Dammit, I was going to avoid blogging this whole “Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia” brouhaha because other bloggers are handling the manufactured controversy so beautifully, but now I feel I must. There are only three reasons that I can think of, after really putting some thought to it, why you might genuinely fear an act of political speech.*
- It’s inciting.
- It’s convincing.
- It’s so boring it could cause everyone to pass out and start drooling on themselves.
I’m not talking legitimate fears necessarily (they might or might not be) or making excuses for censorship. And well, the last one was something of a joke. Sort of. But I’m talking about real reasons that you might have a fear of an act of speech. For instance, I can find anti-choice speech scary for being convincing—it might not convince me, but it’s frightening to think it might convince enough to swing an election or something like that. I might find a KKK rally inciting, and that’s frightening. I don’t think in either case there’s a legitimate reason to deprive people making these kinds of speech their freedom of speech, especially when they’ve been invited somewhere. I do think there’s small, controlled situations where you might want to limit the kinds of speech (like in a blog comments) because it’s inciting and unproductive. But I’d never say that people who leave the “Faggots die!” comments that I’d delete here should be deprived of a right to leave those comments on blogs where they’re welcome or blogs where the moderator feels that the value of mocking those assholes outweighs the value of limiting trolling.
Which is all to say that it’s a little confusing exactly why right wingers are weeping and moaning at Ahmadinejad’s speech. Even if you assume correctly that there’s a strong pro-censorship bent to all this, what exactly do they fear that would make them feel that censorship is an appropriate reaction? Do they honestly think that Ahmadinejad is going to incite violence somehow, that there will be a lot of followers at Columbia whipped into a frenzy at his words? Of course not. Do they think that he’s going to convince people to suddenly give up Western civilization in droves? There’s something of a foothold there; a lot of right wingers are authoritarians in the exact same mold as Ahmadinejad, and they might fear losing some of their right wing nuts to his brand of right wing nuttery. But again, I doubt that anyone actually fears that, because the first rule about authoritarians is that they tend to stick close to home. Our brand of right wingnuttery will always seem superior to the American nuts precisely because it’s our brand. Some of the pearl-clutchers might buy, just a little, the notion that somehow freedom-loving, fornication-happy liberals are going to decamp to Iran, but, nah. I’d believe that you think a peanut butter jar disproves evolution before you’d believe that going to see “The Vagina Monologues” is one step removed from becoming a religious nut who disapproves of roughly everything fun. As Ezra notes, the crowd at Columbia laughed their asses off at Ahmadinejad. The fact that he even felt the need to provide evidence that major American universities are not supporting fundamentalist Muslim looniness speaks to the silliness of this entire controversy.
I got an email from a reader who suggested the manufactured controversy was a distraction from the real issues, which sounds like a pretty good theory to me. At this point, right wingers are so eager to distract from the massive failures of the Bush administration for the past 7 years that they’ll run with any manufactured controversy. If some right wing media outlets starts running with the, “Liberals prefer cats over dogs OHMIGOD THE WORLD IS ENDING” story, the bloggers will pick it up. Anything but talk about reality.
But I think Glenn Greenwald’s point—that this entire manufactured controversy is being conducted to establish the sense that we’re at war with Iran even though we’re not—is the closest to the truth. The content of his speech isn’t the issue; the issue is making it seem like Columbia is somehow consorting with the enemy, when Iran is not our enemy. Which scares the piss out of me—the fact that our war-mongering in Iraq has been an utter failure doesn’t seem to humble those rattling their war sabers so much as make them hungry to create more strife and take more lives.
*I’m not talking about slander, insults, secret-telling, etc. Just advancing political arguments, even really nasty ones, like Ahmadinejad is doing here.
Polygamist Jeffs guilty: accomplice to rape for arranging marriage of a 14-year old girl to her 19-year old cousin.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/09/polygamist-jeff.html
the fact that our war-mongering in Iraq has been an utter failure doesn’t seem to humble those rattling their war sabers so much as make them hungry to create more strife and take more lives.
Of course it doesn’t–they’re not the ones who’ll be in danger, and neither will those close to them. That’s why they can talk tough. Remember, these are the people who claim, without a hint of irony, that we lost Vietnam because we left too soon, or because we didn’t nuke them, or both, and they advocate the same for Iraq, the staying and the nuking, I mean. So what can you say to those people, other than that if we have any say in the matter they’ll never be allowed near the reins of government again? I mean, Michael Ledeen, who is still taken seriously by these right-wingers, has been saying that we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979, so to them, inviting Ahmedinajad is treasonous. It’s like inviting Ho Chi Minh to speak in 1969, as far as they’re concerned.
“that this entire manufactured controversy is being conducted to establish the sense that we’re at war with Iran even though we’re not”
This combined with the Lieberman-Kyl amendment
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/25/durbin-lieb-kyl-amdt/
is awfully scary.
As far as saber rattling goes, Darth Cheney will hide out in the Cheney Bunker until the bitter end, with a shotgun in one hand and a bottle of scotch in the other…
This is an AIPAC manufactured controversy. Ahmadinejad doesn’t even hold real power in Iran.
I’m really glad you mentioned this. It’s important to point out that a packed house of college students couldn’t help but laugh at the president of a major world power. That says plenty about how serious or threatening his ideas are. Like:
1. “There needs to be more research on the Holocaust.” No, there doesn’t. There’s plenty of evidence and we still have first-person accounts. This conversation is pretty near over.
Personally, I think there are way better arguments against Israel anyways. He should start using those.
2. “There are no homosexuals in Iran. It’s a phenomenon we don’t have.” Almost don’t, that is, because the gov’t apparently jails the gay right out of the misguided little creatures.
Who is this guy gonna sway? Who would ever argue that the US should emulate Iran in some regard?
You know, reading that point, I suddenly wish that we had a food we called “Iranian something-or-other” so that we could rename it “Freedom something-or-other”.
Freedom caviar
“Freedom Caviar”
That’s way better than “Freedom-Contra”.
And of course, the folks leading the charge against Ahmadinejad are many of the same folks who saw absolutely nothing at all wrong with Ollie North selling arms to the Iranians in the mid-80s to fund their pet proxy wars in Latin America (Nicaragua anyone?).
There are two reasonable objections I could see to inviting Ahmadinejad. One would be that they were not prepared to give him a respectful welcome. Now many would argue that dude does not deserve a respectful welcome, and I’d be hard pressed to disagree . . . but as a host, its bad form to invite someone who you *plan* on slamming and/or laughing at. Its simply bad manners. If you think someone is a joke at best, and a horrible person at worst, just don’t invite them to speak.
Don’t get me wrong, if you invite someone and they go off the deep end, laugh away. No gay people in Iran? Yeah, that’s pretty funny. But planning on disrespecting a guest is cruel and petty.
