Ann Coulter Is Vile, But Her Outrageous Trump Tweet Isn't Incitement to Violence

Should Twitter ban her for cheering violence against leftist anti-Trump protesters?


Ann Coulter

Many are calling for Twitter to ban Ann Coulter from the platform after she appeared to encourage violence against leftist protesters who have interfered with Donald Trump's rallies. Coulter, formerly a conservative pundit, is now little more than a propagandist who tweets some of the most disgustingly pro-Trump sentiments of any important person the internet. Here is what she wrote on Sunday: 

"I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums." 

Coulter was likely referring to the recent clashes between pro-Trump and anti-Trump activists: a planned Trump rally in Chicago was cancelled on Friday because of security concerns. 

Coulter's remark is truly despicable—she is saying, in no uncertain terms, that the maiming of her political enemies would bring her sadistic pleasure. 

In response, critics of Coulter have called on the platform to ban her on grounds that she is inciting people to violence. But they are mistaken to suggest that Coulter's speech meets the legal definition of incitement: she is not advocating "imminent lawless action," which is what the Supreme Court requires for an accusation of incitement to hold merit. Saying that one would like to see violence happening is not the same as calling on others to commit violence at a specific place and time. 

Twitter, of course, is not the government, and is free to restrict speech as tightly as it wants. Indeed, its terms of service prohibit users from making threats of violence or promoting violence. Does Coulter's Tweet fall under the imprecise category of "promoting violence"? Possibly, sure. 

If Twitter bans Coulter, I won't miss her (okay, actually, I will—I enjoy grumbling about her horrible thoughts!). But users ought to be wary of such crackdowns on allegedly violent or hateful speech, especially since Twitter's efforts on that front seem increasingly politically one-sided. (Related: Did Twitter's Orwellian Trust and Safety Council Get Robert Stacy McCain Banned?) 

NEXT: High School Censors Swastikas, Missing Entire Point of Satirical Anti-Nazi Play, The Producers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I thought we agreed not to pay attention to Coulter’s trolling anymore!

    What is this, 2006 all over again?

    Don’t get trolled by Coulter. She’s a troll!

    1. first they came for ann coulter…

      1. “They” have bad taste.

      2. …I got a bad feeling this

    2. Soave’s fake outrage is pathetic. Most people would love to see those protestors beaten half to death. Including most of the posters here.

      1. Well at least she didn’t say anything about woodchippers…

      2. It’s a perfectly typical and normal reaction for a Sanders/Obama/Hillary left-liberal like Rico.

    3. I came here to say this. Who cares about this troll?

  2. Or, she is actually saying that if leftist protesters engage in violence, Trump supporters should respond in kind. How about we describe her ideas correctly and then respond to them?

    1. Why does Robby take sadistic pleasure in maiming his political enemies?

      The Inquisition should buy him a new comfy chair.

    2. I read it as, “I want to see left-to-right violence reported (aka I want to see what happened on TV)”

  3. It isn’t despicable. It is hyperbolic rhetoric.

    It might be stupid. Or sophomoric. But let’s save “despicable” for things that truly deserve hatred and contempt. If you are moved to hatred or contempt by a tweet that says “I’d like to see a little turnabout”, then you probably need therapy.

    1. It’s like jokingly insinuating that federal prosecutors should be fed into woodchippers.

      1. I can’t wait for the TV show Billions to have an episode where Paul Giamatti fights off crazed internet commentators who wish to see him fed into a wood chipper.

    2. He just doesn’t like Annie. It’s a big crybaby column.

      1. I don’t like her either, but honesty is honesty.

  4. self defense is despicable? Ok Robbie.

    1. Robby’s a pussy pacifist, as well as “a citizen of the world”.

    2. Only when the aggressors are socialists. If they are vulgarians using ‘language’ to assault the downtrodden, then violent retaliation is justified.

  5. Paging Jackass and Hihn!
    More misdirection required!

    1. No references to pot? I feel slighted.

  6. Ann Coulter has done more harm than good to conservatism. That said, this tweet is in plain words, a call for self defense, or at worst retaliation, portraying it as:

    Coulter’s remark is truly despicable?she is saying, in no uncertain terms, that the maiming of her political enemies would bring her sadistic pleasure.

    is gross dishonesty. Where does she say anything about maiming, much less say it in “no uncertain terms”?

    “I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.”

  7. This summer in Philadelphia and Cleveland are gonna be very popcorn worthy.

    1. This^^^, but I’d rather play golf so I won’t be watching these retards….not gonna do it.

      1. Golf is a better thing than convention watching, by far.

  8. Er, sadistic pleasure? Maiming of her political enemies? You really get all that “in no uncertain terms” from the twitter quote?

    Seemed pretty weak to me. You should message your version to her, though, she might like it.

  9. “I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.”

