Ann Coulter

[Dreadnought]

Good on the Canadian students for protesting and using their free speech rights.

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government.

The freedom of speech is not the freedom to derail other people through the use of signs, words, etc.

Coulter could sue these people and win; they do not have the right to do this.

 

[emzie]

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government. The freedom of speech is only the prevention of the state from interfering with what you want to say.

The freedom of speech is not the freedom to derail other people through the use of signs, words, etc.

Coulter could sue these people and win; they do not have the right to do this.

No she couldn't. And they absolutely had the right to protest her speech (which she had the right to give but chose not to)

 

[cardgame]

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government.

The freedom of speech is not the freedom to derail other people through the use of signs, words, etc.

Coulter could sue these people and win; they do not have the right to do this.

Oh. So, I could go to a very public place, and give a speech, and then when anybody else talks they are derailing possible attention from my speech so I can sue them? Really?

 

[Dreadnought]

Oh. So, I could go to a very public place, and give a speech, and then when anybody else talks they are derailing possible attention from my speech so I can sue them? Really?

No she couldn't. And they absolutely had the right to protest her speech (which she had the right to give but chose not to)

This is a private speech being given by a spokesperson invited to talk at the location. Freedom of speech does not allow you to wave signs or shout things against a specific person that have no ties to the government; it can be seen, especially in this case, as a disruption of the peace.

 

[emzie]

She certainly could. This is a private speech being given by a spokesperson invited to talk at the location. Freedom of speech does not allow you to wave signs or shout things against a specific person, especially as they have no ties to the government.

Sup. This is Canada. Your Constitution ends at the border.

 

[Bill3000]

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government.

The freedom of speech is not the freedom to derail other people through the use of signs, words, etc.

Er, no. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. It is not even remotely merely protecting dissenting political speech.

This is a private speech being given by a spokesperson invited to talk at the location. Freedom of speech does not allow you to wave signs or shout things against a specific person, especially as they have no ties to the government.

University grounds are public, dude.

 

[Dreadnought]

Oh. So, I could go to a very public place, and give a speech, and then when anybody else talks they are derailing possible attention from my speech so I can sue them? Really?

Sup. This is Canada. Your Constitution ends at the border.

Er, no. Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. It is not even remotely merely protecting dissenting political speech.

Meh, I just read the Canadian Bill of Rights, and from just reading it I think it would be handled differently then the USA. Though I am not an expert in Canadian law (just the American Constitution).

 

[illram]

Dear Canadians,

Dreadnought's idea of how 'merican free speech works is incorrect. I can assure you our 1st amendment rights are still way awesomer than yours.

Sincerely,
USA #1

 

[Merkinball]

Good on the Canadian students for protesting and using their free speech rights.

Who knew that protesting and using freedom speech meant that the guy/gal you were protesting against needed to have body guards to protect them. Yeah, that's what freedom of speech is. The right to pulverize people that you don't like.

 

[Dreadnought]

Dear Canadians,

Dreadnought's idea of how free speech works is incorrect. I can assure you our 1st amendment rights are still way awesomer than yours.

Sincerely,
USA #1

Are you really this ignorant?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, abridging the freedom of speech.

It does not say I can slander anyone I wish to; it does not even mention if I am allowed to say whatever I want to other people. That is why we have civil courts.

Go read a 5th grade law textbook.

 

[emzie]

Dear Canadians,

Dreadnought's idea of how 'merican free speech works is incorrect. I can assure you our 1st amendment rights are still way awesomer than yours.

Sincerely,
USA #1

While I personally lean towards an American ideal of free speech, there is an argument to be made in doing things differently.

Who knew that protesting and using freedom speech meant that the guy/gal you were protesting against needed to have body guards to protect them. Yeah, that's what freedom of speech is. The right to pulverize people that you don't like.

I think she walks a very very fine line between freedom of speech and "fighting words" -- one of the reasons the protest here got so bad was what she'd said to a 17-year-old girl at the University of Western Ontario: that as a Muslim if she wanted to get around, she should ride a camel. If I had a chance to punch Coulter after that, I would have.

 

[illram]

Are you really this ignorant?



Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, abridging the freedom of speech.

Where does that say I can slander anyone I want. It doesn't.

Go read a 5th grade law textbook.

Who is slandering anyone? Is a protest slander? Do you know what slander is?

 

[Dreadnought]

Who is slandering anyone? Is a protest slander? Do you know what slander is?

Do you know what the 1st Amendment says?

EDIT: Location says it all.

 

[Quackers]

Dear Canadians,

Dreadnought's idea of how 'merican free speech works is incorrect. I can assure you our 1st amendment rights are still way awesomer than yours.

Sincerely,
USA #1

Aren't you British?

 

[civ_king]

Aren't you British?

he's from San Francisco

 

[illram]

Do you know what the 1st Amendment says?

Sure do. I don't think it means what you think it means.

*checks to see what you think it means*

The freedom of speech is only the freedom to speak up against your government.

Yep, that's not it.

 

[dirtyparrot]

It is also why your country is and always will be inferior to the United States. There is absolutely no reason why that would apply to Ann Coulter and not to someone who supports gay rights if the population of the nation is deeply offended by the idea.

Poor comparison. For it to hold true, the gay people would have to be advocating hatred towards straight people (in which case I would support censoring those people as well).

 

[Dreadnought]

Sure do. I don't think it means what you think it means.

*checks to see what you think it means*



Yep, that's not it.

Let's reread the first Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, abridging the freedom of speech.

That's what the Constitution says. I am pretty sure (hyperbole) that the Constitution doesn't say that each American has the right to say whatever he or she wishes. It merely says the government may not limit what people say.

Where precisely does it say people have the freedom to say whatever they wish to say?

 

[Bill3000]

Poor comparison. For it to hold true, the gay people would have to be advocating hatred towards straight people (in which case I would support censoring those people as well).

Actually, no, it merely needs to be "speech considered deeply offensive by a group of people" which is the real issue behind hate speech; the offense principle. It is an incoherent doctrine and defeats the entire point of free speech.

 

[cardgame]

Let's reread the first Amendment.



Congress shall make no law blah blah blah, abridging the freedom of speech.

That's what the Constitution says. I am pretty sure (hyperbole) that the Constitution doesn't say that each American has the right to say whatever he or she wishes. It merely says the government may not limit what people say.

Where precisely does it say people have the freedom to say whatever they wish to say?

If the government may not limit what people say, doesn't that automatically give them freedom to say anything?

I don't see your argument!