Defending Ann Coulter

Recently Donny Deutsch, the CNBC quasi-personality tried to goad Ann Coulter regarding her views on Jews. Ann delivered a typical Coulter-ism and lo and behold Donny Deutsch gets press. Which he needs. His show, according to TVNewser frequently "scratches," i.e. gets so few viewers they statistically do not exist. Maybe they are scared off by Deutch's Agnes Moorehead-like reading glasses.

Twice now Elizabeth and John Edwards have quite publicly pronounced their indignation at remarks Coulter made regarding John Edward's masculinity. The campaign dollars poured in. Notice a pattern?

More than a few HuffPo posts have been devoted to Coulter lately. It's understandable liberals rail against President Bush. They are protesting his actions, not his words. Okay, maybe we should all protest his syntax. But Ann Coulter simply offers up words. Sometimes bizarre, imprudent words, but simply words nonetheless. For this she has to travel to speeches with a bodyguard.

What is more offensive; Ann Coulter's remarks about 9/11 widows, or women being tortured to death in Saw? Her thoughts on Muslims, or women being tortured to death in Saw 2? Her writing on Bill Clinton, or women being tortured to death in Saw 3? Need I comment on how offensive last weekend's grosses were for Saw 4?

But it's all free speech, and after the last few years, that's one of the few liberties we have left to hold on to. Ann Coulter stirs the pot, and her remarks are all the more infuriating because they come packaged in a hot little black cocktail dress. Tell the truth, you've wondered what it would be like, haven't you? I thought so.

Republicans don't so much like Ann for what she says. We like her because she has big brass balls, unlike most Republicans in Washington right now. Guiliani? Whipped. Romney? A pretty boy. Huckabee? Diet freak. Thompson? He dated Lorie Morgan for God's sake. You think Democrats are frustrated with Republicans? Trust me, Red Staters are far more frustrated. We want a man. That man is Ann.

Ann Coulter fearlessly says what she says, and in doing so exercises her right to free speech. The entertainment community should be particularly sensitive to this. Remember Theo Van Gogh? Ann Coulter is not hurting anyone, but she is making them think. Don't ban Ann, as some groups are suggesting. Ban the thought police.

Follow Ron Galloway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rongalloway

Comments

[mamacat]

Actually, not a completely bad blog. I agree 100% about the value of the SAW movies. They have none, except to lower the quality of life in our society, and to make money for a few people who care more about money than they do about movies. And that is sorta my gripe with Ms. Coulter. Her speech lowers the quality of life on the planet. If she influences the weak minded to vote for a Republican like Bush or Cheney, she is hurting the world we live in. If she encourages more sexually insecure and/or confused boys in Montana to torture and murder another homosexual, she has made the world a worse place.

As Salmon Rushdie has said, there is a difference between free speech and cheap speech. Unfortuneately, since no one yet born can perfectly separate cheap speech and free speech, we have to put up with one to protect the other. The bad, and sad, thing about people like Ms. Coulter is that they are willing to make the world a worse place in order to make a buck. I cannot, in good conscience, say that I think she honestly believes the hateful, destructive nonsense that she spouts in her efforts to make a comfortable living for herself. I do believe that if she had a moral soul, she might actually be taken seriously by more people.

[gulopartisan]

I don't want people like Coulter banned, I want people not like Coulter to boo her, to stop buying her books, to complain when she insults people on TV or radio, to complain to her publisher for promoting hatred.

Free speech does not include the "freedom" to get rich as a shill for the theoNazis. Refusing to buy her books is MY freedom, and it's not colliding with hers. Refusing to buy books from people who sell her books is MY freedom, which I have as much right to as she does to call me names. Refusing to buy books from stores that sell her books is also my freedom.

A few days ago I took five books to the front of a B&N along with a copy of Godless. I told the clerk I had been planning to buy the five books, but when I saw the prominent place they had displayed Godless, I decided to take my business elsewhere. Pointless? Maybe, but it felt good. Maybe I'll do it again this weekend. I have the freedom to do that.

[DocManhattan]

She's despicable because she justifies bigotry. I can only imagine the people who buy her books feel she speaks for them and it saddens me that so many take her inflammatory statements seriously enough to shell out money to read them.

