Please keep your vermin in your own country: (in Off-topic)

ahh.... good old Ann Coulter... ~sigh~

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100323/canada/canada_us_politics_people

"She also told a Muslim student to "take a camel" as an alternative to flying."

Really?

Please cull your herd.

She just shows herself to be a an attention... something more and more. Ignore her, and she just says something more outrageous.

she is on a high horse

We're sorry. I thought we had thrown that one in the trash already. We'll dispose of it properly this time.

I can't read anything on the article, her picture keeps coming up, and my hand just instinctively jerks to the top right X... :S I've tried to read like 3 times, it's some sort of defensive mechanism :O.

/me sits in Australia. Sounds like Pauline Hanson.

Lets just say that some of the things she said to a group of people would get her thrown in jail and fined here in the States. But for some reason she isn't put down...

I would be disappointed if someone was thrown in jail or fined for saying anything to anyone for any reason whatsoever.

That said, she is an idiot, and should be treated as such.

Slayer - Libel is illegal

(not saying that's what occurred (didn't read the article)... just saying that you can in fact be punished by law for things that you say.)

Um no offense bro but you are wrong some things should just not be said and someone has to stop them from saying them.

Slander, Defamation of Character, Derogatory Statements, Profanity, Phrases or Words used in a unwanted Sexual Context, and Racial/Gender Slurs can be tried in court and if found Guilty you WILL be Fined and or serve Jail time depending on the Severity of the situation.



The rule of Thumb here is that you can say whatever you want as long as you are willing to pay the consequences. If someone becomes offended then action can be taken. :-/

You mean slander. Libel is written defamation.

"Ahead of a talk at the University of Ottawa"

looks like Canada brought it upon themselves and cant complain.

Unless she's just standing outside the place bothering passers-by.

You're so much more the man than her.

anyways, her and Michael Moore should try and make a movie together.

umm... the university provost is in no way a representative of the federal government (or country)... if the head of Yale says something do you blame the United States?

Regardless... claiming a letter about free speech rules differing in the country she is visiting is 'hate speech against conservatives' is beyond moronic.

As for culling the heard, I simply meant please have higher standards for folks to whom you grant celebrity status (like Jersey Shore, for example :-P )

Ya that's exactly what I thought you would have meant by that >;)

Like Tommy Lee and Pam eh....

Mike would eat her alive. Which would actually be a win-win for everybody. Mike gets a dried up, stale, chewy old snack (like the jerky you get at 7-Eleven), and the rest of us get rid of Ann Coulter.

Thanks for killing my sex drive for the next two months.

*kicks Loch in the junk*

(*grin*)

You know you're a red-nec...errr liberal when :

you're walking through the snack aisle in 7-11 and thinking about political rhetoric. >;)

Liberals go to 7-11? Get outta here!

Hey! Their $0.50 hunter's sausages are more addictive than crack! My friends and I stock up on those things on boxing night every week, and they're gone before the first round starts.

<3 me some spicy big bites doused with chili and cheese ... I'm so hungry now

(LB that wasn't a cheap crack at you, I was listening to a comedy station by AOL and just heard a Jeff Foxworthy "You know you're a redneck if..." skit..and I read your post during it ;)

I was practically on the floor with laughter

so wait.... those people hanging out in front of the 7-11 asking for my money are Liberals and not hobos? I may owe Ranger and IA an apology, dammit. (I'm kidding, love ya guys!)

And she's out:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/ann-coulter-speech-cancel_n_510939.html

Drat. I would rather they had let her speak and then arrested her for hate speech.

Best thread ever.

A true victory for Free Speech!

I would hate to allow someone with an opposing view to talk at an Institution of Higher Education.

She is allowed to speak at the University of Ottawa. Nobody's stopping her. However, the decision was made by her organizers (and/or herself) not to speak there for protection reasons. Other controversial speakers (pretty much any politician, anybody with extreme views, etc.) seem to have few problems with speeches, despite protests.

The problem isn't her view, though, it's her saying things like calling the University of Ottawa a "bush league" for not liking the things she says.

This issue could likely easily be solved with an apology, as her comment to the Muslim student was clearly out-of-line, even as a joke. I imagine students would be more willing to let her speak if she wasn't such a hypocrite about these "hate crimes".

I don't know anything about Ann Coulter, but being known for making remarks against identifiable groups seems like adequate reason to inform her that such things will not go over well in Canada. Making as big of a deal out of it as she did seems completely idiotic to me.

As a student, I would have been at that protest, too. But what do I know? I mean, Muslims should all be taking camels, shouldn't they?!

The way that I read the article, was that the organizers of the speech, not Coulter canceled the speech for safety concerns.

