VA: Ann Coulter Should Be Allowed to Say Whatever the Hell She Wants
Mar 9th, 2007
(10 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)
Loading ...I’ve been somewhat reluctant to defend Ann Coulter because I’ve notice that when you do, you’re often labeled a religious, ring wing, crazy. This is exasperating for me because Hello! […]
Original post: Ann Coulter Should Be Allowed to Say Whatever the Hell She Wants
Damn straight V. Ann Coulter is a big girl and should be allowed to
speak her mind just like you and me. As long as she can take the
heat she should be allowed to stay in the proverbial kitchen.
Edwards doesn’t have a chance in hell anyway.
A lot of the complaint isn’t that she says what she says, but that she says it repeatedly in newspapers and on television news.
As long as she can handle the backlash, she should be able to say whatever she wants wherever she wants… and she does.
She get’s paid for it too.
As long as she’s not screaming FIRE in a crowded theater where there is none… everything is just fine.
There is a difference between ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime.’
As long as the line between speech and crime is not crossed,
the system is still working.
Has Ann Coulter been on the Colbert Report yet?
I missed it.
‘Dan Savage, editor of the Stranger, a Seattle alternative news weekly, and author of several books on his life as a gay man, said the reaction to Coulter could indicate a change in how people view gays.
“I always thought we would be reaching a tipping point with anti-gay hate where it will no longer be acceptable, and maybe we are reaching that tipping point now,” said Savage.’
Anyone who hates Dan Savage is a real faggot.
I don’t really like much of Ann Coulter. She just likes to cause problems, that’s cool because you have a right to. As for the “Faggot” thing, it must be true when he’s taken offense to it. He’s a fucking whinny pussy and remember, if you vote for him and he becomes POTUS then we’ll have a very whiny presidency.
I don’t really ‘like’ Ann Coulter either, but she has just as much of a right to make an ass out of herself as I do…
All she’s doing it for is attention. If you just ignore her then she’ll go away.
No she does it for $… If they stop paying her maybe she’ll go away.
Which could happen.
Maybe she’s just ready to retire.
Attention is overrated… regardless, I’m like the energizer bunny.
I think V is confusing ‘tolerate’ with ‘permit’. Being permitted to say something means that you’re allowed to say it. Having what you say tolerated means that people treat it as part of normal discourse, to be respected as an opinion that differs from their own.
The difference is in the tenor of the response: do you reply to what was said, or do you regard that as unworthy of engagement, and address what it says of the the person who said it?
Backup… If people stop buying her spam, then maybe she’ll be more likely to retire.
Supply & Demand.
If demand dries up maybe she won’t feel as compelled to supply…
While not intending to offend, I’m just trying to americanize
hardcodes last statement a bit.
Not that we need anymore americanization in the world, at least Coulter
style…
I don’t think V is confusing…
she makes perfect sense to me.
‘The left-wing Daily Kos blog has been driving a campaign to have companies pull ads from Ann Coulter’s website after the conservative author used a slur in a recent speech, but leftist websites — including Daily Kos — have themselves used the offending word in the past.
Daily Kos postings have included the word “faggot” at least three times in recent years, as have other liberal blogs — without apology, and without generating a furor.’
Two sides of the same coin.
Heads or Tails folks…
The issues isn’t that she is saying this shit…its that she is being paid to say it repeatedly at venues supported and designed to represent a group of people. I can say anything…be offensive…obnoxious…and annoying (though I could never compete with Em on that front…props to you!), but I do so as me myself and no one else. The Republican Party and conservative movement as a whole pays her to speak, and considers her a spokesperson of “the movement.”
Several of Coulters advertisers on her website pulled out because they didn’t feel like she represented their beliefs and that is how the system is supposed to work. Everybody should be able to say whatever they want including any words or nastiness. V says whatever she wants on her site and people flock to read. I say whatever I want on my blog and very few read. Ann Coulter is given a spotlight by a national organization designed to represent others. If I let anybody post on my crappy blog I would sure as hell make sure I was cool with what they said because that is my venue…my responsibility. Let Coulter say what she wants on her blog, but if her words aren’t representative of Republicans…STOP INVITING HER TO SPEAK!
