher ranking officers frequently spend some time at civilian universities getting advanced degrees.
It may be that the enlisted ranks are more separated than the officer ranks.
As to gays and lesbians in the military… it’s bad enough having units of mixed gender. The military is (to use a trite phrase) there to kill people and break things. It is not a place for social experimentation and forcing civilian lifestyles on a necessarily very different way of life. Forcing the military, busily engaged in a critical war, to accept major changes in fundamental personnel policy is folly, without prior experimentation, and the burden of proof should be strongly on those who demand change.
There are a number of negative effects which introducing women into certain roles has produced. For example, in the Gulf War, a Navy Ship became combat ineffective due to loss of too many crewwomen to pregnancy. Is this loss made up for by the wider recruiting pool or some other advantage produced by having women in the service? Again the proof is on those who push the policy.
The same requirement of proof should apply to gays/lesbians.
If these experiments can be shown to work - to not reduce a unit’s military effectiveness or to cause excess casualties, etc… then fine. Otherwise, forget it - regardless of whether the characteristic is gender, sexual orientation, physical characteristics or whatever.
Service is an honor, sometimes an obligation, but definitely not a right
December 8th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
As to Anne Coulter…
The baby fascists pla;ed right into her game. Anne Coulter is a looney-left baiter. She does it well, and there is no shortage of moonbats on the left. She is in no way representative of the right. Her schtick is to exaggerate conservative views, getting press for the fuss it causes, and then sell books.
The best example was her book on McCarthyism. Knowing that McCarthyism is one of the most beloved sacred myths of the left (with actual facts at the core), she went after it, producing the expected fuss and publicity.
In a sense, she has a bit of value - sort of like a doctor prodding and asking “does it hurt HERE?”
She shows the areas in which the left is most sensitive and most bizarre. Beyond that, she’s an author and speaker making, no doubt, big bucks off of poking sticks into leftist hornet nets.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
Well, Reg, that’s just what they call bullshit. If the Young Republicans want to sit and listen to a monoluge from Ann Coulter that is what is called their RIGHT.
it’s not up to a bunch of intolerant loudmouths to disrupt the event and turn it into something else.
It just doesnt pass the “shoe on the other foot test.”
So you want to return the favor of creating ” a climate of fear” when it comes to political debate, no matter how crass? PLEASE LEAVE ME OUT OF THAT DYNAMIC.
According to your logic, then, we ought to create a website that centralizes data on all the conservative and right wing book readings across America. Then we can use meet-up software to organize some small flying teams of earnest liberals who can storm into all of these Barnes and Nobles and heroically confront all the wingnuts, wingers, fascists, homophobes, racists, xenophobes, flat-taxers etc etc and BRING THEM MORE FREE SPEECH by booing them down and forcing them to answer taunts and jeers? Great. Why not go the whole nine yards and just burn their books too while ur at it?
I actually somewhat agreed with ur first post Reg… i.e. that posting about this in the first place might not be the best use of mental energy. But you and others have now convinced me otherwise. I cant believe there’s such a cavalier attitude about this.
Also… John Moore’s got it perfect on Ann Coulter. She’s playing you guys like a Duncan Yo-Yo.
And… a PS to AAA… actually you are dead wrong. Free speech, better known as the First Amendment, has darn well been interpreted by the courts to not only defend you against government censorship but also to PROTECT ur speech.
If someone were to punch out a guy holding a I Hate Niggers sign, the puncher would go right to jail where he belongs– by the way. That’s called assault and battery. And that is one hell of an example u raise AAA… according to you one should accept “consequences” for unpopular or even outrageous speech. But of course, only rightwingers who you disagree with! LOL. Or perhaps you could publish a guide for us.. letting us know where “the line” is i..e where it is appropriate to exercise physcial violence against someone because of words or thoughts they put forward. Holy shit!
Time for a drink……….
December 8th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
This is the most depressing thread I’ve seen since I started reading this blog. Reg you’re right, Coulter is a puke, and we should keep the event in a little perspective, it’s not Kristallnacht, but come on guys, there is a real principle at stake here. Think about what you’re saying. Think about the implications beyond just this one incident. It’s in the cases outside of the norm when your real commitment to a principle gets tested, and we’re failing it big time here. Just sad.
And AAA, I can’t pull any punches here. Get a clue. Think a little about the tyranny of the majority which was much on the founders minds.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:52 pm
I should add that I’m totally against the “hate speech” codes on campus, because it makes the institution responsible for stuff that the members should take responsibility for. I’m against anyone officially policing speech, but I wouldn’t be offended if somebody got their ass kicked invading my neighborhood on an overtly racist propaganda mission. Increasingly, in the age of Limbaugh, Savage, O’Reilly and Coulter, I hate the idea of “liberals” as some kind of ultra-tolerant wusses who let reactionary morons push them around.
Marc says: It just doesnt pass the “shoe on the other foot test.â€
Actually, in my opinion it does. If an ultra-leftwing moonbat spewed garbage that was parallel to Coulter’s - somebody who had called for Bush to be assassinated and argued that conservatives should be rounded up and shot (I can find Coulter quotes that fit that level of offensiveness), I would fully anticipate their being booed and jeered and shouted down in a public forum. They’d be damned lucky to get a 30 minute Q&A session. You didn’t respond to my Hitler analogy. If he were giving one of his crackpot speeches and was booed and jeered and force to answer questions rather than just rant, how in the hell could you see that as an event worthy of condemnation.
December 8th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Or reg, you could just leave. If it is totally offensive and out of bounds (as she usually is), then don’t participate.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:12 am
Here’s a different perspective. In comedy clubs, or other arenas of entertainment, the performer needs to work a crowd. And there is a little thing called “bombing”: if the entertainer is a bore, offensive, or otherwise fails to entertain, well, the crowd lets ‘em have it. Some may walk out, while many others boo and shout him or her off the stage. What I’m getting at–and I agreed with Marc until I thought of it in this light–is that one can choose to look at Coulter as an entertainer, rather than a political analyst. That is, if someone comes on stage and plays the buffoon, then I’ll interpret that act as a comedic one. If it’s funny then I’m sure to laugh. But if it’s disgusting, and failing to please me (the audience), then I’ll boo to my heart’s content. In a context of a comedy club, or WWF-style entertainment, of course.
The point, again, is this: there are rules we follow in debate formats, in political presentations. A speaker can say anything he or she wishes, but if the speaker breaks unspoken (or spoken) rules of decorum–i.e., makes offensive remarks like “I hate Jews” or “liberals should be shot”–then the arena is re-defined as a comedy stage. Honestly, if Coulter is an entertainer baiting liberals in a money-making entertainment game, well, all the power to her. But then that’s what you’re getting: WWF shoutathons. And therefore when the boos drown her out it’s not some scary threat to free speech, but simply an audience playing a role that was clearly intended for them. You may argue that the booing helps (e.g., invites media coverage) or hurts (e.g., she has to leave the stage, like the bombing comic) her cause, but I’m very doubtful that the Coulter incident had anything serious to do with “free speech.”
