A sad day for freedom of speech. University of Ottawa student protests led to the canceling of a scheduled speech by controversial conservative writer, Ann Coulter.

Nothing wrong with protesting. That’s just what the tea-parties were about. But for one group of students to obstruct what another group might want to hear is uncivil, to say the least.

And then there was that letter by University of Ottawa Provost Houle. It all but threatened Coulter with criminal prosecution should she cross over into “hate speech.”

“I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.

You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”

(http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2710037#ixzz0j8rftU3r)

At Salon, Glenn Greenwald points out the creepiness of such a threat, even for a “hate-monger,” while Coulter grabbing onto the “hate” tag, is accusing Houle of a hate-crime, in his turn.

Personally, I’d like to see the word “hate” given a rest. Coulter’s language is often crude, insensitive, and juvenile, sometimes inflammatory, and a lot of the time just plain wrong,  but “hate” is pretty harsh. And far too broad. Didn’t Noam Chomsky – whose writing on foreign policy I admire – call Murray Rothbard’s writing – which I admire even more – a form of hate?

These days “hate” is just invective – like “fascist” or “Nazi” – for something you don’t like.

Besides, even Ann Coulter can be insightful and truthful.**

[Admittedly, the ratio of insight to invective in her writing has diminished over time, but some part of the blame for that also rests on her critics. Liberal venues- which are the prestigious ones – are often so intolerant of conservative views that they ignore or ostracize people off the bat, unfairly. That reinforces conservatives in their role as  “victims” of liberal close-mindedness, and they give up on respectability. Eventually, they start playing to the roughest part of the gallery, turn into caricatures of themselves, find that lucrative, and end up settling into the role of class clown and disruptor of all things civil and polite….the train-wreck mode of discourse, as some wag puts it].

Ann Coulter has perfected this strategy of ticking- off the left, fueling the right, and making big money in the process.

And today, she’s also a free-speech martyr.

Now, that’s what I call a business instinct…

** In one notorious remark about John Edwards, Coulter implied that the senator wouldn’t be above using a family tragedy for political advantage. At the time, her remark was (rightfully) denounced, and by none more loudly than the tragic Elizabeth Edwards. But that denunciation sounds poignantly off-base when reread today.