No… props to you pablo
for hitting the nail on the
head & tail @ the same
time.
for real…
that was a compliment.
while i value and understand the need for free speech, i also know that often times one’s right to say something can conflict with my right not to hear it - especially when coming from such a public figure…
i’m not sure how i feel on this topic - since i see the damage hate does, but totally agree that the words need to be free to be be said, because the alternatives are terrible.
although i suppose the most realistic way to deal is using my own ability to speak out against things that i think are wrong - using the same mediums (if possible) to show counter views, and educate on why such views are limited and how they can lead to more hate etc.
we live in a society that takes very little personal responsibility and not recognizing the impact that one has on others (mel gibson/michael richards) fall into that ‘blame others’ part of it.
i don’t want a line to be drawn, but when can we see people owning up to the damage they are causing to further widen the gulf of understanding between people?
That last line presents a very difficult Q & A session…
but, hopefully soon, huh?
pableo -
agreed.
i suppose also when one gets paid to represent something, and uses that forum to express what most would consider hateful - and the people paying are in the same people in power then the potential problem becomes that hate is okay, and is deemed acceptable if you have power…
i don’t know if i expressed that correctly, but my fear is that if a political party santions the use of speech that has been deemed against the law (discrimination - although gays aren’t covered by that) then either the laws will revert, or the acceptable standards will…
and while i agree that people have the right to hate whatever they want, i wonder if the people who are supposed to represent all people should be allowed to…all about that responsibility again.
does that make sense?
Like Pablo said that they are getting paid to say mean things. Look at The Huffington Post and that bitch and her Libs wishing the VP was killed. I may not agree with what the POTUS or VP do but I never wish them harm.
When you read their junk then you’re feeding into their hands because you know that they are going to say mean stuff about everyone. Whether it’s an election year or not they are always campaigning and trying to cause problems.
This is just noting but a political ploy to make everyone hate everyone else and take the emphasis off the fact that everyone who is running for POTUS is NOT really the best candidate for president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater. Just something since Emerild brought it up.
But then again,
“Free speech is the right to shout ‘theater’ in a crowded fire.” - A Yippie Proverb. (Quoted in Abbie Hoffman’s book, “Steal This Book”)
@ alishalouise
calling someone a faggot or a cunt or a nigger or a gook or a cock jockey maybe personally offensive but it surely doesn’t cause mass panic and chaos leading to a stampede.
Even though some judge in the early 20th century presented this argument to stop the anti-draft publications, it is not very hard to grasp the biased, government backed motive behind this ruling.
Hahaha… “cock jockey”. I’m going to have to start using that.
15 — There is no right to not hear, any more than there is a right to freedom from religion, or a right to access to a desired audience.
General comment on this thread — I think the US would be a better place if more people read the First Amendment, especially the first five words of it.
I also would like to see people stop making words pay the price for the attitudes people use when saying them. You could pick your five favorite complimentary terms to be called and I could make you hate those words by calling you them with a hateful attitude often enough. I’m not going to cooperate with attempts to turn fag into the equivalent of the N-word, personally. I don’t even like the N-word being the N-word, even though I don’t like the word.
Ann Coulter is the Republican equivalent of Al Franken, or Bill Maher, and she falls far short of Michael Moore. None of them are spokesfolks for their parties, but they do say things that lots of folks within their parties enjoy listening to, and that offend people of the other party. Which is exactly why they say what they say — to get both responses. If you stop freaking out about what she says, she’s not going to go away, but her words will get a lot less free mileage than they’re getting today. Don’t expect that she’s going to say anything different than she’s saying now just because people don’t like it, anymore than you would expect Franken, Maher or Moore to do the same. And don’t assume that any of them speak for very many thoughtful people, even though some of those thoughtful people might be amused by some of their comments from time to time. That’s not the role that they play.
Blain - very well said. In fact your comment is exactly what I came here intending to say!
Via 18
‘I may not agree with what the POTUS or VP do but I never wish them harm.’
Couldn’t have said it better myself…
Myroid… you write a comic, and I mean a good one, with Bush/Cheney
as one giant two headed “cock jockey,” and I might even buy a shirt or a mug or whatever spam it is that you sell.
I agree with hardcode57 - there’s a difference between saying something shouldn’t be tolerated and saying that it should be illegal.
This guy (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,,1523009,00.html) for example, apparently thinks it’s art to walk backwards for 11 miles with a 27lb turkey on his head while shouting at fat people. He has every RIGHT to this kind of behavior, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to WATCH the motherfucker.
