Super Free Speech Defender Mark Steyns Bans White Supremacist from Tal

[Evening Star]

Sort of like a juxtaposition between the decision not allow Coulter to speak at a publicly funded university and the decision not to allow a white supremacist to attend a private function?

I agree...you have nothing left to argue with.

I don't know if I have a strong opinion about the Steyn/white supremacist issue but I don't even think it's a relevant issue whether universities are public or private when it comes to Ann Coulter's cancelled talk at U of O. Not giving someone a platform to speak is not the same thing as denying someone her right to free speech. Coulter has spoken on many other campuses. If most of us asked to be able to give a talk at U of O, we might get turned down as well.

While I can see how a private organization could have the right to restrict entry to anyone they want, how far are we willing to take that? What if a private business wanted to e.g. restrict non-white customers from entering or ask them to sit at separate tables at a restaurant?

[M.Dancer]

So, you think he's going to show up to a speech to blast a guy he agrees with? Jesus you're gullible.

Right....so you are saying then that the white supremacist agrees with Steyn, the Kosherservative?

It ain't naive the word I'm looking for to characterize you...

[ToadBrother]

I don't know if I have a strong opinion about the Steyn/white supremacist issue but I don't even think it's a relevant issue whether universities are public or private when it comes to Ann Coulter's cancelled talk at U of O. Not giving someone a platform to speak is not the same thing as denying someone her right to free speech. Coulter has spoken on many other campuses. If most of us asked to be able to give a talk at U of O, we might get turned down as well.

Universities are, rightfully so, held to a considerably different standard.

While I can see how a private organization could have the right to restrict entry to anyone they want, how far are we willing to take that? What if a private business wanted to e.g. restrict non-white customers from entering or ask them to sit at separate tables at a restaurant?

Clearly there are boundaries that can be crossed, but in general private groups have considerable latitude.

[nicky10013]

No you gave me links...If you want to play that game, here, conclusive proof you are wrong...

My link

Of course. Nothing.

Oh, so you're unable to read, eh? Well, that's not my problem, that's yours. Considering the semantic games you play, even if I did post passages, you'd spin the words around in a pathetic attempt to make me look bad when in the end you're only making yourself look like an idiot.

I provided links to Mark Steyn articles where he makes incredibly empassioned please for free speech over Anne Coulter's situation, even in one article going up to the point of using racial epithets to prove a point. You, with nothing left to argue, gave me a link to google. If you want to actually have a debate about this in a mature fashion, I'd be happy to indulge you. What I will not indulge you in is this childish bullshit.

[M.Dancer]

Not giving someone a platform to speak is not the same thing as denying someone her right to free speech. Coulter has spoken on many other campuses. If most of us asked to be able to give a talk at U of O, we might get turned down as well.

What if they were invited, paid and had tickets sold?

While I can see how a private organization could have the right to restrict entry to anyone they want, how far are we willing to take that? What if a private business wanted to e.g. restrict non-white customers from entering or ask them to sit at separate tables at a restaurant?

Not the same thing remotely. You can be refused, within the law, entry for many, many reasons.

[M.Dancer]

Of course. Nothing.

Correct. You provided nothing, like your strawmen....I dare say I know why you are refusing to highlight the sections you feel support your claim...I suspect it is plain for most as well. Making unsupported claims, like the claim you sat on a university board so *you know* tuitions pay for a univesity...is easier than providing proof.

Once again, your strawman is that Steyn is for "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

[nicky10013]

Correct. You provided nothing, like your strawmen....I dare say I know why you are refusing to highlight the sections you feel support your claim...I suspect it is plain for most as well. Making unsupported claims, like the claim you sat on a university board so *you know* tuitions pay for a univesity...is easier than providing proof.

Once again, your strawman is that Steyn is for "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

I guess typing strawmen over and over is easier than reading.

[M.Dancer]

I guess typing strawmen over and over is easier than reading.

Indeed it is. I am under no obligation to do your work to prove or disprove your spurious claims.

[Evening Star]

What if they were invited, paid and had tickets sold?

It's a clumsy way of handling the situation but it's not an infringement on freedom of speech. Events can be cancelled for any number of reasons, including organizers changing their minds.

[M.Dancer]

It's a clumsy way of handling the situation but it's not an infringement on freedom of speech. Events can be cancelled for any number of reasons, including organizers changing their minds....

...because they disagree with someone's peaceful political expression.

It isn't against the law, buty it was wrong none the less.

[nicky10013]

Indeed it is. I am under no obligation to do your work to prove or disprove your spurious claims.

You do realize that providing things like links, and book pages, is an academically suitable citation, right? Or are you just that much further ahead of the academic world that you have higher standards than them?

[M.Dancer]

You do realize that providing things like links, and book pages, is an academically suitable citation, right? Or are you just that much further ahead of the academic world that you have higher standards than them?

I believe you are farting in the wind and are too lazy to prove your claims. Instead, you will make excuses why it isn't your problem.

[Wild Bill]

You do realize that providing things like links, and book pages, is an academically suitable citation, right? Or are you just that much further ahead of the academic world that you have higher standards than them?

Nick, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning but is one of your basic premises in this argument that Steyn is a white supremacist?

