***Maybe we should start a new thread titled "Free Speech and Violence", for the threat of violence and the safety of people at these events is resulting in the curtailment of free speech. Apparently the school officials were not notified by the Republican student group that had arranged for Ms. Coulter to speak there and did not learn about it until reading about it in the newspaper. Because student safety has been invoked, I doubt she will be allowed on campus. The violence that has reared its' head during the presidential campaign , recent rallies, and at recent speaking events seems to be the first explicit signs of the long simmering currently active American civil war that some would argue goes all the way back to and has its' roots in the 1865 civil war and beyond. The number of people willing to attend these events knowing that violence may occur is to me a telling sign of the times. Unless the security budgets of public and private institutions are greatly increased, free speech events will continue to be cancelled. Woe are we.
"Unless the security budgets of public and private institutions are greatly increased, free speech events will continue to be cancelled."
Sadly, I concur with your assessment. Things seemed to have reached the stage at which it is clear that the speaking engagements are no longer about people attending an event to hear and discuss views on a topic. Whatever this phenomenon may be it most certainly is not a standard free speech issue.
Instead, they have become occasions where intolerant groups on both sides seize the opportunity to convert a dialogue into physical confrontation. In the circumstances, it might be better for all concerned if no such events are scheduled until such time as people are prepared to engage in a civil and respectful way. It is no longer a question of people talking to each other but rather a matter of people screaming at each other as a prelude to actual physical confrontation. That is not a free speech issue. At best it is disturbing the peace in a manner that can easily escalate into mayhem.
I'm not impressed by this (hopefully a) minority of millennials who seem to put their feelings above an understanding of why concepts such as free speech need to be as absolute as possible.
I can though give their cognitive dissonance a pass because it is now an accepted fact that the mind does not mature until the age of 25 and for a while now, society has been making children grow up faster than ever before.
There are those that proclaim that they will defend the right of free speech of others they disagree with as strongly as their own right. I'm a little more pragmatic on the matter. People like Ann Coulter make a living out of being incendiary. They often misrepresent by cherry picking and are intellectually dishonest. They bear some responsibility for the protests that are made against them and for that reason, I have little sympathy for them.
Out of all the talking heads on the right, I can at least respect somebody like Glenn Beck who realizes the negative effect he has had and has decided to focus on his genuinely held beliefs rather than making money through outrage and emotional manipulation. Consequently, I will seek out what he has to say because I know it's not about ratings or book sales.
I completely agree. It is indeed sad that, regardless of your political persuasions, it has become less and less possible to have any meaningful discussion of important issues in a civil manner, without interruptions or worse. I remember the "good old days" when House Speaker Tip O'Neill and President Reagan had epic political battles advocating for their respective causes, but at the end of the day when the House session was over, they would go to the bar together as friends. They were able to disagree agreeably.
There is an excellent book addressing this very problem, written by Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, both former Senate majority leaders. Published back in January, 2016 (well before the current administration took over), the book details several factors that have contributed to the decline of bipartisanship and civility. The most interesting one (in my opinion), which I had never even thought about until I read their book, is the fact that C-SPAN broadcasts pretty much everything that happens in the House and Senate. That "fishbowl atmosphere", while providing transparency, prevents many legislators from reaching across the aisle and working with their ideological counterparts for fear of looking like they are consorting with the enemy, which could cause political consequences back home with their constituents as well as their respective party leaders.
I wish I had an easy, or even just practicable, solution to offer for this trend, but I don't. All I can do is to try my best every day to treat people the way I'd like to be treated, and hope that maybe, just maybe, it will be contagious.
P.S. On a completely different and much less serious note, I didn't notice this thread until today, and my first reaction to the title before I started reading the OP was, WHAT ABOUT OTIS? 
(In case you don't know what I'm talking about, there was a great kids' movie called "The Adventures of Milo and Otis". If you're an animal lover, or if you have children, you might enjoy the film.)