‘roid… it doesn’t have to be political. We already know your take on political cartoons…
Via 25
‘This guy for example, apparently thinks it’s art to walk backwards for 11 miles with a 27lb turkey on his head while shouting at fat people.’
Now that’s what I call art…
I’d pay a dollar to see it live.
Though the turkey would have to be alive as well…
and a willing participant.
I didn’t watch it… is the turkey alive and willing?
@ blain -
i’m not familiar with the actual contents of the rights granted by the constitution as i’m not american.
i was just talking in generalities about the rights granted in a free nation -
although i would be interested to hear how you see the thoughts i spoke of as generalities…
i haven’t said that the words are the problem. i specifically spoke of people who spread hate - sure they use words, but i totally agree that the words themselves are just tools to express the underlying contempt/anger/hate.
what i tried to express in those two posts was wondering about responsibilities of the people who do spread hate with the ability to impact others…
and to the idea that the people in power who have the monetary abilities to dictate/redefine the standards of acceptable levels of hate speech, and going as far as to paying others to say things that may be considered against the law…
where do you think the freedom of free speech and expression of it should be limited? or do you? what about the masses of people who don’t think for themselves, and are sheep to the media - do you think the media has a sheppard-like responsibility to ensure that they aren’t giving a new standard of acceptability of hate-filled attitudes? should one’s opinion - regardless of stance - be more acceptable in the media/by political leaders/from movie stars?
…??
:)
22 Blain: the difference is that Franken and Maher are not often invited to dinners, fund raisers and as keynote speakers of a political party event that has the vast majority of their candidates running for president in attendance. Coulter’s “faggot” comment occurred at a CPAC dinner. that IS pretty near to being a “spokesfolk” for the republican party.
29 — Most of my comments were not about your comments, just so we’re clear. And the first five words of the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law…” since you’re not an American. Your questions go into a highly theoretical land that I don’t have time to explore much, let alone exhaust. I’ll give it a lick and a promise, and that’s as much as I’ll be able to do. I hope it’s close to what you’re looking for.
I think that speech and the press should both be restricted by personal responsibility and basic taste. Where these are applied with care toward the risks of expression that is either too free or not free enough, there is little need for restriction by the government. When people set off intending to be offensive simply for the sake of challenging the standards, regardless of what the standards are or the reasons for them, they put freedom of speech at risk by providing reasons for that kind of speech to be restricted, and that’s just stupid. There must be restrictions on free expression, particularly where it comes to the time, place and manner of that expression and access to an audience. Everyone in the world can’t have access to everyone in the world as an audience (all at the same time) at a time, place and manner of their own convenience, because it’s simply not possible. Most of the restrictions can and should be imposed because of the reality of the situation, but there is a need for certain kinds of expression to be restricted.
I’m relatively comfortable with the balance reached in the US court system, although I do have some concerns about restrictions on political speech (the kind that the government has the greatest responsibility to protect the freedom of) from the latest round of campaign finance reform. But generally, people should be allowed (by the government) to say most of the stupid and offensive things they want to say, because doing so will tend to lose them their access to their desired audience if they go too far with the stupid and offensive part. When things get way out of hand, then I think there is a role for the government to play, but I’m not going to get into all the details of where I think that should be, both due to lack of time and the fact that what I say really doesn’t have any power behind it.
30 — CPAC is not the Republican Party. This is not just hair-splitting.
And Franken and Maher are both registered in at least one Speakers bureau, although I think they might not be as much of a draw as Coulter because 1) They’re not as interesting as speakers, 2) She’s a lot prettier than the average bear, and they aren’t, 3) They either already have access to their own audience (Maher) or they have a hard time finding a significant audience (Franken). But the size of the audience they are able to reach is well beside my point — it’s more about the role that they play in terms of the things that they say. I could use other examples — Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, Barbara Streisand, but Farrakhan has retired, and I don’t think Babs has been quite as wordy of late.
The greater point is to wonder how much of the offense at what Coulter is saying is because the people offended disagree with her points, rather than because of her rhetorical tone and word choice. If you tend to find Maher, Franken, Moor, Sharpton, Farrakhan and Streisand to be amusing and thoughtful, and Coulter to be incendiary and offensive, that’s a good sign that you’re liberal. If you tend to find them all a bit much, but can see that each makes a valid point along the way periodically, if only by accident, that’s not so much a sign of being liberal as it is a sign that you prefer respectful discourse, but are willing to listen to all reasonable voices. I see much more of the former than I do the latter when this topic is routinely discussed.
i think your last paragraph there showcases the biggest problem in American politics. Republicans support and justify the vast majority of all the shit spewed by fellow conservatives and the Dems do the same thing for themselves. Fox News rips on Edwards hiring hate bloggers and smooths over COulter MSNBC the opposite.
