Comments on: When Did We Start to Fear Speech?

By: Scott Wiggins

Scott Wiggins — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:01:48 +0000

It was a political coup for Imadickhead to speak at an American, so called, Ivy league institution. That is how it will play in Iran…Columbia was the “useful idiot enabler” in this event…I do see one brightspot however, that is that this event spotlighted yet another American University as a member of the lunatic fringe. America’s students should worry less about politics and more about how they are going to compete for jobs in the global economy. They will figure this out eventually, but for most of them it will come too late…

By: markm

markm — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:33:13 +0000

"My objection is nothing to do with free speech. Ahmadinejad is the head of state of a country that is actively waging a proxy war against the United States"

And furthermore, he was one of the leaders of the group that stormed our embassy and held our diplomats hostage in about 1980. Why oh why did our State Department ever give him a diplomatic passport guaranteeing him safe passage through our country when he has a record of ignoring such guaranties?

Sure, if Columbia U. wanted to hear him, I'm in favor of letting him demonstrate his nuttiness there - if we could arrest him right afterwards...

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:24:36 +0000

"I just don't understand what we **fear** so much letting Iranian dictator Amadinejad speak on American soil. I am absolutely all for letting people put themselves on the record in the clearest possible way...."

I don't understand why it's referred to as "fear." Or why people use the word "terrified" to refer to the idea that Amadinejad should be allowed to speak.

It's not fear. Try loathing, disgust, or another word that makes better sense. you make a good point about allowing him to speak, and I think you're right on, but let's be a little more respectful of the opposition's point of view.

Or do we assume that the reason Columbia doesn't invite Gilchrist or Limbaugh or Bush is that they're terrified of them? Fear rules Columbia's roost?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:16:13 +0000

Anyone notice the rousing applause Mahmoud received from the best and brightest at Columbia?

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:12:30 +0000

I'm as much in favor of free speech as everyone else, but there's still a small voice in the back of my head.

The thought that comes to mind is the same as when Mike Wallace interviewed him and when Dan Rather interviewed Saddam Hussein:

Shouldn't we just kill the guy while we've got him within reach?

By: Streaker

Streaker — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:00:07 +0000

I thought Ahmadinejad was already doing a fine job proving his mental state while in his own country. I don't see the need to welcome him here to do the same thing. He's a despicable little thug.

If someone murdered a member of my family I would not then invite them to my home.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:51:37 +0000

My objection is nothing to do with free speech. Ahmadinejad is the head of state of a country that is actively waging a proxy war against the United States, supplying explosives being used against American soldiers and Marines, and Iraqi and Israeli civilians. Diplomatic protocol requires us to allow him to visit the United Nations, but I don’t see why he should be allowed, or indeed invited, to go anywhere else at all.

By: James R Ament

James R Ament — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:58:24 +0000

No argument with the original post or any comments. Just thought I'd add this: When someone of significance on the world stage wants to be an idiot, give him or her a megaphone.

I noted that Bollinger's opening remarks were rather pointed!

By: ErikTheRed

ErikTheRed — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:56:43 +0000

Can we all please quit pretending this is a freedom of speech issue? This is all about Columbia being able to show off how anti-Bush / anti-American-hegemony they are and to give their faculty, staff, and students some locally shot video to masturbate to later. People who truly believe in free speech shouldn’t be bothered by the legality of this jackass speaking. Whether or not it’s in good taste is an entirely separate issue, but not one with legal implications. IMHO, he’s not going to contribute anything useful to the debate. We pretty much know his position is something along the lines of “the holocaust never happened, by I can fix that…”

By: Micah

Micah — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:51:37 +0000

Agree with everyone else. The issue for me isn’t that they give the guy a platform, per se. It’s that they give platforms in an entirely different way than Coyote’s post suggests. It’s not to “hear and record for posterity,” it’s to give the man a bully pulpit to bash America. If you don’t feel like it’s a pulpit, just look at the people they WON’T give it to.