"P.S. On a completely different and much less serious note, I didn't notice this thread until today, and my first reaction to the title before I started reading the OP was, WHAT ABOUT OTIS? (In case you don't know what I'm talking about, there was a great kids' movie called "The Adventures of Milo and Otis". If you're an animal lover, or if you have children, you might enjoy the film.)"
Well, the Milo of this thread has certainly had his adventures, but he is not that humorous and would be rated for "mature" audiences only, if such a group exists.
Agreed! The movie I referenced was narrated by Dudley Moore and featured an orange tabby cat (Milo) and his Pug puppy pal, Otis... strictly G rated and suitable for all ages.
And now, having exercised my right to free speech long enough (and temporarily veering off topic), we return to our regularly scheduled program, er, thread.
I suppose the issue of "mature" is a complex one and perhaps there is some basis for setting the number at the rather high level of 25 especially since people are given serious social privileges and held accountable for the proper use at much earlier ages.
Somebody who worked in the movie theater business once told me the definition of being old enough to see any movie was the ability to reach up to pay at the ticket window.
In any event, if 25 is the magic number it is indeed fortunate that almost all of our elected leaders have passed, some by a wide margin, that critical point. I can only imagine we would have a big mess on our hands if that were not the case.
ETA:
Here is the problem in a nutshell from today's NYT article on the canceled speech:
In February, a speech by the incendiary right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos, also sponsored by the College Republicans, was canceled after masked protesters smashed windows, set fires and pelted the police with rocks.
In the pop up add that accompanied the article from which this was extracted the NYT describes itself as "Real Journalism. Like nowhere else."
I beg to differ. The above excerpt is not journalism. It is propaganda. One is not a "protester" if one is masked, smashing windows, setting fires and pelting the police with rocks simply because one thinks another person should not be allowed to speak.
One is a thug committing multiple crimes against individuals, society, and property. A newspaper that uses any other terms to describes such a person is certainly not acting in the common good.
ETA (2):
Here is a statement from the organizers of the canceled speech. If it is an accurate summary of the facts it is astounding in so far as it makes Ms. Coulter the adult in the room.
Calling for the expelling of students for heckling is a bit much though.
If you have the time to read the following article, it comes across as a balanced take on what is happening.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/campus-free-speech-trnd/
It makes me think that something has gone wrong with the values we teach kids both explicitly and implicitly. Specifically, the balance between respect for others and seeking "happiness" for yourself. Additionally, how deep down how insecure people feel.
Officials at the University of California at Berkeley on Thursday reversed their decision to cancel a speech by conservative firebrand Ann Coulter.
To me, such behavior is classic run-of-the-mill lack of courage, sometimes also characterized as cowardice.
***Indeed---Julius Caesar said "cowards die many times before their deaths/ The valiant never taste of death but once."
I understand your perspective on this, but I also have observed that the (sad) reality that getting re-elected is the absolute #1 priority of almost every elected official, and therefore they are reluctant to "rock the boat" with their party superiors or alienate their constituents, especially if their campaign rhetoric was highly partisan. Of course, many if not most campaigns have become more partisan and divisive over the last 20 years, partly as a result of the way congressional districts are drawn. The "red" districts get redder and the "blue" districts get bluer. Unfortunately, purple (which last time I checked is what you get when you mix red and blue) seems to be in danger of disappearing from the "electoral palette" altogether. It was a wonderful color and I hope it makes a comeback.
I have never been persuaded that the issue is Red, Blue, or any combination of the two. The phenomena are indeed real but they do not operate in a vacuum.
As I see it the present situation is exactly what one would expect if one goes back to the original system architecture which created the particular types of inflexibility that define the American system of governance. Without modifying those, which is not on anybody's radar, there is no solution. Everything that occurs is a direct result of these rigidities. The entire system operates on the basis of selected individuals being a position to exploit these for their benefit at the collective expense of the population. The incentives are built into the structural design and the market works as theory would suggest.
