T1B

Link?

“It’s too bad she didn’t get to speak because I think she would have made herself look more ridiculous than anyone here could have made her look,”

...which is exactly why no one prevents her speaking at Ivy League schools. Poor Canooks, they're pretty new at this...

She was told in a condescending way to keep it tasteful. She's an entertainer, not an academic.
Norman Finkelstein spoke at Waterloo and a load of jews showed up and called him names, that about it.

If she's looking for drama, she'd do well in other places. I don't think there's any equivalent of a tea-party style protest here. People just sort of get quiet, huffy.. then glare and the offender gets bored and leaves.

Apparently, PSU is unaware of how conservatives are treated on college campuses...whether speech codes are imposed banning conservative speech, destroying conservative publications, or conservative speakers prevented from speaking and harrassed.

And, yes, censorship is alive and well and growing in Canada...ask Mark Steyn who was harrassed by so-called Human Rights Commission for having the gall to criticize Islam.

The Human Rights Commissions are used by others to harrass and intimidate others and to censor speech by making it too costly to publish what may be offensive speech. Note that plaintiffs have no responsibility to pay attorneys fees when they lose.

Canada fucking sucks...

JMak wrote: Canada fucking sucks...

JMak wrote:Apparently, PSU is unaware of how conservatives are treated on college campuses...whether speech codes are imposed banning conservative speech, destroying conservative publications, or conservative speakers prevented from speaking and harrassed.

And, yes, censorship is alive and well and growing in Canada...ask Mark Steyn who was harrassed by so-called Human Rights Commission for having the gall to criticize Islam.

The Human Rights Commissions are used by others to harrass and intimidate others and to censor speech by making it too costly to publish what may be offensive speech. Note that plaintiffs have no responsibility to pay attorneys fees when they lose.

Canada fucking sucks...

That doesn't play here, it sensationalism. People just don't like that kind of behaviour, it's a very Protestant, Calvinist country. Conservatism is old school Tory, not Coulter or Steyn.

EDIT: Not to mention the libel laws are British, not American - you really have to watch what you say about third parties.

88 wrote:And has an angry mob of conservatives ever threatened sufficient violence to prevent a liberal speaker from giving a speech there?

Huh? Did you even read your own link?

BTW- Props for passing the bar (if you did) without learning how to read.

We're sure glad that American conservatives don't practice censorship!

Sin,
Dixie Chicks

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:We're sure glad that American conservatives don't practice censorship!

Sin,
Dixie Chicks

I'm impressed. Every time I think you've said the dumbest thing ever, you manage to raise that bar just a little bit higher.

Do you mind telling me the names of the American conservatives that threatened the Dixie Chicks with criminal prosecution for espousing their views?

American "conservatives" don't need no stinking justice system. They just go right to sending death threats to people they don't like.

While the Cannucks were out of line, I have no problem with them doing this to Coulter. She's a disgrace and should be treated as such.

88 wrote:

BSmack wrote:American "conservatives" don't need no stinking justice system. They just go right to sending death threats to people they don't like.

A swing and a miss, as usual. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with government censorship.

Coulter would not have been shut down were it not for the mob.

And, I'm fairly certain you don't want to go down that road considering the number of death threats liberals have sent to conservatives in recent years.

You actually keep track of shit like that? God, I was just tossing out a non sequiter to see if some tard would take a bite.

I am appalled at my nation's shoddy treatment of this Coulter guy.

If he's willing to pony up his own dough to come here and have his sex change, we can at least treat him in a dignified manner, right-winger or not.

UNWAR ~ trans-gender bias

88 wrote: Is it routine for Canadians to send a condescending letter to every foreign entertainer who makes a living saying insensitive things about others? Or do those letters only go out to certain entertainers based on what they say?

(By the way, I personally find Ann Coulter to be tedious and non-entertaining)

Just the ones that say things like 'fuck off back to Mecca you camel jockey'.

If she said something like that, she'd be put up on a charge so fast her head would spin. If a conservative says something unusual or illegal, it doesn't mean they're contributing to conservative ideals or espousing 'conservatism'.

