I don’t know what you are alluding to here. Not every threat is actionable.
When the university cancels an event because of that threat it is either credible or they looked for an opportunity to cancel that event. I’m more interested in understanding their reasoning for not investigating the threat and taking some form of action against the individual or group who made the threat. This goes beyond free-speech and is a valid criticism of an establishment who don’t take threats and the mental strain of students seriously.
Yes, that is a terrible idea. So is white supremacy.
So is Communism. I fail to see the point you are making here.
I would like to point out that here you are quoting an editorial from Ann Coulter
I didn’t see her credited anywhere in that piece.
It is worth having a conversation about what duty entities like universities have to maintaining a safe atmosphere when they are literally being invaded by hostile groups of people.
They have the duty of informing the police, request a thorough investigation afterwards, and making a statement that such behavior will never be tolerated on their campus. No matter their political affiliation and what speaker is attending.
The university is not necessarily at fault with Anti-Fa, as they were an unexpected addition to the ‘discourse.’ If they cancel an event because the “anti-fascists” threatening to disrupt it then they are a culprit in creating a certain type of culture but that goes beyond free-speech concerns.
Ann is not having that conversation: she is conflating the First Amendment with a right to be heard. And there is no such right. It’s a fascinating way they are changing the meaning of the phrase “free speech.”
The first amendment is the manifestation of the idea that is free-speech. When you kill the idea, what is left is a right that is only enforced when the government becomes tyrannical or to prevent it from becoming tyrannical. Universities are not required to follow the first amendment. They are not the government.
What do you mean by “the right to be heard?” You need to specify to what specifically you are eluding to.
She could have held court on a street corner or found a willing host. She chose not to do so, and instead promoted the idea that her speech was suppressed
How is that not suppression? Is it okay for an establishment to restrict the presence of black men and women and not be considered racists? It’s okay, they have no issue with black people sitting outside. Just as long as they don’t sit amongst them.
What is a reasonable budget to allot for protection of speakers? What kinds of safety measures should speakers expect?
If the university cancels the event due to security concerns, then they should take the funds that were allotted for that event and use it to clean their campus. Expelling those who threaten with bodily harm and investigate the matter fully. They could also talk with the faculty and try to find if a professor might be responsible for cultivating such behvior.
“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event,” she tweeted. “Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah’s open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.”
First and foremost, on that occasion, her right for free-speech was infringed upon. She was threatened and bullied to not give her speech and I will not defend the immoral person who can make such threats.
That being said, the part where she was not pleased with the security arrangement is not in itself infringement. If Ann Coulter does not approve of the security that is provided, she can either bring her own or not arrive — unless, of course, she received less security than other speakers, in which case, it’s a tactic used to intimidate her into not speaking.
Can you provide evidence for these facts you have listed? Those are very broad claims and I would like to know what news stories you are describing.
I’ll update this thread later with citations. It requires time and patience to gather quality sources and I don’t have them on-hand.
Again, you seem to be defining protest as if it were not speech.
That’s not the point I was trying to make. Protesting is good, the more protestors who respectfully protest a person talking points, the better society gets. The internet might not have existed if students in the 1960’s didn’t protest and promoted free-speech. I think it talks about a person character that can protest peacefully and fight for what he (or she) believes in.
Of course, protestors can, at times, go overboard and use their platform to deny the platform from others. I recently encountered a video featuring a Ben Shapiro talk, in which protestors shouted at him from within the lecture hall and even came onto the stage to disrupt his speech. Is that part of the protestors free speech, when they use theirs to deny someone else’s right to free-speech?
Why is the administration supposed to control everyone’s behavior so closely? It is as if you think only the speakers who appear on the stage have rights.
What about the attendees of the lecture? What about liberals who value free-speech and don’t want it jeopardized? Are the concerns of the protestors the only metric we should follow. Are their right supersede everyone else’s?