Other countries have adopted more modern systems especially in the past century for one simple reason--they work better. There are many countries where political polarization is at least as common as in the US. At the same time, these countries manage to provide health services for their populations, educational opportunities for every child, income security in retirement, functioning infrastructure, and avoid being continuously engaged in elective wars.
Start with the system designed in the late 18th century, move out on the time axis on the logistical growth curve, and we are exactly where we should be.
Milo, the original subject here, is back in the news with a promised "Milo Free Speech Week" at Berkeley. Presumably, the title is intended to convey the unbreakable bond he sees between himself and the First Amendment.
In addition he has announce a special "Cinco de Milo" event.
Maybe this free speech week will take place during the 4th of July week and will have its own fireworks display. Most students would not be around then.
Not sure what is intended with the "Cinco de" event, something to do with Mexico and France? Maybe the left wingers can hold a "Venus de Milo" counter-event the same day.
Let freedom ring.
The matter of the cancellation of the scheduled speech by Ms. Coulter is headed to court.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2syzMZYL9R7NFZ3S2x2OUtsWlE/view
***“Berkeley promises its students an environment that promotes free debate and the free exchange of ideas,”
"A university spokesman said the issue was a matter of security."
I would guess this will determine whether free speech is more important than the security of students, or vice versa, in this particular case. Not sure what precedents exist, but I would image that certain left wing speakers have not been allowed to speak at certain events due to possible violence, but not necessarily at government funded colleges. I have no stats on the matter, but it seems that many times the federal government has used the "threat to the national security" argument to successfully persuade the courts to allow them to place in abeyance some constitutionally guaranteed rights.
In any case, it should be interesting. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/24/us/ann-coulter-university-of-california-berkeley.html
With Bill Maher now thinking of having Milo back on the show the debate on Free Speech continues.
Here are two perspectives on this issue.
Ther first is someone who is angry at being blocked by President Trump on Twitter.
The second is by somebody who is perhaps rather better qualified to offer an opinion on the matter.
All of this brings up the more interesting question of why there is still after all this time any considerable uncertainty as to what the term means?
Is it really any different from "Justice" which has been opined on for millennia?
If not, why do we get so excited about something that nobody can explain much less build a consensus around?
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." ***Keats
" Free speech is beautiful, beautiful is free speech,-- that is all Ye know while speaking on earth, and all ye need to know." ***Me
I would suggest, the next time one finds oneself in a museum that contains a fine collection of Grecian Urns, that one espy one that sheds light on oratory, and behold its wisdom until the true eternal nature of free speech is revealed, for you will know it when you see it.
Paul Krugman is a scholar as evidenced by his impressive curriculum vitae.
Obviously, I am the freak in this discussion (and others as well) since I have three hands.
On one hand, once a person has been honored by the Nobel Committee in his or her field, there is no question about that person's exceptional talent. (That being said one sometimes wonders whether the Committee Members had not overindulged in vodka or another type of spirit in making particular choices in a given year when sometimes a different candidate might have been a better choice).
Krugman's academic work is outstanding although there are some of his contemporaries who have, arguably, made even more substantive contributions.
On the other hand, when he dons his Conscience of a Liberal hat he undergoes a metamorphosis, like Gregor Samsa, and he becomes at times, a vitriolic commentator who completely ignores facts he knows to be true in order to score debating points and demonstrate moral superiority.
On yet another hand, I am inclined to think that Paul and Ayn would agree fully on the analysis of the current situation since they have both demonstrated their skills in their writings.
As to what ought to be done about the situation, I think it quickly would become a Hamilton/Burr meeting in Weehawken if he did not ram her boat on the way across the Hudson.
ETA: while speech may be free, it can certainly be profitable if one chooses to leverage it.
Senator Sanders just joined the 1% club in an interesting way--he got there by railing against the club's very existence.
With friends like this, does the working class need enemies?