Also, whenever she says something like the Jews remark, or the "faggot" remark I imagine a million drunken, angry bigots in bars around the country raising their beer glasses, going "Fuck yeah!" then turning their bigoted rage into self-righteous, Coulter-endorsed (they think) violence.

[kirsti]

I don't mind her. She can say what she wants. What I don't like is that it seems like this nation has been ruled by spinners for a decade by now. O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, and the people seems to buy it.

I don't mind any of them, because what they say is always outrageous and dumb. What hurts me is that the people applauds. The people buys it.

[wadenelson1]

It was all I could do at Safeway, upon seeing Ann Coulter's latest books on a low rack, not to unzip and express myself freely and volumninously.

[SamThornton]

Personally, I'm glad there is an Ann Coulter. Her hysterical rants have arguably done more to discredit the loony right than any reasoned rebuttal could possibly accomplish.

Hopefully, she will continue her insane bloviations. She's a better poison pill to the mad extremism that's corrupted the Republican Party than any sane person could contrive.

[coolmaiden]

I find it hilarious that someone in the Republican party (I am assuming so because you said "we" when referring to them, Mr. Galloway) is screaming to support freedom of speech and civil liberties. Sir, us true civil libertarians know that the First Amendment is tailor-made for repugnant attention-whores like Ann Coulter. Freedom of speech is much more powerful when it protects rantings by an unpopular lunatic. I highly doubt you contribute donations to the ACLU, so until you fight to protect speech you don't like, come off the moral high horse please.

[factanonverba]

It's not a question of banning Ann Coulter, it's more ignoring Ann COulter and assigning her to irrelevance. She simply should not be allow to profit from her utterances.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Free speech and good taste seldom line up, but,
since we're at it, I'll exercise a little and
sound off myself:

I think that if Dan supports the war, then 'he'
should trot right down to the local army
recruiting center, sign right up, graduate
boot camp(Let's see him/her enlist on the
buddy system with our OTHER favorite troop,
Rush), and mosey on over to the sandbox. But if he/she isn't willing to do that, then perhaps some quiet introspection on the general flow
of all the pro-war rhetoric might be in order.
Failing that, just publicly admit she/he is
on the BushCo payroll...?

I think that the war should be ended, and
the people in this administration impeached
and held publicly accountable for their
runaway fraud, incompetence, and nearly
unimaginable larceny against the taxpaying
public. If you should happen to agree,
here's one website to look at. Sign up today!

http://www.impeachbush.org

[AngryAmish]

"Tell the truth, you've wondered what it would be like, haven't you?"

As a matter of fact, I haven't. I am, in Ann's "fearless" parlance, a faggot.

[NotaBeliever]

Ann Coulter has the right to be as silly as any man out there, and there are puh-lenty of silly men out there shooting off their mouths, feeding the prejudices of their audiences and raking in the filthy lucre for doing it. As a woman, I've always expected *more* of women than Ms Coulter seems willing to provide ... but ... eh. Who cares? She's had several times her 15 minutes of fame, but no one ever said fame depends upon ... actually, fame doesn't depend upon anything but the willingness of the public to pay attention. Apparently, we'll pay attention to anything ... absolutely *anything*.

[Edwestern]

What Ann actually says is much less entertaining than watching the reactions of people after she says it.

I get a hoot counting how many blogs pop up on Huff Po saying, "We shouldn't be paying attention to Ann Coulter, but I really need to write this important piece about her because...." because they just can't resist her.

[Ben Dixon]

Remember free speech is allowing not only what you like to hear, but what you don't like to hear. She has just as much right to say what she wants as you, me, or Micheal Moore.

[Andiri]

Which is more offensive, Coulter or the Saw movies? Coulter, of course. The _Saw_ movies just pander, and just depict violence against fictional people. Coulter does more than pander: she *advocates* violence against *real* people.

[runswithscissors]

Point taken...Ann has the right to say what she thinks. That means everyone else has that right as well. I have no desire to see anyone's opinion banned. To me Ann is hilarious...if it were up to me I'd give her a giant dunce cap and half an hour to say whatever she wants.
Problem is, I watch dissenting voices get censored regularly by conservative media. O'Reilly will cut off anyone who doesn't agree with his narrow views. Hannity is even worse. Think Kristol is going to print a Chomsky essay? Forget it. But these are Coulter's biggest supporters. So why should anyone with a platform allow her to speak when the favor won't be returned?