December 9th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Marc hypothesizes:
“According to your logic, then, we ought to create a website that centralizes data on all the conservative and right wing book readings across America. Then we can use meet-up software to organize some small flying teams of earnest liberals who can storm into all of these Barnes and Nobles and heroically confront all the wingnuts, wingers, fascists, homophobes, racists, xenophobes, flat-taxers etc etc and BRING THEM MORE FREE SPEECH by booing them down and forcing them to answer taunts and jeers?”
Let’s say someone did that. The owners of the bookstores could have the teams ejected for trespassing, disorderly conduct on private property. But let’s say they didn’t. Is Ann Coulter then being censored?
No, she isn’t. Her books will still be on the shelves. Even the essays that were rejected by the various publications she has written for will be available on her website. And she will continue making television and radio appearances. Anybody who complains that they didn’t get a chance to see Ann Coulter speak unhindered in person will have a gripe, of course. But I don’t see a right to that in the Constitution. They certainly can’t complain that they don’t have access to Ann Coulter’s point of view. If Ann Coulter decides to take it personally and stop writing and making media appearances, you might say there’s been a chilling effect. But by the very nature of her business, incidents like being heckled out of Barnes & Noble actually help her make more money, and get her more attention, through the channels in which she has already experienced a freedom — nay, a power — to influence, amuse and inform far beyond what most of us can even dream of having.
I put it to you, Marc: if your “flying teams” DID exist, and if bookstores elected not to exercise their property rights by having the cops eject those teams (they might not, after all, because the publicity and curiosity value of a newsworthy incident might bring more customers through their doors), where would be the First Amendment violation, or any violation, legally speaking? And in practical terms (Ann Coulter’s ability to get attention to her message), how would it do anything but help her? If nobody’s rights are being violated, and the supposed targets of “censorship” are actually being enabled in their pecuniary goals, rather than harmed, I think you’ve got a case here that would be tossed out of any court in the land with a snort of derision from the judge. And rightly so.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:09 am
This really is open and shut, sad, pathetic, depressing. In a free society, people speak. Speech is answered, refuted, clarified, corrected, or what have you, with more speech.
People who stop other people from speaking, and those who defend them are facists, pure and simple.
Hey Left-wing fanatics, lose elections much, do ya?
December 9th, 2005 at 1:35 am
Marc Cooper: “If someone were to punch out a guy holding a I Hate Niggers sign, the puncher would go right to jail where he belongs– by the way. That’s called assault and battery.”
Well, yeah. The person or persons who pummeled the individual holding that placard would, if caught, legitimately and rightly be charged with a crime. But that crime wouldn’t be denying the sign-holder his first amendment rights.
“And that is one hell of an example u raise AAA… according to you one should accept “consequences†for unpopular or even outrageous speech.”
One hell of an example? I thought it was just common sense. If you go out lookin’ to pick a fight sooner or later you’re gonna find someone who’s willing to oblige.
“But of course, only rightwingers who you disagree with! LOL. Or perhaps you could publish a guide for us.. letting us know where “the line†is i..e where it is appropriate to exercise physcial violence against someone because of words or thoughts they put forward. Holy shit!”
What does “appropriate” have to do with it? Or for that matter questions of legality?
Dan O: “And AAA, I can’t pull any punches here. Get a clue. Think a little about the tyranny of the majority which was much on the founders minds.”
Honestly, I feel like we’re living on two separate planets or something. Did you guys go to high school or anything? Was the population at whatever HS you graduated from homogenous or fairly mixed?
I mean neither of you has ever seen a fight start over an ethnic, racial or religous slur? Or at least heard about such things?
I mean, fer cryin’ out loud, First Amendment and “tyranny of the majority”… okay, whatever. Clearly it’s time to call it a night.
P.S. - For the record, I’m with reg when it comes to “hate speech codes” and “free speech zones” and all of that sort of nonsense.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:44 am
By the way, notwithstanding my comment on academic freedom as an earned right, you could substitute “Ward Churchill” for “Ann Coulter” in this incident, and it wouldn’t change my opinion on the matter. Ol ‘ Ward is a small-time Hate Speech Vendor by comparison, but in this case, I think that’s as relevant as whatever eating disorder Coulter may suffer from. Which is to say, not at all.
samual stott writes:
“This really is open and shut, sad, pathetic, depressing. In a free society, people speak.”
Justice Hugo Black (if I’m not mistaken) said, “My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” Free speech IN PRACTICE isn’t easily summed up in those two words, and that’s why we have the notion of “protected speech” when the rubber hits the road.
Do I have a right to buttonhole people to sign a petition anywhere I want? I don’t. Not in the state of California anyway. I got firmly slapped into my place once, in a ballot petition campaign. A security guard at a grocery store warned me that I was too close to the entrance. I ignored him. He got truculent. “I have a right to do this!” I shot back. It got pretty huffy.
Well, it turns out that security guard was right. There’s a law. My right-to-petition fist was too close to the property-rights nose of the grocery store operator — it was there in the lawbooks. And yet … I DID have a right to soloicit signatures beyond a certain distance from that entrance, flying in the face of what some would believe to be a common-sense notion of private property. There is almost no public space *practically* available for petition campaigns, unless it’s in front of stores and in malls. A judge decided that balancing property rights and free speech rights required one of those annoyingly arbitrary little numeric regulations. And he was probably right. I can tell you that, just empirically, where he drew the line did cut into the rate of signature gathering, but was still a long way from cutting it off completely. The perfect line that would have satisfied both interests is impossible.
Free speech. It’s all very simple. Open and shut.
Not.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:10 am
Crooks and Liars tackles this subject in a much more humourous way:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/08.html#a6242
I don’t think Bill O’Reilly / Marc Cooper labelling these hecklers “fascist” is very useful or grown up.
The hecklers are wrong in engaging in that sort of behaviour, but they are not necessarily fascist.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:48 am
Michael Turner’s comments on restraints, ambiguities and anomolies in the law of free speech, are spot on, for the examples he produces. I.E. My right to speak doesn’t give me the right to speechify with
with my fist against your nose; any more than it gives me the unlimited right to occupy the entrance to Dr. Chomsky’s office, for the purpose of collecting signatures against monomaniacs.
We can agree on that, and we can probably agree that many points regarding speech must be subject to adjudication and democratic compromise. But do we agree that it is equally vile and contemptible to shout down Anne Coulter or Noam Chomsky, Lincoln Rockwell or George Galloway? (Insert any name or names you want.)
My point is a simple one. Anyone who advocates stopping any speech, by anyone, ever, without a compelling legal warrant, is a facist.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:06 am
My point is a simple one. Anyone who advocates stopping any speech, by anyone, ever, without a compelling legal warrant, is a facist.
