Why Coulter’s Slur Is Not About The First Amendment

I’ve been watching the reactions to Ann Coulter’s now infamous f-word remark around the Internet and media.  Predictably the neocons are claiming that us liberals are being hypocrites and denying Coulter her right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment.  They couldn’t be more wrong.
Coulter went on Fox News to downplay her remark saying it was nothing more than a "schoolyard taunt."  I’ll continue using Coulter’s analogy to illustrate my point.
Suppose my friends and I are hanging out on the schoolyard.  My particular clique is called, oh I don’t know, let’s say "the reds."  Across the playground is another clique hanging out called "the blues."  I decide that I don’t like one of the blues named Suzy, so I make a remark calling her a f***ing c**t.
Now do I have the right to call Suzy that, no matter how crass it is?  Absolutely.  It’s guaranteed to me under the First Amendment.
Does Suzy and her friends the blues have a right to get mad about what I called her?  Absolutely.
Can Suzy and her friends tell another group of kids, "the greens," what I said about her and suggest that the greens not play with me anymore?  Absolutely.
Can the blues tell the rest of the reds that if they don’t want to be thought of as supporting that crude remark about Suzy that they should tell me what I did wasn’t cool?  Absolutely.
When the greens and some of my fellow reds stop playing with me, has my right to free speech been silenced?  Absolutely not, and that’s where the neocons are trying to confuse people.
What Coulter and her neocon cronies need to realize is that while they have the right to free speech and they can make whatever stupid, offensive remarks they want, there are still consequences for doing so.  If you preach hate, and you get people hating you in return, don’t be surprised.  Coulter and friends need to grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.
The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, but it doesn’t give us a free ride.

UPDATE:  This story is now appearing on Netscape here, Reddit here, and Digg here.  Please visit those sites and vote for it (or not).

71 Responses to Why Coulter’s Slur Is Not About The First Amendment

  1. Martin says:

    Hi Scott
    This is the best explanation of the First Amendment I have ever heard. Not being an American, we all hear about the aforementioned article, but until now I have never had it explained so well before…

  2. Jon says:

    Excellent post… and an excellent point, Scott. And in the context of a schoolyard scenario, allow me to make another suggestion.

    My ten year old and I have had many conversations about bullies, as he was bullied throughout most of his time in foster care, and occasionally continues to be bullied. One thing we’ve noticed about bullies – they WANT the attention they receive by their bullying. They want to get a rise out of people, as it seems to be the only way they can feel superior as they struggle through low self-esteem. So I tell my son to do his very best to either ignore them, or simply not let their bullying phase him. And sure enough, as soon as the bully realizes he can’t get a rise of out of my son, the bullying soon stops.

    My hope is that America will see Ann Coulter for what she truly is – an immature schoolyard bully – and simply deny her the attention she craves.

  3. Jane says:

    This was a good comment, but it still missed the point. The first amendment means you can’t go to jail for what you say. Certainly, Ann Coulter isn’t being threatened with jail. But the first amendment doesn’t say anything about public outrage, dissapproval. or even nongovernmental censorship.

    Face it. Ann Coulter has made a lucrative career of being nothing more than a notorious name caller. No analysis, no reasoning, just outlandish name calling.

  4. Barbara says:

    Very true. And very succinctly put. Ann Coulter has had her 15 minutes of fame and then some. It’s time to put her back in the box of old ugly hasbeens and stick her in the attic where she belongs.

  5. Scot says:

    A few years ago I remember seeing people throw squid and many other things on the ice during hockey games – I still don’t know why but I think they were definitely getting a message across. I think we all should start throwing tampons at her. If she wants to act like a c*nt, she should be treared like one! I’ll buy the first box! GLADLY!

    By the way…I liked “Beans” made me laugh for days!!!

  6. RcktMan says:

    Scott, you have a knack for getting right to the core of an issue and making it abundantly clear to anyone who may have possibly missed the point.

    I just wish that some of these people who have completely missed the point would actually read this and maybe, possibly, get it.

    But since they can’t be bothered, at least we can rest assured that we are clear.

  7. Chris says:

    Bill Maher, Danny DeVito,Al Sharpton,a and Rosie can call the president names (much worse by the way) and thats OK. There’s absolutely very little outrage from you guys. What a bunch of hippocrates! What goes around, comes around. Grow Up.

  8. Clark says:

    I agree with Chris.

    Unfortunately, our nation has become polarized because of the vitriole spewing from the mouths of those who have the various media at their beck and call, waiting to pounce on their every word. The more outrageous the statement, the better. Regardless of how damaging the rhetoric may be to our country the media, without conscience or shame, will run with it. They can always hide behind the First Amendent, but maybe it’s time for some common sense. There seems to be little or no accountability for the media.