In a country made up almost entirely of moderates, we seem to let the extremist wing nuts have the voices that everyone hears.
via 12
‘Two sides of the same coin.
Heads or Tails folks…’
32 — You’re very close. The problem is not when people support and justify the bad crap that people they agree with do (although it is bad, it’s not widespread enough to be the real problem). The problem is when people turn a blind eye to the bad crap that people they agree with do and focus on the bad crap done by people they disagree with.
What we are silent about is much more insidious than what we rationalize.
So, we should make sure the coin lands standing vertically instead of
on either of it’s flat sides… that’s quite a trick.
…improbable, but not impossible.
35–http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uZv4eIeFk0
34–yeah…i thought that was what i said.
~pablo~
nice… but I’d prefer to see it flipped and not dropped.
You flip a coin and it lands on it’s side
you know you got somethin’ special.
ok maybe not.
Anyway, I hope you are having a nice weekend, sir.
So basically, centrism and common sense in politcs and political
discussion ~ good
Extremism in any form, particularly in politics and political discussion ~ bad.
I can see the value in that line of thinking.
Now, let’s see it go.
Too bad most corporations, the real policymakers…
only see in terms of the bottom line.
I’m not knocking on the companies…
we just have to make altruism profitable.
However that works.
My definition of ‘altruism’ extends beyond the human race to
include all species and planet earth itself…
Now, let’s see it go.
Maybe we’re already there…
Who knows?
If we are… sure fooled me.
I’m just tired of what a bunch of jerk as a whole we are. We are pathetic and trying to play nice when everyone out there is against us even though when they need help we jump right in there and help them.
WWII the war sucked and was hard for everyone BUT it united us all. Vietnam (I wasn’t around yet and really don’t know much about) and this war are seen as the same. What I don’t like is that if we lose this war on terror then this will be the New Nazi world only instead of Hitler it’s the Islam Extremists. I don’t know about you but for the most part I like my freedoms.
If you want to work fine if not well then there may be a good chance you may be homeless. But you choose to do it, the government did tell you you had to be. I’m just tired of America being divided and I know that not everyone agrees with out the POTUS is handling this situation but it’s being dealt with
If people would stop the beuacracy and just let the soldiers do their jobs, we could be done with this war and not have so many soldiers die. This is not another Vietnam war this is going to turn into WWIII if we’re not careful.
The libs and reps. are just as guilty as the other. I don’t like either because of the Huffington Post or the Ann Coulter thing but that’s the kind of shit people want. Remember that the liberals control the media, so because of that I no longer watch tv. I got rid of my cable and listen to AM radio.
You need to do your own research and come to your own decision on things. If enought people start boycotting certain medias they will see that the childish way of things isn’t working and they will come around and start playing a little nicer.
Via 42
‘What I don’t like is that if we lose this war on terror then this will be the New Nazi world only instead of Hitler it’s the Islam Extremists.’
what what what?
That’s not gonna happen.
It’s all about economics and access to resources
and has nothing to do with islamic or christian
or any other kind of religious extremism.
Religious extremism is a silly front on all sides.
It is but do you really want to see that happen? I mean it could happen no one really knows and I don’t know what it’s like over there first hand. I shouldn’t have gone off on that tangent and I’m sorry but I just feel that if we could unite like we used to then this could be done and over with and the soldiers could just come home.
~I agree~
That’d be better than nice…
Troops coming home, that is…
It’d have been even better if they
never would’ve been sent (to Iraq)
in the first place…
But we’re all still driving cars & SUVs
and RVs… so the only ones we have
to blame is ourselves…
Although I have read somewhere that the development of alternative fuels etc… have been shut down by big business and gov’t since at least the 70s… industrial hemp since at least the 30s…
…don’t know if it’s true or just conspiracy.
…or everything is going according to plan
and will work out just fine.
again… could’ve fooled me.
But he war isn’t about oil. It has to do with genocide. It has to do with extremeists and people who want to take away everyone’s freedoms because they don’t believe in what we believe. They want us to be like them and we don’t want to.
