The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has spoken out in defense of conservative author and speaker Ann Coulter after she was forced to cancel a planned speech at UC Berkeley.

As The Hill reports, Young America’s Foundation – the group that sponsored Coulter’s visit, which should have taken place today – withdrew its support of the event, citing threats of violence from those on the far-left.

The ACLU subsequently sent out this tweet describing the chain of events as a “heckler’s veto.”

As of writing, that message has been retweeted 5,193 times and ‘liked’ 11,480 times.

Commenters on The Hill’s article about the statement have also spoken up in support of the ACLU and Ann Coulter’s right to speak, although many are insisting her platform consists of “hate speech.”

Several liberals, however, appear triggered.

Source:
The Hill

  • Jsnforce

    Those folks need to really look up the word “hate”, because they’ve defined it as “anything that disagrees with my ideology” and that is so wrong.

  • MisterGoldiloxx

    We’ll never know if .@AnnCoulter’s speech would have been hateful (doubtful) or not because fascist artards wouldn’t let it occur.

    • Lisa4USA

      They plug their ears just at the mention of Ann’s name, or anyone on the literal right because they can’r bear to have their insanity challenged and proved wrong…Notice Ann is called ‘bat-scat crazy’ while they think it’s ok to use violence to shut down free speech.
      The most egregious falsehood was typed out by the idiot, Nicole, who said that shutting down a speech by a truth-teller “has nothing to do with free speech”. I’d love to ask her how her fairy-tale life based on emotional thinking is going so far. Right is wrong and wrong is right. FOOL.

      • PunJabber

        Was Curt Cheffer’s “bat[-scat] crazy” tweet the one you claim to “think it’s ok to use violence to shut down free speech”? Please explain your reasoning.

        • Lisa4USA

          Curt is from the old school of liberal thought that believes in free speech, but he HAD to tell us that he thinks Ann is “bat-scat crazy”…You want me to clarify that Curt doesn’t think it’s ok to use violence, like the rabid anti-anti-fascists do? Sorry to confuse you; “they” refers to the larger group of bat-scat crazy people who project themselves on people like Ann.

          • PunJabber

            Thank you. A pitfall of the passive voice (“is called”) is its vagueness about the actor (“by whom”). You will find it in a lot of SJWish speech.

            BTW, what do you mean by “rabid anti-anti-fascists”?
            I thought I agreed with you until I parsed that.

            #SmashTheAntifada

  • Sam2

    Remember something folks, liberals aren’t about truth in any way. They are strictly about ideological purity no matter the cost. Any and all opposition voices which do not line up with liberal orthodoxy are to be silenced at worst and completely erased from history at best. Stalinism has a new face, the American left, especially feminism.

  • Christopher Harding

    good news is at least some of the leftists agree that the right should be allowed to speak without being intimidated. ofc they are going to say something to let us know they still think the speaker is “batshit crazy” but at least its a start to logical thinking for them. who knows they may end up using their brains more and see the hypocrisy coming from the left and switch sides.

    • David Watts

      Yes, one ACLU statement used both “hateful” and “bigoted” in describing their “defense” of Coulter. Way to be impartial, boys. They couldn’t resist spin, even while admitting that yeah, the 1st Amendment is sort of important, they guess.

      • Lisa4USA

        ‘Dr.’ Phil did the same thing in his ‘defense’ of Ann’s right to speak at UC Berzerley. They would not be allowed to say basic fact unless they made sure the MSM and their minions knew that they were NOT in agreement with Ann, etc.

      • PunJabber

        You don’t help yourself, or us, by being inaccurate and unjust. The ACLU made it clear that their commitment to free speech is greater than any ideological disagreement. There was no “sort of” or “guess” about it.

        • David Watts

          I think that the use of such colorful adjectives by the ACLU could have a chilling effect on people who haven’t heard or read any of Coulter’s work. I think that august body doesn’t use such colorful adjectives when defending the precious Left’s free speech rights. Yes, the ACLU were finally backed into a corner where they had to (grudgingly) admit conservatives have such rights, too. Better late than never. Where were they when Milo was shut down at Berkeley and UC Davis? I do agree with you that issuing any statement at all was a positive sign.

          • PunJabber

            Where were they? Defending Milo, and getting a big poofling from the same libtwits that poofled them over Ann. Look it up!

          • David Watts

            Will do, thanks.

    • Lisa4USA

      It seems that some of the old-school libs are still in the mindset of not agreeing with what we say but defending our right to say it. Hell, we won against the queen succubus…we should be able to speak as freely as the loonies do.

  • JellyD

    What’s the appropriate response to someone who says, publicly, you aren’t allowed to speak in a way that they don’t like? And what if they bring Antifa or other violent communist apes to enforce that claim by assaulting you? I think any violence you do to them would inherently be in self-defense since they are attempting to strip you of your First Amendment rights.