    Then we have those who analyze, both Liberal and Conservative, and shape those statements made to place their particular agenda to the forefront.

    In this day and time we need to wise up, stop the nonsense and partisan mentality and come together for the common good.

    Maybe we should hold some feet to the fire?

  9. Tim says:

    Based on your explaination then shouldn’t the Dixie Chicks shut up about being black-balled for their offensive comments? It just another case of some greenies or reds deciding not to play with them any more. Instead, the liberal elite have made them martyrs. It doesn’t matter what your affiliation, speech should be judged the same. Why wasn’t Brian Bumbel fired during the Winter Olympics for claiming they were “too white” to interest him. Liberals and minorities always get a wider latitude when it comes to “free speech” because of who runs the media.

  10. Gramps says:

    Frankly, it’s not the label of hypocrite that should be placed on those who make statements like yours. Perhaps the polite words would be “untruth tellers” since your comparison of calling someone on the playground a “f*****g c**t” wasn’t even close to be accurate. Coulter did not call Edwards anything.

    She did, however, make her statement in such a way as to allow the listener to come to that conclusion. So, given that, it is you and others of like mind that decided that Edwards was called a f****t-Coulter did not make that statement.

    Try watching the video of here statement–with an open mind and not jumping to a conclusion-and you will see what I am talking about.

    Bitch if you must but at least have your bitch be credible by being accurate when you do bitch about something.

    I do, however, feel that Coulter was out of line by making her statement in such a way as to allow people with your mind set to make such an interpretation. I feel that she did in on purpose and therefore was wrong to do it that way.

  11. DC21 says:

    If you want to believe that there’s more hate on the right than on the left, you’re deluding yourself. I don’t like what Coulter said about Edwards anymore than I like what Maher recently said about Cheney.

    (In my opinion, both Cheney and Edwards are losers, but….).

    However, it pleases me to see that Coulter’s real strategy is paying off as stupid bloggers and talking heads fall for the most obvious tactic ever. I agree with Coulter only on a few issues, but I have to grin at her rhetorical, strategic brilliance here.

    Instead of hurling a “outrage-bait” slur at Edwards, she could more easily have tossed on at either Hillary or Obama. If she were simply out for the most negative attention, doing either of those would have caused much more of an uproar.

    But no, she chose Edwards and her slur carefully. Why? To dilute the Democratic presidential pool. She WANTS Edwards to get more attention right now because attention paid him ISN’T being paid to Hillary or Obama, which damages their momentum and, ultimately, helps the Republicans to build steam around McCain or whoever.

    People can toss all the slurs at Coulter that they want — read her column, be objective, and realize that she’s a hell of a lot smarter than most of the people she’s commenting on, including all the current candidates for President with the possible exception of Rudy.

  12. Claire Lesesne says:

    It’s amazing to me about the “First Amendment” where you can cuss and say anything in public but then you are not allowed to pray in schools.

  13. Law Student says:

    You can pray in school. Its your right. However, you cannot force students and administrators to pray with you because then you are violating their right of freedom of religion.

  14. alb says:

    k… great post ppl. She is an idiot at times but her remarks were well placed as noted above from DC21. The thing that the cons talking heads and most of you may not really understand is that Adm.1 is the fact that govt can disallow your free speech..ie laws, or govt emps. So praying is out if forced, well anything else is out within the schools. She has the right to say whatever and be heard and not prosicuted. In the same manner, this will piss alot off, KKK can say and do what they want, without harming anyone physically. Emotions dont count in this. Its not govt cant pray with others its they cant force anyone to pray.

  15. knotArepublicanYEsproud2BFREE says:

    WOW, I want to comment ona number of these comments! First off: Gramps, its not rocket science to see the act of inferring something,and at the level she claims to be, IS saying it, otherwise why woud she of phrased it the way she did? Secondly: DC21, Um no simply put Rudy isnt a good political candidtate at all! just because he happened to be the mayor of a city that was prepotertedly ‘attacked’ by Al-queda or who ever the Republicans want to blame for it, ddoesnt make hime a good presidential candidate at all. Hes just a poster boy for the Republican ‘we can get anyone elected’ machine! Thirdly: Ms. Lesesne, First amedment rights have nothing to do with controlled religion. I my self am not considered religious AT ALL, and although i dont practice anyhting tha resembles religion (at least the way its shown on news: lil boys coming ouot saying they were raped, secretaries admitting to affaird with high ranking married memebers of the religious heirarchy, Gays (which i personally believe people may be born into being homosexual, or possibly do choose to be for the same reason as explained about the bullies in another post above) and how hipocritcal religion is about differences. I mean come on, name a major war through out the ages that didnt have some thing to do with religion. Crusades, WW2, iraq? Religion as a general rule is very hipocritical IMHO, EVERYONE needs to stop hating on each other and start to live together or we will be F***ed in the game soon.
    America IS the land of the Free and Brave, however, its not our right to go around and tell other countries how to act, or be, or what kind of religion or governemnt they need to have. Or were just being hipocrites all over again…
    Whew, hopefully i didnt come off to strong

