Not too long ago,Columbia University invited President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,to speak at their annual "World Leader's Forum."
Naturally this sparked much protest around campus and the country. And why? One simple answer-discrimination.
We as Americans,are supposed to value our natural and constitutional rights,yet more and more these days,we seem to be slipping from our stand by them. We promote free speech yet we rudely and unabashedly single a man out for trying to express his views because they are different than ours.
People tried to defend their stance,boldly stating that President Ahmadinejad is a "holocaust denier." YET,if anyone paid attention to the speech he gave he interjected that he is NOT one. His opinion was merely that he did not see what such an event,tragic and horrid as it was,has to do with the Israeli people. Harsh? No doubt. But does that mean he is not allowed to speak freely?
We as Americans are also allowed to protest,but was that protest against the president of Iran really worth the trouble? Was it not ironic that so many of you exercised that liberty by rallying and chanting to deny the liberty of another?
I congradulate Columbia on sticking to their " commitment to serving as a center for public discussion and debate," (www.worldleaders.columbia.edu) and not letting the distorted views of people who misunderstood the speaker distort their own.
Is he a leader who has said and/or done brutal things? Yes.
Is he an individual who is allowed the right to speak? Yes.
Do you have to listen? No.
And that is the beauty of the American system-freedom. Please do not let us be the ones to ever insult that.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Freedom of speech is a double edged sword. Why should people who completely disagree with a man that says Israel should be wiped off the map, not be allowed to protest his speech? People disagree with his thoughts, and are expressing their opinions as a result. We want to promote free speech, right?
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
The President of Iran is not citizen of the Untied States so he really doesn't have any rights here other than speaking at Columbia. So you are really protesting the rights of Columbia University not the rights of the man they invited to come and speak.
--------------------
"Our politics are our deepest forms of expression, they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future."
The protesters have more of a right than the President of Iran to speak here.
He's not a citizen and is not covered by the Constitution. The protesters are covered by the righ to peacefully assemble (protest) and the right of free speech.
The college does, apparently, have a right to bring a holocaust-denier like the President of Iran to speak. Even though, at home, he calls for Israel to be destroyed and wishes, per his words, to bring about mass death and destruction for his own religious beliefs. (He believes that if he killed enough people, he'll bring about the islamic 12th Imam, which a cult following like him believe). . . He is also one of the hostage takers from the late 70's, when a bunch of Americans were taken hostage by some iranians for a year.
But... what can one expect? At one point, Hitler and Stalin were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize...
Wow,good bite there from all of you.
Granted he is not a citizen so yes,I do suppose it would be protesting Columbia rather than the Iran president.
But if we're going to go into that,in THAT case,go to the University's website.
They adamently describe their World Leader Forums as events intended to be thought provoking and in an environment that promotes free speech,providing, "a safe haven for conversation." They never swayed from that objective by inviting him to speak.
And I never meant for my opinion to come across as the protesters not having the right to protest. By all means,they do.
But it is my opinion that they did not have to be insulting. Yet,when playing with the double-edged sword concept,then yes,they nonetheless had the right to do so.
understand anything about the ideals of free speech. Free speech is a human right, same as any other human right. In fact, it is one of the main issues the US always brings up in the various human rights councils.
If the US promotes this human right throughout the world, then it should also promote it here in the US. And what I saw at Columbia was, rightly, an atrocity. That IS NOT what free speech is about.
You do not attempt to prevent another person to speak, you do not belittle the other person's speech, you do not make demands on his speech. Free speech is about hearing all views regardless of whether or not you agree.
What I saw at Columbia is people preventing free speech by loudly protesting and trying to drown out other views, of a university president shaming himself by belittling the very concept of freedom of speech, and of disrespectful students heckling the speaker.
If people wanted to protest, they should immediately prepare a rebuttal statement directly following the Iranian President's speech with concise arguments. This neo-Conservative movement of trying to out-shout anyone who doesn't agree with you is shameful.
I understand free speech. I also understand that the President of Iran can speak anywhere he wants to. That being said, I can call him anything I want and that be ok too.
"Our politics are our deepest forms of expression, they mirror our past experiences and reflect our dreams and aspirations for the future."