Not necessarily. Its clearly undemocratic behaviour, and undemocratic behaviour is an element in fascism, but indulging in undemocratic behaviour does not necessarily make one a fascist.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:23 am
# Benjamin Says:
December 9th, 2005 at 3:06 am
Not necessarily. Its clearly undemocratic behaviour, and undemocratic behaviour is an element in fascism, but indulging in undemocratic behaviour does not necessarily make one a fascist.
You are exactly right.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:52 am
Marc, leftists on college campuses have been shouting down people for years. No one can tell me it didn’t happen because I saw it with my own eyes as an undergrad at SF State and a Grad Student at UC Davis in the late 80’s.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:40 am
samuel stott writes:
“My point is a simple one. Anyone who advocates stopping any speech, by anyone, ever, without a compelling legal warrant, is a facist. ”
Still too loose, in my view. (Thanks, though, for at the very least acknowledging that the issue isn’t simple, that “free speech” has no practical meaning in the absence of certain legal restraints and permissions, without which it might ultimately be ineffective or even dangerous.)
For a case in point, I’ll just offer a supposition. Let’s say the MC for this Coulter event finally took Ann aside and admitted the obvious: “We can’t continue, because we weren’t prepared for this uproar. At least, we can’t continue within the time limit — you’ll have to cut it short. This hall is booked for another event just after yours. Sorry, but we’ve got to change the format. It goes to Q&A with the audience. Take it or leave it.”
Now, this MC didn’t get a legal warrant to stop her from speaking. And he did have the choice, perhaps, of bringing in security, having the protesters ejected, and letting her continue with whatever time was left (which I assume he wouldn’t need a legal warrant to do.) Wouldn’t this MC person ALSO, by your definition of free speech, be violating Ann Coulter’s free speech rights? Why or why not?
Speech is not some disembodied abstraction. Speech happens at times, in places, through media, and many people’s rights (of protected speech and others) necessarily intersect those times, places and media, creating potential for rights in conflict. The fact that speech is happening at all doesn’t make it free; if so, these protesters were guilty of nothing except exercising the same right as Ann Coulter, just at the same moment and in the same place.
Here’s how I see it: everybody got what they wanted. Her right wing audience got to see her in action and in the flesh, and could walk home feeling smug about how stupid those protesters were. The protestors got a demand met, and got heard, and got serious (not tongue-in-cheek inflammatory rhetoric) out of their target. The university got a high profile mention in the press, and will probably get yet more credit for handling the disruption so smoothly. And Ann Coulter gets more publicity, which is what keeps her books selling and her appearances (at $30,000 a pop) flowing.
So I don’t expect any Supreme Court cases out of this one. You can tell me you didn’t expect one either, but if so, we’re arguing about some vague notion of free speech that doesn’t have any basis in the First Amendment. Which we would be about par for a discussion in which nonviolent leftists have been called fascist thugs, and concerted heckling has been called censorship. People who can’t define what they are talking about usually don’t KNOW what they are talking about. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that, mind you. Blaze away.)
December 9th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Well hate speech can be defined. As for hecklers, has anyone been to a comedy club? If a performer stinks the crowd reacts. Coulter sure an act that stinks.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:18 am
And for the name-calling record Ugly American likes calling others fools. Nice work if allowed in certain directions.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:28 am
Interesting Supreme Court decision here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/feiner.html
Decision: a speaker causing a public disturbance (in the judgement of the police) can be arrested for refusing to desist.
Dissenters: Black, Douglas. The police have a duty to protect the speaker. They don’t say that it has any duty to quell heckling.
This is also interesting:
http://www.aclumontereycounty.org/rights_demonstrate.html
—
Q. Do counter-demonstrators have free speech rights?
A. Yes. Although counter-demonstrators should not be allowed to physically disrupt the event they are protesting, they do have the right to be present and to voice their displeasure. Police are permitted to keep two antagonistic groups separated but should allow them to be within the general vicinity of one another.
Q. Is heckling protected by the First Amendment?
A. Although the law is not settled, heckling should be protected, unless hecklers are attempting to physically disrupt an event, or unless they are drowning out the other speakers.
—-
“Although the law is not settled ….” Hm. I wonder what that means?
One of the more interesting things I’m learning from googling on “heckling” and “first amendment” is that the term “heckler’s veto” seems to be mostly used out the context of the original court decision — where the issue was whether a government body could charge fees for a public demonstration permit in rough proportion to the expected law enforcement costs. The court decided that a “controversy tax” (if you will — my words, not theirs) was unconstitutional.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:33 am
Last post. My dad and his Silver Star soundly refute Morre’s rampant homophobia in the military or anywhere else. What a perfect Coulter fan. Blech.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:52 am
So glad to hear Marc is a free speech purist.
I guess that means he was parodying himself when he threatened to boot me off his blog.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:59 am
I am pretty much a free speech purist too.
But the self parody comes in when you label everyone who flouts it a “fascist”.
December 9th, 2005 at 7:05 am
I agree with Marc. Ms. Coulter came to a university near me. I chose to acknowledge that fact for about 5 seconds, wondered how the hell they could afford it (and can’t you find a better speaker?), and then dismissed it. Apparently these type of speakers must be good money makers.
What if it was Michael Moore?
December 9th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Does Ann Coulter have the right to speak? Absolutely. But she has enought opportunities to spew her vitriol on cable news channels and through newspaper columns to be assured her voice will be heard. The students of UConn have no such assured outlets. If their opinion is that Coulter is a hate-filled scumbag, then why shouldn’t they have the opportunity to express that view to her face. How can you grant Coulter the right to speak but not those in the audience who disagree with her?
Now, if only the Democrats would exercise their right of free speech and shout down W during his next State of the Union speech.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:09 am
All the shouting down and pie throwing at Horowitz, Kristol, and yes, Anne Coulter makes the left seem infantile and, worse still, feeds the conservative persecution complex.
Remember the great Simpsons episode where all of Springfields advertising icons started stomping up the town? And Lisa realized the way to fight them was to ignore them? Exactly.
I agree with John Moore’s post above. Shouldn’t lefties be sharpening their arguments against smart conservatives like Kristol rather than having screaming sessions against a long legged straw woman?
