Video: Daniel Pipes silenced by crowd, responds on H&C
posted at 1:25 pm on February 7, 2007 by Ian
Daniel Pipes was shouted down by protestors and anti-Semites at a UC Irvine speech he gave last week. Pipes was on Hannity & Colmes last night to talk about what happened. One can argue this forum is equally as bad when you have an apologist such as Alan Colmes on the show. As Charles comments, Colmes was especially pathetic in this one.
(Thanks to Charles at Little Green Footballs for providing video)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Just wait, we will wipe Israel off the map.”
two things:
1) sounds exactly like Armamadjihad
2) UCLA is perfectly fine with it.
Thanks libs!!! you fail America beyond belief.
shooter on February 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM
The unholy alliance.
Wait, I thought “liberals” were *for* freedom of speech, which is a form of *liberty*, hence the term “liberal”.
Once again they prove themselves to be socialist elitists and prove *us* to be the *classic* liberals.
Freedom for me but not for thee. Typical. Did they throw any pies this time?
Tony737 on February 7, 2007 at 2:14 PM
When will people realize, while there may be peaceful Muslims. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Never has been and it never will Be!
abinitioadinfinitum on February 7, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Mr. Colmes referred to UC Irvine at least twice as a “liberal” school. I would remind Mr. Colmes that UC Irvine is a publicly funded institution. ALL the taxpayers of the State of California help (are forced) to fund the school not just the liberal ones…
He also implied that Mr. Pipes should have known that his speech would be disrupted by the nature of the venue, a “liberal” school.
I find Mr. Colmes thought process to be dangerous. It is akin to blaming the rape victim because she wore a skirt.
Babs on February 7, 2007 at 2:23 PM
I couldn’t believe this when I saw this last night. As usual Alan didn’t fail to disappoint. When they come for him I’ll be lmao. In Alan’s world, if it’s conservatives who are being shouted down, hell yeah! But if it’s a liberal puke, God help them.
Catie96706 on February 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM
People bastardize the definition of freedom of speech to suit their needs all the time around here.
Freedom of speech simply means you can say whatever you want and you will not be arrested–it is not freedom from being mocked or freedom from being shouted down by a crowd. By shouting him down the crowd was not violating his freedom of speech, it was simply excersing its own freedom of speech, albeit much louder. This may be rude, but it is far from a violation of his rights.
JaHerer22 on February 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Um…the guy finished his speech, right?
So when was he “silenced?”
Let’s be precise.
RMSpuhler on February 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
I don’t know if its still there, but you used to be able to go to YouTube and type in Noam Chomsky at West Point and you could see him doing a Q and A with cadets in a lecture hall. I think this is a good contrast to the reception Pipes received at UCLA.
BohicaTwentyTwo on February 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM
UCI, in the middle what used to be the most conservative county in the U.S.
right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM
So you feel that it is ok to shout down and not give a person a chance to speak.
Let me see, you feel the freedom of loud speech allows you to limit the freedom of quiet speech.
So you think the loudest voice or the strongest voice has more rights.
Could you show me that in our Constitution? I missed that part.
right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM
They are. Until it reaches a state of anarchy. And then they want to re-impose rules of their own design. Once the rules are back in place they find they don’t like being restricted by rules and they once again swing back toward anarchy.
Lawrence on February 7, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I, for one, did not use the word “silenced”. I used the word “disrupted”. But, you bring up an interesting point which is “violation of rights”. As a taxpayer of the State of California who is actively funding this university I think MY RIGHTS have been violated by the interruption of a talk designed to present a point of view to university students so that they may consider ALL POINTS OF VIEW. I do believe that is what is known as a “liberal” education. Not just the point of view of the guy who decides to shout the loudest. I have a RIGHT to insist that my tax dollars are used in an efficient manner. If this were a private school I would not be making this argument; you go to a private school you better check out what their point of view is before you lay the huge tuition dollars down.
As for the three dissenting comments above, shall we all just have one huge scrum all the time? Let me know when I have to start bringing a bat to a lecture because someone else takes their “right to free expression” one step further.
Grow up.
Babs on February 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM
I sincerely don’t understand liberals any more.
They should all – ALL – be appalled by this. They should be appalled MORE than conservatives. They claim to believe not just in the First Amendment doctrine of free speech as freedom from government interference … but to actually support the free expression of ideas, the free marketplace of thought.
THAT is what is at issue here. Not semantic arguments about what freedom of speech actually means. Liberals KNOW that, when it suits them, if it were a liberal, they would DECRY such behavior.
Ironically, on this very day, liberals are shrieking that Amanda Marcotte’s “freedom of speech” was attacked … even though no one silenced her, even though all that happened was that her own ideas were exposed and published.
I want one liberal on here to admit, openly, that this sort of shouting someone down is the OPPOSITE of what liberals claim to believe.
