"If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech - which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech - is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech"

Ann Coulter's quote presents a provocative commentary on the nature and definition of hate speech within the context of complimentary speech and public discourse. By referencing a hypothetical situation, Coulter recommends that accusations made without evidence, especially those that preemptively assume harmful intent, contribute to a damaging and unstable environment. She posits a situation where a university authorities seemingly identifies a speaker, in this case, her, with the capacity for prompting unfavorable reaction through her speech even before it is delivered. This, in Coulter's view, ends up being a catalyst for a series of significantly aggressive responses, including hostile messages on social media, physical dangers, and ultimately, the cancellation of her occasion by authorities.

Coulter is highlighting the paradoxical nature of hate speech accusations, suggesting that the actions of the accusers in this scenario may themselves make up a kind of hate speech. She is arguing that the act of preemptively labeling an individual's speech as hazardous and thus validating violent reactions is, paradoxically, what true hate speech appears like. In essence, she indicates that the labeling function serves to stir worry, prompt hostility, and silence opposing viewpoints through intimidation and violence.

The statement challenges the existing understanding and application of hate speech as it converges with complimentary speech. Coulter appears to promote for a more nuanced understanding of what makes up hate speech, emphasizing that labeling and reducing speech one disagrees with under the guise of avoiding hate can, paradoxically, create an environment swarming with the very bitterness and obstruction it looks for to prevent. Through this argument, Coulter brings into question the subjective application of hate speech meanings and criticizes what she views as the chilling result on open discussion and the exchange of ideas, important parts of totally free speech.