Columbia U / Minutemen Update

[Brian Stevens]

I just talked with my friend in Columbia who participated in the Minutemen rush. Well, there maybe a great possibillity that he might have to go to school someplace else along with a bunch of others. The university is considering expelling those who participated in the Minutemen fiasco. Columbia's Chicano Caucus and the school's International Socialist Organization chapter are now well aware of this and have contacted the ACLU to be their watchdog. They feel that Pataki might be pressuring the school, but that is just a serious theory. He is very scared right now because he was on TV up on stage, and if they recognize him, he may not have a school to go to. Any well wishers are appreciated, he needs it right now.

[Solo_in_MD]

1. Under the circumstances, some of us think that fear if not actual result

appropriate.

Rushing the stage because you disagree with what is being said? That is classic brown shirt tactics I would expect of the hard core right wing, scarcely a progressive approach to things. Colleges and universities are there to provide full discussion on controversial issues. If they allow that kind of violence, its over for us in so many ways. IIRC Columbia already had issues of letting violent demonstrators interfere with free discussion, which may be why they may hammer those who did it this time.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

6. Wow...in support of racists... How progressive of you.

[Solo_in_MD]

9. So you support "ends justify the mean" How progessive of you

[Cleita]

53. Bingo!

It looks like the brown shirts are here at DU.

[EFerrari]

15. You support White Supremacists?

[bigluckyfeet]

81. I don't support White Supremacists

and I also don't support Mexicans taking over the counry.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

135. What are they using to "take over the country," black helicopters?

Funded by Cadillac Welfare Queens and George Soros perhaps?

[Maestro]

24. You support vindictive, driveling little insecure "men?"

Wow. I'm speechless.

[proud2BlibKansan]

25. You support the 60 second men?

Yet you speak out against violence.

hello?? Anyone home in there?

[elehhhhna]

47. "And by there spelling, ye shall no them"

[Brian Stevens]

5. The story was

They were gonna be on stage for no more thatn a couple minutes in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience. It was the repugs who sponsored it that kept them on stage longer than they should with their violent assault.


How can you expell someone who did not throw a punch or commit any sort of chaos? They were well aware of the consequences they may faced, but expullsion was the last thing on their mind since it was clearly nonviolent on their end. They were hoping for suspension, and thats as severe as it got.

Eva Portes, one of the girls that was on the Colmes Faux TV show, was the one who called him about it. She as well as Monica Dols (the other girl on Colmes) are at the top of the list of those who were recomended for expulsion.

[sandnsea]

16. They held up a friggin' banner

That's classic protest, used for generations. The administration has succumbed to intimidation by the real brownshirts, the right wing racist fascists. This is how the KKK got a foothold back during the 20's, people who tolerated their hate speech as "discussion on controversial issues". No more.

And THEY were the ones who attacked the students, the students didn't do anything but stand on stage with banners.

[1932]

17. Columbia is in the middle, or near the end of a multi-billion dollar

fundraising campaign.

I wonder if their big donors are asking for expulsions.

[NaturalHigh]

76. Are you kidding me?

Have you seen the video or not? The little shits jumped up on the stage and started a freaking riot? This was not some sort of non-violent, pacifist protest. Frankly, several of them should be in jail.

[liberaliraqvet26]

28. I agree...

The best way to take on these groups is through academic debate. That is what a university is for. If an opposing group wants to protest they should do that outside the event and then attend the conference and vigorosly question the presenters when there is the opportunity to do so.

Tactics like these do not look good and are bad for academic discourse.

[sandnsea]

34. No academic discourse about racism

We gave these assholes a stage since 1980. That's how this country got to be in the mess it's in. Back in the 80's, we were simply amused by people like Rush Limbaugh. If we hadn't been so 'open-minded' and had shut the sonofabitch down on the spot, we wouldn't be in this mess today. See??

[Brian Stevens]

60. Well said

[spoony]

93. Is any discussion about illegal immigration racist?

Maybe you should write up a list of things that people can and cannot talk about from now on, and the acceptable opions people should have about them.

[pampango]

95. Now that is a great suggestion. May I add that there could be separate

lists of acceptable topics (and permissible opinions on those topics) that would be suitable for different settings.

College campuses might have one list. Blue states and red states could have separate lists. Men and women would have to have different lists, not to mention different races, religions, and ethnic groups.

Another thought is that we could have venues where one side of an issue speaks first with the opposition getting to shout them out and wave banners in their face, then the other side gets to speak and the tables are turned. I am only unsure if the courts would consider that an abridgment of free speech just because we couldn't hear either side actually speak.

