Should Ahmadinejad be allowed to speak at Columbia University?

[Pardalis]

Yes, of course I want to hear what he has to say after
all the "EvildoerMushroomcloudWMDEndofworldDictator"-
Propaganda in the MSM and from the White House:

OK Oliver, we heard that cassette already, can't you say anything else?

 

[Pardalis]

You mean you haven't heard him yet?

I think that's exactly why the US shouldn't be bothered with it if he wants to speak again. We heard his BS, and if he wants to continue with it, let him. He might even make his enemies in Iran more vocal, which would be good for the peace process.

 

[JoeEllison]

I don't understand what the purpose of silencing someone would be. Whatever he has to say should be listened to, analyzed, and put into the larger context of other things he's said. Then, it should be responded to logically and rationally. No stupidity about how he's "insane" or "the Great Satan" or any of the sort of rhetoric that we expect from our "enemies". I think we can safely reject any possible falsehoods and hate speech without resorting to it ourselves.

 

[yairhol]

Yeah, so?

Three things come to mind immediately as to what makes this different:

1. This time he won't be filtered by a media outlet.

2. This time Americans will be able to ask him questions directly, even argue with him.

3. Even if you're correct, and he says nothing different than what has been reported on before, so what? Why should that prevent him from saying his piece and being questioned?

Have you read the bbc interview with him?
He'll repeat exactly what he had said there. Did he frankly answer the questions which he was asked? You can clearly read that he did not. The Americans will be able to ask him questions but if the questions regard to the destruction of Israel, he will not answer them directly (as he did not answer in the interview) and if asked about the atomic bomb he will not answer directly. And you know what? I'll stretch the imagination here, but what if he does answer like a good boyscout and tell the whole world exactly what they want to hear? What difference would that make? He is claiming everyday the things I have said before. So now he'll say otherwise. Words words words. Although his new ideas will be a nice change I admit. I, as an Israeli, will be the first one to be glad to hear him say that he is against the destruction of Israel. I'm saying this with all honesty. But even if he does, based on his record to date, I will not believe him. I'll believe him when his ACTIONS are one with his words.

 

[Pardalis]

But aren't we putting way too much emphasis on what this man says? I don't think he has such an authority in Iran. He can only say so much, but does he really have the power to act on what he says? We shouldn't make this a conflict of personalities.

 

[Cleon]

Have you read the bbc interview with him?
He'll repeat exactly what he had said there. Did he frankly answer the questions which he was asked? You can clearly read that he did not. The Americans will be able to ask him questions but if the questions regard to the destruction of Israel, he will not answer them directly (as he did not answer in the interview) and if asked about the atomic bomb he will not answer directly. And you know what? I'll stretch the imagination here, but what if he does answer like a good boyscout and tell the whole world exactly what they want to hear? What difference would that make? He is claiming everyday the things I have said before. So now he'll say otherwise. Words words words. Although his new ideas will be a nice change I admit. I, as an Israeli, will be the first one to be glad to hear him say that he is against the destruction of Israel. I'm saying this with all honesty. But even if he does, based on his record to date, I will not believe him. I'll believe him when his ACTIONS are one with his words.

That's all very well and good, but it doesn't answer my question--so what? Why about this means that he shouldn't be allowed to speak?

 

[yairhol]

But aren't we putting way too much emphasis on what this man says?

Exactly, this is why I don't really care what he says in NY. I want his actions to speak for him.
I'm against his speech at the University because he is the opposite of who a legitimate person talking to the American people should be. And I'm against him visiting GZ because he stands at the head of a country which supports world terror (the kind of terror that caused the 9/11 tragedy).

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Yairhol, I understand where you are coming from in regards to his statements abou the destruction of Israel. But that should not preclude him from being able to speak at Columbia. If we prevent him from doing so, then we become less than the free and open democracy we are.

 

[yairhol]

Yairhol, I understand where you are coming from in regards to his statements abou the destruction of Israel. But that should not preclude him from being able to speak at Columbia. If we prevent him from doing so, then we become less than the free and open democracy we are.

But doesn't democracy have limits to freedom of speech? Should a pro natzi person (maybe not Ahmadinijad...but I wouldn't be surprised if he is) be given a stage? Should a child molester be given a stage? Should a person supporting world terror be given a stage in the country that he has so many times declared he wants to see destroyed?

 

[JoeEllison]

Yairhol, I understand where you are coming from in regards to his statements abou the destruction of Israel. But that should not preclude him from being able to speak at Columbia. If we prevent him from doing so, then we become less than the free and open democracy we are.

Yeah, that was pretty much what I thought as well. Isn't banning people from speaking the sort of thing we condemn Iran for? Do we want to behave the way they do?

 

[Pardalis]

I think this war of words with Iran is escalating, and becoming what we call in French a "dialogue de sourds" (dialogue of the deaf? I'm sure there's a better equivalent in English), which always leads to war.

Both sides have the finger on the trigger and are extremely nervous, one should have the courage to be the first one to ease off the trigger. It's quite obvious who that person should be, but unfortunately, knowing how stupid and stubborn he is I don't think he will.

 

[Cleon]

But doesn't democracy have limits to freedom of speech? Should a pro natzi person (maybe not Ahmadinijad...but I wouldn't be surprised if he is) be given a stage? Should a child molester be given a stage? Should a person supporting world terror be given a stage in the country that he has so many times declared he wants to see destroyed?

Actually...Yes.

