General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders Defends Ann Coulter [View all]cloudythescribbler
(2,586 posts)The notion of why get involved -- categorically, suggests that this is merely the action of a few "trolls" who are not worth the attention of Bernie Sanders. The opposite is the case. The issue of not allowing RWers like Ann Coulter ('no free speech for fascists') is a long-standing view of some on the Left (both authentically left & not) and is becoming more predominant among progressives in the current era than was true, say, 30 years ago. The overall issue is of importance and Bernie Sanders, as the best-known socialist in the US today has every reason to address it -- on his terms, when & where it is most favorable. It is important that it is known that progressives do indeed believe in free speech, even for vile characters like Ann Coulter. This is why the ACLU defended the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie (which was pushing the envelope in terms of provocation, but was nevertheless within bounds of expression that was rightfully defended). Remaining silent as an overall strategy for leading leftists, as you seem to suggest is the right way, leaves the field only to those -- who are more than a few trolls -- who do not believe in free speech.
A couple of other points. The right of demonstration against this speech should also be recognized, including even militant demonstration (like there was in Berkeley when Milo Yiannopolous was there -- and now he plans to return for a whole week of events -- though of course attacks against persons that are not like self-defense (eg from police assault) are NOT a protected right). Sorry about all the parens but there are exceptions to general rules and exceptions to exceptions. And if the militancy of the demonstration, even to the point of vandalism and other acts of uncivil disobedience that are short of real violence to persons creates problems for some speakers, that is all part of the conflict-allowance that is part of the First Amendment and the kind of society it presumes. Sure, some people might get prosecuted for "failing to disperse" or something, and then a jury might exercise the right of juror nullification and so forth. Often these demonstrations are treated as "violating" the free speech of speakers, as if there were some Constitutional prohibition of heckling.
But threats against and assaults against persons DO violate a person's right of expression, and it is important that progressives visibly are known NOT to universally embrace that (or remain conveniently silent). It is not sufficient to say that advocating higher military spending or Islamophobic views are automatically "assaults" and can be treated with violence, like "fighting words". The breakdown of this system of allowing speech and protest but disallowing personal assaults is perfectly comfy for the right.
There is the question of WHEN to be silent and WHEN to speak up about this. That is a strategic question. Bernie Sanders in this situation seemed to have been in a favorable enough environment where he could be free to express his views fully and they would reach his intended audience. HE chose to answer the question, a strategic question, and I have no reason to believe it was an egregious error in principle OR strategically for him to do so. I also think that other progressives should, without "Gitlinizing" (finger-wagging at militant Leftists generally) defend NOT Ann Coulter but the system of free speech.
I would also add that SOME kinds of speech, speech that as a practical matter seriously threatens persons within the community in the ways that Milo Yiannopolous does, like outing transgender people by name, or the threat (apparently) to do so with undocumented students and others in the campus community, also crosses a certain line that Ann Coulter (or what I've seen of her on Bill Maher) does not. I will never forgive her for her gloating response to the Nov 13 2015 attacks in Paris (which were on my birthday, as it happens), saying at that time that that day, Trump was elected president of the US. Vile creature. But that doesn't change the arguments here, which attempt to lay out some kind of principled basis for distinction b/t the allowable and the non-allowable.
Also, it should be noted that RWers come to Berkeley precisely TO provoke a response and to exploit it. That's why the Republican Club made the invitations -- to drum up support in the name of free speech. At the April 15 clash, there were MAJOR "alt-right" (neofascist) leaders from across the country. They knew a great photo op when they see one. The Leftists were mainly from the Bay Area. The tactics of physical assault are an arena where the alt-right people are very much at home (and even many Leftists conceded afterwards that the RWers got the better of the violent confrontations, aside from whatever the police did or did not do). It is a case of the maxim that when you wrestle a pig, both of you will get covered in mud & the pig will be right at home.
So the whole issue is one of many nuances and complexities, and it is very important, and Bernie was totally right to speak out about it
Lately there has been a lot of sniping at Bernie, the underlying agenda of which is to weaken his role as one leader of the progressive mobilization within and outside the Democratic Party. Much of this sniping comes at least ostensibly from the Left (many on the Left think that ANY effort w/in the Democratic Party whatsoever is anathema, but THAT'S WHERE MOST OF THE PROGRESSIVE MASSES WHO ARE WILLING TO EVEN VOTE OR BECOME ACTIVE ARE.