Her words precede her, obviously. That a civil society should express their intention to remain so should make one measure their eliminationist rhetoric carefully, regardless of our free speech sensibilities.

Hopefully, by the mid-point of Obama’s second term, perhaps some will consider that having a right and constructively exercising that right are two separate matters.

Maybe in my lifetime we can return to at least a modicum of measured, respectful debate of the issues and governance, where we’ll not so fondly look back together on America’s latest incarnation of McCarthyism.

Maybe she’ll get the Amy Goodman treatment, when she tries to cross the border.

Ann Coulter is NOT a FOX News contributor.

“I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”

Them’s fightin’ words. If you’re a sensitive right-winger prone to outrage by even the slightest of requests for civility. Which I sometimes doubt civility is even possible in most right-wing punditry, considering the long history of batshit crazy bigotry from them.

Snipzor:

It’s not a “request” when it’s coming from a government official; it’s an offer you can’t refuse.

I can’t stand Ann Coulter and wouldn’t defend her tactics, but everything she does is protected by the FIrst Amendment and I’d fight for her right to be a jerk (which is putting it politely).

Obviously, our First Amendment doesn’t apply in Canada, but we should also note that Canada’s speech codes aren’t just about “civility.” In particular, what they’ve done to Mark Steyn is shameful and should be universally condemned.

Actually Finch, the rule is that the speech cannot be tolerated if they incite violence, or attempt to do so. Before I get into that a bit more, a fun fact. On the CIA’s website, specifically in the world factbook section, in regards to Canada, it states:
“Constitution:
made up of unwritten and written acts, customs, judicial decisions, and traditions”

Which is very interesting because in the American section doesn’t say unwritten. An interesting thing to note, a side topic actually that I might go into at another time. Canada is a nation, and has always been a nation, where not everything had to be written out for them/us. Again, just something to note (I urge you to check that section of the website out, it’s really cool). You should check out our constitution, it’s really swell (Sorry, I’ve always wanted to say swell).

That being said, let’s go back to Ann, or back to the actual topic. How much is tolerated, or rather what is tolerated. I’ve seen plenty, and let me say this twice so you don’t miss it, I’ve seen plenty of fundies protesting legislation. Always, and I live in the secular part of the country (Which can be said about a lot of the country actually). The reason they don’t get busted, is because they don’t incite violence with their rhetoric. Look at Margaret Somerville, right-wing ethicist (Oxymoron if you’ve ever met her, I have, in High School, long story) who pretty much hates the fact that gays can adopt, and can marry. Why is she still a professor at McGill? Because she doesn’t incite violence with her rhetoric. Any person with sound logical understanding of speech and the implications thereof, would know that Steyn pretty much denounced multiculturalism in a very very rash way, specifically targeting Muslims in a way that pretty much equated an attempt to dehumanize them. I’d go more into it, but there’s a lot of ground to cover. The Quebec debate over Reasonable Accommodation, the secularism vs multiculturalism debate, the Westboro Baptist Church ban, not exactly the best forum to go into a mass discussion on freedom of speech, and to what limit do we impose so that speech does not trample over others (Negative Freedoms vs Positive Freedoms, see, another debate).

Holy crap that’s a lot up there.

And yes, I am aware that what is above is easily the most jumbled incoherent mess of a comment you’ve read in weeks, it’s been a long day. Give me a break. Summing it all up, read our constitution.

Snipzor:

In the US, we also have an “exception” to the First Amendment for inciting violence. However, it is very narrow and is limited by something called the “clear and present danger” test, which was first enunciated by Oliver Wendell Holmes in a famous case called US v. Schenck, and was later clarified in a case called Brandenberg v. Ohio. Basically, what it means is that you can only punish speech that “incites” if there is a “clear and present danger” of violence or lawlessness, in other words, a threat of imminent lawless action.