  16. Becca says:

    My father use to tell a story that fits your example but it isn’t just about our right to free speach but all of our rights in this country. There was an Irish Imigrant who came here during the Potato famine who had heard all about how we have all these freedoms here in the US. He decided if we were free to do and say what we wanted the the first thing he was going to do when he got here was find a police officer and hit him because the police in his little town had been such bullies and he thought all police officers were that way.

    Well sure enough as soon as He got off of the island and into New York one of the first people he saw was a police officer. He walked right over to him and punched him in the nose and of course was instantly arrested.

    When he got his day in front of the judge who was a fellow Irishman, the judge asked him why in the world the first thing he had done in his new country was punch a police officer. The man said Well Your Honor, you know what its like back home. And I heard all about the freedoms here and I just thought I would exercise those freedoms to let out a little of my frustration.

    The judge chucked at him a bit and said Son I understand but you need to remember something. Your rights end where the other guys nose begins.

    Thats also true, our our bodies, our minds, our hearts, our sensiblities and all around ability to hear something and be offended. I was offended. Does she have the right to say what she said? Legally yes there isn’t anything anyone can do about it, and I don’t want to see that change. But, just as she has the right to say what she says I have the right to be upset about it and never ever read anything she writes again.

    The best indicator of future behavior is always past behavior but beyond that there is just the basic common sense and good manners we all try to teach our children. When the adults cant even play nice this far from the election how can we look at our children and say you have to listen to the govermental leaders even if those leaders our fowl mouthed bigoted people we don’t agree with? Its always much better to shut up and let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it and that is what Ann Coulter did. She opened her mouth and now we all know just how big a fool she really is.

  17. Toni Seger says:

    The First Amendment doesn’t allow people to scream ‘fire’ in a crowded theater because it could produce destructive panic which is Coulter’s entire purpose. Fortunately, she is so obvious and outlandish, her unseemly behavior will only result in helping John Edwards raise a lot of money.
    If you care about the First Amendment and the power of the word, see the following: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whvR5IK6lxA

  18. Alx says:

    You wrote “Coulter and friends need to grow up and accept responsibility for their actions.”
    They may need it but…There can’t be any grown up Pylsudski, grown up Hitler or grown up Mussolini.
    They are all out of time!Thank you, Lord! Thank you WW2 freedom fighters! Thank you Grand Pa’s!… You did what you had to do!These will never grow at all, these all are outdated, they can’t grow up. Anymore.

  19. Jon says:

    A Faggot is a bundle of twisted sticks; homosexuals are twisted (or queer) humans, so it is a completely logical comparison.
    Your explanation is a good one and people’s decisions do have consequences, just like being homosexual or heterosexual is a decision.
    It’s not who you are, it’s who you decide to choose to be.

  20. Captain Cox says:

    I find it very interesting that while Coulter’s comments were slightly rude, Bill Maher’s implication that the vice president’s assassination would be a good thing goes completely untouched. Hate speech is hate speech, plain and simple. Why hold different standards for Coulter, who made a snide comment about someone’s sexuality, that is so obviously false, in part due to the fact that the man is married. I guess that doesn’t mean much these days, it seems like a lot of “married” men are getting poked, a quick visit to Craig’s List will show that. I digress, the point is that Coulter’s comment was a bad, however, a little funny, but bad all together. Yet, the idea of expressing the opinion that the assassination of a person, regardless of who they are, would be a good thing, is tasteless all together. Why then do liberals such as yourself, and many others out here, call Coulter out, but let your own get away with murder, literally? And if you want to be completely fair about it, Coulter, later in the Q & A session, spoke favorably towards homosexuals and their rights that due them. Why was all of that ignored?

  21. JD Rocket says:

    Hey, a nama is a name is a name. Never really grew up around people of my ethnic background, so i’ve been called cracker, kike, leprechaun, and vast others I cant post. The point i’m getting at is the world has gotten too touchy- feely, sensitive to you, sensitive to me and all that crap. There is no reason for anyone to get upset over a name. No self respecting faggot I know would lower themselves to be called a politician. (of course it may be the gay community that is upset about being associated with low lifes like politicians) Anyway, back to the point. Name calling and gender tags will never stop. No sign carrying or protests are ever going to change that. Just be the bigger man or woman, realize how stupid they are and get on to the real problems. Like, why the hell do we keep letting the government strip us of our true basic freedoms. Name calling is th least of my worries.

