Coulter Shouted Down
By Callimachus | Related entries in Education, General PoliticsSTORRS, Conn. - Conservative columnist Ann Coulter gave up trying to finish a speech at the University of Connecticut on Wednesday night when boos and jeers from the audience became overwhelming.
Coulter cut off the talk after 15 minutes and instead held a half-hour question-and-answer session.
Not that she was crying over it, or anything. “I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,” she said afterward.
It’s all about the hate. Last April, the president of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota denounced a speech on the campus by Coulter, calling it hateful. Among the campus groups that protested her at UConn were “Students Against Hate.” Its head, a 19-year-old sophomore majoring in “journalism and social welfare,” said, “”We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech.”
Emily Salsibury, one of the students who helped bring Coulter to the campus for the aborted speech, got it right in a column in the student newspaper, beseeching opponents of Coulter to engage in dialogue, not denigration:
Controversy does not mean hate speech or racism. Coulter has no documented history of hate speech at any of her numerous speaking engagements. Hate speech is speech that is designed to frighten its target or incite violence against them and Coulter is guilty of neither. How, then, could Coulter be accused of violating such restrictions? Furthermore, the university has no official designation of what constitutes hate speech and does not impose any restrictions on its speakers.
To define a speech as hateful or racist simply because you do not agree with the point of view is a lowbrow tactic. It is ironic that some preach tolerance and diversity, but cannot practice it well. We must all learn to deal with dissenting voices, and this is just what Coulter is. Disagreement with a voice should never lead to silencing that voice.
Ah, the modern American college. Where “free speech zones” protect the tender ears of youth from any words too abrasive for their happy minds, and self-appointed political puritans noisily exorcize any demons who enter in from the world beyond.
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 8th, 2005 and is filed under Education, General Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:19 am
Jeezus…you’re kidding me, right? You honestly don’t remember the woman who said this?
She’s so far off the map it’s ridiculous, and yet you’re citing a school newspaper editorial that says she doesn’t spread hate speech? Here’s a section in patricular that resonated with me:
Well, by this definition, the quote above and the ones I’m about to cite may not technically be hate speech, but they’re dancing back and forth across that line. It’s widely known that Coulter has absolutey no use for liberals, and has “jokingly” advocated violence against them. Yeah, it’s all satire…right…
More about liberals…
And still more…
And yet more…
And last, but certainly not least…
And that’s just the Democrats.
Here a salvo against women:
On slavery:
And just recently, ironically enough, from a couple months ago at one of these college speeches we’re talking about.
So I guess the question is now, why would use this opportunity to hammer colleges, and not balance it out with Coulter’s public statements and views? I mean, if any mainstream pundit is guilty of spreading what could possibly considered hate speech, Coulter is the posterwoman…and by the way, I think you know that.
Color me surprised Cal…whoa.
December 8th, 2005 at 5:30 am
Everyone knows Coulter is abrasive and sarcastic in the extreme. It’s her schtick. So what? I don’t call that hate speech. Do you? What’s your definition of hate speech?
Is saying “liberals hate religion” hate speech? Is speech directed against political persuasions and positions “hate” speech?
Do you really think college students need to be protected from her? Do you think her romper room act is more dangerous to America than a faction of people who believe in silencing those who say unpopular things?
December 8th, 2005 at 11:01 am
When Air America acted out the assassination of the president, was that hate speech? Treason? I consider that schtick. In poor taste certainly, but it was in keeping (broadly) with the theme of the show. Of course, being aimed at an individual and specifically at the president made it more serious than what Ann said, but I don’t think any reasonable person thought Air America was seriously threatening to assassinate the president.
I’m with Cal here. Calling something hate speech just because it’s abrasive and extremely sarcastic is counterproductive. Hate speech needs to stay narrowly defined, so that those who truly engage in it can’t excuse themselves by saying “well, Ann Coulter and Air America do the same thing!”
December 8th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Justin — Please tell me that you don’t buy into this “hate speech” stuff against Coultier.
The very term “hate speech” is an annoying Orwellian tactic to control speech and thought. Disagree with Affirmative Action, you hate minorities. Disagree with abortion, you hate women! Want to privatize social security, you hate old people!