The other legitimate objection would be that, perhaps some people don’t deserve to speak in your forum. Call it quality control. At some point, when you give someone a microphone, you endorse them to some extent as a person worth listening to. There is a place for vibrant, diverse debate and I don’t want to say that Ahmadinejad is in fact worthy of being shunned . . . but at the same time, there are a limited number of folks who can get billing at a speaking event, and who an organization chooses does say they value what that person has to say.
That said, Columbia University gave a head of state the opportunity to speak with American students. I think there was nothing particularly indefensible about having him speak. What we are seeing is the worst sort of political correctness, not just a pejorative label for inclusive language or anti-derogatory speech, but actual attacks made on people and institutions for not following the proper party line.
“There needs to be more research on the Holocaust.”
Which translates to:
“There are still a few Jews and others around who lived through the Holocaust, but if we wait just a few more years we can REALLY twist and discount the evidence without fear of correction from first-hand witnesses…”
I was at a lecture by Tom Hayden tonight. Some little fuckwit College Republican got up with his little, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″ bullshit, and then tried to claim that maybe the reason we’re in Iraq is because Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power.
Absolute. Batshit. Insane.
MAJeff, what was Hayden lecturing about?
The reason we’re in Iraq, and the reason that attacking Iran is seen by the Right as the solution to the problems in Iraq, is pretty simple, I think: the US is the most powerful country on Earth (this is axiomatically true, despite the evidence of the limitations of power from New Orleans to Baghdad), so the more conflicts we’re in, the more opportunities we have to win and Impose Our Will.
Hunter S. Thompson said not long before his suicide that the US was a nation of used-car salesmen. Lately, I’ve been thinking that we’re a country of cowards and bullies (many of us switching between the two) and that fear has replaced gold as the basis for our currency.
Well, he does. I don’t have any doubt that Ahmadinejad seriously believes the Holocaust was fake or exaggerated. All evidence suggests that he’s perfectly intelligent and only delusional or grandiose in the calculated manner practiced by many heads of state, such as George Bush, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez.
You’ll notice that when he actually starts talking about Israel in earnest, most of his arguments implicitly accept the reality of the Holocaust but discount its weight in justifying Zionism — which is certainly a matter for reasonable debate.
I’d give even odds that he was joking. The other 50% is that it’s a calculated statement akin to Chavez suggesting that Bush smelled of sulfur. A little bit of absurdity goes a long way in drawing the line between “horrible, risible little man” and “horrible little man that we must destroy utterly.”
Well, he’s not trying to sway anyone over here. His appearance serves two purposes — to increase his personal identification in the eyes of Americans with the government of Iran (which he largely does not control) and to enhance his reputation at home and in the Middle East. Believe me, whatever silly statements he made are going to be dwarfed by the fact that he wasn’t permitted to speak without a bunch of Americans running out and gibbering about how he’s a dictator and a terrorist.
Here’s how it’s going to play in Iran: Ahmadinejad visits the US and is verbally assaulted by protesters, a university president, and a supposedly independent interviewer. The line of abuse taken by these is pretty much consonant with American propaganda about Iran and Ahmadinejad, it’s at least partly false, and it indicates that the American elite is gearing for war.
“It’s so boring it could cause everyone to pass out and start drooling on themselves.”
Actually, this was my experience reading the transcript. All the “Jesus, Mohammed, Abraham” crap he started with was so long-winded and contentless, I lost interest by the second page of the five pages. If he said anything I should be pissed about after that, it was too late.
Some little fuckwit College Republican got up with his little, “9/11, 9/11, 9/11″ bullshit, and then tried to claim that maybe the reason we’re in Iraq is because Iran is attempting to become a nuclear power.
Nobody tazed him? Really? Why not?
Seriously, though, any college republicans who want to go invade Iran are welcome to report to their local recruiting office and sign up.
Oh, and the real problem the wingnuts have with Mr. No Homos speaking?
HE SOUNDS JUST LIKE ONE OF THEM!!!
“You know, reading that point, I suddenly wish that we had a food we called “Iranian something-or-other” so that we could rename it “Freedom something-or-other”.”
Freedom cats?
Kyle: “Who is this guy gonna sway?”
Answer: Imaginary gays, of course.
I was listening to talk radio yesterday, and all the usual right-wing blowhards were flummoxed by the fact that the Iranian president wasn’t given a blowjob on stage (followed by a toebath,) presented with a Jewskin lampshade for his nightstand reading light, and then given a couple ounces of plutonium in a golden lockbox. That the president of a treasonous liberal university actually didn’t do all that made the whole lead-in to the MoveOn.org II: Electoral Bugaboo story fizzle into a bunch of hot air.
I actually listened to the Ahmedinejad speech, and the overwhelming impression I came away with was that this guy is not just crazy, but stupid, too. It was clear that he was hoping to pitch himself as some kind of defender of reason, but he just couldn’t stay away from the religious wackjobbery.
On the holocaust question - I agree that there needs to be more research. Not as to whether it happened (duh), but as to what lead so many apparently decent people to go along with the Nazi agenda. Understanding that might give us some insight into how to prevent future occurrences. Unfortunately we have elevated the holocaust to a whole other level of evil, as if the application of industrial technologies to the implementation of the ends of age-old bigotry somehow makes the underlying impulses immune to examination. That’s the terrifying thing about the holocaust - not the numbers, but the essential mundane nature of the motivations behind it. The fact that the Nazis were so goddamn efficient in the implementation of their evil plan is noteworthy, but not the important lesson. Industrial scale mass murder is evil, but it will continue to happen unless we realize that the basic elements of human nature are the same whether it’s a small group of clansmen lynching a single negro or an equal sized group of SS men herding a thousand Jews into a gas chamber. It’s not the numbers that we need to come to terms with - it’s the fact that the same human nature that bids us love one another also contains the seeds which lead us to destroy one another.
Here’s the problem, Amanda: first, you use the term “freedom of speech” to justify Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia. Since he’s not a US citizen, he doesn’t have that right. If you’re saying that Columbia U has that right, and is expressing that right through Ahmadinejad, it seems Columbia U is agreeing with Ahmadinejad’s views, as they are endorsing his speech. Further, since Ahmadinejad has no right to free speech, there is no censorship.
Second, enough with the straw man arguments about the reasons why people don’t want Ahmadinejad to speak. You look ridiculous. One argument you didn’t mention is that by allowing this guy to speak at one of our higher institutions of learning, you are stating that this person has something important to say. A university president wouldn’t make a mockery of his school by allowing some kook to take the podium. By stating that Ahmadinejad is relevant, you bolster his idiotic and dangerous claims. That is what people don’t like.
Third, and I know I can’t convince you or your ilk of this, but there is clear evidence that Iran is helping the terrorists kill our troops in Iraq. We are at war with Iran, because Iran has fired the first shots.
Lastly, anyone who thinks Greenwald is credible after his sockpuppet episodes needs their head examined.
I’ll second togolosh; there definitely needs to be more research into the Holocaust. There’s a lot of analysis that I’m sure just hasn’t been done yet (I’m a medievalist, so it’s WAY out of my field), but obviously no one needs to determine whether or not it happened.