She's full of shit anyway. 'Feared for her safety', my arse. They're Ottawa students, not fight club. After the 'riot', the 'mob' headed off to the whole grain shop to listen to U2 CDs.
She just got spooked over the libel threat and her adviser thought she'd get more attention by not speaking.

Of course, "Fuck off! Back to America you white trash honkey!" would get you a keg of Labaats.

funny how these hippie wastes of a cumshot with their degrees in human rights are kind of selective over whom these rights should go to.

hypocritical pieces of shit.

They're Ottawa students, not fight club. After the 'riot', the 'mob' headed off to the whole grain shop to listen to U2 CDs.

heh heh

88 wrote: So, if I understand your response, it would be a violation of Canadian law for someone to utter "Fuck off! Back to Mecca you camel jockey!" while standing in your country. Do you think that is a good thing (the law, not the dumbass statement)?

I don't have a problem with it, think of it as an exercise in self-control.

When I'm sipping a latte with the comrades in a cafe, I'll laugh at 9/11 jokes. When I'm on camera or speaking at a university.. I don't.

Being able to separate a fact from an opinion can be a measure of sanity, there's a time and place for everything. She obviously struggles with it. It's a matter of the public good, it keeps whiny people from indulging themselves, just look at Dr. Detroit.

No shit. Phibes has got to be fucking kidding.

Dr_Phibes, stinking of cloves while sporting a black turtleneck and a turgid little stiffie, wrote:When I'm sipping a latte with the comrades in a cafe...

Yep, definitely one of the gayer things I've ever read on this board.

Felchetiously? Nice!

88 wrote:
Since you support government censorship of speech (I'm talking about the vulgar, offensive, tasteless variety spewed by Ann Coulter and the like), do you also support government censorship of other forms of expression that some may regard as vulgar, offensive or tasteless (e.g., pornography, violent rap music lyrics and Robert Mapplethorpe exhibitions)? Where do you draw the line? Or do you believe that government should give judges the power to determine what is inappropriate on an ad hoc basis ("I know what is illegal when I see it!")?

Well, two separate issues are being blended into one.

She was never censured, she was warned that she could be prosecuted, so she chose not to speak. Not for being vulgar, but for a hate crime - that's an issue of breaking the law, not freedom of expression. Likewise with pornography, if it's illegal (involves children), you should be charged, if not - knock yourself out.
She could frame her arguments in a separate fashion and get away with it, but that's not in her interest.

She's trying to side track that issue with noisy students. She does have the freedom to be outrageous and vulgar, the students have the freedom to harass her. Actions have consequences - I have the freedom to go into the pub and call a three-hundred pound kick-boxer a fat cunt - he has the freedom to break my jaw.

I suppose if stronger libel laws have a benefit, it's that it raises the level of discourse.

Dr_Phibes wrote:
I suppose if stronger libel laws have a benefit, it's that it raises the level of discourse.

Great.



I guess to speak truth to power we know have to parse our words with British-style code-speak:

"Mincey wincey poncey-poo. Winklety-tinklety woo-woo-woo."

translation: "I find the current bureaucratic entanglement rather inflexible in meeting the needs of it's citizenry."

Ok, 88....how do you feel about the wackos from Topeka shouting vulgar things at mourning family members? Should that speech be protected?

88 wrote:"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

(I'm pretty sure she said both of those things at least one time in the past, by the way).

Did she actually use 'punctilious'?

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Ok, 88....how do you feel about the wackos from Topeka shouting vulgar things at mourning family members? Should that speech be protected?

I think it is terrible. But I also recognize that it is absolutely protected. Unless you are willing to surrender your own liberty to speak your mind, you have to be willing to put up with idiots that decide to do the same.

CA penal code sectioin 415:
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment
in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of
not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment
and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or
challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another
person by loud and unreasonable noise.
(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which
are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

Since I'm sure that law has been tested in court, why doesn't what the fucktards do fall under a classification similar or the same as subsection 3?

CA penal code sectioin 415:
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
(2) Any person who maliciously and willfully disturbs another person by loud and unreasonable noise.

-Spray

(3) Any person who uses offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.

