Conservative "hater" Coulter silenced in Ottawa by threat of violence by non-hating Leftists
As much as I love Canada, it is a strange country in some ways. Despite its commitment to democratic institutions, it has a very odd concept of free expression which criminalizes "hate speech." The practical problem, of course, is that what constitutes "hate speech" tends to depend on who is making the call. As a practical matter, the test is whether or not the person making the call approves of the position taken by the speaker. The ultimate incompatibility of such an arrangement with anything resembling either free speech or democracy of any description seems not to have sunk in up there.
A clear example is the cancellation by police order of a speech by Ann Coulter tonight in Ottawa. Ann's rhetoric is admittedly sometimes a bit... well, excessive. But I don't think I've ever read anything she's written that's as chilling as an email she was sent by the university at which she was to speak tonight warning that she could go to jail if she said the wrong things.
The irony, of course, is that the fear of "hate speech" on Coulter's part was not what led to her speech being canceled. It was the fear of violence on the part of those who disapproved of her.
No hate there, of course.
People have a right to be excessive, obnoxious, and even verbally reprehensible. If we silence even the extremist and the boor among us, none of us can be sure that it won't be our turn next. Either speech which does not directly lead to the credible threat of violence or actual harm is protected in principle, or it's not. This is simply not an issue that can be decided, as a practical matter, on a case-by-case basis.
And there is something desperately wrong with a system in which the parallel between people holding unpopular viewpoints can be silenced by official action and by the threat of mob violence is not seen as merely two sides of the same, utterly totalitarian coin.
A clear example is the cancellation by police order of a speech by Ann Coulter tonight in Ottawa. Ann's rhetoric is admittedly sometimes a bit... well, excessive. But I don't think I've ever read anything she's written that's as chilling as an email she was sent by the university at which she was to speak tonight warning that she could go to jail if she said the wrong things.
The irony, of course, is that the fear of "hate speech" on Coulter's part was not what led to her speech being canceled. It was the fear of violence on the part of those who disapproved of her.
No hate there, of course.
People have a right to be excessive, obnoxious, and even verbally reprehensible. If we silence even the extremist and the boor among us, none of us can be sure that it won't be our turn next. Either speech which does not directly lead to the credible threat of violence or actual harm is protected in principle, or it's not. This is simply not an issue that can be decided, as a practical matter, on a case-by-case basis.
And there is something desperately wrong with a system in which the parallel between people holding unpopular viewpoints can be silenced by official action and by the threat of mob violence is not seen as merely two sides of the same, utterly totalitarian coin.
Comments