Under that test, if you’re a writer and you publish something “inciteful” (I think I just made up that word), you can’t be punished because there is no imminent threat. But if you are in the middle of a demonstration and yell something that incites the crowd to violence, you can be punished. (That’s a very, very rough explanation obviously.) The beauty of the clear and present danger test is that it is a fact-based test that leaves very little room for hypothetical threats or viewpoint-based discrimination. It has served this country well.

From the point of view of the clear and present danger test, the claim that Steyn “denounced multiculturalism in a very very rash way” is a non-starter. “Rashness” is inherently subjective. If that is the test, then it will inevitably be abused by the ruling majority to suppress speech.

Like I said, incoherent mess, and the fact that I’m replying at 12:53 only makes it that much worse. Although inciteful is not a word, which is shocking, I always thought it was.

What is clear and present danger though? It has to be on the spot and on location is pretty much what I’m reading out of it (Or the tired me is reading out of it, everything I’m saying it through the flawed perception of a tired man, at least for now). So when a conservative blogger calls for the assassination of Obama (through Twitter funny enough, great medium to call for assassination. Not like you need more than 140 characters anyways :P), would it count for clear and present danger for inciting violence? Inciting violence also counts for dehumanization, and according to the arguments from lawyers on the side of the CHRC (Like Richard Warman, as an example, also as an awesome name), dehumanization accounts for inciting violence as all moments in which one side has been dehumanized, violence follows.

Now let this poor man sleep, I’ve got a long day tomorrow, and I need my sleeping. And so do you most likely. We aren’t in the proper mental capacity to continue this, there are so many nuances to try and contain within our psyche. There’s no way we can manage to keep up with all of them. Call it a night?

My guess is that this is going to end badly. One of the first problems is the differences in expectations between the attending students and the poor provost(who has forgotten what it is like to be young, apparently.) The attending students are not going to go there with a calm, peaceful demeanor and be well prepared for a logical debate over the issues(which is what the provost is expecting of both Ann and the students). What the students are there for is for excitement and entertainment, and perhaps a chance to interact with the opposite gender. Some of them will drink heavily before attending. On Ann’s side of things, after looking at some of her past clips, she has a talent for trolling the liberals. This is almost certainly deliberate on her part, but when your audience is on TV it’s different than an auditorium when they can hit you with a beer bottle. Also, college kids are less likely to realize they are being trolled than adults are, and have less self control especially when drunk. So Ann makes a snarky comment, humorous to most conservatives, and some left wing drunk guy calles her an obscene epithet, and throws a beer bottle at her, some conservative Canadian punches him, and the whole crowd picks sides, Ann ducks out the back, security is overwhelmed, and the resulting brawl makes the national news. Ann gets blamed by the provost for “inciting a riot”, massive media publicity, and the kids involved have a great time whether they admit it or not. Ann hopefully avoids both the bottle and jail time. Next year the provost invites a less controversial Al Gore to speak, and 10 kids show up.

A college campus is always sold as a bastion of open-mindedness and free exchange of opposing ideas. Right. While decrying Coulter’s “hate speech” this same campus hosts an annual Israeli Apartheid festival. Just some perspective.

The ironies abound here, of course. The Left decries censorship with knee-jerk precision, yet Coulter was chased off before she had the chance to talk. The most common meme in the media is how violent the speech of the Right is these days, yet these leftists were the one who showed up with rocks and sticks and threatened violence at the speaking hall.

Hi there it´s just i celebrate your special article, I woudl be glad if you would want me to post a honest review on this website on my little Blog would you be ok with that?

Thanks, John Peds
Author of how to cook salmon

This is wonderful of the greatest blogs in the field of teaching. If I don’t came in for a couple of days, there are so many posts that it’ll hold me a couple of hours just to go over whatever I omitted!! Kudos.

Thanks. great wonderful info(information) here keep up Culinary Skills Egg Salad Recipe French Onion Soup Recipe the great worked. I cannot genuinely provide a more optimistic comment as i’m abit out of my deph but i will be checking back here for further updates.