Fuck that.

-mvscal

88 wrote: You are doing the blending, not me.

Guilty m'lud.

What Houle did could be interpreted as a favour. She's on foreign ground, she has an agenda, she was given a warning - this is to her benefit. There are people gunning for her. She has a history of saying things that would open herself up to either charges of hate crimes or libel. I know the difference and so do you.

You're trying to draw the argument into your field of expertise by being pedantic. She made no statements, so arguing over the technicality of what was never said is pointless. I'm sure you know that charges, lawsuits are often brought ad hoc, yes? The crime can fit the mood. That was the point of my bringing up the background of the place she was supposed to speak.

88 wrote:Diego-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

The boxed area concerning the Chaplinsky decision in my book tells me that what the wackos do would meet the criteria. "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" would certainly describe telling mourning family members "thank god for dead soldiers."

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

88 wrote:Diego-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

The boxed area concerning the Chaplinsky decision in my book tells me that what the wackos do would meet the criteria. "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" would certainly describe telling mourning family members "thank god for dead soldiers."

You'll have your answer soon, Diego:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2 ... neral.html

This is a civil case (and not a criminal case involving censorship or prosecution for a hate crime). But it involves the same people and a similar fact pattern. Maybe the Court will allow the recovery of civil remedies for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on a grieving family.

It is one thing to suppress or censor speech. It is another to hold someone liable in civil court for the things that are said (libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, making me listen to a John Tesh album).

As you might imagine, this "scooter sissy" has been following the case all along & how SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. I'm pretty confident that they'll find in favor of LCPL Snyder's family for basically the same reasons that I have already laid out. And I think a quick search of Youtube videos on that group would reveal that their words are not only very likely to cause a fight/riot, they have done exactly that (loved the van getting pelted with rocks!).

88 wrote:If you've been following the case, the you should recognize this quote:

"Judges defending the Constitution 'must sometimes share [their] foxhole with scoundrels of every sort, but to abandon the post because of the poor company is to sell freedom cheaply. It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards of liberty have often been forged in the controversies involving not very nice people.'"

Notwithstanding how hateful the Westboro group is, I think the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm the 4th Circuit's decision. The ACLU is representing the Westboro defendants, you know.

I heard the daughter of the head idiot interviewed last week & she made it sound like she was going to argue the case. But I would have a hard time believing that a p/i attoney like I think she is would be qualified to argue before SCOTUS.

And that quote is bullshit justification for a wrong decision. In principle it's correct, but just because someone is taking a contrarian view doesn't automatically make them right or justified.

88 wrote:Here is some video for the reading impaired:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLYni029RB8

That doesn't help your case you right wing fucktard

This really has nothing to do with Canada. It was a typical college full of libtards making the protest. We've got plenty of those right here in the US. Some protests succeed, some don't'

sin,

the 60's

I think the westboro shitstains should be free to spout their pathetic bullshit. I also think the authorities should look the other way when the mob decides to string their sorry asses from the nearest tree.

smackaholic wrote:I think the westboro shitstains should be free to spout their pathetic bullshit. I also think the authorities should look the other way when the mob decides to string their sorry asses from the nearest tree.

While it certainly doesn't follow the letter-of-the-law, I agree.

I don't think what they're saying and doing should be stifled, regardless how utterly distasteful I find it... which scores a 10 on the Distasteful Meter.

You can't legislate class and respect.


And I doubt they'd let me serve on a jury if someone went upside the lot of them... it would be decided before we ever heard testimony... Not Guilty.

Dinsdale wrote:And I doubt they'd let me serve on a jury if someone went upside the lot of them...

Well, that sounds a little bit queer.

88 wrote: Yes, it is plausible that Houle could have been doing her a favor (or favour). But more likely, he was trying to shape the content of her speech via a thinly veiled threat of criminal prosecution

I honestly don't get how you came to that. When I first read the story, I thought Houle was just being smug. Like telling a child not to play in traffic. He's talking down to her for the sake of being a smart-ass, he and his peers probably got a laugh out it.

why anybody would be theatened by the tedium of the screeching harpy that is Ann Coulter is beyond me