I can also tell the difference between satire or a joke and a legitimate policy stance. These stoner liberal kids that heckle her and throw pies — probably don’t have the education or intelligence to even understand her basic philosophical, cultural, political or legal assumptions.
I love Coultier because she can ellicit this kind of response from…yup, Liberals. Something, Al Frankin and Micheal Moore wish in their wildest fantasies they could do with conservatives, but they can’t (to wit, the failure of AirAmerica) because — LIBERALS ARE INHERENTLY NOT VERY FUNNY, BECAUSE THEY TAKE THEMSELVES AND THEIR SPECIAL INTERESTS WAY, WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.
Conservative can be hilarious, because, despite the many special interest in the conservative camp, there is one unifying theme, as pointed out by Grover Norquist: LEAVE US ALONE.
LIBERALS CAN’T AFFORD TO BE FUNNY BECAUSE THEY CAN’T AFFORD TO GIVE UP THEIR POSITION ON THE GOVERNMENT TIT. AN ATTEMPT AT HUMOR, REAL HUMOR MIGHT DIMINISH THE PERCEIVED NECESSITY OF THEIR GOVERNMENT ENTITLEMENT.
So conservatives have humor and liberals have pathetic rock concerts with people who really want to be taken serious (Streisand, Penn, Cloney, exc.).
December 8th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
A fuller treatment here.
December 8th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Jeez, I had a well thought out response afternoon, but then the site went down and I lost it. Ugh.
To reassemble…
First, if the Coulters of the world thrived on reasoned discourse, I could see a point for this post. But they don’t. Coulter preys on the emotions of insulated college students and professors proclaiming some of what she says as “hate speech”. Then she goes on Hannity and colmes to and agrees with Sean while he lays into the college as being “liberal.” It’s a tired old routine, and it frankly belongs in the vaudville era it so tired. And by the way, so does Randi Rhodes’ tired old routine. That assassination skit was so unfunny and so bad I moaned aloud when I read about it. Ugh.
But to your point about hate speech, here’s how I define it: “Speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on his/her race, ethnicity, national origin, philosophy, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.” Given that definition do you think any of the quotes I give above walk a fine line? Sure. Are they hate speech? I think it depends on which side of the aisle you’re on, and that’s why I say they dance back and forth over it. They are and they aren’t. But just the fact that they’re dancing should at least demonstrate a very unfortunate pattern with Coulter.
However let me be clear. Do I think that Ann Coulter shouldn’t be allowed to speak at these colleges? No. Do I think these students have a right to protest? Yes. Do I think she should be prosecuted for it? No. Do I think Coulter buys into the vitriol and venom that she puts out there? Yes.
And to that last point, that is how you’re defining hate speech, right Cal? Speech which one can be prosecuted for? If not, I apologize for making the assumption, but that’s all I can assume at this point.
So given that, let me put forth that even courts have a very difficult time defining exactly what hate speech is, and they usually have to lean on physical acts (like cross burning) to convict anybody. And that’s a hate CRIME. I don’t know of anybody who has been convicted of hate speech yet, although I could simply be shortsighted. Now, this is not to suggest that Coulter should ever fall under the gaze of a prosecutor for what she’s said. However, do I think what she’s saying is born out of a genuine hatred for liberalism? Yes, and I think that’s fairly evident from her verbal record.
At the end of the day, I think it’s odd to find a post on this site defending her against some random colleges. So what? Hers is a hackish pursuit, one that only seeks to divide the discourse further since it thrives upon chaos and disorder. And a college is a perfect place to find ill-informed rivals.
And yet, I don’t really mind Ann Coulter that much. Why? Because the more she talks, the less credible she becomes. Her partisan hackery is so transparent, it’s painful, and the more Fox News puts her on air, the less credible they become. In essence, she’s doing the center of the political spectrum a favor because she’s making it more viable.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:17 pm
One of the reasons I read this site every day is that I can find posts like this, or the polar opposite of this. I say keep ‘ em coming. It’s entertaining.
December 9th, 2005 at 12:51 pm
Fair enough Ford. Thanks for the comment.