"A protest by hundreds of students led organizers to cancel a Tuesday night speech by American conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa."

I also read that she did not call the University "Bush League" until after they canceled the speech. This could be wrong, as I have only read 2 articles on it.


I am not a Coulter supporter. I am libertarian and agree with her sometimes and disagree with her sometimes like most politicians/speakers.. I just feel that at a University setting all views should be made available and brought to the floor for discussion.


In one of the articles, she talk about speaking at Yale to a very hostile crowd, but they engaged her on a intellectual debate and she never felt physically threatened.

That would be stretching the definition of "intellectual debate" well beyond credulity.

Maybe they felt having her on campus would degrade the school. Which would be correct.

Universities have had many people speak on campuses that some would feel that could degrade the campus. Such as the school a 10 years back that had a convicted murderer on death row give the graduation speech via closed circuit TV since he was not allowed out of jail.

However, it is at this Universities that people should be allowed to talk freely about their political views. It should not be restricted to just a Liberal/Conservative view or Dem/Rep view. All views should be able to be discussed.


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/10/us/long-reach-to-death-row-for-a-graduation-speaker.html?pagewanted=1

Sometimes you just have to roll the hard six Strum, and...wait, what...huh?

No, I meant, some people should never be given a stage. Ever. Like I said above, I'd rather they had let this play out and let the law proceed, but I'm not going to have a problem with some college students who gathered and "looked threatening". What does that even mean? Whoever made the call was a ninny, sure. They didn't need to be a wuss, could have let it play out. But I can't see any blame to place on the University (at large) or the students. If I were there, you're damn right I would have looked threatening and aggressive. How should I look? How did the kids at Kent State look? That's how I look when I feel angry and am tired of people who should know better spouting off to make a buck, you know?

We don't know who made that final decision to call it off. And if they hadn't, odds are everything would have been just fine. I don't like car seats, either, but if I ever have a kid I'm going to have to abide. Do you think I'm weak or giving up my principles for doing so? You don't seem to be the kind of guy who thinks laws are automatically right, and that works both ways. Some laws suck, and some higher ideals just don't automatically work out. Mistakes get made. Let's just make damn sure the dumb-frak in this case (Ms. Coulter) isn't made out as some sort of victim.

Ok, I was actually disappointed that her silly little talk was canceled. The (perceived) threat of violence is just about the worst reason to limit speech. However, from what I gather the unexpected kerfuffle left the planners unable to cope. University of Calgary has taken the right approach:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100324/national/coulter_controversy_2

Just because I feel like scoring the event:

U of O provost writing the initial letter: -1

Ann C, for releasing a private letter and claiming it was hate speech against conservatives: -3 (-1 here just didn't feel sufficient)

University protesters: 0 (+1 for expressing themselves, -1 for not letting others do the same)

Right-wing nut jobs: -5 for claiming 'Canada is a socialist country that denies free speech'. Nobody in the Canadian gov't is remotely responsible for any of this.

Left-wing nut jobs: -5 for claiming victory.... wth?!? Limiting expression is a victory for nobody. (was gonna be a -4 but I didn't think they'd earned a 'win' here)


Do you like my scores? Tough... free speech ftw!

I call shenanigans.

Free people shouting down other free people, even preemptively (smart people!), is Free Speech. Speech is free when it is not limited by governmental interference.

I agree that it should have been played out. Due to what happened, nobody should claim anything good.

QBsutekh137 - I believe everyone who is speaking on legal topics should be allowed to talk. There are many things that are not acceptable and, I agree, can be limited. Such as inciting riots, conspiracy, murder, or revolutions, calling "Fire" in a crowded public place etc. But simply expressing a Liberal or Conservative view regardless of how ridiculous that view might be should be protected at all cost. If we lose the right to free speech, then we will lose all of our rights.


Lochnivar - I would agree with all of your scores, except that you left out +2 for the University of Calgary.

Tyranny of the majority ftw then? I'm disappointed in you Bast.

Free speech, in this case, appears to have worked exactly as intended. (barring the "security issues", which I think was bogus cover for her to turn tail and run)

I dunno as far as I'm concerned the protesters had a right to protest. If the university chooses not to invite her to speak because of the protests, that's fine. If there was a threat of violence, then that wouldn't be okay, but I don't think there was. The University has the right to invite who they want to speak.

Freedom of speech is the right to not be punished for what you say. It is not the right for a platform to say what you want.

The University is well within their right to cancel her speech on their own campus. Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over her not being able to speak. As far as I'm concerned, she ranks up there with the Westboro Baptist Church on the list of people I never want to hear from.