Thank you for saving me the trouble of blogging about this red herring.
Ahmedinejad is a Bush clone with blacker hair and a goatee. Both are rogue leaders that have a long proven record of misogyny and homophobia. Both also have jailed people who spoke out against their governments.
For some of these guys, just the fact of anyone being allowed to disagree with them out loud in public is proof that the end of the world is nigh and the Authority they worship is being insuffiently enforced. they’re not afriad of the content or effect of the speech. They’re worried about who gets to hold the mike.
Ah, Iran-contra hearings…good times, good times!
“…with a shotgun in one hand and a bottle of scotch in the other.”
Well, Dick Cheney’s approach seems to be the same method as Boston Legal’s Denny Crane- pity both of them aren’t fictional as well as cartoonish characters.
You’ll notice that when he actually starts talking about Israel in earnest, most of his arguments implicitly accept the reality of the Holocaust but discount its weight in justifying Zionism — which is certainly a matter for reasonable debate.
Yeesh. This is why every now and then I have to take a break from liberal blogs.
A structural analysis of ending the war in Iraq.
The kid actually opened with, “I hope no one’s going to taze me.” He then went on with this list of how many people died in other wars and really how insignificant the number of deaths in this war is.
Hayden actually made the poiint about those who wish us to stay should be signing up to go over.
One of the students asked me what I would do about the Ahmadinejad speech, and I replied, “Probably go home and ignore him.”
The fact that the Nazis were so goddamn efficient in the implementation of their evil plan is noteworthy, but not the important lesson.
Actually, it’s shockingly crucial and interesting - if you want a stomach-churning lesson about the perils of global capitalism run amok.
I just got done reading IBM and the Holocaust, which makes the case that without the active cooperation of International Business Machines and their dedication to providing customer solutions, the Nazis would never have been able to orchestrate the mass murder of 11 million people in such a short time. It’s a good long book that starts with something almost know one paid attention to (a census tabulator in the Holocaust museum) and untangles exactly how the Nazis were able to make the trains run on time, the consequences of which were devastating for Jews and others.
They largely got away with their role in the Holocaust because Americans were just as dependent on their machines as the Nazis were, so after the war no one asked too many questions about how so many of their machines made it to bombproof bunkers in the Axis territories.
I’m probably just a wacko conspiracy theorist, but on the face of it, doesn’t there also seem to be a bit of the ol’ ethnic cleansing desires mixed in with the “we want our oil out of your land” mantra? I just get the feeling our good ol’ boy right-wing hopes they can lower the brown numbers a bit over there and, if they can get some oil while doing it, all the better.
I’m going to watch my Freedom cat curl up on my Freedom rug while she eats some Freedom sturgeon. Then I’ll pop on 300 and watch a horde of sweaty, muscular men slaughter an even larger horde of ancient Freedoms.
Yeesh. This was exactly the kind of blind attitude that gets the Iranians and other groups annoyed as well.
Joe’s, please find me in the Constitution where they assert freedom of speech should be denied non-citizens. Anyway, the Constitution is a red herring. I pointed out there’s nothing to fear about his speech.
Your last piece of bullshit proves my point. You guys want this crazy war, even though a) we’ll lose and b) it will make things worse. Sick. Considering that we’re way understaffed on the military, I’m assuming your eagerness to go to war means you’re enlisting, right?
Right?
I think we’ll need to call in Morbo on this one. Morbo?RIGHTS DO NOT WORK LIKE THAT!
Thank you, Morbo.
In more detail: the Bill of Rights describes a set of limitations on governmental power via the whole “Congress shall make no law” bit. For example, the government doesn’t how the power to interfere with the free exercise of religion. This generally doesn’t apply to people in other nations, not because they lack those rights, but because they’re not living under our government.
But the Bill of Rights explicitly denies the government power to deny someone the free exercise of their religion. While other governments may do so, and it’s none of our government’s business that they do, our government can’t. It doesn’t matter that Ahmedinejad isn’t a citizen; your government can’t start going all Soviet Russia on him because they don’t like what he has to say.
Your fascist power fantasies can’t be carried out against anyone, not citizens nor non-citizens, without chewing up and discarding our form of government. Own up to that, please.
Well put, grendelkhan.
The country’s Founding Rich White Men also made explicitly clear their opinion that freedom was a fundamental human right, that could not be taken away and was not established by written law.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Also, the rights that are really in question are Columbia’s, who is being threatened with punishment for who they invite to speak. As much as it pains the anti-intellectual right to admit this, colleges do incur the protection of the Constitution.
Joe’s, please find me in the Constitution where they assert freedom of speech should be denied non-citizens.
Actually, the Bill of Rights applies only to American citizens. There doesn’t need to be any negative assertion that its rights do not apply to non-citizens.
The country’s Founding Rich White Men also made explicitly clear their opinion that freedom was a fundamental human right, that could not be taken away and was not established by written law.
The Founding Fathers made clear that there are a handful of rights given to us by God, not by government. Legally, free speech–particularly political free speech–is protected by very restrictive rules which bar nearly every sort of content-based restriction.
But seriously. We’re not talking about the government restricting speech here. What we are talking about is whether it is appropriate for the U.S. to give a platform to a murderous dictator from which he can spew his own brand of anti-Semitism and hate. It’s not merely that Ahmadinejad spoke at the U.N.; it’s that an American university thought he deserved a different platform.
Also, the rights that are really in question are Columbia’s, who is being threatened with punishment for who they invite to speak. As much as it pains the anti-intellectual right to admit this, colleges do incur the protection of the Constitution.
Columbia does have a right to invite whomever they like to speak. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences for doing so.
What irritates me is the way our main-stream media play into the hands of the Administration by the way in which they have focused the spotlight on this. When all is said and done, what really happened? Ahmadinejad gave a speech at a university - BFD!. Incidentally, what would the MSM have said if the tables were turned? If Bush had spoken at an Iranian University and his introducer had described him and “petty and ridiculous?”
. What we are talking about is whether it is appropriate for the U.S. to give a platform to a murderous dictator from which he can spew his own brand of anti-Semitism and hate.
WTF?
Look, you aren’t answering the question - WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? What is giving him this “platform” going to get him that you’re so afraid of? Why do you fear this little man, who would have no power whatsoever if the US weren’t sitting on the doorstep of his country threatening to invade?
He opens his mouth and makes an ass of himself EVERY TIME HE SPEAKS. We WANT HIM TO SPEAK MORE because the more he speaks THE MORE IRRELEVANT HE BECOMES.
Your fellow wingnuts are; c.f. joe’s pancreas.
Now, “appropriate”? Who cares? Are you worried what the neighbors might think? Are you afraid he’s going to gain traction among Americans? He’s not. So quit worrying.
Dear Leader was downright effusive about the whole matter.
Perhaps Governor Bush has been reading Voltaire?
