When liberals don’t take up the cudgels for free speech, even for odious conservatives like Ann Coulter, we abandon one of our main principles. We also allow conservatives to criticize us as censors, and for them to take the First Amendment moral high ground.  And that’s exactly what’s happening at Berkeley, thanks to the Regressive and Censorious Left.

(Let me assert, though I shouldn’t even have to, that I despise Coulter’s views; see here for proof.)

Ann Coulter was invited to speak at the University of California by the College Republicans. The College canceled her talk because of fears of violence, and offered an alternative date–a date when no students would be in class. That’s unacceptable, and an attempt to stifle her, even if it is to avoid violence. If we cave to those who demand censorship because they fear violence not incited directly by a speaker, then we are allowing the “heckler’s veto”, and every opponent of a speaker’s views will learn to threaten violence. Regardless of how odious a speaker seems, we cannot allow that to happen. Free speech is a principle that cannot be overturned except in the most extreme circumstances, and that’s what the U.S. courts have ruled.

Yesterday the College Republicans rescinded Coulter’s invitation (not a great invitation to begin with) because of those fears of violence, and the Young America’s Foundation, which was defending her, pulled out for the same reason. And so Coulter was forced to cancel her talk.

Note that the Left is largely responsible for this, for they are the ones threatening violence, and the ones who caused that violence when Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak at Berkeley. And the Left is largely responsible for all the de-platforming and rescinded invitations to speak at American Colleges in the last five years. We do ourselves no favors by being so censorious, by threatening violence, or, as two misguided professors just did, by defending the right to censor “hate speech.”

Saying that Coulter is vacuous and hateful is no justification for censorship, as many people are seen that way, and who is to decide which speech is allowable? Were I to criticize the tenets of Islam at London University, I would be censored by the Muslim students, yet I think my arguments are reasonable. The students would call my words hateful and vacuous, as they did when attacking the invitation to Britain’s Ambassador to Israel. Who gets to decide? Nobody, and that’s what the First Amendment is about.

Thus, as we see in two new pieces, the New York Time‘s “In Ann Coulter’s speech battle, signs that conservatives are emboldened“, and lawyer Marc Randazza’s CNN article, “Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech” that a few enlightened liberals are defending Coulter’s right to speak, much as they despise her. Those include not only Randazza, but Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders. As Randazza says:

While all this was going on [the “shutting down” of speakers like Charles Murray, Ben Shapiro, and Milo Yiannopoulos], where was the traditionally-free-speech-friendly moderate Left? The prevailing view was, “If you didn’t say offensive things, you wouldn’t be attacked.” Shame on the Left for tacitly condoning this culture of violent suppression of views it disagrees with.

And praise to Maher and Sanders for standing up against it. I question whether Coulter would do the same for them, but that is not the yardstick by which we measure our commitment to freedom of speech. Standing up for the rights of those who would not do it for us demonstrates your commitment to liberty. We don’t need a First Amendment for speech that neither challenges, nor offends. We need it as a good in itself. And, sometimes that very challenging and offensive speech fosters growth.

. . . When anyone tries to shut down speech with violence, all decent Americans should band together against the violence, regardless of their political “tribe.” Does Berkeley stand for freedom of expression, or is it so captivated by its infectious one-party rule that it cannot possibly stand up for expression that challenges its liberal sensibilities?

Coulter has a right to her views. Just as important, we all have a right to hear her speak.

Those who disagree have a right to oppose her, but to use violence cuts against the principles that our entire Constitution rests upon. The First Amendment stands for principles like those articulated in the case, New York Times v. Sullivan: “Debate on public issues … [should be] … uninhibited, robust, and wide open.”

You may think Coulter’s speech is offensive. I certainly do. I think she is a mental midget and an intellectual snake oil salesman. I do wish she would shut up, dry up, and blow away. But even so, I am outraged that her political discussion must go through an on-again, off-again process because either violent thugs control the streets or effete and weak university presidents and the City of Berkeley lack the spine to defend the First Amendment.

The New York Times piece shows that conservatives, emboldened by how craven the Regressive Leftist opponents of free speech look, are deliberately inviting provocateurs to speak, and they’re even suing Berkeley. And the Left looks bad. Is this what we want? I don’t think so.

Just let the damn conservatives speak! What have you got to lose, really? And if you oppose them, use counterspeech, also a traditional tool of the Left.

If you don’t buy what I’ve said above, listen to this famous defense of free speech by the late and sorely missed Christopher Hitchens:

h/t: Grania