Home | About | Donate

Why Are Leftists Targeting Troll Columnists Like Ann Coulter Instead of Institutions?


#1

Why Are Leftists Targeting Troll Columnists Like Ann Coulter Instead of Institutions?

Conor Friedersdorf

California is at the center of the ongoing, nationwide conflict over free speech on college campuses. The latest installment: After Ann Coulter was invited, and then disinvited, to speak at UC Berkeley, university administrators tried to placate the conservative polemicist by rescheduling the event.


#2

The "Antifa" are punks that are hurting the left a lot more than they are helping.


#3

I've been wondering for some time now why is the opposition, the Democratic Party Establishment, 'not' fighting tooth and nail, the rape and pillaging of our Democracy, or what's left of it, by the Highly Unethical Orangutan and his Band of Thieves.

What I keep coming back to is, 'They're in on it.' They realize that the Republicans have found the political climate to facilitate a total corporate takeover, and now, rather than fight them in court on every crazy ass thing they attempt to accomplish, they go on the MSM news and talk about how horrible it all is, all the while making a killing with all of their investments.

I know you all must be getting real tired of my bashing the Duopoly and those that mindlessly or mindfully vote to perpetuate it, but, I think the Democratic Party Establishment is sad they didn't get the opportunity to cash in like Trump is doing right now.

How many Ex-Presidents are speaking up and participating in protests?

It appears more each day that if we, the people want to see real change in Washington DC, that it's totally up to us to demand that change, in every imaginable way possible.


#4

Why can't both individuals and institutions be targeted? It needn't be an either/or situation -- you protest against one and demonstrate (march) against the other. But they must all be made aware that we're watching and listening and we're ready to unite and organize against them.


#5

Totally nailing it.

The time to stop pointing out the existence of the Duopoly is when it doesn't exist anymore.

Most people I know still, ignorantly, play the "my team" "your team" game.


#6

Pitiful article from the LA Times!

"black clad radicals"

then a paragraph conflating "leftists," "protesters," and "radicals"

then "leftist activists so radical they'll use force"

then "Berkeley's radical left" would organize against the Vietnam War

then this whole paragraph repeated AGAIN: "Meanwhile, leftist activists so radical that they’ll use force to advance their ends want to ... stop hack pundits from entertaining fratty undergrads."

the masked “anti-fa” protesters — does the author even know who these people ARE?

Better yet, who they're NOT?


#7

Bashing the duopoly? I suggest you keep that up until a critical mass rises up to destroy it, Pony.

As for this article: if it takes free speech in the form of breaking windows and setting fire to express a viewpoint, that sounds real good to me. Seems like some Tea Partiers named themselves after some looting vandals--did anyone whine about that?

The problem with the left isn't that it's radical, it's that it isn't radical in the least.

The anti-war, union and civil rights movements fought it out in the streets, Son. My torch and pitchfork are itching for poking and burning. Bring it on.


#8

Let me guess, bligh: us liberals should placidly sit in a corner of your D-Party big tent and STFU because you establishment types have it handled. After a calm discussion with the right wing, everyone will have their corporate donations and some further steps toward oligarchy disguised as incrementalism and happily ever after.

Here's a thought: hell no.


#9

Hate speech is NOT free speech. Milo was scheduled to speak at my University and was forced to cancel due to the weather (we dodged that bullet thanks to divine intervention, as it were). (Even though faculty, staff, students, and the community at large protested his appearance, the president insisted based on "free speech.") Neither he/M nor Coulter add anything to the good of the order...they thrive on inciting violence with their hate-filled rants. Coulter's "books" are fictitious, libelous "non-fiction" rife with distorted hyperbole masquerading as historic and political Fax (they are not facts). Due to the location of my university, white supremacist and while nationalist groups are about 90 minutes of driving time away and would certainly have taken a trip to hear him carry on. Interesting how "college Repugnicants" nationwide all of a sudden booked these hatemongers for on-campus appearances for last fall and this spring semesters.... In 30 years at my university I have never seen any odious creatures like them invited to speak on campus...not until now. They incite violence, promote gay-bashing, and live debauched (drugs, alcohol, etc) lives of privilege and care not about how the "other" people live. In addition to their speakers' fees, lodging, air and ground transportation, the cost of security needed for their appearances is a burden to the universities (as well as the cleanup afterwards). Milo spoke at the University of Washington in Seattle and a young Black student was shot by a Trump fan sporting his red bill cap and wearing a gun and holster (Seattle passed an open carry law...what a mistake that was.)