Look, you aren’t answering the question - WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF? What is giving him this “platform” going to get him that you’re so afraid of? Why do you fear this little man, who would have no power whatsoever if the US weren’t sitting on the doorstep of his country threatening to invade?
Who, me? I’m not afraid of anything. If I disapprove of something, it doesn’t mean I do so out of fear, but I can see how this line of attack is useful.
He opens his mouth and makes an ass of himself EVERY TIME HE SPEAKS. We WANT HIM TO SPEAK MORE because the more he speaks THE MORE IRRELEVANT HE BECOMES.
His speech isn’t simply for people here in the U.S., who are predisposed to dismiss him as a nut. But his stature is increased in other parts of the world. Hence, inviting him to speak at a U.S. university is advantageous to him and his views.
Now, “appropriate”? Who cares? Are you worried what the neighbors might think? Are you afraid he’s going to gain traction among Americans? He’s not. So quit worrying.
There’s probably a certain group of Americans who will admire Ahmadinejad’s viewpoints. But, really, his speech was for consumption far beyond American borders.
Did you not hear Morbo? If you bothered to read the darn thing, you’d see that it doesn’t apply to citizens. It applies to government; it would be more appropriately titled a Bill of Limitations, as it describes things that the government cannot do. So… you’re saying that these God-given rights were only given to U.S. citizens? That’s a remarkably jingoistic God you have there; are you sure that’s what you meant to say? How do you square this with your previous statement that the government only has to respect the rights (which exist apart from the government that protects them, mind you!) of its own citizens?The sad part is that these are all things which governments shouldn’t be doing for very good reasons. Governments shouldn’t be snooping on people without proper oversight; governments shouldn’t be curtailing political speech or, most importantly of all, vanishing them across the seas and torturing them. The scary part is that you seem to want to do these things.
Ah, now we come to the crux of the matter. Let’s try an analogy.A: I’m going to write a book about Offensive Topic.
B: Whoa, there. I’m from the government, and I’m here to tell you that that just won’t fly.
A: But we have freedom of the press here!
B: Well, sure, you can write the book. But there might be consequences.
A: What do you mean?
B: Your house might burn down and you might disappear without a trace. Just hypothetically, of course.
A: But you’re squashing my freedoms!
B: Who, me? No, I’m just informing you about consequences.
So, what kind of “consequences” are you thinking of? Presumably you mean something other than widespread whining from you and your ilk, especially as how you’ve entered a state of fully-indignant moping because apparently those inconvenient rights apply to people who come from those icky brown countries.
So… what sort of “consequences”?
I love that, while we are in this Wonderful War for Freedom, the first thing the wingnuts can’t wait to do, is deny these same freedoms to the people we are allegedly bringing them too, on US soil no less. Freedom of speech is an ideal, and our Constitution declares it a fundamental right. Yet, these people who believe in the idea of freedom of speech should be limited.
The whole point of freedom of speech, is that people will get to hear everything, and reject the arguments they find repulsive, like this guy.
And, no Sharon, there aren’t supposed to be “consequences” for free speech, at least not governmentally inflicted ones. If there were consequences, it wouldn’t be free. If a journalist says something bad about the president and is jailed, we don’t say, “Oh well there are consequences” we say that is an punishing for someone for free speech. If a corporation decides to fire someone for calling women hos, it is not breaking free speech. If the government forced the corporation to fire him, that would be an abridgement to free speech. If hundreds of potential applicants decide not to go to Columbia b/c of this, those are the consequences of free speech, not the government threatening to reduce funding.
Columbia does have a right to invite whomever they like to speak. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences for doing so.
Do you want to think about that and try again? You know how the Constitution says the Congress shall make no law *abridging* the right to freedom of speech? It would hella abridge freedom of speech to impose consequences, e.g. punishment, on someone for exercising a right. That’s why it’s a right, because you can’t be punished for exercising it. Think about it this way: if the Constitution said the Congress shall make no law abridging the right to freedom of *wank* but that actually meant that you could wank until OMG CONSEQUENCES were imposed, then a court, somehow, somewhere, threw you in the clink. So yeah, you might be able to wank huddled in a corner somewhere or anonymously on a blog or at some pro-wank university, but when those consequences came around boy would you have hell to pay. So thank the FSM that no court no place no how could reasonably abridge your right to freedom of speech, or you couldn’t come here and wank away your fear that other people might enjoy the rights you’d like to reserve to Daddy.
I think it’s pretty clear that he was not so much “invited to speak” as “brought in to be examined.” There IS a great deal students of the college could learn by watching this man: not to emulate him, but to learn to guard against just this sort of apocalyptically-religious, reality-denying, petty and brutal little man ever taking power here at home (…).
The right clearly has two goals here: one, they don’t want people to see just how similar Ahmadinejad is to themselves (see not only the current administration, but also the Republican candidates for president, re: apocalyptic, reality-denying, petty, and brutal); and two, they don’t want people to see just how non-threatening Ahmadinejad really is. Seeing the man live in person deflates the image they want to present of Iran as THE DANGER, taking a lot of wind out of their war-sails. [insert sails/sales pun here]
Also, why are conservatives always actively looking for an excuse to deny rights to people?
-MH
There IS a great deal students of the college could learn by watching this man: not to emulate him, but to learn to guard against just this sort of apocalyptically-religious, reality-denying, petty and brutal little man ever taking power here at home (…).
While Sharon and her “9/11 damaged me personally” crowd are wetting their pants because some (other) wackjob got a lecturn, thousands of dewey-eyed, innocent, and romantically-inclined would-be supporters of “Iran=underdog” got a serious reality check becauase this dickwad is so very ridiculous and insane!
I think that is a good thing. Really.
Oh, and Sharon, read me that part of the constitution where it says only citizens get free-speech civil rights?
Oh yeah, it only goes there when we get to voting rights.
Stop wiping and read.
Speaking of bed-wetters:
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/bet_wetter_nation
Excerpt:
sharon’s comments lend yet more credence to the thought that the Reichwing has long been jealous of the power totalitarian governments have over their citizens.
The Putz From Iran is just another reminder (like Saddam was) that the Reichwing could have so much more power if those “silly restrictions” in the Constitution and Bill of Rights could be swept away.
And those “consequences” for allowing Ahmadinejad to speak? Are you really trying to say that, for example, if a band of brown-shirted Aryan American youths were to “rough up” the people responsible for letting Mr. A speak at Columbia you’d just see that as a “natural” consequence of allowing that evil man to make an ass of himself here?
Or do you have some other “consequences” in mind?…
No, Shrubbie. A place of high learning was any classroom you were in after snorting up.
The above is EXACTLY why decent people could actively participate or even just “go with the flow” with the Holocaust. Everyone the Nazis wished to be rid of first becamse “undesirable,” then “non-citizens”, then “non-human.” And it is very, very easy to kill, slaughter, and otherwise eliminate non-humans.