  22. Adam says:

    Homosexuals are not “twisted ((or queer) humans”, so it seems that your logical comparison may have just flown out the window. We are functioning members of society, some of us are even elected to public office. Homosexuality is not a decision. Do you really think that people would choose to be gay when people like Ann Coulter are spewing hatred on the air? Or when people can be so misinformed that they refer to us as l’twisted’ ? Think again…..

    Ann Coulter is a performance artist. A bad one at that. She makes her living firing up the extreme right wing with statements like the one being discussed here. The word she used (faggot) is as offensive as calling a black person the ‘N’ word. Her agenda was to get attention, and it seems she is successful, if only from the comments on this blog. I think she is simply a bottom feeder, and my First Amendment rights give me the lattitude to make that remark.

  23. NotedNeocon says:

    I can’t really disagree with your comments. I think the Dixie Chicks would be well advised to read them as well. The free market will ultimatly decide both their fate.

  24. Michael says:

    Ann may be wrong. She may also be right.
    This is the same excuse Republicans use. And why hasn’t the Republican Gay Russian River Group responded.

    If the truth hurts, so be it.

    Ann is a satirist, too! Satirist!!! She probably has more gay friends than you and not a hissy-fitter.

    We know the street language of Castro street. Are you so prim and proper? Hah!

    If you don’t get her. I guess I have to blame your public school education.

  25. Joe says:

    Very well put, I agree whole-heartedly. That’s my exact explanation when I hear famous people (such as Susan Sarandon, Jeanine Garafolo, The Dixie Chicks, Eddie Veder (Pearl Jam) , etc…) saying their First Amendment Rights are being violated when they speak out against the Bush administration. No one is trying to stop anyone from saying or feeling what they want. Everyone should understand there are possible consequences and responsibilities attached to “free” speach.

    God Bless America!

  26. Adam says:

    That is a great point. That is why I don’t understand why people cry when the same theory is used with the Dixie Chicks.

  27. Andrew says:

    I’m sorry that Ann Coulter had to say what she did, only because I’m sick and tired of listening to little babies cry over a few words being said. Were some people offended, of course! Was anyone killed in the process… umm… no. So what, she used the word “faggot”, it’s not like she ordered an invasion under false pretenses that resulted of hundreds of thousands of deaths. Ann Coulter had every right (even though she probably shouldn’t have) to say what she did, where as I don’t remember anything in the constitution about “preventive” wars (especially those that Americans don’t even support).
    But then again, some peoples’ “feelings” were hurt and let’s not forget our “feelings” are what make us all “special” in the first place. If you were honestly offended by Ann Coulter’s comment, you need to cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it. Damage is done, nothing about it, we have bigger issues to deal with than name calling.

  28. crespi says:

    That’s right! If someone’s going to speak their mind,
    in America, they should be ready to instantly die for it.

    I asked a lot of good conservatives if the mail bags full of death threats is what the Dixie Chix deserved for making a joke about Bush. They all said YES!
    So most good neocons agreed that the short haired Dixie Chick should have her throat cut for making that joke.

    And I can tell some of you here are true Americans who believe the same thing. God bless you.

    When Coulter said “there shouldn’t be a law against killing liberals” because “they should know they can die, too”, that’s not intimidation against democracy, that’s fiunny, and when she said a number of “liberal federal judges should be poisoned,” and “the 911 widows are enjoying their husbands’ deaths,” it’s a real funny joke, right?

    She is expressing the Neocon humour. Why aren’t the rest of you laughing at those stupid 911 widows and their stupid suffering. They are weak and deserve whatever Coulter can dish out.

    Conservatives need to stick together on this.

  29. Jon says:

    I do think objectively and logically, you must agree that queer by definition means unlike most.
    I’ll try to explain: If I go to the hardware store to buy some 2×4 boards and I look through them and find some twisted ones that will not work well for the project I don’t buy them. Some may argue and say that even the twisted boards can be used and they are right and in some cases even more desirable but not in most situations.
    This is not hatred just reality.

    I DON’T CONDONE HATRED TOWARDS ANYONE, and I’m sorry for the bulling people have experienced.

    I quote you “Do you really think that people would choose to be gay when people like Ann Coulter are spewing hatred on the air?” and I would still have to say YES.