As an added note that was left out of this author's BS about Cal and the free speech movement...it was far more than that: students were demanding that the university add Black History, Chicano Studies, Women's Studies, and other diversity-driven classes to the course catalog...which the administration firmly and obdurately refused to do until the student body (along with students from several colleges including from UoP in Stockton, Chico State, USF, etc.) took action, which was peaceful until the administration brought in the campus police, Berkeley police, county sheriff groups, state patrolmen, and National Guardsmen all armed to the teeth, to come in and beat the hell out of the students even throwing them down flights of stairs...just because they could. I know because I was there.


#10

Like it or not, hate speech is indeed free speech. It's deplorable but I'll defend the rights of those who spew it with my dying breath.

Fortunately, so is left wing protest speech, profane and loud, and if that spills over into torch and pitchfork time, well, politics ain't beanbags.

You want to air your views in a forum like this? In street protests? By burning a flag and occupying? Then share the space for differing viewpoints no matter how much they anger you--dialogue can grow from the seeds of outrage.


#11

This morning on Long Island Cablevision News, an on the scene reporter unctuously intoning the possibility of (groan) protesters, against a visiting Jeff Sessions.


#12

When do people on the left have a real voice in mainstream media??????? Wasn't Chris Hedges yanked off a stage for speaking some truth????????


#13

When the left forms its own effective unified coalition/third party, they'll get to talk on big kids TV.

However, since so many lefties are content to vote LOTE with the D-Party, they get to watch people like Chuck Schumer speak for them.

Look on the bright side, Bernie Sanders is the highest profile liberal politician on TV these days, and while he's essentially shilling for the Ds, he's not pulling punches when he squarely blames them for their own downfall and holds up their corporate fealty as exhibit A.

I'm still not voting D-Party any time soon, but when Sanders talks, I listen.


#14

We're talking here about people whose speech incites and legitimizes violence. Is countering it with more violence the solution? Almost definitely not, but we must still recognize that this isn't simply opposition to opinions students and faculty don't like, it's opposition to the incitement and legitimization of a police state plutarchy.


#15

I've allowed some time to pass before responding to this post. Since I've been reading and posting at Common Dreams, this is the most unbalanced and biased article I have come across.

Under the pretense of promoting free speech, the author and Common Dreams (by publishing it) purposefully and negligently did not mention the violence and chaos of the FAR-RIGHT at U.C. Berkeley on 15 April 2017.

In actuality, both the author and Common Dreams are, by not mentioning this event, PROMOTING (by omission) the violence, chaos, message and agenda of the FAR-RIGHT.

By allowing this article to be published, without mentioning the event at U. C. Berkley by the far-right -- or by not publishing a separate article exposing this event -- equate to, in my opinion, the SUPPORT and PROMOTION of the far-right and their message of sexism, homophobia and xenophobia and everything else the far-right represents against those fighting for their lives under state-sponsored terrorism in our own country ... the USA.

Not mentioning this FAR-RIGHT event was NOT merely a minor omission in balanced publishing. Rather, it was a flagrant and planned work of BIASED publishing with targeted agenda-oriented propaganda.

FREE SPEECH AND OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
Of course, under the rights of free speech and private property ownership (this website), Common Dreams is free to publish what ever they want.