LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I'm curious as to how folks think its OK to disrupt public speeches. You keep reading more and more about people doing childish things to disrupt, interrupt, and prevent speeches, especially on college campuses by those who lean left.

Are some people so afraid of having a public discourse or hearing about something they don't want to hear? And if it someone you really disagree with, why bother to even go to the speech?

I thought college campuses where about diversity of opinions from all sides of the aisle.

We had the nutcase earlier at U of Florida trying to disrupt Sen. Kerry. Here are a few other recent examples with pics and video clips:

Horowitz speech at Emory University is disrupted by protester and ends prematurely:
LINK

Nonie Darwish attempts to give a public speech at Cal, repeatedly interrupted by opponents:
LINK

Former Senator Rick Santorm gives a speech at Penn State with lots of interruptions:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2007/10/24/audience_challenges_santorum_a.aspx

Question to those of you that think these actions are OK - Do you really think the First Amendment gives people the right to do this?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Mmm, irony.

"I thought college campuses where about diversity of opinions from all sides of the aisle."

Nope.

http://indoctrinate-u.com/pages/welcome.html

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjU2NDA3ZDlkZmFiMjU5ZjU5NDVhMzI1MTIwNDE2OWM=[quote][/quote]

Just yesterday some freak show from an organization called Code Pink ran after Condoleezza Rice with red paint, to look like blood, at some public hearing over the war in Iraq.

The video was hilarious as her other groupies were being removed from the audience they went limp and basically got trampled by police officers.

I am willing to put myself out on a limb here and say that the free speech rights that were inringed that day were those of the code pink activists.

WE ARE LIVING IN THE SINGLE MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE MOST LETHARGIC AND SORT-SIGHTED ELECTORATE EVER.

Thank God for those corageous women who know that what is happening is wrong, and thank God for their bravery. No, not God; thank George Bush for bringing heroism back out of the White House and into the streets. I graduate from college this year, and as of May I will stop pettily making jabs at people from online forums and actually go out and practice my rights of protest. See you CNN.

Steno wrote:
WE ARE LIVING IN THE SINGLE MOST CORRUPT GOVERNMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE MOST LETHARGIC AND SORT-SIGHTED ELECTORATE EVER.

I thought Ulyssess S. Grant's government was the most corrupt, I guess we were taught two different things in university...

Well, since we are living in the present the Historians still havn't had a chance to categorize us, I guess.

Oh, and everyone should check out Code Pink's website:

http://www.codepink4peace.org/

I thought Ulyssess S. Grant's government was the most corrupt, I guess we were taught two different things in university...

You may want to give it a little time for this administration to really hit the history books.

We may be talking about two different situations here. I would categorize this as premeditated heckling and then there is an act of outrage by a member of the audience when the speaker is saying something that pushes the person to heckle or become disruptive. Is it ok? In some instances and under some circumstances I would have to say yes. The options that you outline here are examples of mostly ridiculous situations and people. How can you anticipate when someone in street clothes that looks just like someone else in the crowd starts heckling? This happened last Friday on Politically Incorrect, which is a live show. Sometimes it has been proving important to embarrass or ridicule "power" when they are stating complete false hoods. As a side note, to imply that only "liberals" protest and or heckle in this manner is ridiculous!

The meeting with the Pink ladies was a hearing on the capital. The one woman put faux blood on her hands and put them in Condi's face. She proceeded to scream and yell that Condi is a war criminal, a liar and that she has blood on her hands. Not saying it was correct. I just wanted to clear the air a little.

Let me pose a question. What about the Bush administrations policy of barring people from public gatherings due to party affiliations?

Sonny wrote:I'm curious as to how folks think its OK to disrupt public speeches. You keep reading more and more about people doing childish things to disrupt, interrupt, and prevent speeches, especially on college campuses by those who lean left.

Are some people so afraid of having a public discourse or hearing about something they don't want to hear? And if it someone you really disagree with, why bother to even go to the speech?

It is a valid point you make, Sonny, but at least those public figures on the left have the nerve to even speak to what might be a hostile audience.

Why is it that our President and Vice-President have so insulated themselves the past seven years that they will never even venture into a room where they could possibly be a single person that might disagree with them about anything? Neither Bush or Cheney is EVER heckled, because their staffs make 100% that no person even is allowed near them that might not agree completely with whatever lies they want to perpetrate.