Find me one honest liberal. Just one. What do you say, Jaherer22 – want to step up? Want to admit it? Or is that too much to ask?
No liberal would behave this way. And no liberal – no American of any political persuasion – no thinking person – would support this behavior.
Just find me one honest liberal. There’s gotta be one.
Professor Blather on February 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Well, there goes professionalism, decorum and courtesy in our higher education institutions.
Part of having one’s opinion taken seriously in a professional university forum is allowig the opposition the courtesy of also speaking.
Lawrence on February 7, 2007 at 3:25 PM
The sad thing about this is that UCI was once known as the premere Engineering and Technology school in the UC system. It is now known as a hotbed of Islamic in your face activism where serious opinions that contain any dissent to the Islamic agenda are shouted down and protested.
Babs on February 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM
A tip of the hat to Professor Blather on his response.
The liberal you seek is on the endangered species list, if not already extinct.
MarkB on February 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM
I’m not making a value judgement on whether it is acceptable to shout down someone you disagree with. It’s rude and immature, that’s for sure, but then again they are college students so by nature they are rude and immature. However unlike socialcons I’m not in the business of telling people what is morally right or wrong.
And I am not trying to imply that those he speak louder have more of a right to free speech; I see where you are getting that, but that’s not what I intended. My point is simply that the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, not the right that everyone around you must shut up and listen when you speak. They have the right to shout at him as much as he has the right to talk.
It may be rude, mean-spirited, embarassing to the school, unprofessional and it may make the students look silly and immature–but it has nothing to do with free speech.
JaHerer22 on February 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
It would have nice had the protesters raised any problem they had with Dr. Pipes during the Q&A. What a wonderful opportunity missed – the exchange of viewpoints from two different sides. The fact is, the “protesters” didn’t want to engage in free speech, just free shouting. They walked out at the beginning lest any of their group be have their mind’s infected by Dr. Pipes presentation.
What is pathetic is the Muslim Mob Mentality with has infected the minds of so many Muslims from childhood. You are not allowed to think differently. Even the prayers five times a day are scripted. Do you think God enjoys listening to a billion pray the same thing over and over five times a day?
Young boys in the Madrassas are taught little of math and science, but instead the emphasis is memorizing the Koran – that collection of Mohammed’s teachings where Jews are monkeys, Christians are pigs and there are geniis are roaming out in the desert.
Sad to say, the main contribution the Muslim mindset has offered the world lately is more ingenious and creative ways to kill people. The joke floating around is if Iran really wants the bomb fast they need to hire some Jews.
We should pray and work for a renaissance among the Muslims that they could be awakened from their deep, dark nightmare and join civilization.
Texas Mike on February 7, 2007 at 3:52 PM
What are you looking for in “be precise” ?
There are two ways to shut someone up. Scare him or her off the stage whilst they are speaking or failing that, scare them enough so that they are afraid to speak again.
With that, you can remove the quote marks from “silenced.”
Freedom of speach means being able to speak your point WITHOUT fear of reprisals. No one has to agree with the argument being made but they do not have the right to disrupt, breathing death, ESPECIALLY when one is speaking the truth.
naliaka on February 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM
If those protesters were saying, death to Blacks, destruction to Africa, how would the university respond?
I doubt they would give the same response. Even if such was said for a second!
IndependentConserv on February 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Let’s start taking up donations for giant amps and speakers. We CAN do it, with enough decibels.
NTWR on February 7, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Can confirm that all right: :)
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners, to be seen by men. I tell you the truth they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you. And when you pray do not keep on babbling like the pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.” Matthew 6:5-8
naliaka on February 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Apparently my search for an honest liberal is not going to bear fruit on this thread, is it?
Jaherer22′s response up there is almost textbook intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, Jaherer – we understand that the First Amendment is applicable solely to governmental interference with free expression. (Although there is a case to be made that if it can be demonstrated that a publicly funded university permits certain types of speech to be interrupted – and protects a different political ideology – that First Amendment issues might be involved. But I digress).
But even assuming not a hint of direct or indirect government involvement, you know perfectly well – or should know – that the concept of the free marketplace of ideas extends far beyond mere government infringement. Semantic sophistry like that in which you’re engaging out to shame you; you know perfectly well that an actual exchange of ideas is – or used to be – a mantra of the left, and of the country, and frankly of all of western civilization.
Grow some balls, friend. Just admit it – you’re appalled. You’re embarrassed that your fellow ideologues are so weak in their arguments that shouting down the other side is all they have.
Somebody? Anybody? Is there one liberal who will embrace the SPIRIT of free speech rather than engage in petty semantics over the legalisms? Anyone?
Why do I bother?
