This isn’t really a pitting, but it mentions Ann Coulter and the word “fuck” so it seemed the place.
University of Texas Student Raj Ajai was arrested at an Ann Coulter speech Tuesday night (May 3) at the LBJ Library/Museum in Austin.
I find Raj’s question offensive (he could have phrased the same thing respectfully) though I find the notion of Ann Coulter speaking in the temple of a Democratic president even more alarming. Plus, short of her being sold into white slavery to a tribe of particularly abusive Eskimoes, I have trouble mustering symptathy where Coulter is concerned (and even then it would be for the Eskimoes and their dogs- anybody read the Time article? It depicts her as a lush who chews nicotine gum so fast and furiously you can smell it from feet away.)
The kid also made masturbatory gestures as he made his way back to his seat. Basically he was asking for it (attention, notoriety) and the entire event was a total farce regardless.
Frankly the fact that the remark could have been phrased differently is a tad ludicrous, considering the desired effect was to ridicule the speaker and add gas to the fire. He knew what he was doing, and the fact that he offered no resistance backs that up.
Should they have arrested him? Probably not, despite the fact that the 1st amendment is not unlimited.
Should he have said what he did? I doubt it.
Should Coulter have been invited to speak at a university where vocal opponents of hers would predictably assemble at the drop of a hat to shout her down? Hardly.
I think this guy is my new hero. Great friggin’ question.
Sampiro, I read that Time article. What a piece of horse shit. I wonder how hard they had to work to find somebody to treat her as nicely as that writer did.
How in holy hell was he trying to stop her? If I were to call you a dick, does that mean I should be arrested for attempting to keep you from posting on a message board?
This kid, while on the high side of radical, is right on the money. Good for him. Ann Coulter is a joke. She’ll admit herself that she’s merely an agent provocateur. So if she’s going to get pissy and press charges at someone who swears at her … then fuck her right in the ass.
Here, I’ll even tone it down for you: How do you feel about hetero marriages who engage solely in anal intercourse? Does said practice violate the “sanctity” of marriage?
If someone rightwingnut to a leftwingnut speaker, then I doubt he would get much in the way of support from SDMB members, even the most right leaning members.
If some rightwingnut did the same to a leftwingnut speaker, then I doubt that he would would get much in the way of support from SDMB members, even amongst the most right leaning members on the board.
I guess I’ll just click my red slippers together and hope my future children won’t have to live in a police state. I don’t give a damn what the law allows as far as arresting people for disorderly conduct. It’s fucking wrong.
Yeah, I understand what you’re saying, but arrested? Come-the-fuck-on. If anything MUST be done to save the children, why couldn’t the kid just be removed from the speech? Why has the law allowed people to get arrested for swearing? How have we come to this?
This get’s me red in the face like a motherfuck! :mad:
Michael Moore regularly get heckled.
I’ve been looking around, I can’t find anywhere that a heckler at one of his events has been arrested for said heckling.
Not saying it never happened, but I can’t find it.
I found a few cites by searching “michael moore heckling arrested” and there a few mentions of almost getting arrested, but those are first hand accounts from right wing blogs, so you’ll pardon me if I take those with a grain of salt.
Jack Batty, I nearly posted the same objection to Bricker’s post. I agree that asking a question during the Q&A period when it was his turn did not infringe Coulter’s speech rights. However, Raj and his buddies were yelling obscenities “from the beginning,” which does impinge on Coulter’s right to speak and the audiences right to hear her. I think a case can be made for evicting him from the hall or even charging him with disorderly conduct on the basis of this behavior.
Turning to the question of whether his question was obscene, let’s look at the Miller v. California standard posted by Dr. Kenneth Noisewater.
[ol]
[li]I’d like to know what “appeals to the prurient interest” means in this context.[/li][li]It’s hard to argue that this standard is not met[/li][li]Raj’s intent may not meet this standard, but what is required is that the speech meet this standard. I suggest that Raj’s question does have serious political and artistic value: it dramatically makes the point that what goes on in peoples bedrooms is no one else’s business and that many sexual practices are not limited to homosexuals (or heterosexuals, for that matter).[/li][/ol]
On the other hand, I think the “masturbatory gestures” can be shown to be obscene by this standard.
Now, would I have chosen to make ask this question? No. Was it juvenile and at best unhelpful to Raj’s cause? Yes. Ann Coulter’s views and tactics are well known. Raj’s cause and the public interest would have been much better served had he prepared a question that showed the deficiency of Coulter’s stance and the repulsiveness and irresponsibility (and I would add unamericanness) of her rhetoric. Call her on her statements that her political opponents should suffer violence and are traitors, for example. Raj had no chance of changing Coulter’s views. Stooping to her level did nothing to enlighten anyone in the audience or persuade them to Raj’s point of view.
He was trying to disrupt her speech. He wasn’t trying to get his question answered; he admits that. He was trying to hurt her ability to continue speaking; hurt the presentation of her ideas.
Your message board comment is inapposite. Message boarsd are privately owned venues. If you followed me to every thread calling me a dick, that would certainly chill my ability to make my points on this board… but the remedy would be up to the Chicago Reader. They could ban you, or encourage you, as they see fit.
But when the speech is a public event, that changes things. If a crowd went to every Hillary Clinton appearance, and chanted, “Can’t suck dick, so your husband got head from a whore!” every time she spoke, it would be appropriate to arrest them for disorderly conduct… they would be welcome, of course, to stage their OWN rallies at which they yell “Hillary can’t suck dick, so her husband got head from a whore,” all day. But when they take the yelling battle to a speech given by Ms. Clinton, they are stifling her ability to meaningfully exercise her First Amendment rights.
There’s nothing wrong with asking a question to get an answer. If he had simply asked, as RedFury did, there would be no basis to arrest him. When he starts his day by yelling obscenities in the back, and ends his question by miming masturbation, it’s clear that the content of the question was not the goal… as he himself admits.
(By the way - kudos to the young man for admitting all this. If he hadn’t, I have no doubt I’d be beseiged with denials that he was doing anything but asking a question.)
I don’t see anything about the practice that violates the legal state of marriage.
I’ve said before that marriage is a religious institution, and the state should get out of the business of recognizing it. All unions should be civil, as between two adults of whatever sex. A couple joined in lawful union may then avail themselves of all legal benefits, without regard to their sex parts or sex lives.
But as long as marriage is a legally conferred status, I don’t see anything about an exclusively anal sex marriage that offends the legal idea of marriage.
I’m going to agree with Bricker, et. al., on this one. Had it just been the question, an arrest would be unjustified; what he did fully justified a disorderly conduct arrest.
I’m mystified by the side-debate about obscenity. His arrest had nothing to do with whether his conduct was obscene.
