Berkeley Relents To Ann Coulter : Berkeley Two-Steps On Violence

Democrats decide who gets free speech and who shouldn't.

As we revisit this progressive liberal campus that is wholly owned by alt-left administrators and professors that are again telling another Conservative speaker that she has no rights to free speech in a public, tax supported institution of higher learning.

It would be understandable if this was taking place in some third world, liberal authorian dominated country, a communist tyrant based country like Cuba or a Venezuelan nightmare of centralized criminal abuse of the general public.

But in reality it is just progressive socialist liberals that believe they are central to all things righteous and lawful. All other must remain silent or be destroyed.

Just the fact that now Ann Coulter is  being allowed to give her speech is remarkable given the university is actually admitting that her presence on campus is paramount to something similar to a catastrophic event that could trigger violence ending in death and destruction.

Free speech by definition is no longer defined by what you think is the truth and your ability to articulate that truth to others. Free speech now according to many in academia is only free as long as you submit your freedom speak to others that know better then you what the truth really is.

Welcome to the real world of progressive socialist liberalism that dominate our civil society to the point that your freedom speak, as guaranteed in the Bill or Rights under our Constitution, becomes dangerous to your health.

Starbucks is rewarded by democrats for it's existence.

Free speech advocate receives blows from democrat

UC Berkeley Rewards Liberal Violence by Not Allowing Coulter Speech
Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko / April 19, 2017   

Apparently the lesson University of California, Berkeley learned from the violent protests surrounding writer Milo Yiannopoulos’ speech earlier this year was … you shouldn’t let controversial figures give speeches.

The Associated Press reported Wednesday that commentator Ann Coulter’s upcoming speech had been canceled “for security concerns.” “UC Berkeley officials say they were ‘unable to find a safe and suitable’ venue for the right-wing provocateur who was invited to speak by campus Republicans on April 27,” the AP report added.

This shouldn’t be acceptable

UC Berkeley canceled Yiannopoulos’ Feb. 1 speech. The level of violence and destruction that greeted Yiannopoulos—who was rightly condemned shortly after the Berkeley violence for remarks he made months earlier about teens, adults, and sexual relationships—was astonishing. Just look at these pictures:

No doubt it’s quite a headache for a university to figure out how to cope with thugs who are willing to act like this, just because they want someone silenced.

Although the fact that UC Berkeley appears to have arrested only one person in the aftermath of the protests suggests a lack of seriousness about holding protesters accountable for their actions.

(Update: In an email to me received after publication, Sgt. Sabrina Reich, a public information officer at University of California, Berkeley Police Department, wrote: “To date, there have been two arrests and one student is facing school discipline … but the investigative efforts continue.”)
The point is, no college should reward violent protesters by refusing to allow controversial speakers to appear. Because this isn’t really about Coulter or Yiannopoulos or author Charles Murray, who was greeted by violent protests when he arrived to speak to Middlebury College in Vermont.

It’s about whether we as a society protect free speech—or not. Yes, free speech can make some people, including college students, feel sad or threatened or dozens of other unpleasant emotions.
But it can also force them to realize a new insight or perspective that might challenge their values, might make them re-think their views on a certain issue. Or sometimes it works the other way: The weakness of the opposition’s argument makes someone surer that her own perspective is right.

Regardless, if we believe in a reason-driven society—one where arguments, not violence, drive our perspective—we need to allow a diversity of voices to communicate their views. We need to let people, hopefully guided by reason and a good education, to decide what they think is right—not force them, by silencing some perspectives, to adopt a certain viewpoint by default.

College students, like all Americans, deserve a chance to hear a variety of views—and then make up their own minds. Once, colleges understood that. But U.C. Berkeley’s decision here suggests that at least this university is prioritizing some views over others.