It had to happen. It just HAD to happen. Now keep in mind there weren’t too many protesters at the Ann Coulter speech here, but there were some. And the media picked up on it to be sure since, after all, protests are more exciting than people sitting quietly and applauding. Regardless, here is where the problem arises: someone writing for the University of Pittsburgh paper decided to write an article attacking the Coultergeist’s critics, calling his article (of all things) “Attacking Coulter is Hypocritical”. I’ll let you decide.

The interesting thing here is not that so many people don’t like her - even though they have never even met her. The really interesting thing is that this is proof that the War on the Individual is being fought right here at Pitt.

Off to a bad start. Right off the bat this guy is, for no affixed reason, saying that it’s wrong to cast an opinion on someone without ever meeting them. I heavily, heavily doubt Joseph Motzko reserves judgment on every human being unless he’s personally met them. I’d be curious to know if he’s ever said he dislikes someone without meeting them. Chances are? Yes. Okay, now onto the real Mr Dumb.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Although every part of this amendment is equally and greatly important, for the sake of this column we will just deal with the freedom of speech.

Here is the core of Motzko’s article. Once again, we find ourselves debating freedom of speech. But you know, I’m going to let him say a little more for himself before I really get into why this is the stupidest argument possible.

The use of public opinion to dismantle freedom of speech is not a new tactic. Leftists, socialists and Democrats (sorry for being redundant) have used this tactic to strip individuals of the freedom of speech for a long time. The whole politically correct movement is based on this approach. By alienating anyone who disagrees with their agenda, they successfully stop anyone from challenging them.

It seems that Motzko has forgotten about how “freedom of speech” works. I’ve written on this before, but let’s go at it again.

1. Freedom of Speech means government. - I didn’t think this needed to be pointed out, but apparently it does. The 1st amendment has no protections from ME. If I punch you in the face for saying something, you can’t cry 1st amendment. You can call me an asshole, but the 1st amendment has nothing to do with the debate.
2. Freedom of Speech means everyone. - This is the part good Motzko is most sorely forgetting. Ann Coulter has the freedom to insult whoever she likes, and I have the right to express my opinion about her. There’s nothing about freedom of speech that means we all have to sit idly by and accept what everyone else says. Everyone has the right to express themselves, and that includes expressing your feelings about someone else’s expression.

You guys got that? Ann has the freedom of speech, so do I. Thus if Ann says something, I can respond to it. I noticed also that within the same article he lambastes people for assembling peacefully in front of the building, he actually quotes the 1st amendment which guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble“. By his own logic, Motzko himself hates the first amendment.

Distilling Motzko’s message seems to come down to the following:

• Speaking about something you like: GOOD
• Speaking about someone speaking about something you don’t like: BAD
• Speaking about someone speaking about someone speaking about something they didn’t like: GOOD

If that sounds complicated, let’s try it again. The message of this article seems to be, to people like me, “Shut up and accept freedom of speech!” Not only that, but it’s said without even the slightest hint of irony.

He then says this:

As much as collectivists love to take away your individual freedoms, they will use them to push their agenda to the best of their ability. For example, when Professor Ward Churchill called victims of Sept. 11, 2001, “little Eichmanns,” a Nazi who was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death, many people jumped to his defense reminding everyone of the First Amendment.

Ah yes. Ward Churchill. I’ll let you look up that whole thing on your own, but the point here is that he’s using an extremely vague “many people” and then conflating them with those who protested Coulter, with absolutely zero indication that the two groups overlapped. I could further argue that Churchill was attacked for his ideas and not just insulting people which is a wholly different beast, but that’s not really the problem. I’m wondering if Motzko was on Bill Maher’s side when he got booted from ABC for arguing against the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were cowards. Probably not.

I think Ann Coulter is a festering boil on the face of American political discourse. Her presence, worse still the validation she gets by being brought on as a serious commentator on various news shows, drags us all down by turning an exchange of ideas into monkeys throwing their shit at each other. I’ve never heard a single argument come from Coulter, only insults. Even Al Franken in his anti-conservative books does so by laying out the liberal stance on all of the issues.

I will protest her inclusion in publications, argue against her inclusion in debates, and say why I loathe her existence. But if she ever got in legal trouble for a single thing she said, I know the ACLU would be right with me in fighting to the death on her side. That seems to be a subtlety that Joseph Motzko doesn’t understand.