Talking about liberals who fall for this trap. It’s not just college students. Lsst year Esquire ran a despicable profile of Coulter by Scott Raab where he goes “on a date” with her and confesses to finding her attractive. Pathetic.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:10 am
Slippery slope and all that but Rich gets it, which is why I brought up Andrew Dice Clay as the appropriate analog to Coulter, not George Will or Charles Krauthammer. Coulter’s act is deliberately designed to provoke, which is the best argument to ignore her rather than heckle her. But I want to clarify one thing I said that apparently sent Marc in a rather ridiculous direction with me trashing Barnes & Noble’s where flat-taxers are selling their books. By point is that Coulter herself has set certain terms for her discourse, one of which is moronic taunts, insults, suggestions of physical violence and even murder of liberals, etc., so when people respond to her, as an individual, in kind I’m neither shocked nor upset. I want to make clear that I wouldn’t approve of the kind of behavior exhibited against Coulter if it was launched against someone else who I detest like the odious Charles Murray for example who argued from a standpoint of “scientific racism” but did so without taunting his audience and calling them a bunch of ignorant niggers. He should be engaged at the same level of discourse he operates at and his ideas should be outed (I would argue that if he were speaking on a campus and refused Q&A the audience would have a right to disrupt his monologue after he’d made his basic points and demand that he respond to queries. But Coulter is a transparent buffoon who invites the same gestures of contempt and vitriol that she flaunts before her audience. The idea that an Ann Coulter appearance is an intellectual exercise for young campus conservatives is…well…maybe a lot of them are that stupid and vile. I have to think on that. But buffoons and demagogues - the Rev. Fred Phelps is another one who comes to mind - can reach a point where they deserve more free speech by all concerned. I’m about as close to a free speech absolutist as one can get, but Coulter was not driven from this campus - she engaged in a post-jeers half hour of Q&A and then signed books for her admirers. I think that protestors whose sole intent is to stop an event by disruption should be dealt with by ejection or in extreme cases charged for disturbing the peace, etc. They have a right to their protest and the group has a right to eject them. But the idea that a crowd should sit silent while someone engages not in argument but in a demagogic tirade deliberately designed to insult and provoke them makes no sense to me whatsoever and, frankly, if we’re going to great lengths here looking for traces of proto-fascism I think that ‘audience of sheep’ scenario is even scarier than robust reaction to Ms. Coulter’s freedom of screech.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Incidentally, when Bush appeared at the Council of Foreign Relations the other day, the audience should have heard him out ant then, as he wound down his remarks, started politely but firmly and loudly asking - even insisting - that he stay to answer their questions. That would have turned the event into something worthy of the First Amendment’s inherent majesty as opposed to a charade with less integrity than my “Support The Troops” refrigerator magnet.
December 9th, 2005 at 8:25 am
“…..you could just leave. If it is totally offensive and out of bounds (as she usually is), then don’t participate. ”
This is the main point I think Dan O. First, wouldn’t those who attended, especially those who were most offended and reacted, already be aware of what they were in for. Second, didn’t they have to buy a ticket to get in in the first place?
It seems as if those who disrupted this event may very well have paid to be able to do just that. They had no intention of walking out, it seems they were there to ‘force’ everyone else to walk out.
Another point. Most Universities are inhabited by young, politically liberal, and emotionally immature students(and some professors). Kind of like the Iraq war, the planners did a good job setting up this event but totally failed to plan for the likely reaction by the natives….,then again, maybe they did?
December 9th, 2005 at 8:36 am
Let me add that sanctifying the First Amendment and the Founding Father’s intent is all well and good, but Alexander Hamilton was killed in a fucking duel, for Christ’s sake, and it was the culmination of a long-running political rivalry and disclosure of insulting comments he made about Burr which he then proceeded to escalate. Blood actually ran through these men’s veins and they didn’t exist in a world of hygenic abstractions…
December 9th, 2005 at 9:06 am
Well said, reg. Especially the last post with the Hamilton/Burr example.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Coulter is a buffoon and her provocations make it hard to defend her or her right to talk. And the rhetoric from people like me can get a little over heated I admit. And she is more like Andrew Dice Clay than she is like George Will, I also admit. All of this sort of works to make the incident less serious than I might make it out to be.
But the issue for me is less legal, less first amendment, and more about conformity. Conformity of thought and expression. The reference to the founders I made before was less about the reach of the law and more about the culture required to protect those minorities. The law doesn’t mean much without respect for the principle under it.
And to David Martin who suggests that the students, if not allowed to heckle at the rally are being denied their right to speech, I say then you lack imagination. How about letters to the editor, a protest outside the hall, handbills passed out on campus, a parody ad in the school newspaper or on the radio, a boycott? Lots of ways to get the point across.
I’ve had more than my share of poltical arguments at a cocktail party end with me saying something like, “Oh why don’t you fuck off you idiot.” I ALWAYS regret it, and I think this is pretty much the same.
December 9th, 2005 at 9:58 am
One last point and then I’ll shut it. The Charles Murray example reg cites actually bolsters my case. I’ve spent the last few years assuming Charles Murray was a raving lunatic racist, because that’s what people said about him, and I hadn’t bothered to find out for myself. I recently read a lengthy academic article by him, and oddly, it was closely reasoned, moderate in tone, thoroughly sourced, etc., etc. It may all be bullshit, I would have to do more reading, but his claims weren’t inherently racist, and he was exceptionally careful not to make concomitant judgement about worth or value based on the data he was presenting.
The above is precisely my point in all this. We too often let someone else’s idea about what someone says or is like decide for us what our opinions are, rather than find out and grapple withit ourselves. This is the confromity that I’m talking about.
I know, I know, Anne can be proven fairly well to have no ideas worth wrestling with at all, but I thought the same thing about Murray, and now that I’ve read him I’m not so sure. That’s the whole point of open discourse.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Charles Murray may, like intelligent design proponents, write in clear well argued prose, but he also makes the argument that the size of one’s genital is inversely proportional with one’s brain power. He goes beyond simple racism by creating a racist pseudo-science. He actually believes Asians have small genitals and smart brains, Caucasians medium and medium and Black folks big genitals and small brains.
Even if there is a kernel of truth to his inquiry, which there decisively is not, it is a line of inquiry that is not worth taking any more than tendentious studies about left-handed people.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I would bet that Charles Murray has a very small penis and is compensating.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:51 am
I would go as far as bet that its smaller than Ann Coulter’s.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:13 am
I remember attending a lecture by a PR guy for the IMF. He came to a hostile campus and gave us a speech talking about all the things the IMF had done poorly and promising great changes in the institution. It was a very surprising and welcome speech. Some folks, myself included, were suspicious of the radical change of heart and wanted some more specifics. Others decided to ignore the mea culpa and concentrate on bashing old IMF policies and spouting a lot of hot air. In my view, they really undermined a potentially very interesting conversation. They came to the event presuming they knew what the speaker would say and, when he didn’t, they ignored him and persisted in defining the debate in old terms. Only a tangentially related story, but I definitely remember having self-righteous students ruin good critical thinking and productive discussion.
More specifically: Ann Coulter deserves her forum. If she has been invited to the campus, she deserves a chance to speak uninterrupted (maybe the occasional boo or hiss after something particularly noxious). But after a period of time has passed, I am all for forcing her to take questions – even if that means “shouting her down.†She’s a public figure with very public beliefs and she should be made to answer for those beliefs. Everybody, especially an invited guest, deserves an opportunity to say their piece, but that doesn’t mean dissenters should lose the opportunity to respond and probe. I don’t buy the, “you should just leave,†angle. You should definitely stay and fight – hell, if you’re a student there it is your home the person is coming in to. But there are house rules and they should be respected.
