What are you looking for in “be precise” ?

naliaka on February 7, 2007 at 4:11 PM

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.

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…

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

Your posts are normally worthless, but this one is just stupid.

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?

JaHerer22 on February 7, 2007 at 3:49 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?

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.

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

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?

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

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?

Do you think God enjoys listening to a billion pray the same thing over and over five times a day?
Texas Mike

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

I doubt they would give the same response. Even if such was said for a second!

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

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.

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.

right2bright on February 7, 2007 at 3:14 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.

The liberal you seek is on the endangered species list, if not already extinct.