Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NastyRiffraff

(12,448 posts)
47. What legal reason? None
Mon Apr 24, 2017, 05:45 PM
Apr 2017

Free speech, as I've posted elsewhere, is a function of government; i.e. the government can't arrest you for saying things, even stupid things. It does NOT guarantee that you must be given a venue, that your book must be published or your show cannot be cancelled. It doesn't mean that there will be no controversy. There are exceptions to free speech, but not very many. But the point is simply that you can't be thrown in jail even if you spout pure shit.

As far as I know, Coulter has not been threatened with arrest.

If they've been invited by sharp_stick Apr 2017 #1
This. Free speech means sometimes assholes have something to say mythology Apr 2017 #5
What if they invite me and I promote the death of Jews? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #11
Which University group is going to invite sharp_stick Apr 2017 #15
The College Republicans? maxsolomon Apr 2017 #22
Slippery Slope? sharp_stick Apr 2017 #23
I'm saying that The College Republicans maxsolomon Apr 2017 #38
You do realize that you're allowing them to succeed? NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #45
I am allowing it? Slow your roll, 3 posts. maxsolomon Apr 2017 #49
Would you be likely to promote that? melman Apr 2017 #17
Why would you purposely completely change the point of my message? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #21
Indeed. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #44
That would likely crossover into incitement n/t Azathoth Apr 2017 #79
Anybody? Could I form a group that promotes an agenda that is anti gay and gay marriage Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #13
As I said in the earlier post sharp_stick Apr 2017 #18
What about anti gay groups, disguised as pro traditional marriage who would Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #20
If it doesn't meet the incitement standard (imminent violence) onenote Apr 2017 #58
But the students HAD NOT booked a room. They had made a request and then, pnwmom Apr 2017 #28
My understanding is that Coulter had agreed to an afternoon time slot onenote Apr 2017 #68
The U has already explained. The appropriate venues (based on size and safety) pnwmom Apr 2017 #95
The thing with Berkeley and the Repuke students sharp_stick Apr 2017 #112
You must have missed what happened when Milo Y. arrived -- $100,000 worth of physical damage pnwmom Apr 2017 #115
You're right, I've been trying to discuss this sharp_stick Apr 2017 #116
Yes, the Berkeley administration botched their response, and they're realizing that now. pnwmom Apr 2017 #118
Should they be allowed to book speakers BEFORE getting approval for a venue at the University? pnwmom Apr 2017 #104
Not so simple. What are you saying? n/t phylny Apr 2017 #2
Either anyone and everyone who could be invited must be allowed to speak Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #12
The government is restricted by the first amendment. Voltaire2 Apr 2017 #35
Exactly. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #42
None of your constitutional rights are absolute Thomas Hurt Apr 2017 #3
A similarity to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater? kentuck Apr 2017 #37
The world's most torturously mis-and over-used anti free speech metaphor. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #67
I'll listen to anyone. Atman Apr 2017 #4
Likewise Kentonio Apr 2017 #83
I do not listen to anyone. hunter Apr 2017 #93
I really don't care vlyons Apr 2017 #6
a metropolis as large as the east bay will fill a hall to see Coulter every time she wants to speak maxsolomon Apr 2017 #16
Public school, yes maxsolomon Apr 2017 #7
Heckler's Veto onenote Apr 2017 #8
thanks - good info maxsolomon Apr 2017 #14
But the first amendment doesn't require the University to schedule a speaker for April 27 at night pnwmom Apr 2017 #31
The issue is whether there is a reasonable basis for the date choice onenote Apr 2017 #46
And there is. There wasn't an opening in an appropriate venue on May 2. nt pnwmom Apr 2017 #96
the presumption should be that the speech be allowed. nt geek tragedy Apr 2017 #9
the way to win the cultural debate... Softail1 Apr 2017 #10
Private Universities get to take sides. maxsolomon Apr 2017 #19
yes..private ones do...I was refering to Berkley which is public Softail1 Apr 2017 #25
But Berkeley WILL allow her to speak on May 2 in the afternoon, in a venue pnwmom Apr 2017 #33
I may hate the content but I'll defend the right to say it. davsand Apr 2017 #24
Doesnt apply here. AT all. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #30
Nobody disputes the illegality NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #36
Uh huh, you betcha! Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #39
That's not what the current argument is about re: Coulter... moriah Apr 2017 #43
Well said. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #48
What legal reason? None NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #47
Right, so there is no reason why the university must give her a venue. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #50
Exactly, there is no legal reason NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #51
Actually, there is. The First Amendment. onenote Apr 2017 #107
Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding free speech jurisprudence. SomethingNew Apr 2017 #94
Thanks. Bookmarking. NT mahatmakanejeeves Apr 2017 #114
If they allow anyone, then they have an issue about not allowing some speakers. onenote Apr 2017 #60
If you don't grasp the intellectual argument here there's no reason to continue. davsand Apr 2017 #100
We're not dealing with *any* university, we're dealing with a state university. X_Digger Apr 2017 #102
Trolls are not entitled to rarefied platforms JHan Apr 2017 #26
People confuse the right to stand in the public square and having speech with Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #32
Not sure, if arrangements had already been made then maybe she'd be the wronged party here.. JHan Apr 2017 #56
A University may not be the "public square" but they almost always have areas that are "designated onenote Apr 2017 #61
EXACTLY. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #77
Here's the thing lies Apr 2017 #27
So any speech including an outline of how to exterminate all people with brown hair must Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #29
Stop taking things to the 11th degree; it's childish NunnesBuznat Apr 2017 #41
Exactly Kentonio Apr 2017 #87
LOL Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #91
Yes. The United States Constitution onenote Apr 2017 #62
No lies Apr 2017 #90
Berkeley is not silencing her. They've offered her a venue for May 2nd in the afternoon pnwmom Apr 2017 #34
Ultimately they did but they did not have to legally. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #40
You're almost certainly wrong about that. onenote Apr 2017 #63
In a perfect world, they would be allowed to give a speech anywhere...ever. ileus Apr 2017 #52
People can be hired and speak all they want to Warpy Apr 2017 #53
Government prevented her from speaking before a venue was agreed on? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #54
The university is on the line between private entity and governmental entity Warpy Apr 2017 #55
Your last sentence GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #82
It's the point of the First Amendment Warpy Apr 2017 #84
"After all, the next speaker they decide to silence might be one of ours." beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #85
Yes, public universities are considered "state actors." onenote Apr 2017 #64
She can speak as well on a street corner anywhere. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #75
And eventually, that will be her only venue Warpy Apr 2017 #81
Evelyn Beatrice Hall fantase56 Apr 2017 #57
Has nothing to do with this. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #59
You are under the mistaken impression that only speech in traditional public forums is protected onenote Apr 2017 #65
OH if it were only that simple...it is not. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #71
It is. Designated Public Forum doctrine. onenote Apr 2017 #73
More to it than that, though Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #78
As the article points out, the First Amendment applies to designated public forums onenote Apr 2017 #108
OH if it were only that simple...it is not. Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #72
Not necessarily. Still, Free Speech threads on DU are invariably depressing. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #66
Yep. Remember the Charlie Hebdo threads? beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #69
Yep. The people who were arguing that blasphemy should be illegal because it might make someone mad. Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #76
Always looking for a silver lining. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #80
Oh gawd, I forgot about those. Demented days nt riderinthestorm Apr 2017 #103
Yes they were. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #105
If they are invited. See, the thing is that by being so intolerant of right-wing PatrickforO Apr 2017 #70
No. And it isn't a right to be paid, either. WinkyDink Apr 2017 #74
No, but a legit univ group should be able to invite and listen to any guest speaker they wish aikoaiko Apr 2017 #86
+1000 Kentonio Apr 2017 #88
liberals dont do violence, so I will assume that was done by plants Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #89
There are more groups on the left than liberals; Almost anyone can be violent. aikoaiko Apr 2017 #99
Agreed. n/t tammywammy Apr 2017 #98
As a general rule, yes Azathoth Apr 2017 #92
Point about UC being a public university... VOX Apr 2017 #97
It's simple. A state run university, hence organ of the state, cannot regulate protected speech... X_Digger Apr 2017 #101
I don't understand your point, for one! Nobody has a Constitutional "right" to speak in a college WinkyDink Apr 2017 #111
The state cannot regulate speech based on content, generally. That includes state institutions. X_Digger Apr 2017 #119
I think Coulter and more so Milo are professional shit stirrers and have no favor in my view. PufPuf23 Apr 2017 #106
Universities and such Meowmee Apr 2017 #109
No. I only half kiddingly say I have gone to my local college for 44 years. fleabiscuit Apr 2017 #110
Universities are all about thinking about ideas. MineralMan Apr 2017 #113
So have we past the point... Smickey Apr 2017 #117
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So any speech by anyone m...»Reply #47