On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 03:24:55 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message
> >
> from "Bent Attorney Esq." > contains these words:
>
>> On Mar 28, 6:28*pm, Michel Boucher > wrote:
>>> clouddreamer > wrote
>>> innews:VL2dneRG_d4fVDLWnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@supernews. com:
>>>
>>> >> That shows where the students are at. *Not much character there. *Had
>>> >> they wanted to make a point they should have challenged her to a
>>> >> 'civilized' debate. *She would have lost, and rightly so.
>>>
>>> > You honestly think Coulter would have actually tried to engage in a
>>> > reasonable debate?
>>>
>>> Quite right. *Ann Coulter has never engaged in a civilized debate in her
>>> life. *Saying that you can engage her in a civilized debate is either
>>> arrogance or igfnorance...don't know which, don't care.
>>>
>>> > So the students did the one thing they could. They protested.
>>>
>>> As is their right in a society where free speech is a fundamental
>>> principle.
>>>
>
>> As is Coulter's right in a society where free speech is a fundamental
>> principle.
>
> Free speech doesn't give her the right to spout it in places and
> communities that don't want to host her.
>
> Janet

well, some part of that 'community' must have invited her (i.e., offered to
pay her a fee - i don't think la coulter does much for free). some other
part of the community isn't keen on the idea.

but the idea that free speech is only permitted in communities that welcome
it negates the whole concept.

suppose the chancellor or whoever it was said 'we don't cotton to those
kind of ideas coming from outside agitators' - what would you think then?

your pal,
blake