    People are human beings with a cognitive will; they are not animals that only function by instinct.
    We all have a choice, and we can even choose to not give in to particular tendencies.
    My tendency may be to over eat does that mean I can’t stop, no I can (maybe with outside help) overcome this, I am human.
    Being a human means you have a body, mind and spirit, (without getting to deep here) our mind and spirit has the ability to overcome the body.
    Though we are a twisted board we can still function like the others, it is a choice, society has forgotten this; we are way too weak and concerned with the body.

  30. MAX says:


  31. Joe says:

    I bet she uses the “N” word when she’s in the company of her people. People who like to classify and judge other people. I personally don’t take her seriously. She’s doing it to get attention. Her husband or boyfriend (if she can find one), probably doesn’t give her enough.

  32. Jamie says:

    WOW. Scott, I can’t believe the amount of ignorant comments you’ve received on this.


    If you think being gay is a choice then I don’t know where to begin. Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual behavior, yet you’re conflating the two. I don’t have a choice in whether I like men or women, but I do have a choice in which man I sleep with. (My partner of 14 years.)

    I can choose to be celibate, but who in their right mind would choose that if they’re not clergy? What people like you just don’t seem to EVER get in your thick heads is that our orientation is no more of a choice than yours. And if WE have to either choose celibacy or living a LIE, then YOU should have to make the same damned choice. Either be celibate or sleep with only MEN. Now how much sense does that make to you? None at all, I’ll bet, but it’s the exact same criteria you hypocrites (and THAT’s how you spell the word, folks) try to lay down for us.

    There is no moral compunction for me about sleeping with my partner. I love him very much, and far more than I see by many straight married couples we know.

    What would be TRULY immoral would be for me to have a relationship with a woman when I had no true feelings for her. Just ask Diana McGreevey.

  33. Roger Piwowarski, Colorado says:

    Your schoolyard analogy could use expansion. Nowadays, calling someone a F’in C**t, that would be considered bullying. Schools have anti-bullying programs to combat this kind of behavior because it can often lead to consistent tormenting of a student. Students have tried suicide as a result and districts have been sued for liability for not stopping this kind of behavior. As such, this kind of verbal byllying is not considered “free speech” in public schools.
    Racial taunts are also considered beyond “free speech.”

  34. Dan Lenard says:

    Anne Coulter is laughing her head off at you. She knew exactly how you’d react. Predictably I could have written what you wrote. How does someone get to think like you? Peoples feelings have nothing to do with rights and freedoms! Explain how she has done anything but offend you?

    You are not going to buy her books and she could care less. She pulled you out of the stupid world of Bullsh** you come from and gave you enough rope to hang yourself. OOO she hurt your feelings, Whaaa Whaa!

    Grow up!

  35. crespi says:

    That’s right.

    Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear.

    You don’t deserve that last one because of the WAY YOU ARE.


  36. kwp says:

    Excellent clarification. This one should be puiblished on the front page of every paper in the country for ALL SIDES to remember and live by.

  37. hammerbrad says:

    chris you can’t even spell hypocrites, so it’s quite obvious the type of people who feel the way you do. that type being, well… idiots.

  38. Crespi says:

    Sorry to be so harsh. I thought this was to be about Ann Coulter and the meaning of satire and free speech.

    In my state of Colorado our Congresswoman Musgrave convinced ultra-conservative “president” Bush and spearheaded the anti-gay legislation that was supposed to ammend the constitution in a way for the first time to restrict a group of law biding Americans.

    If you want harsh, compare the wording of the Neocon document to Hitler’s early “laws” restricting Jews of their “special rights” to be ordinary citizens.

    When Mathew Shepard was beaten to death for being gay (the killers crowed about killing a faggot until they found out about the hate-crime laws, then all of a sudden “they just robbed him.”)

    Mathew was brought to a hospital a mile from my house to die.

    If you encourage hatred and violent talk against a group who does not perpetrate such violence themselves, then you are a hate-monger. Quit being weasels and admit it .

  39. neighborhoodshittalka says:


  40. buckfush500 says:

    It seems that Coulter might be the real “faggot”. Edwards is married and has children. From the looks of her ring finger, it appears that Coulter is not even married.

  41. Brent says:

    You liberals can give it out but just can’t take it. I assume that the venimous rhetoric spewed from the secular progressive mouths of Michael Moore, Al Frankton and Cindy Sheehan have total latitude and objectivity. Wake up America!!!! The hypocracy from the left will be the demise of this great country and free speech will be silenced.