To paraphrase the 1950’s film, Ivanhoe, “Rights are for all, or they are for none.”
While someone is in the United States, citizenship should not be a requirement to receive the protection granted by the Bill of Rights. Merely being human should be enough.
A brief response before work:
I agree with some of the commenters: Columbia has the right to bring Ahmadinejad to their school to let him speak. When Columbia did that, they endorsed his speech as relavent (maybe not right), especially for a dictator who attends a rally with the slogan Death to America just before arriving in the US, it doesn’t ring right.
Two, Amanda, don’t try to state that because I disagree with your interpretation of the protests that somehow I am for war with Iran. That’s an argument that easily whips up your base, but doesn’t go deep enough to seriously address the issues. Just write a response to my point that Greenwald is not credible and shouldn’t be taken seriously, that US citizens enjoy the right to free speech and that a more persuasive reason people don’t want Ahmadinejad speaking her is because it gives relevancy to his beliefs (and by people I mean people on both sides of the political spectrum).
Lastly, the free speech language is located in the Bill of Rights, which are rights given to US citizens. There was and is no internationalist spin on it.
Israeli terrorists (ie “Prime Ministers”) have been invited to speak in the U.S. many times.
I doubt seriously that Iran has any intention of starting a war with Israel - but if they choose to continue to support their brothers in Palestine, I say more power to ‘em.
Israeli terrorists (ie “Prime Ministers”) have been invited to speak in the U.S. many times.
I doubt seriously that Iran has any intention of starting a war with Israel - but if they choose to continue to support their brothers in Palestine, I say more power to ‘em.
joe, excellent use of eliminationist language! I especially like it in a sentence that means, I have no evidence and if you disagree with my unsupported conclusions it’s only because you’re a traitor.
I know I can’t convince you or your ilk of this, but there is clear evidence that Iran is helping the terrorists kill our troops in Iraq. We are at war with Iran, because Iran has fired the first shots.
How about you trot on over to Orcinus and have Dave give you a biscuit for offering an example of how we got into the mess we’re already in?
Sharon, we are approaching a critical juncture in the foreign policy history of the US. I’m on the side of examining all our alliances, including the most expensive one in blood and treasure with our friends in Israel, to determine where our national interests will lay in the post-petroleum future–and aligning our actions today with who we want our country to be in that future. And I think that giving this Persian clown the chance to show Americans in person and live that he’s not a threat, because he’s neither a leader of his own nation nor competent enough to carry out anything that threatens the US, is a good thing.
So the question I’m troubled by is this: How can those of us who are invested in a rational policy future better communicate with US-based proponents of our ‘Israel first’ policy?
I reiterate—please point out in the Constitution where the rights are considered those of citizens only. Good luck finding it; you won’t.
Anyway, the calls of government censorship are aimed at Columbia, which I do believe is an American university and as such, even if there was this non-existent “no foreigners!” clause in the Constitution, would make the government censorship illegal.
And my “base”? You’re under the strange impression that a writer=a political party. Incorrect.
sharon: What we are talking about is whether it is appropriate for the U.S. to give a platform to a murderous dictator from which he can spew his own brand of anti-Semitism and hate.
I really enjoyed looking at this one sentence because of all the layers of bullshit densely packed in it.
First, the word “appropriate.” The word “appropriate” is never appropriate.
Second, “for the U.S. to give a platform.” It wasn’t “the U.S.” it was Columbia University.
Third, “to a murderous dictator.” “sharon,” you are aware that the President of Iran is elected by the Iranian public? That Iran also has a popularly elected Parliament? That Ahmedinajad, the President of Iran, is not the highest authority in Iran, but is definitely subordinate to the so-called Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khameini, right? That the President of Iran is considerably less powerful than, for example, the President of the U.S.A.? That even the President of the U.S.A. with all his official powers is not quite a “dictator,” though the current one has expressed regret that this isn’t the case?
Then “from which he can spew” - spew, yet! - “his own brand of anti-semitism and hate.” I see “sharon” is connected to the Internet - she didn’t post her comment by the U.S. Mail - so she has easy instant access to the transcript of the very remarks which Ahmedinajad “spewed” at Columbia, right here for example. Now I am sure that she disagrees with certain of Ahmedinajad’s statements, some of which were disingenuous at best and others outright laughable, and I certainly do not accept his various assertions at one hundred percent face value, but that is beside the point; please indicate exactly which of his remarks amounts to a raw expression of “anti-semitism and hate.” Please indicate exactly which of these statements is so radically offensive and immediately dangerous that Ahmedinajad ought to have been preemptively censored for the public safety.
I believe, however, that “sharon” does not care at all whether Ahmedinajad actually “spewed anti-semitism” in his speech at Columbia, indeed that “sharon” never actually read Ahmedinajad’s comments at all. The idea is, first, to bellow en choir about the alleged odiousness of these comments so as to dissuade people from reading them themselves and making up their own minds, and second to further deploy this bogus criticism as a club with which to pound on domestic political opponents.
Do not forget that the publicly expressed ultimate goal of “sharon” and her camp is for the U.S. to launch an unprovoked military attack against yet another Middle Eastern country. They eagerly wish that, very soon, thousands and thousands of Iranian civilians shall be blown to bits by massive American aerial bombing, and that their country, like Iraq, will be reduced for years or decades to a war-torn Hell hole with no electricity, no clean water, no working sewers, no medicine, no industry except for coffinmakers and undertakers, and no future. Yet with this bloodthirsty intent they have the chutzpah to accuse their opponents of “spewing hate”!
Well, Khrushchev had promised to wipe the U.S. off the map. (”We will bury you.”)
This is, IIRC, actually a misinterpretation of a pretty literal translation. The phrase Khrushchev actually uttered is better understood in English as “We will outlive you,” which suggests not a map-wiping but the idea that Communism would endure while our own Capitalist system eventually self-destructed.
Russians are a very patient people like that.
“They eagerly wish that, very soon, thousands and thousands of Iranian civilians shall be blown to bits by massive American aerial bombing, and that their country, like Iraq, will be reduced for years or decades to a war-torn Hell hole with no electricity, no clean water, no working sewers, no medicine, no industry except for coffinmakers and undertakers, and no future.”
To sharon and her Reichingnut friends you’re describing Freedom and Democracy. Besides, they’re just brown people anyway, so it’s not like REAL people would be killed or suffer as a result.
The Cheney/Bush Administration is here to prove that Americans can can be just as hateful and evil as any other nation in history…
I wonder if sharon would feel differently if she knew that the Persian people were the original Aryans.
One argument you didn’t mention is that by allowing this guy to speak at one of our higher institutions of learning, you are stating that this person has something important to say. A university president wouldn’t make a mockery of his school by allowing some kook to take the podium. By stating that Ahmadinejad is relevant, you bolster his idiotic and dangerous claims. That is what people don’t like.