[hansberrym]

3. Moral of this story: if you go around carrying pictures of chairman Mao

you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow...



A far better approach would have been to simply debate those who want to keep a lid on illegal immigration. Surely the young socialists have some logical argument against securing the borders which they can articulate and with which they can win over the majority.

[Solo_in_MD]

11. Acting like brown shirts doesn't help matters either

[sandnsea]

14. Why are you using freeper spin?

They're the ones who are calling the students brownshirts, you do know that don't you?

[DocSavage]

20. Did

the students even allow the speaker to speak? Shutting down opposing points of view is drawing the comparision. Not even allowing opposing points to be heard. The students acted like a mob. There is no freeper spin needed. The videos of the protest tell it all.

[sandnsea]

30. We don't need to give racists a stage

Taking the stage with a banner is perfectly acceptable protest. School security should have been called to remove them. It didn't turn into an incident until Republicans took the stage themselves and physically attacked the students.

I continue to be dismayed at the number of people who think all speech needs to be equally tolerated when the content is already well known.

It's sad that people's fear of immigrants is leading them to support racist speech and violence over a peaceful protest.

[DocSavage]

36. Evidently

the brains at Columbia were unable to put forth a rational discussion of opposing views. They opted to yell, scream and disrupt. I would think that a prestigous institution such as Columbia would be home to students that could intellectually discuss the differences.

And just for discussion. If I were to sneak across the border to say France, the French authorities would not take kindly to it, I would be breaking thier immigration law. If a local at the border noticed me coming accross and they notified authorities, would that Frenchman be "Racist" against Americans? By definition, that is not racism.

[sandnsea]

39. Exactly, its the immigrant haters

It's about the issue, not the protesters. These kids exposed the racism behind the so-called "border security" issue and the immigrant haters just can't have that.

[michreject]

44. So you believe in censorship?

I continue to be dismayed at the number of people who think all speech needs to be equally tolerated when the content is already well known.

Is this a example of ok for me but not for thee?

[sandnsea]

45. The Republicans did the censoring

They're the ones that physically attacked the protester. The speaker was given his free speech rights when he stepped up on the stage. He would have been able to continue with his hate speech if he'd controlled his freeper thugs and waited for security to escort the protesters out of the building. Hell I'm not even sure that he wasn't able to continue with his remarks. The only ones who had their right to free speech censored were the protesters.

[michreject]

46. That answer did not address

The statement that you made that I have in bold. So I'll ask again. Is this statement a example of ok for me but no for thee?


your words.
I continue to be dismayed at the number of people who think all speech needs to be equally tolerated when the content is already well known.

[sandnsea]

49. Frame it any way you want it

It's clear when people are expressing hate and decent people do not need to accept it or pretend it's anything worthy of academic debate. Fred Phelps, Ann Coulter, the Minutemen - they have a constitutional right to rent halls and get permits - and the people have the right to show up and shout them down.

[michreject]

50. Yes they do

and suffer the consequence of their actions.

[sandnsea]

51. Getting beat up?

And then expelled because other people beat them up?

I've already said they should have been escorted out by security and if that had happened and they suffered consequences for that, fine.

But they're suffering the consequence for the other students that started the violence. That's what I'm objecting to. They aren't at fault for that just because they stood up in protest against hate speech.

[Raskolnik]

90. No they don't.

the people have the right to show up and shout them down

Do the Minutemen have the right to show up at an immigrant rally and rush the stage?

[pampango]

92. No they don't. And that applies to both sides. n/t

[Brian Stevens]

52. And don't forget the " FREE SPEECH ZONES" nt

[NaturalHigh]

64. Either all speech is "equally tolerated"...

or we might as well throw out the First Amendment. You don't just get to riot and shut down speakers with whom you disagree unless you are ready to face the consequences. In this case, one of those possible consequences is expulsion from the college.

[Brian Stevens]

137. They knew there were consequences

They actually expected to be suspended. Now they have to fight a penalty that is just way too extreme. Don't think they never knew the cost of this when this was planned.

[NaturalHigh]

4. Does anyone remember the riot that shut down...

the vote counts in Florida during the 2000 elections? Those rioters were roundly condemned by progressives everywhere. Now we are supposed to support these Columbia rioters? How hypocritical is this?

Personally, I think they should be kicked out of school and have to defend themselves in a courtroom. I don't care how "progressive" they claim to be. They are no better than Nazi brownshirts.

[Brian Stevens]

7. Unlike Florida

They still have jobs. These students are getting their future ripped out from under them.