    Self-defense is 100% justified under the NAP in my opinion. What Coulter is describing in that tweet is self-defense, not aggression. It seems likely that Coulter wouldn’t mind some aggression against leftist idiots, but she didn’t say so in this tweet.

    Just wait a little longer, Robby. You’re bound to get an honest-to-goodness despicable tweet soon enough.

    1. Hmm, I think you are right. I read it differently, but “I would like to see Trump supporters defend themselves from hoodlums” makes sense.

  10. Ann Coulter is vile, but she is also remarkably beautiful.

    1. Crusty would.
      Dunno about the rest of her, but that mug needs a feed sack that Kerry just used.

      1. To be clear, I would if she lost a few pounds.

        1. A few months in a political re-education camp would slim her right down.

        2. Duuuude. Ewwww.

        3. Agreed. If she lost 40 pounds she’d be perfect.

        4. Or if she gained a few pounds? Three, to be exact.

      2. She vaguely reminds me of a cross between John Kerry and Edgar Winter. Too bad she inherited her talent from the Kerry side.

    2. Annie is fucking awesome. I adore her cattiness, and the way she makes the progtards writhe in pain. So refreshing compared to all the smiley over polite conservatives that take shit from progtards and don’t hit back.

      Look where that’s gotten us.

      1. Yeah, authoritarianism is the bomb right? And facts are for pussies and faggots. False dichotomies are for winners.

        1. Annie dispenses facts constantly. She tends to be fairly well researched. And she also has the added bonus of not being a flapping-headed Canadian who voted for Justin fucking Trudeau. And she favors control of Maerica’s sovereign borders.

          I disagree with her on a number of fronts, but anyone who gives the progtarded such fits is on the right side overall.

    3. If you think Ann Coulter is good-looking, I know some *ahem* “ladies” down on Stewart Avenue that would make your jaw drop. They’re not only much better looking, they’re more feminine, too. You could hardly imagine that the tits are fake and the dick is not.

      1. Ann does look like a trannie, come to think of it.

    4. You’re kidding right?

  11. “Coulter’s remark is truly despicable?she is saying, in no uncertain terms, that the maiming of her political enemies would bring her sadistic pleasure.”

    Seems more likely that she is engaged in political theater; not really worth your or my attention.

    1. Bingo, why is this so hard to figure…retards in both tribes do this daily…and someone wants me to get worked up about it. Fuck off the lot of you lying assholes because they are all lying assholes.

    2. I pray for all kinds of horrible things to happen to progtards. Most real Americans do. We’re sick of their evil bullshit. Amd given how many people here have posted about running progtards through woodchippers, few here should be throwing stones over ANY of Annie’ss hyperbole.

  12. OMG Coulter calls for people to excerfise their right of self defense.

    What a fucking monster!

    Every good libertarian, and true conservative, knows that people should just cheerfully take beatings from socialist thugs. It’s the only way for them to atone for their white privilege (even if they’re Oreos).

    1. Yeah…..and stop collectivizing against that mob coming at you, too.

  13. If Jennifer Lopez and Ann Coulter had a daughter it would look like Pam Geller.

  14. When the loud-mouth asshole and the looking-for-a-fight asshole finally come to blows at the bar, it’s not impossible but hardly worth trying to decide who actually started it. Because either way the end result is cops and lawyers and drama and bullshit that all the other patrons have to deal with. Luckily in this instance I’m at the unpopular bar across the street, and can just sit back and enjoy the show.

  15. formerly a conservative pundit

    So what is she now? a conservative nonpundit? A non-conservative pundit?

    Coulter’s remark is truly despicable?she is saying, in no uncertain terms, that the maiming of her political enemies would bring her sadistic pleasure.

    FWIW, this is complete bullshit. Just more of the Anti-Trump virtue signaling posted since last summer. If Skeletor had written “I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters” well then, yeah that would be pretty low class. And she would deserve the scorn for saying such.

    But she didn’t. The “set upon by violent leftist hoodlums” is relevant. It implies self defense. It implies that violence has already previously happened against Trumpsters. I see this as a call to a little more effective self-defense.

    What the fuck does any non-leftist owe NAP once the left has abrogated NAP? I may be libertarianish, but I am not a Gandhian pacifist. If leftist thugs want to pick a fight, they should have to endure consequences.

    1. And considering all them stupid, dumb, slack-jawed Trumpters have more guns, I relish the opportunity to watch these stupid leftist bring a baseball bat to a gun fight.

    2. I for one, would love to have these idiot rioters try to pull that shit with me. I would thoroughly enjoy a legal pretext to inflict damage upon them. As much as the law allows.

    3. She’s about as conservative as Bill Mahrer is libertarian.

      She basically just likes insulting and bullying people.