  42. Jack says:

    This post makes no sense. Nobody is asking for a “free ride,” particularly not Coulter. The left can dish it out, so can the right. All’s fair …

  43. Joe P says:

    This whole debate isnt about free speech at all. Coulter is just a product of what many Americans actually think and don’t say. WE elected Bush….twice (sort of). WE elected the representatives who allowed him to enter a senseless and factless based war. WE listen to both sides of a polarized government and take sides based on terminology like liberal and conservative, concepts as random to a free thinking person as choosing a race horse based solely on it’s name. Any person who actually thinks for themselves on a concept in this country and chooses the wrong side according to one of these closed minded crowd pleasers like Coulter is either “unpatriotic” or a “F*got” to conservatives or an “idiot” to liberals. Just because Coulter can say something as protected by our Constitution doesnt mean anyone has to listen…..but people do listen…..and applaud. It’s not what Coulter has said that worries me. It’s who is clapping.

  44. jeff cap says:

    Never thought i’d write this as a card-carrying democrat but i agree with some of the posts here “defending” Ann C. Theres a lot wrong about what she did but here on the left we’ve done our share of similar slurs.

    And as someone wrote, who cares what Ann says? I don’t know many of you remember another bombastic freak, Morton Downey Jr., but Ann reminds me of that loser in so many respects, let’s hope her 15 minutes are up soon and she joins him in has-been oblivion.

  45. Michael says:

    Bravo! So well said!

  46. Joe P says:

    One more thing….I don’t think the “cry me a river” people understand that it’s not what Coulter says that offends most people it’s who is listening and supporting her. She is nothing more then the sum of her audience and that audience wants to hear her. They want to hear hate spew from the mouth of another just to reaffirm their own bigoted beliefs. They want confirmation that childish hatred of anything not of their belief system
    is ok. And they want the comfort of knowing that they are not alone in their world of seclusion from a larger set of principles and ethics that are hard to grasp and are therefore unnessasary in their lives. Sadly they shouldn’t need that confirmation because they are in the majority in this world. The people who invite this lady to speak do so in pure laziness of convictions and they are the ones, not Coulter, who are the most offensive.

  47. Jon says:

    I understand the difference in the two as I tried to explain when I wrote about the body and the mind.
    I quote you “Sexual orientation is not the same as sexual behavior, yet you’re conflating the two”
    “There is no moral compunction for me about sleeping with my partner. I love him very much, and far more than I see by many straight married couples we know.”

    Interesting how you choose bring feelings & morality into the discussion and abandon logic and objectivity.
    You also assume I would not choose to remain sexually inactive or “celibate” and if I did it would have to be for some religious reason, not of my own choosing.
    There are people (of different genders and the same genders) that enjoy one anther without sex, but like I stated earlier society has forgotten this; we are way too weak and concerned with the body.

    Choosing not to have sex (not I can’t get laid so, I’m not going to get to have sex) is empowering and truly frees ones self in many ways.
    I am no “hypocrite” if you are intellectually honest with yourself you may discover you are wrong.

  48. Mr. Ferret says:

    Coultier is an overgrown baby and propably grew up without her daddy. She may also be a closet homosexual which accounts for her displayed fear of homosexuality. Please tell her to come out of the closet and stop her PMS outbursts. By the way it’s her right to pull all of her advertising off my website now-but who in their right mind would want anything associated with her on their site anyway? I guess she’ll just have to learn some new tricks so everyone can talk about her because soon the old ones will no longer work. ………Good article chief!

  49. Jon says:

    Joe P-
    That’s very good and well stated.
    People do make statements of belief out of “convenience” instead of analyzing it and know why they believe it.

  50. Jonesy says:

    Uh, I dont like conservatives much, but none are saying this is an infringement of free speech. Maybe you could link to an example though? ill bet you can’t. This is the first place I even heard that mentioned.

    Your post sounds like 1st Amendment for kindergaten too. I thought anybody with half a brain knew that only the governmnet can infringe on your free speech rights. duh, talk about stating the obvious.

  51. JD says:

    Saying homosexuals make a lot of many and are victims of crime is “pro-gay?” Just because you don’t say we should deport them all doesn’t mean you are making a “pro-anyone” statement.

    The word f****t is an offensive word. Especially when used outside the community, and when used in a way that spews hatred. And if you think she is doing otherwise you are less culturally aware than my freshman students.

    I will admit that she is a smart woman. She knows that the best way to gather a bunch of ignorant people around you in force is to use emotionally charged empty rhetoric. This is especially effective in the US of we-don’t-really-like-to-think-for-ourselves-A.

  52. Argh, Embarrassed says:

    Okay, my apologies, your blackboard image/div finally loaded.

  53. Uisce says:

    You’re dead-on right about her tactics. What’s worse than what she does and the way she does it is the fact that she has an audience, a following that agrees with her and wishes they’d done what she does and said what she says.

