On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:52:47 +0100, Janet Baraclough wrote:

> The message >
> from blake murphy > contains these words:
>
>> 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.
>
> Pretty common for students to protest against some faculty decision

sure. but should administrators cave to every protest?

>> but the idea that free speech is only permitted in communities that welcome
>> it negates the whole concept.
>
> I don't agree. IMO someone is perfectly entitled to say " in my
> home, classroom, business premises, operating theatre, temple etc,
> the following
> topics/words/insults to my religion/dog/ nose are not permitted ".
>
>> 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?
>
> ? Universities DO ban certain speakers because their topics or
> opinions are judged too controversial, offensive or likely to incite a
> riot. Its hardly new.
> http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/03/3...ns-bill-ayers/
>
> Janet

then those universities are not really the centers of free inquiry that
they purport to be.

your pal,
blake