Ah yes, a man crying about his own "free speech" who can in the same freakin' paragraph say, "Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course.".

When will they ever learn that free speech includes the freedom of other people to tell you to shut up. You don't HAVE to shut up, but then, neither do they. But no, he wants his freedom while threatening everyone else with arrest.

Freedom of speech does not include the guarantee that anyone will listen.

I remember when there used to be conservative speech... and then the douchebag "conservatives" came along like a pack of whiny little biatches and ruined it.

Whamdangler: Ah yes, a man crying about his own "free speech" who can in the same freakin' paragraph say, "Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course.".

When will they ever learn that free speech includes the freedom of other people to tell you to shut up. You don't HAVE to shut up, but then, neither do they. But no, he wants his freedom while threatening everyone else with arrest.

Freedom of speech does not include the guarantee that anyone will listen.

Done in one.

FTA: This quieted the crowd enough that I could begin my talk, which proceeded without further serious incident.

He spoke. They spoke. Hooray, first amendment!

Here, poor, persecuted, highly-paid speaker who spoke freely, have a lollypop.

Whamdangler: Ah yes, a man crying about his own "free speech" who can in the same freakin' paragraph say, "Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course.".

When will they ever learn that free speech includes the freedom of other people to tell you to shut up. You don't HAVE to shut up, but then, neither do they. But no, he wants his freedom while threatening everyone else with arrest.

Freedom of speech does not include the guarantee that anyone will listen.

Uh, ok, but the guy was there to speak and the campus radicals didn't want him to speak. If they were there to dispute the guy, or argue against what he's saying, cool - but if there's an organized effort by these people to prevent him from coming to the campus in the first place...there's the difference.

Looks to me that the article didn't address the issue at all. Was there a concerted effort to stop him? He does travel with a bodyguard...

The overall point of universities being liberal bastions and often stubbornly intolerant is obvious even to Helen Keller. But something about the way this guy writes makes me want to hear the entire 'speech on academic freedom' and the circumstances under which he claims to have been provoked. While it's certainly believable that a group of ultra-libs wouldn't allow him to form a complete sentence, it's also entirely possible that he prodded them and now claims to be persecuted so he can print a column in the WSJ. But I guess we're to believe his version of events, even though there is no reason to believe that 'new conservatives' would ever embellish anything in order to appear persecuted.

Right?

Oh, and:

When Ms. Cloud finished, I pointed out that organizing mobs to scream epithets at invited speakers fit the category of "McCarthyite" a lot more snugly than my support for a pluralism of views in university classrooms.

Neither one remotely fits the category of McCarthyism, least of all students heckling a controversial speaker, you pouting, disingenuous twat.

Maybe you should just go ahead and call them Nazis while you're at it.

Could David Horowitz be any more of a whiney douchebag than he already is? YES HE CAN!

BuckTurgidson: Maybe you should just go ahead and call them Nazis while you're at it.

Most of these campus organizations act just like the brown shirts did back in the early '30s.

NewportBarGuy: Could David Horowitz be any more of a whiney douchebag than he already is? YES HE CAN!

like it or not, he's got a point.

Mordant: I remember when there used to be conservative speech... and then the douchebag "conservatives" came along like a pack of whiny little biatches and ruined it.

Read up on Horowitz some time. If anyone would know and understand radical activists, it'd be him.

Weaver95: like it or not, he's got a point.

What exactly is his point? His point is that he threatened others with arrest for their speech (violation of the first amendment) while no one threatened him with arrest (hence, no violation of his free speech rights)? Was that his point?

Whamdangler: What exactly is his point? His point is that he threatened others with arrest for their speech (violation of the first amendment) while no one threatened him with arrest (hence, no violation of his free speech rights)? Was that his point?

FTA:

"Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course."

Horowitz threatened no one. The protesters were so violent and out of control, that security had to be called in for the protection of the speaker. THAT is his point.

OK, I change my statement. Students were threatened with arrest on his behalf, by the administration. Happy?

Second...are you REALLY going down that road that students holding signs and shouting were "violent and out of control"? Really?

Weaver95: Mordant: I remember when there used to be conservative speech... and then the douchebag "conservatives" came along like a pack of whiny little biatches and ruined it.

Read up on Horowitz some time. If anyone would know and understand radical activists, it'd be him.