You can disagree with every word he says, you can think he’s insane. But lets not pretend that the leader of a nation that the US might go to war with isn’t relevant. The fact that he’s crazy is relevant. The fact that he hates Jews is relevant. The fact that he’s willing to attempt to get privileged liberal students to listen to him is relevant.
When Ben Franklin built a “preaching hall” for George Whitefield, he said he was building if for anyone who wouldn’t otherwise have a pulpit,
“o that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach Mohammedanism to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.”
I think that speaks pretty firmly on what the founding fathers thought about freedom of speech for those exotic foreigners.
I always suspected that Ben Franklin guy was some kind of secret IslamoFascist…
And people who say that non-citizens don’t have these rights, I just want to say the Constitution says “people” and “persons”. It does not say “citizens”. This was not a mistake.
First, the word “appropriate.” The word “appropriate” is never appropriate.
Sure it is. For use with preschoolers whose parents haven’t taught them the meaning of the word ‘no’, it’s highly appropriate.
For discussions among adults about whether to allow foreigners with whom all civilzed people disagee about certain of their views, who are being demonized by a powerful lobby and our government for reasons that are tangential if not unrelated to their views, to express their views in a public forum that lends itself to debate about the validiity of those views–not so much.
“…I just want to say the Constitution says “people” and “persons”. It does not say “citizens”. This was not a mistake.”
It’s a mistake to sharon and her buddies, along with a whole lot of other stuff they don’t like in there.
But eff with their right to own a small arsenal of firearms and you’ve gone too damn far…
When Columbia did that, they endorsed his speech
I really don’t think “endorse” — and its counterpart and fellow-traveler, “support” — works this way, even purely linguistically, and it’s really starting to bug me politically.
Is everything spoken in a public venue “endorsed” by all of us? Is everything spoken in a private venue “endorsed” by some subset of us? Similarly, when we “support” the troops, what does that mean, exactly — is it well-wishing, or material support, or both, or something in between? Does “supporting” Ahmadinejad’s invitation to speak make you an Ahmadinejad “supporter”? The terms are slippery, but people (especially on the right, I’d say) suddenly get really invested in stopping that slippage precisely where it’s most convenient.
Actually, the Bill of Rights applies only to American citizens.
Thank you for this. I shall alert my fellow Englishmen (and all fellow Europeans for that matter) not to travel to America, as their speech and personal safety is not protected by a Bill of Rights.
It will be a shame not to visit your Disneyland or spend any of my tourist dollars on American service and merchandise. But I cannot afford the risk, you see.
Thank you for this. I shall alert my fellow Englishmen (and all fellow Europeans for that matter) not to travel to America, as their speech and personal safety is not protected by a Bill of Rights.
It will be a shame not to visit your Disneyland or spend any of my tourist dollars on American service and merchandise. But I cannot afford the risk, you see.
When I started reading these comments, I had the perfect snark: that rightist wingnuts don’t want people they dislike to speak because rightist wingnuts (I don’t use “conservative” — I grew up among conservatives, and those conservatives would have been glad to horsewhip the current crop of rightist yahoos) have themselves been persuaded by utter, baseless bullshit and hence can’t imagine people who might be resistant to same.
After reading, I am sad to realize that that’s probably not snark.
That’s a nice university you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything should happen to it.
Sharon, non citizens while in the united states have free speech. The first amendment says that the government can’t regulate speech and the fourteenth applies that limitation to the states.
The fourteenth amendment also says that everyone has the same rights irrespective of national origin.
Do you have some court cases to back up this assertion? There seems to be a lot of confusion on this board as to what is free speech. To begin with, yes, speech may be restricted under various circumstances (the time, place, manner restrictions usually discussed), and even content can be regulated (”you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” pornography).
I think in the zeal to ridicule any criticism of Ahmedinejad or Columbia University, you guys are overlooking what the Constitution says and what the Founding Fathers meant by it.
I’m also amazed that pointing out that speech has consequences always seems to get people worked up over here. Is it your contention that speech has no consequences? If so, how does this comport with the anti-pro-life arguments so often made here?
Amanda wrote:
My position is that the First Amendment guarantees us all the right to say anything we wish, and that the government has no authority to prevent us from speaking or penalize us for doing so. Owners of private property (and blogs are private property) have every right to limit or censor comments; I don’t on my site because I choose not to do so.
But the question quickly arises: just how absolute is this? In 1989, the Supreme Court held that burning the flag is constitutionally-protected free expression, but that not all expression is speech. Did whoever hung those two or three nooses from the so-called “white tree” in Jena, Louisiana, engage in constitutionally protected free expression?
first of all, if we want to talk about inciting, here’s something: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-swastika0926,0,3106806.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines, or really 18 somethings, that happened the night Ahmadinejad spoke. Now, I don’t think that it is fair to blame this figurehead for these particular idiotic acts (whoever committed them, i am happy to blame), but it is worth noting that past references to Israel by Ahmadinejad could qualify as incitement. (Can people please quit conflating Jewish people with the Israeli state? Thanks.)
Also, togolosh et al., there is actually a lot of research happening/has happened that is quite fascinating about how an entire nation collaborated with some crazy wingnuts and ended up carrying out the holocaust. One book you might like is called “Ordinary Men” by Christopher Browning. It’s a hard book to read, but good. There’s much more than that if you look…
And finally, I agree with those who say that bringing a head of state of a nation that we are maybe (probably), behind the scenes, planning to go to war with is a perfectly valid thing to do, as is exposing college students to idiocy and other points of view from around the world. It would have been nice not to insult him though, and perhaps let his statement speak for themselves.
Burning a flag never killed anyone Dana, nooses hung from trees did.
Why is that so hard to understand?
And yes Sharon, I think most of us accept that speech has consequences. But as many of us pointed out, the government should not be the one inflicting those consequences. The students who decide not to attend Columbia, are the consequences. The alumni who quit donating money are consequences.
State and federal legislators who threaten to reduce funding to a university, because of the something someone(who isn’t even an employee of said university) is supressing free speech.
And where is your proof that the Bill of Rights, does not apply to those nasty foreigners? Considering that the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence say not one word about citizens get these rights, instead of people get the these rights, I’d really like to see your evidence.
Jovan wrote:
I’m sorry, but do you have internet access in your prison cell? I mean, if President Bush has “jailed people who spoke out against (his) government,” shouldn’t you be in jail right now?
This fine site is one of many which a whole lot of people telling us how bad President Bush is, why he ought to be impeached, just all kinds of comments not exactly complimentary to the President, yet no one seems to feel much fear that he is going to be locked up for it. Our hostess has given what I assume is her real name, has told us in which city she lives, and has even published her picture; if President Bush really “jailed people who spoke out against (his) government,” wouldn’t you think that Amanda Marcotte would have been one of the first ones locked up? Why is Markos Moulitsas Zuniga walking around free?
dana- those nooses weren’t expression so much as a threat. (can you argue that they were anything but?) Free speech doesn’t protect you if you are threatening someone’s life, as far as I can tell.
also, just because you can point to an example of someone who hasn’t been jailed by Bush doesn’t mean that Bush doesn’t jail political dissidents. Sorry, logic doesn’t work like that.