Nazis have freedom of speech in this country. They frequently hold public demonstrations and rallies. (Search Youtube for "NSM" or "National Socialist Movement" if you don't believe me.) One is even running for president.

People advocating child molestation (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) have a magazine and a website, and hold regular conventions.

The whole idea behind "freedom of speech" is that even people with the most repugnant points of view can say their piece. Otherwise, you don't really have it.

 

[yairhol]

JoeEllison, I answered about this in post #29.

 

[yairhol]

Actually...Yes.

Nazis have freedom of speech in this country. They frequently hold public demonstrations and rallies. (Search Youtube for "NSM" or "National Socialist Movement" if you don't believe me.) One is even running for president.

People advocating child molestation (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) have a magazine and a website, and hold regular conventions.

The whole idea behind "freedom of speech" is that even people with the most repugnant points of view can say their piece. Otherwise, you don't really have it.

Thanks Cleon for pointing out those two examples for me. That's new for me and I must say that freedom of speech in the U.S. is exaggerated in my opinion. That's going a little too far.
Anyway, back to topic, giving Ahmadinijad freedom of speech is going a little too far in my book. Of course if he changes his day in and day out preaches about the destruction of Israel and the U.S. and shows actions in that direction too then I will have a lot less against that man.

 

[corplinx]

Ultimately, I do not have any control over who speaks at Colombia. What I did find interesting is they canceled a speaking visit by the leader of the Minutemen. When they asked the minutemen guy about them inviting the holocaust denier to speak, he said that the speech should go on. Some right wingers are clamoring that since the minuteman wasn't allowed to speak, neither should the holocaust denier.

As usual, the partisan pile-on will go on.

 

[yairhol]

Anyway, back to topic, giving Ahmadinijad freedom of speech is going a little too far in my book. Of course if he changes his day in and day out preaches about the destruction of Israel and the U.S. and shows actions in that direction too then I will have a lot less against that man.

I take that back:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

 

[Soseki]

I'm a grad student at the university in question, so perhaps I might be permitted to add a few things here. I've just come off the campus, where a large anti-Ahmadinejad demonstration is planned in the next few minutes.

First, is the questions as to whether Columbia should have invited him to speak. I don't particularly see the point of it, other than to give Ahmedinejad a platform.

Indeed, and had it been up to me personally I probably wouldn't have invited him. As I understand it, it is - at least in theory - part of a symposium at the School of International and Public Affairs dealing with the 30 years of Iran as an Islamic Republic. This is not the first time he has been invited, either - an invitation was extended around about this time last year, though it was done at such short notice that it didn't go ahead, on the grounds that it would not have been possible to get the degree of security required in place in time. I suspect, like others, that there is a large degree of publicity seeking going on here, but then again, if you're serious about doing research on Iran, Ahmadinejad would be a natural candidate to invite, however much of a nutcase he might be.

Second, is whether, having been invited, efforts should be made to stop it. And to that I answer a resounding "No." Having been invited by Columbia, nobody else has a right to stop him. Nor should they try to interrupt his speech or interfere in it. They can protest outside, provide counterpoint, etc.

I agree completely - he should not be stopped from speaking once he has been invited. Especially in the light of events around a year ago, after which President Bollinger, who - ironically - was a professor of law specialising in free speech issues before becoming assuming his current position, mounted a vigorous defence of free speech as one of the most fundamental elements in academic discourse. I agree with him, of course, but it would look immensely hypocritical to then turn around and bar Ahmadinejad from speaking on campus.

Ultimately, I do not have any control over who speaks at Colombia. What I did find interesting is they canceled a speaking visit by the leader of the Minutemen.

I'm not involved with the people in question, but my understanding of the issue is that it was unclear whether an invitation was issued in the first place (this was a couple of weeks ago), and the students involved said that Gilchrist had not been invited, though he himself claimed he had. I don't think that the University actually cancelled the event, though I didn't read the report in detail (it was in the college newspaper, and the site is down right now) so I could be wrong.

 

[JoeEllison]

Ultimately, I do not have any control over who speaks at Colombia. What I did find interesting is they canceled a speaking visit by the leader of the Minutemen. When they asked the minutemen guy about them inviting the holocaust denier to speak, he said that the speech should go on. Some right wingers are clamoring that since the minuteman wasn't allowed to speak, neither should the holocaust denier.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here... who asked the Minutemen guy about the holocaust denier, and why? It sounds like the set-up for a bad joke: "A Minuteman, a Holocaust denier, and a 9-11 CT nut walk into a bar..."

I'm not a big fan of the Iranian president, holocaust deniers, or those Minutemen people... but I'm pretty sure that no purpose is served by preventing them from having a forum to speak.

 

[Pardalis]

I take that back:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

You don't even have to quote him on that, he hosted an entire conference about it last year.

But is there a possibility that if he continues with this nonsense, he might set himself apart even further, make the world even angrier at Iran which could lead the Iranian authorities to eventually slack him off, which would be a good thing and maybe allow for diplomacy to continue without that troublemaker?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Actually...Yes.

Nazis have freedom of speech in this country. They frequently hold public demonstrations and rallies. (Search Youtube for "NSM" or "National Socialist Movement" if you don't believe me.) One is even running for president.

People advocating child molestation (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) have a magazine and a website, and hold regular conventions.

The whole idea behind "freedom of speech" is that even people with the most repugnant points of view can say their piece. Otherwise, you don't really have it.

I agree with Cleon. There should be no restrictions on speech.

This has been attributed to Voltaire, but I believe that it was actually written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".