Ann brought this on herself.
She has a right to free speech. Everyone else has the right to object to what she says.
Whats the problem?
I'm neither attacking nor defending Coulter. All my post did was point out how the Human Rights Campaigns of the world that are so intent on silencing Coulter are the same people who are horrified by the "censoring" of the Dixie Chicks.
Literacy is a valuable skill.
>>Ann brought this on herself.
She has a right to free speech. Everyone else has the right to object to what she says.
Whats the problem?<<
I'm with you on this one. She knows what she is doing here and it is high entertainment to watch the detractors squirm.
And with every controversy, she becomes more and more of a household word - first derided, and then applauded as people educate themselves.
Human beings are fascinating!
I agree with your basic argument that everyone else has the right to object to what she says. But that is not the case. Yes, they object to her use of the term faggot, but they are taking it one step further, and therein lies the problem.
They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves. People demanding banning are somewhat silly given the fact that they don't have to listen to a particular radio station. That will hurt the station far greater than trying to get someone banned.
The same applies here. If these people do not want to read what Ann says, simply do not buy the newspaper that she is printed in. But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.