Aeryl wrote:
Did the nooses in Jena kill anyone? Yes, there were lynchings in the past, and yes, some of them involved hanging people. But the nooses were simply left in the tree, apparently unattended, and constituted no direct harm to anyone.
This is what happens when you try to judge someone’s speech as being too harmful or too hateful to be allowed: it becomes a judgement call. Who gets to take the decision, and under what criteria will the decision be taken? If you believe that hanging nooses in a tree in Jena constituted hate speech serious enough to be prosecutable, why can’t I judge that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ravings at Columbia constituted speech to repugnant to be allowed?
When you refuse to explain what you mean by “consequences” and go on to rant about how it’s the government’s business who Columbia has over to speak (”whether is is appropriate for the U.S. to give a platform” and so on), one might draw the conclusion that there’s some serious threatiness behind your intentionally-vague use of the word “consequences”. See my comment before last, or Lee Brimmicombe-Wood’s much more succinct summation. Please point out an analogous instance–that is, one where a pro-life speaker was barred from speaking at all, with darkly vague threats about “consequences” following. Really; I’d like to see this.And again, for someone with such an interest in the law, I’m still waiting for you to back up your statement that:
Or, as Joe’s pancreas put it, Darn that “internationalist spin” in the Declaration of Independence, claiming that rights are inherent to all people and that it’s simply the duty of government to protect them!In any case, you’ve ignored the several ways in which this has been pointed out on this thread. Could you please back up your assertion here?
Like the bit about Ben Franklin given above? Must have been a closet liberal, that one. Also, you haven’t been paying attention–practically nobody here is ridiculing any criticism of Ahmedinejad, and in fact, he seemed to be the subject of mockery at the Columbia talk. Care to square that with your assertion that there’s all this “zeal to ridicule any criticism” of the guy?hanging a weapon in a tree that has been used in the (recent!) past to hang people from trees is not just hate speech in my book, dana. it is a very clear threat to human life. i think that is a step or so beyond ravings.
Because I write slowly, this has kind of been covered, but I figure that I might as well post this, as more detail never hurt anyone.I think it’s not so much the expression that’s the problem, but the very clear threat that the nooses represented, especially given the history nervous white people have. It was a threat, a very clear one, in the same way that me running up to you and saying “I’m going to kill you, yes, you; you’d better leave town because if you don’t, I’m going to kill you, yes, you“–I doubt you’d find someone claiming that I’d done nothing wrong because my threats were protected speech.
(Incidentally, this illustrates why burning a cross isn’t the same as burning a flag–burning a flag isn’t a symbol that we’re going to go after you, yes, this specific group of people that we’re threatening by burning a flag.)
Joe, you think that the president of a country many are hoping to war with is somehow not relevant? Pull the other one, mate.
Furthermore, you actually do have the right to yell “fire!” in a theater, especially if there IS a fire, or if you can reasonably suppose there to be one. You simply will be held responsible for the repercussions of your speech: if there was a fire, then you will be a hero for saving people; if there was not, you will be a villain for endangering the crowd.
The Jena nooses (neece?) were probably not protected by the first amendment, because they constituted an imminent threat on the black students.
Lastly, the rights and freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights apply to all persons, anywhere the US Government has jurisdiction. Roughly speaking, if you break the law on US soil, you can be tried under US law (some exceptions exist but they don’t apply here); it doesn’t matter whether that law is the first amendment or jaywalking.
Wingnuts,
Questions of “who does the FIrst Amendment protect” are moot. As of 10 December 1948, the United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which Article 19 reads:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
In what circumstances would it ever be acceptable to you to criticize a leader? By your lights, if they’re actually bad, every last critic will be in prison, and so no criticism will escape. If every single critic isn’t in prison, if we’re not all struck dumb with fear, then any criticism can be dismissed out of hand, because the government is clearly not that bad.Nice catch-22 you’ve got there.
So, Dana, if I were to point a loaded gun at your chest and demand your wallet, isn’t that just free speech per your “noose” theory? Or does the implied threat of physical violence sufficient for prosecution?
Ok, sure, it was a hyperbolic statement, however, I’d really like a list of political dissidents that President* Bush has jailed. I’m not certain that you can count anyone at gitmo, as they were not arrested denouncing or vocally contradicting government policies or methods (you know, raising their voices in dissent of government practices). I’d really love to see examples of members of groups like Code Pink, Anti-war movements, Anti-poverty movements, Anti-globalization movements, heck, members of the Democratic party or major press being aressted would be icing on the cake. (heh… why hasn’t Bill Maher been arrested? or Jon Stewart… they do more to inform the populous of ridiculous government policies than many MSM publications!)
From what I can see the current administration can’t even cover up sex scandals that were out of date when they broke…
*please use the office title, even if you don’t respect the current holder, and I do not, the office still deserves your respect. small pet peeve.
Everyone: please do not feed the troll.
1) Because repugnance is not a criterion that the Supreme Court recognizes as Constitutionally unprotected.
2) The nooses might not meet such a criterion either; I’m not sure. But if they do, it would be the “fighting words” doctrine, instituted in 1942. But I suppose Harlan Fiske Stone and his court were goddamn commie liberals, weren’t they?
Speaking as an English foreigner, I too would like to know what the Founding Fathers meant. If what Sharon says is true, all foreign tourists in the US, whether they are heads of state or common men like me, are potentially subject to arbitrary imprisonment and prosecution for any speech that they make. Indeed, they have none of the rights or protections US citizens enjoy and are essentially at the mercy of the authorities and citizenry.
I believe we need to publicize this fact as widely as possible so that we can repatriate all foreign citizens visiting the US. We need to do this before any unfortunates fall foul of the arbitrary powers of the US government and people.
I’m sure that Sharon can helpfully clarify exactly what lawful protections I, as a foreigner, enjoy when visiting the US. I need to know this urgently so that I don’t offend!
I must add that i was so looking forward to bringing my family to Disneyworld, and spending my tourist dollars in your American economy. Sadly, I discover from Sharon that both my and my family’s liberty is at risk–that indeed I, my wife and son are all non-persons with no or few rights–and so I must reconsider my visit.
I hope Sharon will be able to advise me how i can visit the US without, say, fearing imprisonment for criticising Mickey Mouse in public.
well, kodiak, there was my friend who got arrested and thrown in jail for jaywalking… while expressing anti-government sentiment at a protest. but surely he was the only person to which that has ever happened.
now, the nice thing about this country is that when you are jailed for something absurd like jaywalking, often due process and other fun things kick in and force the judicial system to justify holding you. Often. On the other hand, if the gov can find a handy excuse (being near a crime scene while being black is a good one, i’ve heard), they can lock you up for reasons that are entirely unrelated to politics.
