sharon: What does this ridiculous argument have to do with why conservatives object to Ahmedinejad’s speech?

You’ve been given examples of reasons conservatives disagree with giving Ahmedinejad (yes, allowing) a platform for his views. They are not and need not be based on fear, unless you consider any objection to him to be based on fear. Which you evidently do.

Because frequently on this site, any observance of the idea of “consequence” immediately is seen as a threat.

What I do see is that a single state legislator talking about taking away Columbia’s funding isn’t a particularly large threat. It’s called grandstanding.

Sorry, you’re wrong. The clinic protesters are doing exactly the same thing that anti-war protesters do: using their freedom of speech.

I seriously doubt anybody else is going to be using the government to “silence” anyone. Unless, of course, you happen to be an abortion protester.

But you brought up blogs, which are privately controlled. There’s no government restriction at all on that speech. It’s not a very good analogy. And nobody is bludgeoning anyone to enforce any will.

[Where would I use the coercive power of the state against speech I disagreed with?] Wasn’t that your argument against abortion clinic protesters?

Or threats against ABC for showing “The Path to 9/11″? It seems like selective enforcement to me.

And I’m not arguing that Columbia was, in fact, endorsing Ahmedinejad’s government, past actions, or viewpoints. What I said was that it was one argument against inviting him to speak.

But again, I’ll support your viewpoint if you support mine about Clinton and Arafat.

Yes. Allowing. As in: allowing Ahmedinejad to enter this country and visit Columbia University. Allowing. Because he was invited to speak at the university. If you were invited then you would be allowed to speak. You really seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Or maybe it’s just your hostility getting in the way.

Well, yeah, I do disagree with that argument–it’s ridiculous. Does our government simultaneously endorse quiverfulls and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Does it simultaneously endorse the Jewish Defense League and the American Nazi Party? Does it simultaneously endorse NARAL and Focus on the Family?

What does this ridiculous argument have to do with why conservatives object to Ahmedinejad’s speech?

If you’re saying that there exist reasons to wave government-based threats at Ahmedinejad’s speech which aren’t laughably transparent and aren’t based on fear, I’ve yet to see them. Please do enlighten me.

You’ve been given examples of reasons conservatives disagree with giving Ahmedinejad (yes, allowing) a platform for his views. They are not and need not be based on fear, unless you consider any objection to him to be based on fear. Which you evidently do.

I outlined above the two possibilities–either you’re stating the bleeding obvious, or you’re making a threat. (Third alternatives are welcome, but I don’t see any.) You appear to be saying that you were merely stating the bleeding obvious. Did you think that someone in this thread was unaware of these things? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

Because frequently on this site, any observance of the idea of “consequence” immediately is seen as a threat. To be honest, no, I don’t think the people on this site see any perceived consequence to Ahmedinejad’s speaking here. Why? Because it’s been stated repeatedly that “no one would change their minds” (that’s a paraphrase, btw). But the truth is that there are elements who see him as legitimate and support his views.

Also, you appear to be unaware of the difference between a state legislator threatening to take away Columbia’s funding and the possibility that Columbia would be widely mocked for having Ahmedinejad speak. Is this accurate?

No, it isn’t accurate. What I do see is that a single state legislator talking about taking away Columbia’s funding isn’t a particularly large threat. It’s called grandstanding.

But those people aren’t simply expressing an opinion; they’re harassing and threatening people–they’re either complicit in the terrorism common in the pro-life movement, or they’re useful idiots providing cover for the terrorists in their midst. How on earth is that comparable to an anti-war demonstration? I’d guess that complaints about clinic protestors center more around their harassment of people who just want to get from their car to the clinic and their connections with terrorists than around disagreements with their opinions.

Sorry, you’re wrong. The clinic protesters are doing exactly the same thing that anti-war protesters do: using their freedom of speech. And abortion supporters have tried repeatedly to deter or silence these protesters using zoning restrictions, RICO, and other means. So, yes, there are those on the left who think silencing those they disagree with is acceptable.

As I said before, the difference is between private actors criticizing each other and using the power of the state as a bludgeon to enforce your will.

But you brought up blogs, which are privately controlled. There’s no government restriction at all on that speech. It’s not a very good analogy. And nobody is bludgeoning anyone to enforce any will. President Bush stated that. You seem to be really hung up on one legislator. If the POTUS isn’t concerned about him speaking, I seriously doubt anybody else is going to be using the government to “silence” anyone. Unless, of course, you happen to be an abortion protester.