There was a time I would have cared, but the constant background noise and bullshiat has become so overwhelming now that it's not worth trying to filter it out and hear the worthwhile messages. Congratulations to all who contribute to that.

Weaver95: like it or not, he's got a point.

No, he really doesn't. Just because your opinion is in the minority, does not equal the persecution he claims.

Most people disagree with his bullshiat, many of them are reactionary college students. What a shock.

It says Freedom of Speech, it doesn't mean we have to listen.

Are these people "violent and out of control"? Or is it just the ones that don't yell the messages you want to hear that are "violent and out of control"?

... because Ward Churchill, a TENURED faculty member, was embraced by his university? He was FIRED on what a court has found out to be trumped-up charges. He's a douchebag, but certainly not a conservative douchebag, and they tried to shut him up too.

Try not to focus on your personal butthurt. It gets in the way of clear thinking when your head is up your ass.

Weaver95: BuckTurgidson: Maybe you should just go ahead and call them Nazis while you're at it.

Most of these campus organizations act just like the brown shirts did back in the early '30s.

*eyeroll*

NewportBarGuy: It says Freedom of Speech, it doesn't mean we have to listen.

Then don't go to the speech. Pretty easy concept. But since were at it, let me break out my favorite monologue on free speech. He makes some great point on why you should let those that you disagree with have their say.

Yes, because these attempts to shout down those with whom the campus lefties disagree never escalate to violence. (new window)

Dancin_In_Anson: Then don't go to the speech.

That's the other side of the coin. We can. I went to the teabagging here in RI. I was not disruptive or rude, in fact I never said a word. I just wanted to watch people falling over themselves to hate something they can't put their finger on.

There were a few people who showed up to voice their displeasure with the group, but it was all pretty harmless.

If you seek to exercise your First Amendment Rights you have to know that someone else exercising theirs can tell you to STFU. That's kind of how it works.

MuadDib: Yes, because these attempts to shout down those with whom the campus lefties disagree never escalate to violence. (new window)

No one at Horowitz's speech was arrested. There is no mention of violence or people being out of control. They spoke. They made their opinion known. They let him speak (albeit with some interruption). He said what he came to say. He could not illustrate that anyone was violent or out of control, so he had to point to A DIFFERENT time and place when some people were out of control. As did you.

So, his point, as I can only guess based on an article titled "Campus Leftists Don't Believe in Free Speech" is that people with differing opinions, who voice those opinions and then let you voice yours, and who were not violent or out of control...SOMEHOW "don't believe in free speech."

MuadDib: Yes, because these attempts to shout down those with whom the campus lefties disagree never escalate to violence.

Great American Tom Tancredo ran away like a scared child? Color me shocked.

NewportBarGuy: That's the other side of the coin. We can. I went to the teabagging here in RI. I was not disruptive or rude, in fact I never said a word. I just wanted to watch people falling over themselves to hate something they can't put their finger on.

This just shows that your level of maturity is much higher than those at tu.

NewportBarGuy: MuadDib: Yes, because these attempts to shout down those with whom the campus lefties disagree never escalate to violence.

Great American Tom Tancredo ran away like a scared child? Color me shocked.

Yes, in the face of 30 people fighting with police to get into the hall, protestors breaking windows, and 200 more "liberals" outside exulting in 'shutting down' his speech, Tancredo leaving is clearly the most salient fact.

I'd like to hear the other side, or better yet a neutral side of these "McCarthyite" protesters. That being said, one, bull farking shiat to the I don't know of a single leftist speaker among the thousands who visit campuses every term who has been obstructed or attacked by conservative students, who are too decent and too tolerant to do that. Just get someone who supports abortion and you're waving a red flag to a bull. That, and this woman really is farking crazy, that International Socialist Organization among other things considers itself to stands in the tradition of revolutionary socialists Karl Marx, V.I. Lenin and Leon Trotsky. Have these people read freaking history?

Dancin_In_Anson: Then don't go to the speech.

I am going to follow your advice and not attend the debate that ensues when this goes green.

Whamdangler: Ah yes, a man crying about his own "free speech" who can in the same freakin' paragraph say, "Fortunately, a spokesperson for the administration was present to threaten the disrupters with arrest if they continued on this course.".

