Stefanik made clear the hypocrisy of the Presidents. Selective free speech is not free speech. Can’t call someone a fatso or a dyke but ok to be vocal about genocide?.
Stefanik wanted them to condemn anti-Semitic speech- which they would not do.
Support of free speech is most important when one despises what is said, not when one supports the position.
Free speech is protection of unpopular speech and hate speech is often speech that some people hate. It's very disturbing that the Republicans are now supporting "hate speech" prohibitions. There were totally missing in action these last several years as universities were offering courses on abolishing whiteness and university professors were calling for white genocide
Hate speech is to call for extermination of entire group of people based on their race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. However, in left-wing code book, Hate Speech is any speech critical of their dogmas.
Then whites have been victims of hate speech for quite a long time now. Hate speech is also selectively applied as whites who utter politically incorrect speech or violate cult Marxist taboos are guilty of so called hate speech while lefties and non-whites who advocate for the overthrow of Western civilization and mass murder of white people are engaging in "free speech".
Agree. Yet, the triumvirate would have had to face up to their hypocrisy. The real issue is to defend ALL speech, not to stop anti-Semitic speech. Hard to actually do when people are castrated for saying “ fatso, dyke, or tranny
I do. Free speech is free speech. Free speech does not mean there are no consequences. Howard Stern used to regularly feature Daniel Carver from the KKK. Letting him be heard was perfect because his preachings showed how stupid his ideas were. Even dopey people like me were repelled.
Well, perhaps it should be legal for guys to masturbate on the street corner at lunchtime, as even more people would see it and find it repulsive, thus making our community even better.
Women value security over freedom. That may be forever, at least it has been up until now. Valuing freedom over security as a woman makes you an outlier. Or a target. Or a heretic. One of those.
So true. Idealism--in this case, the promotion of an abstract notion like freedom over physical safety--is the luxury of those at the top of the food chain. Women instinctively want some sort of buffer or equalizer in their dealings with men.
It is indeed time to reconsider our ill-advised experiment with women’s suffrage. Of course, I’ve already reconsidered this buffoonery decades ago. I never shared a foxhole with a woman because, well, that would have been insane. Too, I wouldn’t want a female cop responding to an emergency call I’ve made. Finally, most women really don’t need to be voting. For anything. Ever.
I think it does matter, but of course I am free to use reason informed by morality and tradition to understand that some speech is bad and should be proscribed. This should be obvious, and it was to those who crafted the First Amendment and everyone who ever lived in America until very recently. It is unfortunately unclear to secular types who vainly search for other criteria and are forced to resort to absolutes.
I can't speak for Stef or Zionists, but if I were the president of a major university I'd break up the pro-Hamas demonstrations. If the students persisted I'd expel them. It ain't that hard.
There is something about power that deranges many women. It has to do with a paranoid delusion that the men who are helping them succeed are also trying to undermine and disrespect them. Women need no help undermining confidence in their leadership abilities, moral courage, and common sense. The trio of university presidents have done the job for them. This is a pity because there are some women who can handle the awful responsibility of power but they are typically marginalized and ridiculed as not "really being a woman."
"There is something about power that deranges many women. "
It is the plague of collectivism / collectivists. They know in their heart that they have no merit and any position they hold is because it was just given to them for whatever reason and so they lash out with whatever tools they have at their disposal [lois lerner investigating tea party tax exempt applications, for example ]; get while the gettins' good.
If Congress really supported free speech, they could stop funding the institutions that suppress free speech (almost every single college/university and strip them of their ridiculously entitled non-profit status...and also defund the Dept. of Education...these are all powers specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution...but it would take more than just talking and a dose of testosterone so do not hold own's breath.
Thank you Ann for follow up story of an important civil rights issue. Oh yes, The power of persuasion…..versus the power of intimidation. Experienced it first hand on behalf of a person I know. The fine line, it exists, is insidious and is fortunately for some of us, very easy to recognize when being applied.
Yes, it turns out suffrage was a disastrous idea. Women have greatly accelerated the collapse of civilization. But they are often sweet and pretty, so they have that going for them.
Once again, Ann Coulter nails it! Thank you, Ann. BTW, is my subscription still on autopay? I'm considering giving gift subscriptions, but how do I get raving Leftists to read you?