  54. Jamie says:


    If you’re going to stand there and tell me to be “intellectually honest” then do not state lies. You say that I assumed you would not choose to be celibate. That is untrue. I assumed nothing. I posed a question which you have yet to answer.

    Frankly, celibacy itself is illogical, if you think you can handle a purely logical discussion. Celibacy leads to extinction and serves no biological function. So where is the logic in it? The question remains: why would anyone choose celibacy if not on moral grounds?

    Then you say “Interesting how you choose bring feelings & morality into the discussion and abandon logic and objectivity.”

    How is this NOT a discussion of morality when you are saying that homosexuality is “twisted?” When you say, and I quote, “Being a human means you have a body, mind and spirit, (without getting to deep here) our mind and spirit has the ability to overcome the body.”

    There is the salient difference. When you “overcome” your moral belief that homosexuality is something that even needs to be overcome, then tell me you think purely logically. Homosexuality is natural; whether you accept that or not makes no difference to me. But it makes a world of difference to the groundrules for discussion.

    And I’d truly be interested to see how dispassionate you’d be after hearing people tell you day after day after day that you’d made some conscious choice to be ostracized by society.

  55. The J says:

    Gramps, I think it was really cute how you tried to slide your own “untruths” in on us. First you lambaste liberals for spreading untruths and taking things out of context, and then you conclude with this:
    “I do, however, feel that Coulter was out of line by making her statement in such a way as to allow people with your mind set to make such an interpretation. ” “Your mind set”??? That clearly attempted to make people think that not everyone perceived the obvious slur Coulter used. And while we’re at it, you ignore that several conservative presidential candidates criticized Coulter for the remark, too. Are they of this “mindset” like the liberals?

  56. The J says:

    Since people are saying it’s ok to use the word, f****t, and that Ann Coulter is laughing her head off about this whole discussion, I wonder what she would say now? Maybe as a liberal, I can draw upon my belief in new age stuff to channel Ann. (Conducting seance):
    “I am Ann Coulter. Liberals are satan spawn. Liberals talk about progress but all they really do is try to create affirmative action welfare programs. Let’s talk about conservatives and the real progress we have made. I am the perfect person to represent conservatives because they love blondes who look good in cocktail dresses. Forty years ago, a woman with my looks, well, I can’t discuss this, because to use the word prostitute would get me sent to rehab. But that’s okay, because today, thanks to conservatives, women with my talents can make money speaking to large audiences of people wishing for the good old days!! A good looking woman today can make a decent living without having to give lap dances to pill-addicted overweight guys resembling Lush Rimbaugh!”

  57. The J says:

    My last comment was a joke. I would never insult prostitutes by comparing them to her. That would be mean.

  58. The J says:

    I have to admit, if she is as smart as her supporters say she is, then she knew the responses she would elicit. I don’t condone her remarks, but by heightening awareness, and by the backlash against her from her traditional support base, perhaps people who used the slur will realize how wrong it is. More importantly, perhaps all those people in her audience who cheered will get the message that what they did was wrong, too.

  59. Jon says:

    The answer to the question that you posed is YES, celibacy, and I will concede that if you are only considering the procreation aspects that you are right, but then that same logic would have to apply to homosexuals and all people who can’t physically reproduce.


    Human beings contribute to society in much more ways than just sex, that’s the point I’m trying to make.
    You don’t have to be ruled by your own desires, just look at the advertisements on this site; it’s all about getting-off sexually.
    I quote you: “I can choose to be celibate, but who in their right mind would choose that if they’re not clergy?”
    Having your mind strong enough to control the tendencies of your body is the “right mind”, we are not animals.
    And I don’t have to be a clergy or Buddhist monk either.

  60. The J says:

    Jon, I think there’s a difference between choosing to be celibate for a lifetime and choosing to be abstinent for a period of time. Just how long are you willing to forego?

  61. Jester says:

    I am embarrassed for every one of you who has failed to grasp the concept of the distinction between being critical of a person and spouting hatred.

    This discussion is about free speech, and every conservative nut-job that has posted here has once again sunk to a level of neanderthal intellect by making this a debate about homosexualiity.

    If she had called Edwards a “kike” or a “nigger” or a “wop” or a “chink” or a “wetback” or any other inflammatory term, how many of you Coulter supporters would still be in her camp?

    The fact that you don’t like homosexuals has NOTHING at all to do with the debate.

    Does Ann Coulter have the right to call John Edwards a faggot? Yes, she does.

    Do I have the right to hold her supporters responsible by boycotting her advertisers and her publishing company? Absolutely. Do I have the right to wage my own campaign to make sure her Republican brethren don’t get re-elected? Definitely.