      Hell, at least Bill Mahrer has some ethics, Coulter is basically a con artist, selling hate to the gullible. No wonder she loves Trump

      1. Her books are shit.

        1. No. You just hate her because you’re an open borders kook (which is weird that you’re concerning yourself with MY country’s borders) and she tears those bad ideas apart. Now stop flapping your head and go back to jerking yourself off to your hundreds of glossy’s of Justin Trudeau. Or Justin Bieber. I’m not clear on which. I guess it doesn’t matter so me they’re both empty headed, overly pretty, effeminate Canadians.

      2. Maher is a con artist as well, and you are saying a willowy blonde can be a bully. Good god, you must be a pants shitting pussy if you think Coulter can bully anyone. Progtard much, cmon dipshit she and maher are trolls, that you can’t see it is hilarious . Getting all worked up about it shows that you have nothing serious to add to the debate.

        Maher has ethics…lol.

  16. Stupid Shit Said on Twitter; Someone Outraged – Film @ 11

    1. Would be interesting to see what the internet would look like without every “this person said something stupid/outragous” and “this person/these people were offended” stories. Would it just be cats and porn?

      1. Don’t forget curing cancer with pot.

        1. It can’t hurt to try.

        2. technically, its cannabis-oil enemas that are the miracle cure. Don’t confuse people.

  17. It’s like Reason is trolling us. So, which reason writers are the most honest, and which the least?

    1. Walker, Doherty, KM-W and Sullum are all pretty honest. Gillespie, Fisher, Bailey and Soave are among the least.

      1. ENB is pretty honest

      2. Bailey is perfectly honest.

        1. Not to the fanatic global cooling trolls. Anything less than full-on freeze is heresy.

        2. True, Bailey is why I come back here.

    2. The best ones by and large are the ones who live outside the D.C. area and aren’t really full-time staffers. The Stossels, Judge Napolitanos, and Harsanyis.

      The full-timers who live in or near D.C. are pretty much all fakers to the last.

      1. Yep. Stossel and Napolitano are pretty straightforward. Fox should give Stossel the same resources they give O’Reilly and let him do a daily broadcast.

  18. Meanwhile in Seattle…..t-craters/

  19. Coulter’s remark is truly despicable?she is saying, in no uncertain terms, that the maiming of her political enemies would bring her sadistic pleasure.

    Oh, please, cut the crap. I don’t like Coulter, but that sounds more like sarcasm.

    And it’s something you should reflect on: why is it that opponents to Trump keep provoking violence, while there is little to no violence at Sanders’ rallies?

    1. she is saying, in no uncertain terms,

      The laughable part is that is not at all what she said in “no uncertain terms”.

      Its a rhetorical ‘tell’ of a intellectually dishonest writer = when someone asserts “THERE IS ONLY ONE POSSIBLE READING OF THIS STATEMENT”….? It means that there are obviously multiple ways to read it…. and they want to avoid all but the least-charitable one for convenience’s sake.

      I think Coulter is a dumb cooze and feel no different about her today than i did when i first heard her shtick

      I think you have to be pretty naive and retarded at this point to take anything she says and more seriously than, say, someone like Michael Moore – who spouts boatloads of inane bullshit on the twitters by the hour, and – for the benefit of humankind – is generally ignored.

      That Robby feels the need to share & respond to the offhand-utterances Ann Coulter can only mean she’s someone he considers an important, vital contributor to our collective political discourse. *There’s no other possible reading of why he’d post this*

      1. It’s kind of like when people misuse “literally”… “I was so embarrassed literally died”.

      2. Pretty retarded by Robbie, Coulter is Moore from the right and they both are morons, why does anyone buy the bullshit from either of these bullshit artists. That Robbie is picking a winner is stupid.

        Both sides are stupid , Robbie, Iike your work on campus issues, but if you are a prog you really should move on to salon or slate.

      3. That was one retarded Tweet by Moore even by his standards.

        No calls for censorship needed, eh?!

  20. “She” looks like a guy with very long hair.

    1. Not seeing it. Would.

  21. Oh noooo, not banned from twitter. That would be sooo horrible. Yawn.

    1. Twitter isn’t going to ban some A-list troll-pundit with nearly a million followers for making a reasonable statement that was likely already said by thousands of their users.

      1. And they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t be caving into the twit mob for anything. Thise assholes need to be told to fuck off by everyone.

  22. The whole concept of ‘incitement to violence’ is a huge fallacy. What does incite to violence? When the government restricts speech. Like they do in Europe. Which is why they always end up having wars. Here in America? Not so much. But of course Twitter should ban her, because today I was banned on Breitbart. So there. No but seriously, this is all just too damn funny. I think that people should protest Trump NON-VIOLENTLY – go to his rallies and stand up and yell “Dump! Trump!” and leave when they ask yelling the whole way out. That’s how to shut it down. Of course, they will do the same to Bernie’s and then there’s a real opportunity for a True Libertarian? to get a word in edgewise. Of course, Hilary would get elected in the mean time. But that’s fine by me. It will give us 4 years to prepare for the Libertarian Moment. (And yes, I was banned from Breitbart today for making fun of the Great Wall of Trump – oh the irony.)