When will they ever learn that free speech includes the freedom of other people to tell you to shut up. You don't HAVE to shut up, but then, neither do they. But no, he wants his freedom while threatening everyone else with arrest.

Freedom of speech does not include the guarantee that anyone will listen.

so you think freedom of speech includes shouting down people at a lecture? and breaking windows and assault?

you consider this acceptable behavior for college students?

I'm supposed to believe David Horowitz's account of events? Seriously?

...communists killed 120 million people in the last century trying to implement Marx's ideas.

Actually, they killed those people in a perverted attempt to NOT be Marxist. But, whatever, dude.

real shaman: so you think freedom of speech includes shouting down people at a lecture? and breaking windows and assault?

you consider this acceptable behavior for college students?

I'm sorry, I must have missed the point where the people in the article were magically transported to a Tancredo speech. Try to stay on topic, Chet.

did they look like these guys? they managed to twist poor little Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' widdle arms so much they had to call of the 2000 recount for fear of violence.

real shaman: so you think freedom of speech includes shouting down people at a lecture?

Absolutely.

and breaking windows and assault?

Please point this out in the article.

Yeee-haw! The thread went green. Time to break out the party favors:



I'm sure nothing other than rational, well thought out, polite discussions will ensue once this hits the main page and the vast troll armies come thundering into this thread.

Whamdangler:
What exactly is his point? His point is that he threatened others with arrest for their speech (violation of the first amendment) while no one threatened him with arrest (hence, no violation of his free speech rights)? Was that his point?

You're reading it incorrectly.

Students should be allowed, and aptly did, protest outside and inside the hall when he entered. But, being invited by some conservative groups- he was a formal guest of the university and on private property. They weren't going to be arrested for speaking- but for disturbing the peace of the auditorium.

Your free speech rights don't include the ability to march into a private meeting- even if it's open to the public- and prevent them from discussing their issues.

Saying that,

This guy is an asshat, Weaver. More importantly, these speakers intentionally say controversial things to get people riled up. For instance, some of David's books:

101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (new window) (No William Ayers- in 2006, either)

One Party Classroom (new window)

Indoctrination U.: The Left's War Against Academic Freedom Link (new window)

Him and other conservatives- and it's only been getting stronger as a tactic- have been accusing their opponents of vile crimes against our freedoms, and then using every method possible to trick them into appearing that way.

If you come onto a campus- even on in Texas- and accuse liberals of McCarthyism and fascism just because you don't like their views- and then complain when they try to get you kicked off for hate speech (which many liberal groups try to do)- you are outright committing fraud by claiming your speech has been violated.

They are trying to do exactly what Neo-Nazis, KKK, and other hate groups do- try to push you over the line first. But now they are doing it to kids with no civil rights experience, who don't know any better.

sloppy shoes: Your free speech rights don't include the ability to march into a private meeting- even if it's open to the public- and prevent them from discussing their issues.

If it's open to the public, then by definition, you can do this.

Whamdangler: real shaman: so you think freedom of speech includes shouting down people at a lecture?

Absolutely.

And when it happens to you, I wonder what will happen?

shouting down someone at a speech isn't just rude, it's pointless. In effect, you are saying that what this person is saying scares you so badly that you have to try and drown him or her out. That sort of thing only makes people want to listen harder, not ignore the person giving the speech. It's also not conducive to the environment of free and open exchange of ideas that others tell me is the purpose of a college campus.

So you don't like the guy. Fine. Then feel free to give a speech that says you don't like the guy. But don't shout him down while he's making his remarks. that vindicates him and makes you look like the asshole.

cameroncrazy1984: sloppy shoes: Your free speech rights don't include the ability to march into a private meeting- even if it's open to the public- and prevent them from discussing their issues.

If it's open to the public, then by definition, you can do this.

that's some mighty fine hair splitting ya got there lou....

Weaver95: cameroncrazy1984: sloppy shoes: Your free speech rights don't include the ability to march into a private meeting- even if it's open to the public- and prevent them from discussing their issues.

If it's open to the public, then by definition, you can do this.

that's some mighty fine hair splitting ya got there lou....

How is it hair-splitting to point out that a public meeting is by definition a public meeting? I call that pointing out the bleeding obvious.

cameroncrazy1984:
If it's open to the public, then by definition, you can do this.