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Changing schools is not quite the same as

"getting their future ripped outfrom underneath them". They significantly broke the rules and there should be significant consequences for that. Their actions were WRONG...they need to deal with the consequences.

[Brian Stevens]

18. Maybe what they did was illegal

But to the POINT OF EXPULSION?!? Students get away with a lot worse then using acts of civil (and I stress CIVIL) disobebience. I do know that the ACLU is keeping good watch on this situation.

[JVS]

54. But it's an Ivy League school!

They might be forced to go to a :shudder: public university

[Solo_in_MD]

56. At least one poster said that would be a bad thing for one of them

[DocSavage]

21. If they

are attending Columbia, they can afford a pretty good future. Don't worry about thier future.

[Brian Stevens]

23. Unless you jump on stage and protest.

Thus you might get expelled and put up with a comunity college which limits which jobs take that background.

[DocSavage]

35. People

that go to Columbia, do not go to communtiy college. If they leave, there next stop is Darmouth, Harvard, Yale or Princton. They are not going to end up at Cowley Community College in Arkansas City KS.

[sandnsea]

13. Ooooh, the scary banner carriers are coming

Did you see the clip? These students went on stage with a banner!! That's EXACTLY how Hitler took over Europe, carrying big scary banners from country to country.

The willingness to acquiesce to authority in this country is absolutely stunning.

Nazi brownshirts That's the FREEPERS' spin of this incident for chrissake.

[NaturalHigh]

63. The object of the Nazi Brownshirts...

was to intimidate those with whom they disagreed. That's exactly what the Columbia rioters were doing.

[rman]

70. That was very different; the occasion was not a formal debate.

Not to mention that the Florida riots was a setup by known Republican operatives - many of whom weren't even from Florida.

However this doesn't mean i do support these Colombia rioters - it was a formal debate, which they sabotaged.

[NaturalHigh]

72. I see your point.

My point, in turn, was that if I'm not going to support one set of rioters, why would I support another.

While this was a different situation, both groups were manipulated by outside operatives, one by Republicans, one by the International Socialist Organization. Both rioted to shut down a legitimate function.

[rman]

77. You make an important point.

re 'both groups were manipulated by outside forces' - i think these Colombia rioters are a either a false-front leftist group or they have been heavily subverted, for the purpose of discrediting the grassroots progressive movement. Not so much by them having "socialist" in the name of their organization, but rather by deploying tactics of provocation and intimidation were none is called for - it is just one step short of physically pushing people from the stage.

However, outside manipulation is such a significant issue, that in my opinion it supersedes the issue of whether or not to support their actions in Colombia based on their tactics. But then again, many will not accept the idea that that organization is a false-front.

So leaving that issue alone, what's left is the tactics themselves, which were totally uncalled for given the situation at hand.
The Florida rioters just stood there shouting, creating the false impression that there was strong opposition to the recount. Bad enough for sure but they didn't prevent anyone who was scheduled to speak there from speaking.

I think it is overly simplistic to say that the only thing that matters about a riot is the fact that it is a riot, and based on that to either support or not support every riot. In my opinion, context does matter.

[Jcrowley]

8. Full Statement of Those Who Occupied the Stage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Full Statement of Those Who Occupied the Stage

Why We Confronted the Minutemen at Columbia

In the aftermath of the protest on the night of October 4 against Jim Gilchrist and the racist Minutemen at Roone Arledge auditorium, we want to state clearly: We are proud to send the message to the country that racist and fascist groups are not welcome at Columbia or in New York City.

As Chicanos and Latinos, alongside African Americans and progressive people of other nationalities, we took it as our responsibility to give voice to the undocumented immigrant families who live in fear at terrorist vigilante groups like the Minutemen. Armed patrols by these groups force more and more people desperate for work to find even more hazardous ways into the United States. Over 3,000 people-including hundreds of children-have died in the desert. Their blood is on the hands of Gilchrist and his thugs.

Fascist scapegoating is not up for academic discussion. Like Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany, Gilchrist and the Minutemen attempt to demonize foreign-born poor people, blaming "illegals" for society's problems. His group doesn't present reasoned debate. It spouts racism and hatred, aiming to divide people against one another.

Regardless of how Gilchrist tries to sanitize his message for national audiences, more candid moments tell the real story. Gilchrist is a member of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, which is now notorious for referring to Mexicans as "savages." Speaking about Mexicans and Central American immigrants, Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox once said, "They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil people."

<snip>

Over the last 50 years, throughout the Civil Rights movement and the women's rights movement, ultra-right wing groups have routinely used violence, lynchings, armed assaults and bombings against oppressed people. Yet when we organize to oppose them to express our contempt for their violence, we are criticized for inhibiting the free speech of the ones who perpetrate violence.


Read entire statement here:
http://mostlywater.org/node/11611

[Brian Stevens]

12. And only one side is getting the shaft. NT

[NaturalHigh]

71. Getting the shaft?

BS. If they weren't ready to accept the consequences of their actions, they shouldn't have disrupted the event in the first place. These little thugs aren't some sort of revolutionary heroes; they are rioters, no more, no less. I have no sympathy for them.

[Brian Stevens]

91. I am totally convinced this doesn't constitute expulsion.

Thats what this is now about. Whether the charge fits the crime or not. There are more serious charges to worry about than kids holding banners.

[NaturalHigh]

125. I am equally convinced that it does warrant expulsion.

This is not about kids holding up banners. That's fine by me. What is not fine is physically assaulting someone with whom you have a philosophical disagreement.

[insanerepubs]

19. Depriving

any group of it's right to speak is wrong. You don't have to agree with them but they have a right to their opinions..just sayin' I thought that was what this country was about....

[Brian Stevens]

22. I say once again.. TO THE POINT OF DESTROYING THEIR FUTURE?!?

NT

[Solo_in_MD]

31. Why would a transfer destroy their future?

Many students start at one school and finish at another.

[Brian Stevens]

42. Varies on employment

An Ivy leaguer has a better shot at a better job than standard sports guy universities (UCLA, Oklahoma U, Miami, etc) or a comunity college. My friend is (or was depending on the situation) hoping to enroll at MIT for a master degree in engineering. If he gets expelled, that hope is lost and he won't get a chance to do what he wanted to do. Students go to Ivy leagues to get the best education and the best slots for their future. It maybe sad, but it is the truth.

[JVS]

128. So for some people who can afford a $30K a year tuition bill getting....

anything less than the very best is the same as having their futures destroyed? Waaaaahhhhhhh!

[NaturalHigh]

129. Oh, but these poor youth couldn't be forced...

to take a semester off and go to another university. That would just be wrong!

[JVS]

130. It will RUIN THEIR LIVES, they might as well put the gun in their mouths..

and squeeze the trigger to end the wreckage that remains.

[Brian Stevens]

133. My sentiments exactly. nt

[Brian Stevens]

132. I know a person who got expelled.

It is perminate, and will DEFINATELY affect the job market as well as where to go to finish school.

[NaturalHigh]

136. Again, there are consequences for one's actions.

[sandnsea]

32. And so is protesting the content of that speech

That's all those students did, protest. I kind of thought that was what this country is all about.

[insanerepubs]

37. Protesting

Is fine but when a protest stifles free speech it becomes oppression. The issue here is not the message but whether or not they have the right to speak.I for one think they do. I do not have to agree with the message but I can listen to it and then voice my opposition.

The opposing group was there for one reason, and that was to disrupt and deprive another group of their right to speak.

[sandnsea]

38. Some speech needs visible protest

If the Republicans hadn't physically assaulted the protesters, they would have been escorted out by security the way they always are. All speech is not equally acceptable for discourse and it is way beyond time this country stood firm against these racist bastards. I am glad students are finally standing up to them.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. Tell Your Friend What He Did Was Stupid. In Life There Are Consequences

for one's actions. I feel bad that he may have some hardship from this, but then he has to consider it a lesson learned. We all make mistakes or use bad judgement sometimes but oftentimes we must face up to the consequences of such actions. This may be the case for him here.

The fact of the matter is, I find it completely within reason that the students who were involved in that assault would be expelled.

[Brian Stevens]

27. I see the sensibillity in it , BUT...

Is this really worth the effort, taxes, and time getting them expelled over?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Not My Problem.

I think expulsion is not an unreasonable act. Whether going through that process is worth it or not is up to the School itself. But I don't think that decision has anything to do with whether or not the punishment is fitting or not.

[Brian Stevens]

43. Then thats why we have the judicial system. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. That's True. :)

Though I may not agree with his actions, I still sincerely wish him the best possible outcome.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

134. No, you don't. -nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rolleitreks]

40. I'm in the good riddance school. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

83. I'm in the...

"Good riddance and don't let the door hit you in the ass" school.

[blogslut]

41. Tell the kids

...they're allright. Old people will understand this.

Liberal students took the stage with a banner. The conservative students in turn, got violent. Will the conservative students be expelled as well?

That's what they deserve? That's what they deserve?

It's like the anti-war riots and student protests of the sixties never happened. Those damn Kent state kids! That's what they get for protesting a youth-murdering pointless war!

[Red Right and BLUE]

48. Here's a well-wisher.

I'm glad they stood up for what they believe in. I saw the video, and I saw who REALLY got violent. It wasn't the students with the banner; the minute "men" got pissed and simply couldn't handle it.

[Malikshah]

55. Yup-- all those referring to Brownshirts, accountability-games, etc.

Need to study their history.

Life isn't simple. When the rules are created by those seeking to oppress--the rules need to be changed.

To have one's voice heard is not a crime--even when shouting down those who wish you harm.

This whole "denial of free speech" is a pathetic, tiresome red herring.

Those protesting had been denied their free speech and are currently having their free speech stolen from them.

Those who decry the actions of the protestors in this specific case-- realize that there are times when folks have to take action. You do it loudly and you do it without violence. At the same time you have the right to defend yourself when attacked.

For the "brownshirt" accusers-- do you support free speech zones?

If so-- then there is more reason for those who protested to continue to do so.

All of the US is frikking "free-speech" zone. Anyone who says otherwise is using the US Constitution as toilet paper.

[Taoschick]

59. Oh please....

Those protesting had been denied their free speech and are currently having their free speech stolen from them.

Free speech doesn't mean you get to barge in and take center stage and force others to hear what you have to say. This was an event planned by people who support the MM thuggery and the thugs turned out to be the people trying to force their opinion. Free speech does not equal free access. Protest outside the hall, schedule your own pro-immigration rally but don't act like a child and demand that people pay attention to you.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. ...

"Free speech doesn't mean you get to barge in and take center stage and force others to hear what you have to say."

Actually, yeah, it does.

"This was an event planned by people who support the MM thuggery and the thugs turned out to be the people trying to force their opinion."

Nope, the thugs were still the racists. And the people who rushed the stage to try and tear down the banners.

"Free speech does not equal free access."

This is true. Frankly, I see no reason why white supremacists should even be in places of higher education.

"Protest outside the hall, schedule your own pro-immigration rally but don't act like a child and demand that people pay attention to you."

Seems to me the people acting like children are the anti-immigration nuts.

[rman]

68. It was a formal debate - if people don't want to stick to the rules,

(which essentailly amount to 'waiting for your turn to speak') then why go to the debate?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

69. Oh, now it's about breaking the debate rules?

Sure looked like the audience liked it.

[rman]

74. It sure is the point, always has been.

The point was not for some members of the audience to entertain the rest of the audience.

[pampango]

73. "Frankly, I see no reason why white supremacists should even be in places

of higher education." Not only white supremacists. Black supremacists, Asian supremacists, Muslim supremacists, Christian supremacists (take a breath), rightists, leftists, pro-immigration activists, anti-immigration activists (take another breath), communists, fascists, socialists, libertarians, etc.

My son will be starting college next year. I hope that he is exposed to "far-out" ideas and learns that the world has many points of view. I do not want him to hear only ideas that are "far-out" in the direction that his father considers acceptable.

I support more immigration not less and an amnesty for those already here. I don't think it hurts our blue collar workers, but I would support it even if convinced that it did. I support immigration for humanitarian, as well as economic, reasons but I loathe those that can't allow someone with an opposing point of view to express it.

[NaturalHigh]

75. People who oppose illegal immigration are white supremacists?

I call bullshit on that one, but it's a nice way for you to attempt to frame the debate.

BTW, who does get to decide what groups get a chance to speak on college campuses? If they are all groups of which you approve, are they safe from thugs rioting and disrupting them? If a socialist group was interrupted by right-wingers rioting, would you be so nonchalant about it, or would you be screaming for the college to throw the book at them?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. Pretty much, yeah.

Think they'd be against immigration if it were white people immigrating? I don't.

Shit, the fuckers are flying swastikas. Are you seriously suggesting they aren't white supremacists?

[pampango]

99. Hey, people were against immigration when it was the Irish or Eastern

Europeans. Obviously, you can't rule out racism in anything, but that doesn't mean that is the only possible justification for opposing immigration is racism.

I am a big proponent of immigration. My wife is from the Philippines. I lived there for four years. I support immigration for both humanitarian and economic reasons, but I realize that they pose some threat to low-skilled American workers in the construction, farm work and a few other industries. The increase in the supply of labor has a depressive effect on wages among the workers that compete for those jobs.

On balance I think that immigrants are a net positive economically. They are good for the country, but I also acknowledge that there is a down side to immigration. It is just outweighed, IMO, but the positive contributions that immigrants make to our economy and society.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. Sure, a hundred years ago.

They were fucking bigots then too.

[pampango]

118. Immigration was opposed by some back then because they perceived,

wrongly, perhaps, that the flood of immigrant threatened the jobs of the people already here.

Most countries seem to feel that way about immigrants.

[NaturalHigh]

126. What the Minutemen are proposing...

is that we get a handle on the illegal immigration on our borders. That's not racist, it's just common sense.

[Raskolnik]

88. Actually, no, it doesn't.

Free speech doesn't mean you get to barge in and take center stage and force others to hear what you have to say."

Actually, yeah, it does.

You are wrong about that. The 1st Amendment absolutely does *not* mean you have the right to force others to hear what you have to say. The Columbia kids had no more right to rush the stage than the Minutemen have a right to rush the stage at an immigrants' rights rally.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

98. Actually, yeah, it does.

The first amendment allows me to say whatever I want, where ever I want, how ever I want.

[Brian Stevens]

101. Lets be reasonable.

I am on my friend's side in saying they don't deserve expulsion, but the first amendment clearly states that only goverment shall make no law against the freedoms. But the rest can. Didn't mean to piss you off, but thats how it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. I'm not saying the school doesn't have a legal right to expel

...anybody it sees fit.

I'm saying it's just plain fucking stupid. Shit, they ought to lose accreditation if they do.

[pampango]

105. You know better than that. If nothing else, we have all heard the

"You can't yell 'Fire' in a theater" rule.

For freedom of speech to mean anything, freedom to hear the speech has to be included.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

109. Apples and oranges.

You know better than to compare shouting fire in a theater than actual speech.

[Raskolnik]

107. You are absolutely wrong about that.

I'm not sure who taught you ConLaw, but you need to ask for your money back.

You may be sued for slandering someone, you cannot break into my home to make a speech, and you may be prohibited from using loudspeakers outside a nursing home.

You cannot, in fact, say whatever you want, where ever you want, however you want.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

110. Again, apples and oranges.

Yes, the Constitution protects my right to say whatever I want, when ever I want, where ever I want, how ever I want.

Jeez, what are they teaching in civics classes these days? Constitutional law? This is third grade social studies.

[Raskolnik]

120. You are demonstrably wrong, as the examples prove.

the Constitution protects my right to say whatever I want, when ever I want, where ever I want, how ever I want.

Let me ask you two direct questions:

Can bring a bullhorn into the post-natal ward of a hospital and begin making threats against the President?

Do you think that if a member of the Minutemen stormed the stage at an immigrants' rights rally, grabbed the microphone, and started making a speech, his actions would be protected by the First Amendment?

I'm going to give you a hint: both questions have the same answer.

[INDIA]

111. Can you shout "fire" in a movie theatre?

Do you have the right to threaten people? Do you have the right to yell on a loudspeaker at 3am in a residential neighborhood? Can you print or spread lies about people to defame them without consequence?

It's a little more complicated than "say whatever I want, where ever I want, how ever I want."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. Do you know the difference between an apple and an orange?

"It's a little more complicated than "say whatever I want, where ever I want, how ever I want.""

Not really.

[INDIA]

113. You were making the point that free speech...

is unlimited. It's not. There are justifiable limits.

You can't threaten the lives of certain government officials. You can't shout something that starts a riot and injures people. You can't come into my neighborhood and shout political views through a loudspeaker at 3AM. You can't spread lies about people without civil consequences.

"Not Really"

Yes really.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

114. Oh for fuck's sake.

No, I'm not saying it's legal to shout "fire" in a crowded room.

That said, outside of the obvious shit where people actually get hurt- death threats, libel, etc. -

I can say whatever I want, and there's not anything these shithead racists and their supporters can do but sit their and groove on it.

The Constitution does not call for "free speech zones" where you can go ahead and say anything you want, you can do it anywhere. The Constitution does not say you have to sit there and listen while some redneck goes on and on about the Mexican threat, you can stand up and shout him down.

Just what are they teaching kids in social studies classes these days?

[INDIA]

116. Hypothetical:

Bornagin decides to have a anti-MM rally. You rent out the local park gazebo. Pay to have speakers fly in. Register the event with the local government. Buy punch and cookies etc. When you take the stage, much to your dismay, there are 20 MM suporters on loudspeakers chanting and drowning out you and your speakers. Nobody can hear you. Should the police move in and have them move? If they refuse, should they be arrested for disorderly? Is it fair to your speakers or audience members?

Of course they shouldn't. Freedom of speech and disrupting lawful presentations are two different things. If the Colombia students didn't like the MM, they should have scheduled a comprable anti MM presentation at another venue, or used the Q and A part of the presentation to espouse their own viewpoints.