Professor Blather on February 7, 2007 at 5:28 PM
1. They didn’t address their objections during the QnA because liberals can not debate.
2. Unless I am mistaken he did not once say his rights were violated. He was, however, saying that he was disrupted durring his speech. Now if I (or anyone for that matter) went to hear someone speak and some people acted like this, we all we be pretty miffed at them. Just think of those that talk during movies.
3. For those talking about freedom of speech not being the freedom not to be shouted down, let I should point out that freedom of speech does not guaranty the freedom to speak where you want and when you want; only that you can make dissenting speeches.
4. – The Cat
MirCat on February 7, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Daaniel Pipes flies in gives his speech,then flies out. But what about the profs (and students) who have to lecture 3-4 times a week? They are the real targets here. The message: toe the party line in your classroom or we will make your life hell.
Nothing to do with free speech?
billy on February 7, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I just love Alan. He always has to take the morons side.
Here is one of my Favorites from Wazzadem:
Fandango on February 7, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Just remember that in the 1930s it was vogue for universities to have pro-Nazis come in and give lectures about the wonders of Hitler. This is not new.
Colmes is pathetic. I love how legitimate criticism of liberals is always “hate speech” and rude, unruly and often threatening behavior towards conservatives is protected.
cmay on February 7, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I said Wazzadem
Fandango on February 7, 2007 at 6:10 PM
I’m dying to know… does Alan really believe the asinine things he says.. half the time I think he’s sincere and the other half I think he’s doing a satire of the left.
VinceP1974 on February 7, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Sorry, my statement that you support that loud speach has a right to drown out soft speach still stands, and you still support it. When you invite someone in to speak, you are formally giving him a forum to speak, you are not giving people the right to interrupt. Rules are followed for decorum, not morals. That is why we stop at stop signs, why we apply for drivers permits, why we show up on time for work, not for moral values but for an organized society. Does that mean the students have a right to stand up and shout down their teachers? Do you have a right to ignore a policeman that is pulling you over for a traffice violation? Pipes was invited to speak, he was not invited to be interrupted, or have a debate. Get it?
right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Hey Professor, you are right…do not bother with “JA”….
I only wonder what would happan if the looneys assaulted a speaker and the speaker feeling that he or she was under assault smacked one of his attackers. Would it be self defense or a violation of said attackers freedom of speech?
robo on February 7, 2007 at 6:55 PM
right2bright, don’t waste your breath. The tinfoil hatted loons and the Islamofascists do not care one wit about anything but their creed. They don’t understand words like civility, respect, responsibility, honesty, morals. Just isn’t in their lexicon. So don’t waste your breath, they’re simply not worth it.
sharinlite on February 7, 2007 at 6:58 PM
“Freedom of speech” to liberals means the freedom to say only what liberals want to hear. Opposing viewpoints frighten and confuse them, and disrupt the acoustics of their echo chamber.
ReubenJCogburn on February 7, 2007 at 8:20 PM
Your posts are normally worthless, but this one is just stupid.
Jaibones on February 7, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Speaking of H&C, tonight’s segment on global warming was so ‘make it up as you go’ from the left it was comedy. I was actually waiting for the leftist x-pert to quote the SNL guy; ‘yea, that’s the ticket.’ Like there’s no scientists living on Earth that disagree with warming caused by humans. None. ‘yea, that’s the ticket.’ Alan must be getting his liberal friends high before the taping.
Griz on February 7, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Pipes complaint is that the University took no action. They should have done. Those who were protesting were never interested in anything Pipes had to say. They came to disrupt, make their statement. Instead of condemning their actions, the University issued a gratuitous statement. The statements Mr. Pipes read that were being said on the outside should send chills down any reasoning person’s spine. The fact that leftists continue to make light of it only proves what I have always known. They, in fact, have no spine for chills to be sent down.
Glynn on February 7, 2007 at 11:54 PM
Babs, excellent comments, and so true!
Professor, there are no honest ones left. On such serious topics our leftie friends go into hiding. It’s the greatest disappointment – not that there is a left, but that there isn’t one of substance any more.
As the mob was leaving “we’re fighting with our tongues here…” – sure, tongues today, machetes tomorrow…
Entelechy on February 8, 2007 at 12:05 AM
At the risk of stating the obvious, isn’t it clear that we need a 1st Amendment to protect soft speech and not loud speech, unpopular speech as opposed to popular speech?
smellthecoffee on February 8, 2007 at 1:17 AM
The title says he was “silenced.” He was not. He gave his full speech and did the Q&A after.
Were the protestors rude? Yes.
Should the university have done something more than a statement? Yes.
Should there be punishment to those that would try to disrupt such a thing? Of course.
But he was not “silenced. ”
One of the major problems I see in political discourse today are is that too many people don’t understand the meaning of the language they use. Say what you mean. Be precise in language.
RMSpuhler on February 8, 2007 at 1:26 PM