You’re thinking of the Young America’s Foundation (which merged with the Young Americans for Freedom group in 2011, a Buckley-based group that provided most of the campus organizing, IIRC). And yeah, they’ve got a checking account (spent more than $20M last year). But they don’t necessarily have access to UC Berkeley to bring in Coulter.
Assuming Michigan’s not that different than California, getting an act on campus needs an official (read: admin-approved) invite from a campus organization – academic department or program, recognized student group, facilities dept., etc.
YAF was definitely going to provide some “staff” and perhaps some funding (they withdrew their support citing safety of their staff), but the invite had to come from a campus group. (I’m assuming YAF doesn’t have a registered presence at UC-B, since they’re only mentioned in terms of “support.”)
(As an aside: Coulter was initially invited to Berkeley by the “Bridges USA” student org; Berkeley College Repubs joined in later. Bridges is a “moderate” group trying to…well, build bridges…between the polarized views of Left and Right on campus. They dropped out when the event turned into political theater – “This event wasn’t supposed to be about free speech,” said student founder Pranav Jandhyala; BCR stuck with it until just recently.)
Of course this was a PR stunt, was there ever any doubt about that? She probably never even intended to speak. Her organizers knew exactly what was going to happen when they booked this. The best outcome would have been the response, " Ann who?" This is just another desperate attempt by someone who has nothing to say to be relevant, somehow. And look, here we are talking about her.
And sadly, the ACLU is pulling their standard “we are blind to everything but anything relating to freedom of speech” shtick. I love you, ACLU, but you aren’t getting my money anymore.
O God of earth and altar,
Bow down and hear our cry,
Our earthly rulers falter,
Our people drift and die;
The walls of gold entomb us,
The swords of scorn divide,
Take not thy thunder from us,
But take away our pride.
Yeah, but you have to be like that, I think. Because what is hateful is usually, but not always, subjective. Using the logic that “all speech is protected”, means that “all speech is protected”. Introducing “all speech is protected except X”, then it leaves it open as to what X is. And if X, why not Y? Y is just as bad, if not worse?
Sorry to Godwin this, but here we go - what would have been considered “hateful” under the Nazi regime? Communist propaganda? Anti-Nazi (and thus anti-Germany) protests? If Trump had MORE support, and the anti-Trump view was actually a minority, do you think they could leverage that to suppress protest?
What about the very unpopular with a lot of people like flag burning? That seems pretty hateful to me to actually BURN something that to a lot of people represents not only a lot of blood and sacrifice of ancestors, but all the GOOD ideals the nation is supposed to represent (of course when people get angry at this, I usually try to remind them that they don’t see it as that, they see it as the BAD things.)
Don’t get me wrong: I absolutely, 100% believe that freedom of speech should be protected on all sides, and that “the freedom to say things I think are terrible” is one of the things that makes this country a fantastic place. I completely respect Ann Coulter’s right to say things I disagree with, just as I would respect flag burning as a means of expression, and the rights of actual Nazis to speak.
What I disagree with is the ACLU buying into the same “heckler’s veto” BS that others are parroting here. Coulter has every right to come and speak at Berkeley. Nobody’s stopping her but her. She personally chose to cancel her speech when her speaker’s fee was withdrawn. That isn’t a “freedom of speech” issue. It’s her personal greed.
I think YAF has been funding these speaking events nationally in order to 1st amendment-trolley liberal targets*. I don’t know if riots were part of their plan, but now that they have them, they have to detach themselves from it or risk their events elsewhere being cancelled over security concerns.
Now that the alt-right is showing up anyway, their job here is done.
it might be revealing to look at where they paid for speakers. i.e. did they pay for them at any right-leaning institutions?
Thank you for this interesting information. I have to follow events in the States from abroad which sometimes makes it feel likes its coming through a thousand filters but sometimes it also feels like you can see patterns emerge. Part of the platform that the Orange Mussolini used and still uses is to present himself as a victim even though he has admitted to being an aggressor in every sense. Not only that, but he presents the idea that ultra conservatism is under attack and that target group has embraced and started spreading that message. I doubt that Ann Coulters followers see her as a security risk and her backers know that. They’ll just keep spinning it as " the evil liberal agenda won’t allow an alternative message to reach those poor liberally brain washed children." And anyone who claims that these people are instigators of violence will just be labeled fake news. It’s sometimes shocking to watch as these people get on TV and claim they are victims but after the US election the " what is shocking" bar has been seriously raised.
I don’t care whether the trollies gain or lose. (Was that not clear?) I lament that their ideas are treated as the forbidden truth, instead of being recognized for what they are: the sideshows of rhetorical circus geeks.
Don’t shout them down. Don’t forbid people to hear or restate their claims. Don’t make ad hominem attacks. Ignore when possible; rebut as needed.
If the public has to be kept from hearing bad ideas lest they embrace them, then government by the people is fundamentally impossible.
Breaking things may be OK if they can be justified as a legitimate target. Random vandalism isn’t OK.
To put it another way, If they caused The Revolution* to happen at a protest, then anything they damage will have to be repaired by them. They won’t care if it is something that is seen as undesirable by them, but if it something they will need then they want to keep it functioning.
* Yes, I know there will be no revolution any time soon.
I have strong suspicions that the Alt-Right have been in close contact with CasaPound for several years now. There are many similarities between their tactics, like how they both want to make their reactionary beliefs seem revolutionary.
On the other hand a lot of the far left are internationalist, so there has always been contact with groups from other nations.
As for myself, I am one of those people who will be first to be disappeared by the far-right (It’s already happening in Chechnya). I don’t want violence, but I do believe in self defence, and defending people like myself. The problem that I can see an attack coming before other people can, because of personal experience, so other people may think that I started the fight. One of the ways I can see violence coming is through speech, and I am seeing that right now whenever I see Milo, or Richard Spencer, or many other people on the right whose murderous desires are being normalised.
I live in Oxford, so I am somewhat shielded from this, but there is still racism, anti-semitism, islamophobia, sexism, homophobia and transphobia here. It’s just not seen as acceptable. Not yet, at least.
I agree. There is no obligation for a University to provide a platform for a person like Coulter to spew her vitriol and hate. This NYT Op Ed piece succinctly explains what free speech is, IMO.
