The recent controversy involving the cancellation of a speech by conservative columnist Ann Coulter shows once again that liberals support freedom of speech only when they agree with the person doing the speaking.a

From a column by Nathalie Des Rosiers:

We are left with a bad taste in our mouths when offensive speech is silenced, no matter how distasteful or ridiculous it may be. Universities, as institutions dedicated to the pursuit of truth, the creation of knowledge and the exchange of ideas, must confront this question head-on.

In earlier days, less security-sensitive universities would likely have just held the event and dealt with the consequences. They would have been willing to gamble that neither the speaker nor students would be harmed in the process. They would have assumed that, although at times unpleasant, public events rarely turned into blood baths.

Nowadays, however, experts in risk-management would quiver at the suggestion that heading off trouble before it happens may not be the only option.

It is important to remember that not everything can be managed by security experts, who are trained to fear the worst and inevitably suggest cancellation or additional resources to deal with potential trouble. They alone should not make decisions that relate to speech because they may not be sufficiently sensitive to the loss to our democracy and to the university's mission when speech is silenced.

Indeed, it could be that universities must accept that part of their educational function is to create the space for controversial speech to occur and that unpleasantness is part of that process. A measure of discomfort and risk is inevitable in living with free speech.

Read the full column at the link below:

Freedom of speech costly but not a luxury - thestar.com