    Ann Coulter is a bigot, a racist, a hate-monger. She’s also very adept at generating publicity for herself.

  62. Jon says:

    The J-
    So far, so good!
    10yrs. now & feel great.
    I do have nieces & nephews that I try to instill a little bit of wisdom in, so I guess I am procreating kind of.

  63. Jon says:

    I believe it’s all about freedom of choice.
    I quote you: “If she had called Edwards a “kike” or a “nigger” or a “wop” or a “chink” or a “wetback” or any other inflammatory term, how many of you Coulter supporters would still be in her camp?”
    And you are exactly right but no one can choose their race, but they can choose their actions and whether or not to act on tendencies.
    Coulter should not have acted on her tendencies or like so many have pointed out she may have wanted to stir the pot.
    I’m sure you’ve heard this before but anyway it’s true.
    If you go into a restaurant you can tell who is Black, White Hispanic and Asian but it’s very hard to tell what their sexual tendency is if you don’t witness their actions whether it be body language or topic of conversation.
    I’m no preacher but what I’m trying to push is homosexuals have a choice too and just because we have tendencies we can over come them.
    This is not Homosexual vs. Heterosexual issue. Both are ruled by their bodies and it doesn’t have to be that way.
    Good night…..

  64. C. Lesesne says:

    To Law Student and KnotaRepublicanYesProudtoBFree: Who said anything about forcing students or administrators to pray and violating someones freedom of religion? Maybe it is better said by this young person:
    This was written by a teen in Bagdad, Arizona.

    Now I sit me down in school
    Where praying is against the rule
    For this great nation under God Finds mention of Him very odd.
    If Scripture now the class recites,
    It violates the Bill of Rights.
    And anytime my head I bow Becomes a Federal matter now.
    Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
    That’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.
    The law is specific, the law is precise.
    Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
    For praying in a public hall
    Might offend someone with no faith at all.
    In silence alone we must meditate,
    God’s name is prohibited by the state.
    We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
    And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
    They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
    To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
    We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
    And the “unwed daddy,” our Senior King.
    It’s “inappropriate” to teach right from wrong,
    We’re taught that such “judgments” do not belong.
    We can get our condoms and birth controls,
    Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
    But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
    It’s scary here I must confess,
    When chaos reigns the school’s a mess.
    So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
    Should I be shot; My soul please take!

  65. Jamie says:


    I think that’s a warped interpretation of what I said. I said celibacy leads to extinction–meaning in a species–not that those who are celibate should be exterminated.

    And you call me intellectually dishonest.

  66. BlinkMan says:

    Like gays don’t lead to extinction.
    That’s funny!

  67. The J says:

    Regarding what you wrote, ” I’m trying to push is homosexuals have a choice too and just because we have tendencies we can over come them.
    This is not Homosexual vs. Heterosexual issue. Both are ruled by their bodies and it doesn’t have to be that way.”
    Realistically, no one is asking heterosexuals to adopt celibate lifestyles en masse.
    Was it Chris Rock a few years ago who joked in a routine about sexual harassment, and I paraphrase from memory “It’s based on unwelcomed advances of a sexual nature, so if it’s welcome, it’s ok. So only ugly people commit sexual harassment. Oh my g-d! He’s ugly! Somebody lock him up!”
    Considering all of the heterosexual forms of sexual harassment that exist and its persistence, which while sexual harassment is “about power over the victim” it has roots in expressing sexual behavior, I observe that heterosexuals are asked to learn where their sexual behavior is appropriate, not to stop having sex altogether.
    It seems to me that more is being asked of homosexuals here. We already have to learn to tone down our behaviors and mannerisms in public.

  68. Chimborazo says:

    Your use of the word “neocon” is incorrect — their focus is freedom around the world, not hate speech.

    Please support your assertion with evidence (a news article?) that Neocons are claiming that liberals are denying her of her right to free speech.

    Your First Amendment analysis is also flawed. The First Amendment is a right against the government – you need to understand that. In the context of hate speech, there needs to be an underlying crime associated with it to have it censored.

  69. Scott says:


    I’m not asking to have Coulter censored. I believe she has the right to say whatever nonsense she wants. Doesn’t mean I have to sit back and take it though.

  70. […] I not trying to censor Ann Coulter, but I don’t have to take what she says laying down either.  I explained why in a previous blog post here: Why Coulter’s Slur Is Not About The First Amendment […]

  71. […] I not trying to censor Ann Coulter, but I don’t have to take what she says laying down either.  I explained why in a previous blog post here: Why Coulter’s Slur Is Not About The First Amendment […]


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: