Freedom Of Speech
I’ve been following Islamo-Fascist Awareness Week in the blogs, and have been disappointed (but not unexpectedly so) by the protests that disrupted and/or shut down the speaking engagements.
I find that kind of behavior reprehensible. Certainly they can think what they wish, but their actions are boorish and uncivil. Protest before the event, protest after the event, but when a speaker is invited to speak you should allow the speaker to be heard. There was no such protest with Ahmadenejad, no shutting down of his speaking engagement (as vile as he is), but plenty of protest in the appropriate places.
But when it comes to Right of Center views, the protests are loud, yob-ish, and sometimes violent.
A lot of people are talking about this problem in the realm of Freedom of Speech. Here’s how some people describe Freedom of Speech in the comments at IncorrectU:
Bruce
// Oct 25, 2007 at 1:14 pm“sweet jesus you people are dense. here’s a rundown on how free speech works: horowitz is free to spew as much hateful misinformation as he can, and the students at emory are free to call him on his crap and let him know that his opinions are stupid. that’s called free speech. get a clue, geniuses.”
And…
Texan
// Oct 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm“That is freedom of speech; expression without fear or burden of being persecuted for speaking, whether it is popular or not.”
The Freedom of Speech — of which they’re so fond — is much closer to Texan than Bruce, except replace “persecuted” with “prosecuted”.
First Amendment “Freedom of Speech” is a protection from governmental intervention, prosecution and imprisonment for speaking about things that are not popular or well accepted by the public.
What these people are debating, in actuality, is civility… or lack thereof.