Bush is going to California for another of his Katrina-type photo ops to a friendly audience where he will promise federal help that he may or may not ever deliver on (in New Orleans they are still waiting for Bush to live up to his promises from two years ago). But when GOP Gov. Schwarznegger begged him to go to Qualcom Stadium, Bush's people instantly vetoed that idea. Why? it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.... Bush will stick to solid, Republican-friendly neighborhoods and let his staff screen anybody he might come in contact with. You can't do that adequately in a big stadium with thousands of people who can't be quizzed first.

Free speech counts for something when you know people will disagree with you. It is not so important (or brave) when you ascertain, in advance, that everyone will certainly agree with you, and enthusiastically.

Dan Wishengrad wrote: Bush will stick to solid, Republican-friendly neighborhoods and let his staff screen anybody he might come in contact with. You can't do that adequately in a big stadium with thousands of people who can't be quizzed first.

You mean like the hilarious video of VP Cheney down in the Katrina-zone when the passer-by let his feelings be captured?
I agree that free speech rights need to be honored by both sides. Feel free to protest outside (without illegally impounding the protesters as happened during the GOP convention in NYC) carry a sign or wear a mesage on a shirt, but let's hear what someone has to say, whether you agree with the message or not. You might actually learn soemthing about where the other person is coming from.
I somehow detect some irony - but wasn't it somewhat recently that the President of Columbia University was being castigated on here for allowing someone to exercise free speech in a visit to the U.S.?

Dan your points are exactly what I was alluding to with my comment above.

But when GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger begged him to go to Qualcomm Stadium, Bush's people instantly vetoed that idea. Why? it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out....

To be fair, a lot of this has to do with protection of the President and the impact that such a large entourage has on the local infrastructure. Stadiums (and places with crowds of the potential size) are scoped out months in advance for protection. The timing of this event hasn't exactly allowed the secret service the time to do their job.

It is a valid point you make, Sonny, but at least those public figures on the left have the nerve to even speak to what might be a hostile audience.

I believe the whole point was to question the propriety of the disruptions brought about when folks are speaking to a hostile audience. If that risk wasn't taken there wouldn't be an effort to shout down the speech in the first place.

Someone once said that the remedy to bad speech is better speech - that if you don't like what someone says, be able to do point out why the other person is wrong and do a better job than they did. I agree with this concept.

My opinion - You have the right to free speech - but the excercise of that right cannot impact the liberty of another to exercise his/her free speech rights. But I understand that some may feel quite differently - that the only way their message can be heard is through some type of confrontational act.

Certainly demonstrations must be allowed, and are protected, but I just cannot sanction the "shouting down" of someone whose opinion you repudiate. But it happens frequently in our "heckling is ok" culture. While such "shouting down" actions may make great "you tube" moments, or get one on CNN, I don't' think they have the effect of mass demonstrations, reasoned speech or persuasive writing.

And when did listening to someone you disagree with become equated with acquiesence or agreement?


Rob

Here's what I think. Yes, you should have a right to be invited to make a speech, and when making that speech, you should be able to do it without being interrupted, heckled and all that.

If you go there, you should probably just shut up and listen. However, I can see in some circumstances, when trying to make some valid protest, how it might be okay to heckle, yell, etc. BUT, if you do that, you should expect to be removed by security/police, and when that happens, you should leave. You've made your point. At the same time, most of these people aren't make valid protests, they're just idiots who want to disrupt something, make a scene, or get on TV (don't tase me, bro!). They don't have any real valid points.

I thought college campuses where about diversity of opinions from all sides of the aisle.

Yes, Sonny, I believe you're right. That's why universities should be allowed to invited people like the president of Iran, which you thought was such a horrible thing. I remember you complaining about it a lot. Lets let these idiots speak, whether they be muslim, christian, left wing or right wing. If they are intelligent and thought provoking, great. If they are idiots, their own words will bury them. I didn't know much about the Iranian guy before his speech, but now I know that he's an idiot that thinks there are no gay people in Iran. Thank you, Columbia.

laxfan25 wrote: I somehow detect some irony - but wasn't it somewhat recently that the President of Columbia University was being castigated on here for allowing someone to exercise free speech in a visit to the U.S.?

No, the irony is that he came to America where free speech is allowed to grandstand his IslamFacist talk to score points back at home. The irony is that free speech isn't allowed in his country, so that would have never occurred on his own country's soil. And if it did occur, there wouldn't have been an free media outlets to report it independently any way.

Again. Columbia (as a private institution) can do what they want. I don't think it's prudent to extend free speech rights to non-Americans when it's a pure propaganda ploy and the said dictator that don't offer their own rights to his own people back at home. With free speech comes responsibility - a fact that Columbia failed to forsee or acknowledge.