December 9th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Cummings,
Are you sure about Murray’s beliefs re:race? I’ll confess to never having read anything of his, but I did read a small booklet about five or six years ago by a Canadian professor (last name either Rushdoony or Rushton or something along those lines) whose racial theories were exactly what you’re describing here. Inverse corrolation between sex drive/penis size and intelligence.
Are you sure you don’t have the two confused? Are is this just a case of one quack basing his work on the writings of another quack?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
I’ve read a bunch of things by Murray. He’s certainly not a cartoonish flamethrower like Ann Coulter and seems to use the tools of social science with a certain degree of rigor. I’ve read criticisms of his work which cite a selectivity in presentation of his data, skewed interpretation of results, tendentious argumentation etc. Were I conversant with all the relevant litrrature it would be easier to judge these claims, but I do disagree with Dan O that Murray avoids human value judgements based on his findings. He is clearly comfortable (even seems to take a quiet glee) in consigning whole groups to mentally inferior status. He makes sure to throw in the necessary caveats about individual exceptions but the overall thrust is clear. His declarations that human worth can’t be determined from IQ scores begin to sound, after all that, pretty weak and more than a little chilling.
I believe there is a racist undercurrent to his work and that he’s entered into this research hoping to confirm preconceived notions. He seems to take a certain satisfaction in his role as bearer of brutal but necessary truths. I don’t get the sense that he’d be relieved if it were proved that his claims of group inequality were false. I sense that he’d be disappointed.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
This is a good debate and thankfully no one from eitehr side can disrupt it with a louder voice.
I want to make one clarification of my own. It is not nor should it be ILLEGAL to shout down a speaker. The same way it is not and should not be illegal to hold up a sign that says I Hate Niggers.
Im only arguing the moral/political side of the issue.
I think it is nothing but self-satisfying theatrics that accomplishes nothing except 1) making the speaker a martyr and 2) discrediting yourself and your allies.
Nor am I saying that people dont have the right to protest speakers like Coulter. Indeed they do and that right should be vigorously exercised. I just think that there are infinitely more effective ways to carrying out that dissent than staging a pale imitation of storm troopers.
I will also tell you that in 1970 I was among 19 people arrested at a California StateUniversity for disrupting (but not quite shouting down) a speech by the Ambassador of South Vietnam. I believe we had the full constituional right to do so and a local jury upheld that notion after a 7 week trial that ended with a pulic defender playing a cut from Johnny Cash. Thrity five years later I dont regret it… but if I had it to do over again I would now choose something far less dramatic and much more strategic. Hopefully one learns with age and experience.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
I was already to agree with Mavis and Reg….
But then I found this account in the Hartford Courant that’s a bit more detailed than the Newsday article that Marc links.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-coulter1208.artdec08,0,3869031.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking
It does appear that the hecklers were not so much reacting to her words, as deliberately trying to derail the speech altogether.
I have no problem with people booing and shouting in response to statements made by a speaker—be it Coulter or otherwise— particularly if that speaker deliberately tries to provoke the crowd. Hey, actions have consequences. But such shouting and booing must be done within bounds, as part of a speaker/audience dialogue. And, indeed, it seemed the audience settled down during the Q & A—ie once they were allowed to respond. But, looking more closely at the hecklers behavior in this case suggests they also became bullies during Coulter’s speech, trying to drown her out altogether. And as odious and hatefilled as her speech may have been, that’s not okay.
However….. just so we know what a lovely woman we’re dealing with, here’s a point from Coulter’s Q& A as reported in the Courant:
“One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.
“Coulter replied: ‘I’d say, `Did I ever tell you you’re adopted?”‘ …”
***************
And, no, I don’t think it’s funny.
PS: Good points from you, Marc, Newman (in both posts) and reg, on the law schools/military recruiters issue. I abhor the fraud and trickery being used by many military recruiters in this time of enlistment downturn. THAT’s what oughta be investigated and banned immediately, but not recruiting on campus.
It does appear that the hecklers were not so much reacting to her words, as deliberately trying to disrupt the speech.
I have no problem with people booing and shouting at a speaker like Coulter (or whomever) when that speaker deliberately tries to provoke the croud—especially when the audience settled down during the Q & A. But the hecklers in this case matched Coulter’s verbal bullying with bullying of their own.
But just so we know what a lovely woman we’re dealing with, here’s a point from Coulter’s Q& A as reported in the Courant:
“One student asked what she would do if she had a child who came out as gay.
“Coulter replied: ‘I’d say, `Did I ever tell you you’re adopted?”‘ …”
And, no, I don’t think it’s funny.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Okay, here’s a very concrete example of not only censorship, but actual denial of free speech rights at the hands of the State — outright criminal prosecution in fact for violating — there’s no other way to put it — “speech crime” laws.
A friend of a friend of our gracious host was recently arrested in Austria for expounding some nonsense about the Holocaust, which seems to be his stock in trade.
As repellant as his views on a whole host of issues are, I find his arrest to be outrageous and mind-boggling.
Surely those who believe that “Anyone who advocates stopping any speech, by anyone, ever, without a compelling legal warrant, is a facist” are with me on this, right?
I mean we can all agree that no matter how patently absurd and outrageous his views are, he should not be imprisoned for any stretch of time (much less the quite long stretch he’s likely to get) because of them, right?
And incidentally, there was a great piece in this week’s Spectator (U.K.) about this very incident. Unfortunately I can’t find it on their website, and even if I did it would probably only be able online to subscribers. Try to find it on the newsstand though. Also a good piece by Brendan O’Neill.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
“be able online”
should read
“be available online”
December 9th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
So you had a constitutional right to disrupt, but “kids today” send a chill up your spine. I understand where you’re coming from - the land of old farts - because I live there most of the time, but you’ve gotta see the humor in it. Let’s face it, you were guilty as hell of disturbing the peace or whatever and Johnny Cash helped saved your ass. (Also it sounds like getting yourself a seven week trial over this stunt was pretty successful tactically - and probably strategically from the vantage point of a scruffy, obscure college kid. Kudos.)
“Every old man complains of the growing depravity of the world, of the petulance and insolence of the rising generation.” Samuel Johnson.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Also I agree with the distinction rosedog makes, and I’ll admit it’s a fine line between hostile reactions to hostile statements, as opposed to just trying to keep someone from speaking.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
“But there are house rules and they should be respected.”
And that was exactly my point earlier, Mavis, one that must be applied equally to speaker and audience. The reason why I find this crucial is that not all events have the same house rules. When the ambassador of S. Vietnam, or a PR guy for the IMF, comes to speak at a university, regardless of their political motives, they are coming there to give a type of performance (i.e., talk) which requires a (mostly) attentive audience. When a musical band performs, the opposite is expected–the more noise the better–and likewise with a sporting event (though low-acoustic frequency “boos” deliver a signifcantly different message than high-frequency cheers). So what kind of event is Coulter? I’d have to echo reg’s comparison to Andrew Dice Clay: in other words, not the more common Jerry Seinfeld type of comedian who tells humorous anecdotes, but an in-your-face performer who is trying to provoke a reaction of shock and perhaps anger. So what happens? Some audience members love it and laugh along, some hate it and shout it down, and some love it and STILL shout it down, because that is the established performer-audience relationship for this type of performance.
So I have to stand by what I said earlier, and disagree with Mavis and rosedog, in that the relationship between the performer and audience is determined by the type of performance. From my limited knowledge of Coulter, the performance is like, well, performance “art”, where you come in with the intent of shocking your audience (or a significant percentage of them), with the expectation that you will likely be booed off the stage (after obligatory body decoration). Then you go to your art friends and tell them how crazy and successful your act was. If you’re Coulter, then you write an article or a book about it. My simple point (after this long-winded exposition) is that this event is categorically distinct from every example each person has brought up (except Andrew Dice Clay) because the “Coulter show”, as its participants are on some level aware, by now carries the expectation that there will be interruption. “Jews are pigs!” or “Bomb the NY Times building!” or “Clinton should have been assasinated” are simply the cues for the audience to boo the comedian off the stage. A boring performance in my book, and I agree that the apparent irony is that Coulter gets great publicity as a result. But the bigger irony which Coulter would probably never publicly admit is that this is exactly her aim: to get shouted off the stage. If not, it’s like the old tree falling in the woods conundrum: if Ann Coulter spoke in a politely quiet environment, would she actually have anything to say?
Incidentally, I would love to see this hypothesis tested in the form of a “protest” where a Coulter audience shows up and doesn’t make a single noise throughout her performance, including the Q&A. “Just silence… total fucking silence” (to quote Buscemi’s character in Fargo).
December 9th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
Sorry about my strange double-ish post. I spell checked off blog in Word (but obviously didn’t proof read, given my odd use of the word “already”), then attempted to paste the corrected post back in but somehow doubled up.
Oh, well. A clear sign I should be working, not posting.
But before I go…..Marc….Good story. So, like WHICH cut from Johnny Cash? (Interested Man In Black aficionadas need to know.)
December 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
I’m going to outflank Marc on the right now and suggest that, though I’m not clear on the precise legal niceties, I think that while it probably shouldn’t be a chargeable crime to disrupt a speech, it should be perfectly legal to eject someone from a premises who is disrupting an event. Political speakers in a public space, like a park, should probably forced to take their chances come what may, but sponsors of an event have every right to attempt to stop total disruption of a speech or ceremony. This shouldn’t apply to random heckling, but to overt and persistent disruption. That said, it doesn’t mean it would be wrong to engage in such activity under every and all circumstances, just that one should be prepared to be asked to leave or be forced to leave if you refuse. I would enjoy throwing a pie in Coulter’s face at least as much as she would enjoy the publicity, but I would expect to pay some penalty if I were caught. Fair’s fair, except for the fact that Coulter’s such a clown she’s got a “heads I win, tails you lose” game going here with her detractors.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
Curious post. Last time I looked hecklers were protected by the First Amendment. Something change?
December 9th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Why do I suspect that many of those supporting the rights of the so called hecklers (I’d call them proto-fascists… remember the use to which the brownshirts were put) would be highly indignant if they went to speak to a college audience and were prevented from doing so. I’m not a big fan of Coulter, but she has a right to be heard respectfully (Rosedog, I disagree with you there) as does the pseudo-indian Churchill. Protest out side all you want. After the speech give interviews, but to disrupt someones talk because you disagree with the content of that talk is childish in the extreme. Childish and proto-fascist and not worthy of the name democrat or republican, liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:13 pm
Here’s Nat Hentoff’s take on the distinctions being discussed here. He’s about as much of a 1st Amendment absolutist as you can find. In short, heckling is protected as long as it doesn’t reach the level where the speaker can’t continue. (There’s also the fact that speaking events sponsored by various institutions aren’t technically covered by the First Amendment, although most that consider themselves “public” in some sense attempt to uphold its’ spirit.)
Hentoff:
“Heckling is protected speech” under the First Amendment. But heckling is no longer protected free speech if “the speaker cannot continue. That, in law, is called ‘the heckler’s veto.’”
Once it became clear that (the speaker) was not going to be heard above the boos and jeers of the audience, the president of the university — who was on the stage — should have firmly informed the audience that the speaker’s First Amendment rights trumped their First Amendment rights when they make it impossible for her to finish her speech. Moreover, the university president would have been within his rights to have campus police escort the hecklers out of the auditorium.
GM - No one has a right to be heard “respectfully” who doesn’t address their audience respectully.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:16 pm
The above, if it wasn’t clear, was Hentoff’s opinion starting with “Heckling is protected speech…” through “Moreover the university president, etc.”
December 9th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I can’t imagine actually reading a BOOK by Ann Coulter, just as I can’t imagine reading one by Maureen Dowd, but as a comedienne– a less obviously facetious skewerer of pc pieties than Sarah Silverman or South Park– she can get off some good ones now and then. Calling her act “hate speech” or humorlessly saying “shame on Ann Coulter for everything she says” is, well, confirming her point about the anhedonia on the other side. (Did you know the Left has no sense of humor? No, but hum a few bars…)
Years ago in college, when I was plenty pinko but still the free speech near-absolutist that I am today, I helped book Phyllis Schlafly for a talk at my university. Now, to be safe and make sure we had presented “both sides” (something we somehow didn’t feel the need to do when bringing in Allen Ginsberg and William S. Burroughs, for instance, or Julian Bond, or any of dozens of others), we also brought in some guy named Warren something or other who gave a warm, gushy talk on the feminized Alan Aldaized male of today. (It was incredibly boring and, needless to say, hardly drew anybody.) Nevertheless, we soon had a procession of, shall we say, strident feminists in our office demanding that we not spend their student activity money on something they didn’t approve of. When I suggested that that meant we would have to defund the GLBT Club if Maranatha complained, and that maybe it would be good for them to hear the counterarguments so they could be prepared for debate in the future, all I got was pitying looks that told me a spot was being reserved in the reeducation camps after the revolution.
Nevertheless we went ahead and Schlafly, though I still think even today as a much less pinko person that she’s fairly nuts politically, proved to be a great speaker, worthy of the House of Commons when it came to thinking on her feet and answering back wooly-headed questions with sharply pointed answers (admittedly, most of the questions can’t have been new). And the interesting thing was… we didn’t hear from anybody complaining about having her AFTER the speech. She had, I think, won their respect for standing up under fire (when someone asked about her fee she called it “combat pay”); disagree with everything she said including “good evening” and “thank you” and you still admired her as a self-made woman in politics.