Please point out where I’ve said that I’d use the coercive power of the state to prevent someone from spreading their ideas.

Wasn’t that your argument against abortion clinic protesters? Or threats against ABC for showing “The Path to 9/11″? It seems like selective enforcement to me.

It’s not much of an argument though, is it? That’s like saying that allowing Abdul Haq into the White House to speak with President Reagan was an endorsement of his terrorist bombing of Kabul airport that killed 28 people, many of them schoolchildren on their way to the Soviet Union.

Just as inviting Yasser Arafat to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom wasn’t endorsing his terrorism, right?

So, sharon, are you arguing that Reagan was a backer of terrorism, and endorsed the killing of schoolchildren?

Nope. And I’m not arguing that Columbia was, in fact, endorsing Ahmedinejad’s government, past actions, or viewpoints. What I said was that it was one argument against inviting him to speak. But again, I’ll support your viewpoint if you support mine about Clinton and Arafat.

You forgot the Ronald Reagan Exception:
Anything Saint Ronny did, including selling arms to the same Iranians who held American Embassy personnel hostage, is good, proper, justified, and beyond reproach.

And the Clinton Corollary: Anything done by a president named Clinton, or done within 10-years of the existence of a Clinton as president, is automatically bad, and may require impeachment to prove the point.

Make sense now?…

Lee Brimmicombe-Wood: That’s like saying that allowing Abdul Haq into the White House to speak with President Reagan was an endorsement of his terrorist bombing of Kabul airport that killed 28 people, many of them schoolchildren on their way to the Soviet Union. That’s completely different! Mainly because having him over to the White House was actually an act of the government and could in fact legitimately be seen as endorsing him, way more than simply failing to prevent Ahmedinejad from speaking at Columbia would be.

So, sharon, are you arguing that Reagan was a backer of terrorism, and endorsed the killing of schoolchildren?

I gave you one argument–that allowing him to speak in the U.S. amounted to endorsing his speech.

It’s not much of an argument though, is it? That’s like saying that allowing Abdul Haq into the White House to speak with President Reagan was an endorsement of his terrorist bombing of Kabul airport that killed 28 people, many of them schoolchildren on their way to the Soviet Union.

Oh, hang on a moment…

sharon: I gave you one argument–that allowing him to speak in the U.S. amounted to endorsing his speech. See, there you go with the whole “allowing” thing again. Is there a central committee I should be submitting my comments to before I dare to voice them?

You can disagree with that argument, but, as I stated previously, there are plenty of reasons to object to Ahmedinejad’s speaking here that don’t include fear.

If you’re saying that there exist reasons to wave government-based threats at Ahmedinejad’s speech which aren’t laughably transparent and aren’t based on fear, I’ve yet to see them. Please do enlighten me.

But you don’t know that I meant it as a threat. You jumped to that conclusion because it best fits your worldview.

Also, you appear to be unaware of the difference between a state legislator threatening to take away Columbia’s funding and the possibility that Columbia would be widely mocked for having Ahmedinejad speak. Is this accurate?

There are a dozen examples in this thread of people saying things to the effect that “nobody cares what he says” or that “no one would believe him.”

And, in fact, isn’t that part of Amanda’s reasoning for letting him speak? That the students of Columbia won’t be influenced by him?

It seems fairly clear to me that she fears pro-lifers convincing people with their arguments.

You do know about the numerous lawsuits filed against abortion clinic protesters, right? And, I’m sure, most people who agree with Amanda about abortion also support stopping or limiting abortion clinic protests (just do the “search” on this site for examples of posts castigating clinic protesters).

I don’t think the argument was about blogs, was it?

Sure, if Columbia had Ken Ham give their commencement address, I’d question what on earth they thought they were doing, criticize their choice, and probably call them names. But I wouldn’t threaten to use the power of the state to enforce my ideas about what they or people they bring to their university can say, and that’s the difference we’re talking about.

Just pointing out that if you want to tolerate the Ahmedinejads of this world speaking in your country, then you really should be consistent and apply the same standard to other speech you find more egregious.

Yes, it would. There are literally hundreds of cable stations on the air to allow different viewpoints. Those expressed in “The Path to 9/11″ was one set. The network was explicit that the film was not a documentary nor a news broadcast (I’m sure we could have a lovely discussion about what passes for news). Again, it’s difficult to argue for restricting this speech because you dislike it but argue for speech you see as inconsequential.