No, be definition, you can't. Open to the public does not mean the public owns it. Or operates it. It means the public is open to view it.

Even when the public does own said venue- ie court and most likely U of Texas- it still does not mean you have the right to disrupt events. You can't go into a classroom and prevent the teacher from talking. You can't stand up in court and prevent trial from happening. You can't go into an auditorium and be so disruptive as that the campus speaker cannot speak.

I assume this article was written in 1995 or something, right? No one could be so stupid as to trot out these irrelevant talking points now, right?

sloppy shoes: Even when the public does own said venue- ie court and most likely U of Texas- it still does not mean you have the right to disrupt events. You can't go into a classroom and prevent the teacher from talking. You can't stand up in court and prevent trial from happening. You can't go into an auditorium and be so disruptive as that the campus speaker cannot speak.

No, but you certainly have the right to have your opinion heard at said meeting. It's not illegal to yell at a speaker while he's speaking. Disrespectful? Yeah. Illegal? Nope.

Ok, I see that this was written by David Horowitz. Here's my own tale - I actually *ORGANIZED* a David Horowitz speech at UC Berkeley. I was VP of the Berkeley College Republicans and we had him come talk. Not only did no one protest, but the auditorium was barely half full. No one cared, David.

sloppy shoes: Him and other conservatives- and it's only been getting stronger as a tactic- have been accusing their opponents of vile crimes against our freedoms, and then using every method possible to trick them into appearing that way.

Trick them into appearing that way? How stupid does that make the organizations then, by falling so easily into his trap?

cameroncrazy1984: How is it hair-splitting to point out that a public meeting is by definition a public meeting? I call that pointing out the bleeding obvious.

if you go to a public meeting with plans to disrupt that meeting, expect to be expelled from said meeting.

And by the way - when you do something like that, you proved Horowitz to be correct. you weren't there to listen to new ideas, you were there to reject open communication.

Horowitz: 'college campuses are full of intolerant retards.'
Intolerant retard: 'hell no, we won't go!' [disrupt] [disrupt]
H: 'see what I mean?'
Ir: 'hey, waitaminute....'

cameroncrazy1984: If it's open to the public, then by definition, you can do this.

Go into an open session of a trial court or state court of appeals, which are generally open to the public, and try shouting down the speaker at lectern.

Let me know what ahppens.

cameroncrazy1984:
No, but you certainly have the right to have your opinion heard at said meeting. It's not illegal to yell at a speaker while he's speaking. Disrespectful? Yeah. Illegal? Nope.

1. Actually no you don't. There is no guarantee that Mr. Horowitz has to hear what they have to say. A campus group invited him to speak- he doesn't even have to take any questions, nor does he have to take all questions.

2. It is illegal. And they can arrest you- but hopefully just remove you. You aren't running the meeting. 'Open to the public' means you are open to view it, and participate in a manner the organizers see fit. Anything else is disturbing the peace- especially if you are preventing them from conducting business.

Weaver95: And by the way - when you do something like that, you proved Horowitz to be correct. you weren't there to listen to new ideas, you were there to reject open communication.

What's the problem with that? Don't we have freedom of speech so we can tell other people to shut up? We obviously can't force him to do so, but if it is our opinion that we want him to shut up, we can say so.

KaponoFor3:
Trick them into appearing that way? How stupid does that make the organizations then, by falling so easily into his trap?

College students are not versed in the proper political rebounds to every argument. And to be honest- most of the people protesting probably weren't excessively intelligent, but merely the left's version of Teabaggers.

Further, and I don't always agree with this, there is an increasingly aware group of liberals who wish to brand everyone on the right as a generator of hate speech, and would very much like them to be banned from campus speaking.

now, a better way to deal with someone you don't like on campus might go something like this:

Horowitz: 'college campuses are filled with intolerant retards!'
Student #1: 'well that was harsh.'
Student #2: 'yeah. let's ditch this lecture and get a beer.'
#1: 'sounds like a plan to me.'
H: 'hello!? didn' you hear what I said? you're all a bunch of retards!'
#2: 'did you want to get a beer with us?'
H: 'um...no.'
#1: 'well alrightie then. we're off to down a few at the pub. let us know how your retard speech turns out.'
H: '...'