It's also time to reconsider our rash experiment with mass immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Denny Chin's ruling is an example that, generally speaking, Asians are not classical liberals and have no history of free speech and limited government power in their nations. And his forked tongue ruling in favor of government tyranny is evidence of that.
You are so funny with women's suffrage. But I finally get it now, our government is not ours anymore but it is stronger than ever. The principles of self rule are spat on by those in the seats of power along with any notion of natural rights. The military's only purpose is to defend the usurpers of our government but not our country, ever. It seems like America is a joke of itself because it is: We are a country founded upon freedom and liberty but the people we elect and the ones in power permanently that we do not despise them with a great hatred, the very rich who do not care about the health of the nation so long as they have their secluded ivory towers preach about free enterprise and capitalism though they look more like overlords that are in cahoots with the feds. And finally, we praise our constitution with great pomposity, proclaim to all of the world to follow it's principles but, we butcher it ourselves for Americans and create loop-holes around those 'highly' respected amendments to our 'cherished' Constitution. Like: Got a gun? Well great! But if you're near any one of the 1000s of different categories in buildings for no gun zones well, you're a felon. Got some free speech to say? Well that's great! But there will be consequences as per the federal government's speech policies! Could be a felon if you don't zip it! And that's all there is to it now really? We are a nearly dead nation that is a joke of itself with a usurped federal government that hates the USA itself except that it gives them power, that they like.
Stefanik made clear the hypocrisy of the Presidents. Selective free speech is not free speech. Can’t call someone a fatso or a dyke but ok to be vocal about genocide?.
Stefanik wanted them to condemn anti-Semitic speech- which they would not do.
Support of free speech is most important when one despises what is said, not when one supports the position.
Free speech is protection of unpopular speech and hate speech is often speech that some people hate. It's very disturbing that the Republicans are now supporting "hate speech" prohibitions. There were totally missing in action these last several years as universities were offering courses on abolishing whiteness and university professors were calling for white genocide
Hate speech is to call for extermination of entire group of people based on their race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. However, in left-wing code book, Hate Speech is any speech critical of their dogmas.
Then whites have been victims of hate speech for quite a long time now. Hate speech is also selectively applied as whites who utter politically incorrect speech or violate cult Marxist taboos are guilty of so called hate speech while lefties and non-whites who advocate for the overthrow of Western civilization and mass murder of white people are engaging in "free speech".
Agree. Yet, the triumvirate would have had to face up to their hypocrisy. The real issue is to defend ALL speech, not to stop anti-Semitic speech. Hard to actually do when people are castrated for saying “ fatso, dyke, or tranny
I'm not sure that free speech absolutism is the solution. I don't think the people who crafted the First Amendment thought so.
I do. Free speech is free speech. Free speech does not mean there are no consequences. Howard Stern used to regularly feature Daniel Carver from the KKK. Letting him be heard was perfect because his preachings showed how stupid his ideas were. Even dopey people like me were repelled.
Well, perhaps it should be legal for guys to masturbate on the street corner at lunchtime, as even more people would see it and find it repulsive, thus making our community even better.
Women value security over freedom. That may be forever, at least it has been up until now. Valuing freedom over security as a woman makes you an outlier. Or a target. Or a heretic. One of those.
"Women value security over freedom. "
[receptionist to melvin udall.... 'how do you write women so well?'
'I think of a man, then I take away reason and accountability.']
So true. Idealism--in this case, the promotion of an abstract notion like freedom over physical safety--is the luxury of those at the top of the food chain. Women instinctively want some sort of buffer or equalizer in their dealings with men.
It is indeed time to reconsider our ill-advised experiment with women’s suffrage. Of course, I’ve already reconsidered this buffoonery decades ago. I never shared a foxhole with a woman because, well, that would have been insane. Too, I wouldn’t want a female cop responding to an emergency call I’ve made. Finally, most women really don’t need to be voting. For anything. Ever.
Not sure I follow how Elise Stefanik is against free speech...
This clip from Secular Talk should help.
https://youtu.be/NlqozD8rhT4?si=7ntm7ULHUIDRXbBt
The fact that Elise Stefanik believes anti Israel protest or "From the River to the Sea" is calling for genocide doesn't matter.