Should Fred Phelps be put in a "free speech" zone so he isn't in earshot of military funerals? Yup. He should be allowed to protest, but interfering with somone elses funeral or presentation isn't protected as free speech.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

117. You support free speech zones?

Jee-sus, what are they teaching kids in social studies these days?

[INDIA]

119. Sure, cherry pick my post.

And yes, if a protest (Fred Phelps) is interfering directly with a lawful event (military funeral), then he should have to protest a certain distance away, out of earshot and sight of the funeral. You can't possibly disagree with that.


These kids had every right to protest outside the building or set up their own presentation. They rushed a stage. Just like at any event/rock concert/political rally, people who are not part of the presentation do not belong on the stage. It's disorderly conduct.

[rman]

67. Is preventing others from speaking a matter of free speech?

I don't think so.

[rman]

66. They could have stood up and not prohibit others from speaking

The occasion was one of formal debate - one group choose to accept the invitation and proceeded to do something completely different than debating.

While i support many of the socialist ideals, i do not support such behavior.

[Brian Stevens]

58. Reposting new info since it was deleted

Now I know I didn't violate TOS for telling what was going, so I probably posted on the wrong sub thread so here is the last info I got once again. Luckily I save my stuff so all I can do is copy/paste.

I just got off the phone with my friend. The ACLU is definately looking into this and will be keeping an eye on Columbia's investigation. So thats is a little good news, but will not guarantee a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to the expulsion. From what he was told, 13 people are up for that punishment, that could dwindle to just 3 to 5 if they are lucky. Also, the ACLU is also pressuring the Admin. that if they go through and successfully process the expulsions of the Gringos and Socialists chapters, they either must expell or suspend what is believed to be 2 members of the College republicans that were involved in the scuffle. Bad news is that sanctions have been issued to the Student Board of Governors so the penalties could be one or more of the following,

1. The Gringos Caucus and/or International Socialist chapters would be considered hostile organizations and if so, those clubs would be forced to dissolve.

2. All key officers (president, vp, tressure, secretary, etc.) of the clubs would be held totally responsible and be forced to step down.

3. Here is where the 3 to 5 expulsions comes in, the BOG could send a letter of recomendation to the admins. to expell or suspend only the organizers of the raid, but if they do recomend suspension, this means that when they return from suspension they will be on 2 years (or the rest of the college stay) on behavioral probabtion, in which Columbia has a zero tolerance reputation when it comes to this.

So there is a lil siver lining, but not much. Hope this info answers some of the questions.

[Centrist11]

61. Free speech must hurt you?

"International Socialist Organization ", I thought this was a place for Democrats? Amyway, I'm new, and it's only my second post, but this seems outrageous.

[Brian Stevens]

62. This is more of a free speech issue

Welcome to DU.

[rman]

78. "Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked,

so was Stalin."

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Goebbels was in favor of freedom of speech for views he liked, so was Stalin. If you are in favor of freedom of speech, then you are in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.

With regard of my defense of people who express utterly offensive views, (many people say) "you are defending this person's views". I am not, I am defending the right to express their views.
The difference is crucial, and the difference has been understood outside of fascist circles since the 18th century."

-- Noam Chomsky, "Manufacturing Consent"


====

I we don't want to have our freedom of speech suppressed then we should not suppress the freedom of speech of others by storming the stage and shouting them down, or in any other way. Even if they express views we do not like.

[spoony]

94. Great quote

Delivered in his usual rational level-headedness that drives some people so crazy, lol.

[Jcrowley]

79. What about when "free speech" incites violence?

"This vile racism translates directly into violence on the ground. "It should be legal to kill illegals," said one Minutemen volunteer. "Just shoot 'em on sight. That's my immigration policy recommendation." It is no wonder that neo-Nazi organizations like the National Alliance praise the Minuteman Project in their publications, and have members signing up for Minutemen militias."

"We are sure that if the Nazi party held a public meeting on campus, Jewish groups would be there to challenge them-so would we. We are sure that if the Ku Klux Klan held a public meeting on campus, African American groups would be there to challenge them-so would we. The Minutemen are no different."

As pointed out upthread the free speech issue in this case is a red herring and serves to disinform the participant so as to avoid the deeper issues of power relations.

[rman]

82. IF - Then 'we' should not go about playing police and judge all in one,

by suppressing their right to freedom of speech.

[Jcrowley]

84. Some of these discussions

revolve around the purely abstract omitting the material conditions. Sometimes it comes down to the playground query "Who threw the first punch?"