  • Scott Kuli

    I fail to see how anything Coulter has EVER said constitutes “hate speech”. They’re on the same page as Antifa, they just sound more gentle about it.

    • Lisa4USA

      The truth is hate speech…it’s straight out of 1984. They don’t know and probably will never know how they are being played, wound up like Energizer bunnies and used to create division, while their puppeteers rejoice because they remain in power.

  • Our Bloody Mary Hospital

    Funny how punching someone in the face is not considered ‘hate speech’.

    • Lisa4USA

      …more like: an offense that should be prosecuted, not encouraged.

  • Clay James Belter

    Clearly we redefined the word “hate”.

    Unfortunately for these people there is no such thing as “hate speech”. There is only “speech”.

    Honestly though, it’s interesting that they’ll consider people talking about how the wage gap is a myth, that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, and that we should secure our borders is hate speech and should be silenced, yet saying we should punch NAZI’s, have a white genocide, and kill all men should not only be protected, but treated as if they are the most morally justified things you can say.

    Also, Carter Man, you are a retarded tool. The only side not listening on the whole is the left. Just because the right does not accept your lunacy does not mean they aren’t listening. And I can hear you protest “But you call it lunacy, what makes it lunacy and your side in favor of reality?” Because 1: The left are arguing Islam is a religion of peace. It is not. 2: The left argues that there are more than 2 genders. There aren’t. 3: The left argues that the right hates immigrants. They don’t, it’s the illegal aliens we don’t like. 4: The left argues that a $15/hr wage will not cause any negative effects. It can, has, will and did. The list continues. The difference is that the right might be willing to admit being wrong if you can show them otherwise. The left will not do this because they want quick, simple solutions with no regard for the long term based on their feelings. Conservatives are not that willing to risk their long term goals on things that might help for a minute but go disastrously wrong in a week. And we don’t give two shits about your feelings. Feelings do not override reality.

  • David

    It is legal to hate people and ideas. It is also legal to speak of such hate… As long as you do not threaten, you are free to speak. Except around liberals…. They only allow what they agree with….

  • Martha Finley Curt

    I’ve heard her speak, I don’t recall anything “hateful” about her.

  • minority of one

    Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

    But it does demonstrate the left will eat its own. First is was the left’s Obama selling out the Jews in Israel. Then the gay world for the muslims. Now free speech for violence.

    The leftist elite will stop an nothing to obtain and then maintain power.

  • Midnattsol

    I soo love seeing the left triggered by their own.

  • Tspo

    The left is scared to death of the 1st Amendment. The main reason for the Amendment is to protect political speech, thus giving folks the ability to debate. There in lies the problem: they fear debate because their policies have failed every where it has been tried.

  • DaisyToo

    Okay, so the illiberal ACLU has spoken. I wonder why they feel a need to characterize Coulter’s speech as ‘hateful’?

    • David Watts

      Virtue signaling? You’d think it wasn’t necessary in their case, but maybe they thought it was needed.

    • fugly

      Considering that they’re Bolsheviks with iPhones and Ugg boots who want global domination of nationless, culturless people and only nationalists like Ann Coulter and Milo Yiannopoulos stand in their way, it actually makes perfect sense when you stop and think about it.

  • EyeVey

    They need to take a good long listen to their own hate speech, if one were to use their definitions as a speech barometer.
    Let’s start with their hate speech towards our president, his young son, his family…
    We’re dealing with maniacal leftists…

    • fugly

      I agree completely. I hope they can appreciate the irony when they call Trump Hitler or a Nazi for wanting to enforce immigration, considering the historical context of the last president to fully enforce it was Dwight Eisenhower .. the supreme commander who led allied forces to defeat Hitler and the Nazis.

  • Dante Alighieri

    Love ’em or hate ’em at least the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is consistent. —D

  • The Nev

    “Even when hateful”

    So the ACLU defines her speech as hateful because it is different from theirs. They’ve chosen a side. Let’s not pat them on the back just yet.

    Also, they still believe every right but the 2nd is individual.

  • The Truth is Hate to those who hate the truth.

    ACLU is now moslim and liars since all they can do is boil down Ann to “hate speech.”

  • Tianna92

    Do liberals know the general population has already denounced them? Even classic liberals want nothing to do with these so called progressives.

  • gduckd

    “She should be allowed to speak”? What the hell is that all about? She has the God given freedom to speak. Who is the arbiter of hate speech prey tell? Fortunately you can now see the little cracks of common sense creep into the lives of Americans that have been beat up by the hyper PC that has consumed this country for 12 or more years.