Every person has the right to be like us. There should be diplomacy everywhere as every country sees fit, but if they start to try and take action against people that there shouldn’t be then we need to stand up.
I’m guessing you’re big on conspiracy theories and believe what the media is telling you that we are always the bad guys huh? Well, I guess that’s you choice to do so.
I don’t believe in ‘bad guys.’
As for conspiracy theories… I’m really not that ‘big’ on them.
my take on theory in general is ~anything is possible~.
I laugh at what the media tells me.
It sounds like you believe what the media is telling you.
No offense, but if you believe this war has nothing at all
to do with resources and everything to do with ‘extremists’
trying to make ‘us’ like ‘them’ you should really do some
more research.
If the everyone in the world was allowed to use resources as
recklessly as we do in the US, we’d either all suffocate, burn
up or spontaneously combust… and there would be peace on
earth.
But, I can practically guarantee you there are no ‘bad guys’…
there are actions that aren’t very nice and planned activities
that are certainly far from altruistic.
…or world leaders and leading scientists will come together
and finally figure out how to harness reusable resources…
…or better yet create unlimited resources
and allow everyone to live like us, together
and in peace…
…or everyone will realize there is a more
sustainable equilibrium regarding individual
lifestyles and standards of living…
…or things will just continue as they always have.
…any and/or all of the above are completely
within the realm of possibilty.
I still like to cling to the idea that it’s not too late
to, well… maybe not save the world, humanity etc,
but at least salvage as much as we can.
My bumper spontaneously combusted on the way to a friend’s
birthday party last night… it was quite interesting.
I don’t see the free speech issue here. Ann Coulter exercised her right to free speech (and made an ass of herself) and everybody else exercised theirs in response. How is expressing the desire that she shut the hell up suppressing her right to free speech?
It’s not.
54 — The place where it edges toward a free speech issue is when someone who is a plausible contender for the presidency says someone should not say something because people find it offensive. It’s a little different than just saying “I disagree with what she said, and I think it’s offensive, and here’s why I think she’s wrong,” and it tends to escalate the rhetoric level through demonizing of the opponent, which isn’t terribly constructive (but can be a bit hypocritical).
There is no real or even likely violation of anybody’s First Amendment right in this situation.
@Emerild
I have no other option but to delete your spammy comments, lyrics, etc stuff that has nothing to do with VA (though no spam on this post, but i deleted some in previous post). dont write your lyrics, they have nothing to do with VA. If you continue i`ll delete your user. If you don`t comment at all, I don`t think anybody would mind. So it`s your choice if you want to participate in the discussion. Period.
that’s called the admin-smackdown!
@admin
Do whatever you deem necessary, sir/mam.
I’m all about utilitarianism.
‘If you continue i`ll delete your user. If you don`t comment at all, I don`t think anybody would mind. So it`s your choice if you want to participate in the discussion. Period.’
I, like everyone on this board simply comments because
this site is here and they can. Period.
I don’t mind. Period.
@admin
Actually, I don’t know if you noticed…
but they weren’t my lyrics they were
‘reference points’.
If you haven’t figured it out yet…
I actually prefer if you delete my
user…
In my mind, that way everyone wins
particularly me.
Please I beg of you, delete my user.
Really, I mean you’d be doing me a favor.
I could curb my internet addiction…
and all of your other fucktard readers/contributers
would be ecstatic.
Have mercy on my digital soul and
ban me from this god forsaken dot com.
Emerild,
What do you do for a living if you don’t mind me asking?
I’m a fed.
haha! i take it you’re not an agent out casing down bad guys with the amount of online time you have during the day.
see 50
so man punching and taking 101 year old lady’s purse is…not a bad guy? hope you not on that case
Let’s be real. Old ladies (and kids too) need a good smack down every now and again. It builds character…go see the movie 300 for proof.
Holy Frak that movie was the shit. For no poinltess reason I hit my friend in the chest half way through the movie. He asked me “man why did you hit me?” Told him I have no idea, just felt the surge of rage hit me. I had to hit something and if I hit my date to my left, I think that work against me with her in the future. He said he understood. Then hit me back. Go see the movie 300…..it rocks.
Re: Rage On: I hear you about your reaction to “The 300.” After I saw Die Hard (the first one), I wanted to go out and blow up a building……..!!!
There is talk of sequal!