Love the comments from the journalism and social welfare major. Seems as though diverse opinions are now regarded as hate-speech on most college campuses. In my opinion the problem is that much of what is on the airwaves and in the newspapers is determined by people with his view. "free-speech is great as long is it is only about multi-culturalism, social welfare, gay marriage and bigger government". I know I am generalizing but I am very near a Big Ten campus where there only seems to be one way to think. :angry:
Very true... Hate speech at UCONN, and in various other places, is pretty much considered anything supporting Republicans or Bush...
I would love to see a transcript of her hate-filled speech. And Democrats wonder why they keep losing elections. :huh:
Wow. Just wow. I'm actually very ashamed that she and I share the same alma mater... I don't agree that it's hate speech... but it's certainly overly inflamatory and arrogant.
Because you don't agree with her views in general, or because of the incident mentioned in the article?
I would disagree. In my opinion, most of the airwaves (talk punditry especially) and newspapers do not slant liberal. Talk punditry specifically is most definitely conservative. We've been over this. The media isn't liberal. The media is controversy obsessed.
I don't agree with her views in general, but also because she called a bunch of UCONN students idiots.
If I have time today, I am ready for some political speak. I spent 4 hours at a school board meeting last night, if I ran our businesses like that we would not make it 3 more months. There does not seem to be a good connection between what everyone would like and the realities of a tough economy and runaway expenditures.
You are right about talk radio, but the media establishment, network tv and newspapers especially, are run by people, who for the most part, who see the world from a liberal point of view. They don't usually editorialize through their reports but they editorialize by what they decide is news and what is not.
I still disagree with you there. I don't disagree with you that journalism is not what it used to be, and that the 4th estate is in horrible shape... but I think you and I have a different idea of the cause. I think the problem is that the media has become big business. The fact is a handful of corporations owns the largest media and news outlets in the world. I don't think the people who run media corporations are liberal... they're businessmen... they are corporate and that ties back into my point about controversy. The media will latch onto controversy and scandal because those are good for ratings. Whether it be a presidential sex scandal, or a war in iraq, or whathaveyou, the media wil be there trying to make things worse. So it's a matter of perspective.
I agree with you Laughingman it is controlled financially by big business and network news is 'show business'. I think that the people who determine what the 'special report' will be or if the headline will read "woman is murdered by husband in domestic dispute' or 'third hand-gun slaying this month' tend to be people who have a liberal political philosophy. The suits determine the big picture and what the return needs to be, and the rest is determined by editorial boards or something similar.
But I do believe it was in response to being booed, jeered, and heckled. They wouldn't let her say her speech. So, instead of continuing the speech, she swtiched to a question and answer format, and basically said that she enjoyed debating stupid people (ie. the people who were booing and heckling her so she couldn't proceed with her speech). What's so wrong with that? I'd be embarrased not for attending the same college as Ann Coulter, but for attending the same college as the hecklers. As other's mentioned here, the university liberals seem to only believe that free speech applies to people who agree with their position. It seems to me to be a glaring contradiction to promote free speech and then block free speech by protesting and heckling someone off the stage whenever they don't agree with you. If university students value an open exchange of ideas, which they hold up as a shield whenever they engage in contraversial speech, then they should be receptive to at least allowing others to speak ideas that don't align with theirs.
I never said that there was anything wrong with what she did. I respect her right to free speech, but it's just BAD FORM. It was bad form for the students to not show her any respect, but she reciprocated, so she's no better.
They don't really believe in free-speech. Only in speech that will not offend a group of people which has been deemed a minority or down-trodden in any way shape or form. How do you really have a meaningful conversation about politics without offending someone?