    1. The moron cometh…fuck

    2. What got you banned in Breitbart?

    3. We should all go to Bernie rallies and demand he be indicted for his pro-communist speeches.

  23. I realize that the editors at Reason don’t necessarily agree with everything they choose to publish, but shouldn’t the articles have some semblance of reasonableness? What editor looked at this article and thought “Yep, the conclusions Robbie drew from that tweet are interesting and could make sense?”

  24. The more violence you people commit against each other the more I laugh. =D

  25. Ann does seem to be getting morecantankerous with age but she’s TRYING to get people panties in a bunch. That’s her schtick. I kind of have a love/hate thing going on with her. Most of the time I just shake my head at the stuff she says, but some of her insults against the left have been pure gold, and then I want to high five her. The enemy of my enemy.

  26. “Hey. I do not condone silencing my political opponents, because I believe in freedom of speech. However I do condone lining them up against a wall, and shooting them if they do not do what I tell them to.”

    The average Americans opinion on Liberty.

  27. I’m no supporter of violence but there comes a time when interruptions/disruptions of an event where a multitude gather to hear someone is so aggravating, occasionally someone needs their jaw jacked.
    As for suspending or banning or even giving thought to stopping someone from displaying their thoughts – now, that is disgusting. I did not hear anyone crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater; in fact, it’s on a symbolic cyber link which does not even encompass ten million. Are you advocating that someone would grab up a weapon and attend such an event and cause a serious situation? I think the odds of you being mugged walking to your vehicle after work are much greater and that is without any beforehand rhetoric…

  28. Vile propagandist or no, I have to admit that guy still has nice blonde hair.

  29. I used to say turn off the tellie and these people would fade into the ether but of course now they take to Twitter and blab away about whatever rhetorical device is en vogue. Which is another in a long list of real good reasons I don’t Twitter. But it is supremely funny how this woman lives rent free in the minds of millions. You would think people would learn after falling for it 88 times not to engage with rhetoric artists but the urge can overwhelm some. And what about click bait? What about writing a disingenuous article on the coat tails of said rhetoric artist?

  30. Where’s the commenter that called Trump supporters pussies for not fighting back?

    Because he and Robby may want to have words.

  31. Coulter’s statement calling for defensive violence against thugs who have initiated violence is no more “incitement” than calling for state violence in the form of arrests.

    There’s nothing despicable about the tweet at all and it frankly disgusts me to see Soave say that there is.

    Under every theory of libertarianism with which I am familiar, people who are violently confronted can respond with violence. And there’s absolutely nothing despicable about applauding such a response.

  32. I can never hear what Ann has to say. I just keep looking at that adam’s apple and thinking…not a chick.

  33. CNN was interviewing some douche from Ohio named DiTamasso who rushed a Trump stage during a rally. I forget the details because the guy infuriated me and changed the channel.

    Combined with CNN’s attempt to make the guy look like a hero he went on with some bull shit excuses on why he rushed the stage spewing off stupidities about Trump being racist and violent and all that crap.


    In my view, these protesters are going there to provoke and where I come from provocation leads to fisticuffs and perhaps a come-uppance in some cases.

    In other words, some of these people in fact probably deserve the shot in the head they get.

    1. “I want you to get in their face and argue with them.”

      -Barack Obama, September 18, 2008

      You have to give it to the Obamabots; they do exactly what their Messiah tells them to.

  34. important person the internet

    There is not this idea.

  35. It’s no different than if I went to the theater and started shouting and shining a light on the movie screen. I should be forcibly ejected. Whoever organized the event, and the attendees, have a right to their event without my disturbance. If I want to protest I must do so without disrupting the event. My protest, like my fist, stops where their event or face begins.

  36. hey Robbie. If you’re going to tell me what someone said, don’t bother quoting them first. That way, I might actually believe you.

  37. I hope they do ban her. Let’s get this Trust and Safety bullshit out in the open. Let’s have some blatant anti-conservative censorship, front and center on Twitter, so we can stop pretending that there isn’t some sort of systematic political bias. Let’s Kill Twitter.

  38. I am not violent by any means, nor do I ever tend to encourage it; what she said wasn’t anything that appears worthy of concern.

    “I would like to see a little more violence from the innocent Trump supporters set upon by violent leftist hoodlums.”

    What she is suggesting here is simple self defense. READ the words: . . . “innocent” . . . . “set upon by”. The author of this article may not like Trump (I’m not a fan of his, either) but I would think that because they write for a libertarian blog they should be more intelligent.

  39. you had me at “vile,” then went and fucked it up with more words.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.