What concerns me about President Bush and his government are his attempts to remove that handy little constitutional protection i referred to above. As you pointed out above, Kodiak, he isn’t trying to do this openly to clear holders of the citizen card (code pink, for example, often being white, fairly affluent women, who still get arrested, mind you, just not held for long or charged). But he is trying to create an ever-widening category of people who can be discounted from this group. See, if you are foreign, you might be “illegal” or you could even be an “enemy combatant” and you might just be thrown in jail without being tried for months or years. And I am not just talking about Guantanamo. People are held here in this country for indefinite periods without being charged.
And this group of detainable people is widening. These days, an environmental activist can be labelled a “terrorist”…
It is telling that so many fundies on this site try to assert that the bill of rights only applies to SOME people… this is a small dose of the same thinking. it is also the kind of thinking that has been used to justify all sorts of violence, including genocide, for much of history.
Ms Kate asked:
If you did that, it would ba an assault and theft. An unattended piece of rope in a tree, even in the shape of a noose, does not constitute an assault; it is simply an inanimate object.
MH came up with the appropriate distinction:
If there was no one with the ropes attempting to put someone’s head through them, they could not constitute an “imminent threat,” and no one was, in fact, harmed.
It really didn’t take me long to find an expression that my friends on the left see as punishable speech!
Something in me says it’s not about fear of Ahmadinejad’s speech that drives these people so much as a desire to pretend he doesn’t exist. Either as a punishment or a form of denial.
I’m sure the right wingers hate for him to be introduced, invited, or allowed to speak anywhere legitimized by something like an American university, believing that it’s somehow a stamp of approval or proof that he matters somehow.
As if acknowledging him makes him more real. As if ignoring him would make him go away or not matter.
Grendelkhan wrote:
I think that any criticism of our leaders is allowable and ought to be protected speech. I certanly exercised my free speech rights during the previous administration, and would never deny you yours during the current one.
But the point was that we are allowed to do this. Look at all the people here, including some who have made themselves reasonably prominent people, and no one is reasonably afraid that he will be locked up for it.
Yeah, those nooses aren’t a threat, since I’m not black.
Lupe wrote:
Can we substitute some other names for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to make the point? What if it had been Fred Phelps or Asastasio Samoza or Augusto Pinochet? Would we not see some protests from the left concerning the invitation to speak?
I never addressed the invitation to Mr Ahmadinejad to speak. Had it been my decision, I’d not have invited him, but that does not mean that Columbia was not perfectly free to do so.
I have no problem with inviting Ahmadinejad, but freedom of speech is not the issue here for two reasons:
1. The bill of rights say government can not restrict speech (except in a few cases–yelling fire in a theater when there isn’t one being the well known case). Private institutions, such as Columbia, can and do.
2. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with inviting someone to speak. If I say I want to speak at Columbia in their main hall, do they have to let me?
A university should try to get a large range of opinions, which is why I have no problem inviting him but there is a limit. Do you think that universities should invite Nazis, creationists, flat-earthers, …?
Writing screeds on the internet is one thing; making an appearance at an actual event where you can’t be so easily ignored, quite another. Please note the arrests of people for no good reason (a 90% acquittal rate), as well as rampant lying on the part of the cops–protestors were charged with resisting arrest, but the charges were dropped when video evidence surfaced showing that the arrestees went peacefully. I’m not aware of any negative consequences for the police involved.Foreigners in America do have protection under the Bill of Rights. Here’s a findlaw article about it.
Check out Lamont v. Postmaster General.
It’s also important to note that there is some gray area to this, as mentioned in the link, regarding foreigners’ contributions to elections for US offices. There hasn’t been a constitutional challenge to that since the time this article was written, from what I’ve been able to google.
The Bill of Rights is more aptly understood as a list of things the federal government cannot do. I think grendelkhan wrote that above, and s/he’s right. Of note, foreigners in America do (generally, and almost ubiquitously regarding speech issues with the exception of campaign contributions) have the same rights as Americans. Americans were *supposed* to be protected from unconstitutional actions perpetrated by their government even when off US soil, but the Padilla ruling by the 4th circuit and denial of cert by the USC kind of threw me for a loop on that one.
We should also remember that at the time of its ratification - 1791, I believe - there weren’t that many “American” citizens. Mass immigration movements from western and central Europe were going on. It was to be expected that since many of the founding fathers themselves were not born in America, and that they expected our nation’s growth to come from immigration, that they would guarantee non-citizens have the same rights as citizens.
I think the right-wing is actively trying to create confusion in the minds of the public regarding immigrants’ rights, not least because of their hate for brown people, though more generally out of a need to defend the indefensible legal actions taken by the Bush administration since 9/11 with specific regard to Habeas violations, detention of enemy combatants, use of military tribunals and the holding of American citizens on foreign land without trial.
Dana:
Of course there would be protests from the left. No one says that people shouldn’t be able to complain about inviting him. (Though their reasons for it bear examination)
What’s different in this case is the threat of punishing Columbia by a state assembly member. This is the problem, along with the suggestion that he not be allowed to speak here.
Here’s why there are “no” gays in Iran:
http://towleroad.typepad.com/towleroad/2005/07/report_gay_yout.html
I thought his statement was ha ha, very funny, yesterday, until my husband brought this up.
Now I’m feeling quite ill
It really didn’t take me long to find an expression that my friends on the left see as punishable speech!
The Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v. Black that Virginia’s law prohibiting cross-burning was constitutional because of the historical association with terrorism. That icon of the left, Justice Thomas went even further than the majority and argued that Virginia’s law needn’t have required proof of the intention to intimidate blacks, as the mere act of burning a cross was a de facto declaration of one’s intent to intimidate.
It is reasonable to assume that a state law forbidding the display of a noose with the intent to intimidate would likely pass muster under the current Court, considering that Souter, Kennedy, and Ginsburg were the only justices who thought Virginia’s cross-burning ban was unconstitutional.
It’s also reasonable that state criminal law aside, the school in Louisiana could have expelled the white students responsible for hanging the nooses with confidence that the federal courts would have backed them under the Black standard.
*sigh*
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Nothing about colleges, nothing about citizens.
Sharon:
Bridges v. Wixson, 326 U.S. 135 (1945) enunciated the free speech rights of non-citizens who are in the United States. Now, I may deport someone or refuse entry to someone because of what they have said but I cannot punished them just for saying; i.e., locking them up, etc. Aliens also have the right to a fair trial (due process) etc., etc.
When you stand on free soil you are presumed to be a free person.
In Gavin de Becker’s The Gift of Fear, he discusses the arrest of a man who confronted his boss over his recent firing and put a bullet on the boss’ desk. Although the bullet was just an inanimate object and the fired employee was unarmed, it was still deemed a significant threat of bodily harm, just like nooses hanging from trees and crosses burning in yards.
When you stand on free soil you are presumed to be a free person.
Ah, therein lies Sharon’s cognitive problem…