Here's another honorable and just example of someone getting shouted down on a larger scale. Vincente Fox was on the podium for his last presidential speech a month ago and numerous members from the opposition party shouted him down and he had to run off the stage never giving his final address. Too bad we don't have such impassioned members in our Congress who shut down the whole charade by refusing to let Frist, Bolton, Bush etc. spew their venom into the atmosphere. There are many and varied layers to this and interesting metaphysical textures to consider. Sometimes civility is not as it seems. There are dynamics at work which go far beyond everyday political decorum.

[NaturalHigh]

85. Holding up banners and shouting is just fine.

Jumping on stage and starting a riot is not. I've seen the video, and anyone who says that these morons weren't violent is either lying or blind.

[Jcrowley]

87. Good luck reasoning with these folks

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat though." -John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987 and member of the 9/11 cOmmission

Ghandi was bewildered as to why Hitler never responded to his letters.

It's really quite astonishing how passive the Latino community has been through the years, centuries, in light of all the abuse that has been heaped upon them. "Abuse" being a very tepid term.

Power cedes nothing without a struggle. Never has never will.

[pampango]

89. My guess is that the Latino community has been relatively passive through

the years, for the same reason that Blacks were relatively passive for centuries in the US. Probably has something to do with the power structure creating a culture for minorities which was not conducive to self-realization and achieving their full potential.

You are right about power ceding nothing without a struggle. (Heck, I have trouble ceding power and responsibility to my teenage son as he gets older.) MLK did not not prove that the white power structure in the South would give up power without a struggle, just that it could be accomplished without becoming like the enemy you detest.

[spoony]

96. It ceded pretty well in 92, and will again in 06, 08

The whole point of democracy is that we don't have to lower ourselves to violently rebel against idiots, we just dispose of them in November.

[Jcrowley]

103. The Corporations

were running the show in all the years you mentioned and will be in the future unless people wake up to the futility, as proven by the ineffectual results, of the tactics they have employed.Tthose same corporations who have the real power will still be around in December. You get the last word.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

102. violence? riot?

1. There was no violence, except perhaps for the college republican who jumped on stage and started shoving.

2. There was no riot.

Jeez, talk about blindness and lying.

[NaturalHigh]

123. Have you seen the video?

If not, I suggest you watch it. The Minutemen organizers and speakers were physically assaulted, despite the spin that the ISO students are putting on the situation.

[lies and propaganda]

80. fuck the miuntemen

glorified racist douchebags who instead of pretending tp play soldier, should all go fucking enlist.

[NaturalHigh]

86. Whatever you think of the Minutemen...

they have the same rights to freedom of speech as you or I. Those rights don't just extend to those who recite the party lines.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

108. When were the rights of the Minutement ever violated?

They weren't. The first amendment does not give you the right to keep from being shouted down by good people.

[spoony]

121. Then what's the point?

If speech is never listened to, and cons shout down liberals and liberals shout down cons, why would anyone continue to try to talk? Your interpretation seems to turn the nation into a neverending episode of Crossfire or some other obnoxious "whoever's louder wins" show.

[NaturalHigh]

124. They weren't "shouted down"...

they were assaulted.

[Catherine Vincent]

106. ...

[aikoaiko]

115. Expulsion is too severe, but I don't support the students' actions.

As I understand it, the speaker was an officially invited guest speaker and the audience was to have a chance to ask questions and give comment.

The content of the message is irrelevant. I wouldn't want to young republicans to act this way when progressive speakers give their talks at more conservative universities.

The students who rushed the stage should be embrassed. I know the university is.

edited to add: Columbia is a private university and if they no longer wish to associate with the students who rushed the stage and disrupted the event, then so be it. Your friend can apply elsewhere for the education he seeks -- I'm sure explusion won't stop him from getting a college education.

[Spinoza]

122. IMO anyone that physically

assaulted, or attempted to assault a speaker SHOULD be expelled. Allowing physical intimidation of American citizens attempting to exercise their first amendment rights is fascistic.

[Brian Stevens]

127. If in fact the assault came from my friend's side....

Then why is 13 people, all of them on the stage rush side including my friend, up for expulsion since most, along with my friend, didn't even lay a finger on anyone ath the engagement?

[StinkyMcPinknose]

131. Shouting down those you disagree with

and chasing those you disagree with off campus (as also happened at UCSC) is a classic fascist technique. The separatists of Quebec do it quite a bit also, and are rightly called fascists for doing it. It is very sad that those who consider themselves progressive have to resort to fascistic behavior.