So shame on the people who booed Ann Coulter down, and on those like Reg who would impose PC vetos like “No one has a right to be heard “respectfully†who doesn’t address their audience respectully” (you mean, like Lenny Bruce or Dick Gregory?) Next time, shut up and listen. You might learn something, if not about politics, at least about being your own person and standing up to conformism.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Reg, what absolute sophomoric BS. Who gets to decide, reg, if its “respectful”or not? You? If so, who gets to decide if you get to decide?
The old who guards the Praetorian Guards question?
We must presume that SOMEONE invited her to speak on campus. Those people deserve to hear their guest & your right to shout her down ends at their right to hear her. Plain and simple. You are dead wrong reg, dead wrong.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Lenny Bruce and Dick Gregory didn’t address their audience’s respectfully ? Bullshit…I’d be hard pressed to come up with two comedians/social commentators who had more respect for their audience than those guys.
December 9th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
You, GMR, for one fucking decide when you censor people on your goddam website ! Get a clue! What a bunch of disingenuous crap.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Lenny Bruce and Dick Gregory didn’t address their audience’s respectfully ? Bullshit…I’d be hard pressed to come up with two comedians/social commentators who had more respect for their audience than those guys.
Yeah, I’m sure the cops who busted Bruce felt that way.
I guess as long as you get to define “respect,” you’re fine with it. I find the idea that speakers would be subjected to a “respect” test appalling and a sure way to ensure that no one truly interesting anbd provocative gets heard. To take the darling of the collegiate left, can you really not imagine the circumstances under which Noam Chomsky, for one, could be muzzled for failing to show proper respect to 9/11 victims, our troops, a nation at war, etc.?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
I reviewed one of Coulter’s books and Amazon didn’t allow it in that present form because I described her as “this vile trust-funder.” She still is and far worse insults are contained between the covers. Of her books.
As for Murray he’s another fine example of wingnut science. As a scientist myself I can safely pass judgment on his work, and it has no basis in science. The Bell Curve is a crash and burn pure and simple.
Marc’s protest story was told in my CSUN Daily Sundial class by Manley Witten. The kids were impressed.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Hey reg go to GM and say “Ass.” That will do it!
December 9th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Also Freddy, I find it interesting that you would suggest “the left has no sense of humor” and invoke Lenny Bruce and Dick Gregory in the same comment. There are plenty of people on both the left and the right who’ve got rods up their butts, but I’d bet that if you did a butt count among liberals vs. conservatives you’d find far more rods among the right. Good comedians can make hecklers wither…Coulter obviously can’t. She just retreats into her victimhood.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
“Yeah, I’m sure the cops who busted Bruce felt that way.”
What the hell does that have to do with anything ?
I’m not using respect in some complex or metaphorical sense - Chomsky is, in my view, something of a moonbat (although not as much of a wacko as he’s generally portrayed on the right) but he’s as decorous a speaker as one could find. Coulter is not. She is, as I noted early on, someone who has the manners of Andrew Dice Clay and essentially the same intent - to step over boundaries of decent discourse and rile her audiences with stupid assertions that reflect an almost maniacal bigotry. But to give her a pass as a comedian doesn’t really work, because if she thinks she’s faced hostile audiences on campus, she’d face real hell if she tried to put her act over on the comedy circuit. She’d be eaten alive and her bones would be sucked dry.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
I know for a fact the right has a great sense of humor. That’s because I always read Mallard Fillmore. What will that crazy duck say next?
December 9th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
“you mean, like Lenny Bruce or Dick Gregory?”
Wrong, Freddy, wrong, wrong, wrong. You need to visit a few more comedy clubs, or poetry slams. How about Andy Kaufman? Do you think he was shocked when people booed him off the stage after assaulting the crowd with absurdism? No, he’s probably still chuckling about it in his grave. The thing is, people like Kaufman and Bruce nevertheless eventually found an audience who was compelled by what they had to say–that is to say, their performances eventually succeeded. Again, irony of ironies (since I’m not sure anyone with half a brain is really compelled by anything she says), one can say Coulter succeeds in a similar way: her audience takes the bait and shouts her off the stage. She wins press and fame. But once again, in harmony, this ain’t no free speech issue! Sheesh, you anti-pc’ers sound just the opposite with your scared-rabbity approach to public speaking. If a speaker wants a speaking forum, they know to not yell “fire!” or “kill the Jews!” or “Hulk smash!” But if they do, then what you get is an entirely different event, where the rules of decorum ain’t the same.
December 9th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
They’ve also got a lock on comedians named Miller…Larry, Dennis and Mrs.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:20 pm
reg: You, GMR, for one fucking decide when you censor people on your goddam website ! Get a clue! What a bunch of disingenuous crap.”
More sophomoric BS. I have clear rules on my blog for commenting. Violate them and you get the axe. No different then me coming in your house and spouting off. You would then have a right to ask me to leave post haste.
But we are talking about a public forum, PUBLIC. Get that reg. My blog is my PRIVATE property and though you are welcome to read it, you don’t get to set the rules ON IT. Just like Marc has banned commenters and deleted comments and is asking for forbearance for Righties in this very post. I don’t hear you calling him full of crap.
Your strawman argument doesn’t hold water. Period.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:29 pm
You all can catch your breath while I take issue with a tangential point in Marc’s post:
“[barring military recruiters from campuses] opens the door to, say, corporations barring union recruiters or anyone else they don’t like from their private property.”
Take it from a union organizer, that door has been wide open for a long, long time. If we could get the courts to recognize such a right, or that the public interest would be served by the free flow of information in the workplace, we would not be facing declining membership.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Also Freddy, I find it interesting that you would suggest “the left has no sense of humor†and invoke Lenny Bruce and Dick Gregory in the same comment.
I find it more interesting that I have to go back that far to find a genuinely funny figure on the left(ish)…
but I’d bet that if you did a butt count among liberals vs. conservatives you’d find far more rods among the right
Not in this thread you wouldn’t!
I’m glad to know that the post-hippie-era left’s idea of a speaker’s worth is entirely rooted in whether or not he or she preserves decorum in a university setting. (Of course, there goes Lenny Bruce again, being taken away in chains for insufficient respect with intent to diss…)
Incidentally, since I’m sure 99% of those here condemning Coulter’s views have never read anything by her, here’s an example. (No, I don’t read her, I said that. This was sent to me during the event it refers to, and it pleasantly surprised me, as it might you.) Not great literature– not Edith Wharton, like Michael Kinsley said Maureen Dowd is– but like its author, considerably less flabby than the average newspaper column these days.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=9646
December 9th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
Yeah like GM coming to my blog and telling me off. What’s good for the goose isn’t for the gander over there on that side of the fence but what else is new?