And the part where you ask about “whether it is appropriate for the U.S.” to allow the speech, which appears to imply that we speak at the state’s pleasure–that doesn’t say anything about you? (Not to mention the part where you refer to Ahmedinejad as a dictator or the part where you claim that non-citizens don’t have natural rights.)

The question had been raised in the post about why conservatives objected to Ahmedinejad’s speaking in the U.S. I gave you one argument–that allowing him to speak in the U.S. amounted to endorsing his speech. You can disagree with that argument, but, as I stated previously, there are plenty of reasons to object to Ahmedinejad’s speaking here that don’t include fear.

The other is, as Lee Brimmicombe-Wood (and I referred to before), “That’s a nice university you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything should happen to it.” That is, as a threat.

But you don’t know that I meant it as a threat. You jumped to that conclusion because it best fits your worldview. To state that speaking is fine, but there are consequences is a statement of fact. Sure, you can yell “Fire!” in that theater, but if it causes injury, you will be arrested. Many on the left seem to think that free speech is an unfettered right (there is no such thing). There are limitations as have been noted. But beyond the legal limitations placed on speech, there are also consequences that others may choose to impose (for example, the state legislator who wants to impose some sort of financial restrictions on Columbia, though I see that more as grandstanding than anything). Negative publicity for the school is another consequence.

Wait a sec, who said that “it doesn’t matter what he says”?

There are a dozen examples in this thread of people saying things to the effect that “nobody cares what he says” or that “no one would believe him.” Just read through the thread. And, in fact, isn’t that part of Amanda’s reasoning for letting him speak? That the students of Columbia won’t be influenced by him?

And where did Amanda express fear that pro-lifers might persuade people with their arguments?

Maybe you need to reread the post. Amanda said, “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.” Or do you interpret that statement some other way? It seems fairly clear to me that she fears pro-lifers convincing people with their arguments.

Who are you arguing with? Who claims that dimply “detesting” speech should allow it to be barred? And in what context?

You do know about the numerous lawsuits filed against abortion clinic protesters, right? And, I’m sure, most people who agree with Amanda about abortion also support stopping or limiting abortion clinic protests (just do the “search” on this site for examples of posts castigating clinic protesters).

The fact is, even protests that are little different from anti-war protests are regarded by abortion supporters as little less than terrorist threats.

I don’t think there’s a problem with banning commenters you disagree with if that’s the sort of blog you want to run, but I do think that the government has no place throwing its weight around in such instances.

I don’t think the argument was about blogs, was it? Blog owners can have whatever rules for comments they desire. Some allow all comments. Some get pissed off and ban you if you disagree with them. Some don’t allow nasty, hateful comments or commenters who get too far off the topic. That’s not really the same thing, is it? And I never said the government should get involved in blogs.

You’re intentionally trying to muddy the waters between government threatiness and simple disagreement. They’re not the same thing, just like burning a flag and burning a cross aren’t the same thing–no matter how much you plug your ears and hum trying to ignore the facts.

Nope, not muddying anything. Just pointing out that if you want to tolerate the Ahmedinejads of this world speaking in your country, then you really should be consistent and apply the same standard to other speech you find more egregious.

sharon: First, I didn’t “rant” about it. I simply stated that one is entitled to speak, but there are consequences to speech. That you would read far more into that statement than was there says quite a bit about you. And the part where you ask about “whether it is appropriate for the U.S.” to allow the speech, which appears to imply that we speak at the state’s pleasure–that doesn’t say anything about you? (Not to mention the part where you refer to Ahmedinejad as a dictator or the part where you claim that non-citizens don’t have natural rights.)

There are two ways to read the phrase “there are consequences to speech”. One is as a ridiculously obvious statement of the facts–if you speak, someone might criticize you, or get offended. I can’t imagine anyone over the age of five not understanding that. The other is, as Lee Brimmicombe-Wood (and I referred to before), “That’s a nice university you’ve got there. It would be a shame if anything should happen to it.” That is, as a threat.

Nice diversion. My question was how does the “it doesn’t matter what he says” argument square with Amanda’s clearly stated admission that she dislikes pro-lifers speaking because they might persuade people with their arguments?

It seems to me that you really can’t argue that speech you don’t care about means nothing but speech you detest should be barred, ridiculed, regulated out of existence, or silenced.

But I can say one thing unequivocally: you’re damned right I’m going to ridicule speech I detest. Why on earth wouldn’t I?

Wow, I feel old.

I don’t think they bother with the prosecutions for foreigners in the States, old chap.

You mean you are saying that Sharon got it wrong? Say it ain’t so!