If so, you're dead wrong! Such a view would only prove you've never actually read anything Steyn ever wrote but rather cherry picked bits and pieces from excerpts published in "Lefties 'R'Us" magazine.

[nicky10013]

I believe you are farting in the wind and are too lazy to prove your claims. Instead, you will make excuses why it isn't your problem.

Not excuses at all. I've always read what links to articles people here have posted. One of the only exceptions is when Kimmy posted a book on google books expecting me to read the entire thing to pull out a single quote she said was in there. I didn't even ask for passages, I asked for a page number because that's the way it's always done. As for the articles, they're short enough for you to read on your own. Furthermore, considering it's Mark Steyn, the rambles really need to be read in their entirety and I've been chastised many times by posting entire articles.

The only person who is lazy here is the person who won't read them for fear of being proven wrong. Well, not even fear, knowledge that they'll certainly be proved wrong. I've provided you the information and where to get it. By all academic standards, it's up to you to read it. Like I said before, I could post the articles here and you still probably wouldn't read them. This doesn't make me look lazy or bad, quite the opposite.

[M.Dancer]

Not excuses at all. I've always read what links to articles people here have posted. One of the only exceptions is when Kimmy posted a book on google books expecting me to read the entire thing to pull out a single quote she said was in there. I didn't even ask for passages, I asked for a page number because that's the way it's always done. As for the articles, they're short enough for you to read on your own. Furthermore, considering it's Mark Steyn, the rambles really need to be read in their entirety and I've been chastised many times by posting entire articles.

The only person who is lazy here is the person who won't read them for fear of being proven wrong. Well, not even fear, knowledge that they'll certainly be proved wrong. I've provided you the information and where to get it. By all academic standards, it's up to you to read it. Like I said before, I could post the articles here and you still probably wouldn't read them. This doesn't make me look lazy or bad, quite the opposite.

So why then won't you, other than laziness or fear?..keepmin mind I have no idea what you are referencing as proof of your claim that Steyn believes in "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

Since you won't, I will let it rest and assume you can't prove your claim.

[ToadBrother]

Nick, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning but is one of your basic premises in this argument that Steyn is a white supremacist?

If so, you're dead wrong! Such a view would only prove you've never actually read anything Steyn ever wrote but rather cherry picked bits and pieces from excerpts published in "Lefties 'R'Us" magazine.

Steyn is a bigot, but of a different kind. He wouldn't have a problem with Arabs, providing they were Christian. He's not a racist is what I'm trying to say.

[nicky10013]

Nick, I'm having a hard time following your reasoning but is one of your basic premises in this argument that Steyn is a white supremacist?

Not at all. I'm just trying to point out the hypocrisy of someone who defends freedom of speech in speech alone but not in action. The man has berated public and private organizations left and right for their lack of committment on freedom of speech but allows a man to be banned from one of his talks specifically for his beliefs. I welcomed the decision to not allow him in, but in the end the organization isn't claiming it's over speech, they're claiming security concerns which, in the end when you actually think about it, is hilarious.

The underlying point that I'm also trying to make is that everyone, including Mr Steyn despite the fact that he won't admit it, has placed a limit on where freedom of speech ends. It's too bad here that there are people who refuse to answer the question.

[nicky10013]

So why then won't you, other than laziness or fear?..keepmin mind I have no idea what you are referencing as proof of your claim that Steyn believes in "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

Since you won't, I will let it rest and assume you can't prove your claim.

The links are the citations, or are you too slow to actually pick up on that?

[M.Dancer]

The links are the citations, or are you too slow to actually pick up on that?

Like I said, I have no idea what in there proves your claim of "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

Unless you walk me through it, I assume you can't or won't back up your claim.

I am content that you are unable to back up your claim and content to let it rest.

[nicky10013]

Like I said, I have no idea what in there proves your claim of "Unmitigated freedom of speech"

Unless you walk me through it, I assume you can't or won't back up your claim.

I am content that you are unable to back up your claim and content to let it rest.

You have no idea because you refuse to read. That's not my problem.

[M.Dancer]

The man has berated public and private organizations left and right for their lack of committment on freedom of speech but allows a man to be banned from one of his talks specifically for his beliefs.

You have been proven wrong on this already.

The decision to reject Winnicki’s (his email address is [email protected]) registration was two-fold: Firstly, we did not want to have any sort of relationship or take any money from a man filled with such hate; Secondly, given his history with firearms, we did not want to risk the potential security concerns that could arise

.

See how easy it is to back up a claim.

[M.Dancer]

You have no idea because you refuse to read. That's not my problem.

You have handily and aptly proven you have no problem being wrong.

[nicky10013]

You have been proven wrong on this already.

.

See how easy it is to back up a claim.

Really? Only a gullible idiot would believe that a guy would bring a gun to a show to see a speaker he liked. Then again we've also been over this before.

[M.Dancer]

Really? Only a gullible idiot would believe that a guy would bring a gun to a show to see a speaker he liked. Then again we've also been over this before.

Prove that he liked him

Disappointed that a racist was not allowed to attend a Steyn event, Nicky manages to smear by association anyway...

[nicky10013]

Prove that he liked him

He emailed politely and asked to buy a ticket. If he was going to show up blasting, do you really think he would've had the foresight to do it? I guess common sense isn't strong with you.