December 9th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
A speaker at a public forum who says stuff like “The only problem I have with Timothy McVeigh is that he didn’t go to the New York Times” is asking to be heckled. As Rich explained quite well, there are various contextual rules for public discourse, which are as easily discerned as the rules you’ve set on your blog, and people who violate them are just as likely to “get the axe” in some form or another. This is pretty elementary. It sounds like the students at this Coulter even might have gone beyond that, but the fact that she ended up in a Q&A session with them makes me doubt that this was the triumph of the brownshirts. Coulter doesn’t just have more “free speech” than 99.9% of her fellow Americans, she has more paid speech than most people who actually might have something to say that’s worth listening to. I think you guys are shouting “Fire!” in an empty theater.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
“Incidentally, since I’m sure 99% of those here condemning Coulter’s views”
Wrong. I’ve read her, and there aren’t 100 here yet.
Keep tryin’, fred, you’ll eventually get one right.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
“I have to go back that far to find a genuinely funny figure on the left(ish)…”
You don’t really want to play this game do you, because you’ll lose and lose big.
“Not on this thread…”
Show me the funny.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
“Keep tryin’, fred, you’ll eventually get one right.”
Not without the help of an infinite number of monkeys.
December 9th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
You don’t really want to play this game do you, because you’ll lose and lose big.
Okay, surprise me. I’m not afraid, unlike an audience at an Ann Coulter event.
Not without the help of an infinite number of monkeys.
Was that it?
December 9th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
It think that if Anne Coulter broadcasts her insutling views (she says liberals are traitors) far and wide over radio and TV, then it’s OK for an audience to boo her at a university. I think that it’s far far from being fascist. Maybe some people think boosing Coulter is rude or insuting, and that’s there opinion.
Fascism, both in Germany or Italy, used physical violence to silence opponents (for example, Mussiloni’s cadres through acid in the faces of political people they disliked); monopolized the broadcast media; first fired and then drove professors who were liberals, lefists or Jews out of the country; burned books, etc.
If you want a little bit of fascism, look at Kansas where Professor Paul Mirecki, according to the Kansas City Star, was recently attacked by the religious right for criticizing in an email Catholicism and religious fundamentalism. He apoligized for his email. His email had nothing to do with his classes and his research, but some legislators in Kansas want to have state hearings and start a witchunt. Also, a car ran Mircki’s car off the road, and the occupants jumped out and beat him up badly. Now, that’s fascism. If you want to stand up for somebody’s free speech rights, it’s time to stand up for Mirecki’s in Kansas.
People who are conerned with free speech should look at how 18th century notions of free speech play out in the early 21st century of TV, radio, Internet. Coulter has tremendous mass media visiblily and her voice resounds through right-wing broadcast land while people in Kansas are doing their best to shut Mirecki up who has no such broadcast acces. If anyone who wants to stand for free speech, then start speaking up for Mirecki.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Despite the best efforts of conservatives to invoke South Park as an example of right-wing humor - rather than what it actually is, which is totally anarchic, I can’t think of any self-defined conservative comedians other than the Millers and Drew Carey, who is actually a libertarian. P.J. O’Rourke is the only Republican humorist I can think of, unless you want to include David Brooks, which you’re more than welcome to if you really want to telegraph desperation. I’m assuming dead guys don’t count, which means you lose Bob Hope and I lose Lenny Bruce and Groucho Marx. A lot of comedians probably don’t define themselves politically, but the best contemporary comedy like Chris Rock, The Simpsons, Lewis Black, Maher - hell, even Garrison Keillor - and old farts like George Carlin and Woody Allen - lean more than a bit left. Are they as contemptuous of any running amok of PC as they are of bigotry ? Of course, but then so are most real live liberals I know here in the Bay Area “cocoon”, contrary to the shallow assumptions of such as Freddy. When comedy is percieved as leaning right, the best stuff is purely libertarian/anarchic (Penn & Teller also come to mind in this category) and not anything that could reasonably construed as conservative in the real world. Comedy and conservativism parted ways years ago due to the profound influence of Lord Buckley, Lenny, Paul Krassner, George Carlin, RIchard Pryor and their like. Oy…I forgot. You’ve also got Jackie Mason who represents a neo-con strain among Jewish comedians. Maybe there’s a world out there that I’ve missed, like the Redneck Comedy Tour. Correct me if I’m wrong about this. Meanwhile, I’m off of this thread for today so you’ve got a free hand.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
Oh…Steyn…Steyn tries to be funny. See…I’m doing my best to help you out.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Did I mention Larry David and “Seinfeld” ???? Hardly a match for Steyn, but I’m sure they’ll catch on.
That’s it….gotta go.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:37 pm
After a hella long day of work I get home and I check out some blogs. And Marc, if you’re reading this, then let me tell you that YOU are COOL.
Reading lefty sites is much more enjoyable without the hatred and screaming and conspiracy which infests many other lefty sites. Even though I probably disagree with you on many fundamentals YOU ARE DEAD ON on even more things. Like this for example.
Those punks at UC are pathetic and clueless and their tactics are uncivilized and counterproductive. Good on ya’ for defending Coulter’s right to deliver a speech and for condeming their behavior.
Later!
December 9th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
What happened to Coulter is only interesting in that she is provocative, and there didn’t seem to be as determined a movement to shut her up - she wasn’t physically attacked and was allowed to hold a Q&A session after the heckling. This is more than many conservative speakers get at places where “diversity” is celebrated in everything except ideas.
Today’s “institutes of learning” are notorious for being both intolerant of any views not conforming to their leftist/feminist/multiculturalist/anti-american/any-sexualism views, and allowing their students and others to shout down (or more often, simply prevent from appearing) conservative speakers.
Conservative students are often quietly told not to get advanced degrees in the humanities, as they will never get tenure unless they stay in the closet. Studies of voter rolls show that Democrats (a study proxy for leftish views) outnumber Republicans (a study proxy for rightish views) by ratios ranging from 5 to 1 in hard sciences and engineering to infinity at some schools in humanities. Unfortunately, academic history is being written (poorly) by these badly biased faculties.
One would think the universities would *want* students who have been through 4 years of leftist/elitist brainwashing to join the military, thereby moving that institution to the left.
While we are talking about censorship, let’s not forget the draconiam multiculturalist speech codes at most universities, which make a mockery of the concept of free speech, tolerance, or the diversity of ideas. Whatever you think of Charles Murray and his ideas, these codes would prevent him from expressing them (as a student) and the other biases in the university would prevent him from publishing them or even researching them (except to refute them). Merely hurting a member of a priviledged group’s feelings, unintentionally, with words, is enough to trigger draconian punishment. The privileged groups are all but white, asian and Jewish males.
On the campuses, as in the mainstream media, some level of lefistm, multiculturalism and anti-Americanism have won out. The methods of enforcing these ideas are very reminiscent of the brown shirts, and has been since the anti-Vietnam protests. Heckling, physical threats, and the physical destruction of opposing literature are common. Today, at universities, the fascist tactics are used by the left - which is ironic but not at all surprising.
Examples of all of this are frequently published by the hated David Horowitz, a person who uses the rhetorical techniques of the left to expose their tactics at