I think it does matter, but of course I am free to use reason informed by morality and tradition to understand that some speech is bad and should be proscribed. This should be obvious, and it was to those who crafted the First Amendment and everyone who ever lived in America until very recently. It is unfortunately unclear to secular types who vainly search for other criteria and are forced to resort to absolutes.
My point was Stefanik and many Zionists believe speech they disagree with should be proscribed under the cover of "hate speech" and "anti genocide".
I can't speak for Stef or Zionists, but if I were the president of a major university I'd break up the pro-Hamas demonstrations. If the students persisted I'd expel them. It ain't that hard.
Pro Hamas or Pro Palestinian? Non Zionists believe there is a difference.
If all those demonstrations weren’t pro Hamas, why did they all occur right after the Oct 7 attack?
What’s a non-Zionist? What’s a Palestinian?
There is something about power that deranges many women. It has to do with a paranoid delusion that the men who are helping them succeed are also trying to undermine and disrespect them. Women need no help undermining confidence in their leadership abilities, moral courage, and common sense. The trio of university presidents have done the job for them. This is a pity because there are some women who can handle the awful responsibility of power but they are typically marginalized and ridiculed as not "really being a woman."
"There is something about power that deranges many women. "
It is the plague of collectivism / collectivists. They know in their heart that they have no merit and any position they hold is because it was just given to them for whatever reason and so they lash out with whatever tools they have at their disposal [lois lerner investigating tea party tax exempt applications, for example ]; get while the gettins' good.
What is collectivism?
If Congress really supported free speech, they could stop funding the institutions that suppress free speech (almost every single college/university and strip them of their ridiculously entitled non-profit status...and also defund the Dept. of Education...these are all powers specifically granted to Congress by the Constitution...but it would take more than just talking and a dose of testosterone so do not hold own's breath.
Thank you Ann for follow up story of an important civil rights issue. Oh yes, The power of persuasion…..versus the power of intimidation. Experienced it first hand on behalf of a person I know. The fine line, it exists, is insidious and is fortunately for some of us, very easy to recognize when being applied.
Yes, it turns out suffrage was a disastrous idea. Women have greatly accelerated the collapse of civilization. But they are often sweet and pretty, so they have that going for them.
"But they are often sweet and pretty, so they have that going for them."
Reminds me of a Herman cartoon...
I married her for her looks, she married me for my money. Now we're even.
The ACLU is dead and gone. They support vaccine mandates. RIP
ACLU = traitors
Harvard President Claudine Gay. Good luck liberals you’ve got more than Donald Trump to worry about. Try threading the needle with your ideology.
Once again, Ann Coulter nails it! Thank you, Ann. BTW, is my subscription still on autopay? I'm considering giving gift subscriptions, but how do I get raving Leftists to read you?
Again Ann kills it. Hysterical
““government officials have a right — indeed, a duty — to address issues of public concern."”
Where’s the “public concern” clause in the Constitution?
It's also time to reconsider our rash experiment with mass immigration from Asia, Africa and Latin America. Denny Chin's ruling is an example that, generally speaking, Asians are not classical liberals and have no history of free speech and limited government power in their nations. And his forked tongue ruling in favor of government tyranny is evidence of that.
You are so funny with women's suffrage. But I finally get it now, our government is not ours anymore but it is stronger than ever. The principles of self rule are spat on by those in the seats of power along with any notion of natural rights. The military's only purpose is to defend the usurpers of our government but not our country, ever. It seems like America is a joke of itself because it is: We are a country founded upon freedom and liberty but the people we elect and the ones in power permanently that we do not despise them with a great hatred, the very rich who do not care about the health of the nation so long as they have their secluded ivory towers preach about free enterprise and capitalism though they look more like overlords that are in cahoots with the feds. And finally, we praise our constitution with great pomposity, proclaim to all of the world to follow it's principles but, we butcher it ourselves for Americans and create loop-holes around those 'highly' respected amendments to our 'cherished' Constitution. Like: Got a gun? Well great! But if you're near any one of the 1000s of different categories in buildings for no gun zones well, you're a felon. Got some free speech to say? Well that's great! But there will be consequences as per the federal government's speech policies! Could be a felon if you don't zip it! And that's all there is to it now really? We are a nearly dead nation that is a joke of itself with a usurped federal government that hates the USA itself except that it gives them power, that they like.
but if you know the ACLU is completely against your very reason for existing, do you really want them defending you over anything in court?