Freedom or just faking it?

The Washington Times ^ | 10-1-07 | Mark Steyn

[JZelle]

"I'm proud of my university today," Stina Reksten, a 28-year-old Columbia graduate student from Norway, told the New York Times. "I don't want to confuse the very dire human-rights situation in Iran with the issue here, which is freedom of speech. This is about academic freedom."

Isn't it always? But enough about Iran, let's talk about me. The same university that shouted down an American anti-illegal-immigration activist and the same university culture that just deemed former Harvard honcho Larry Summers too misogynist to be permitted on a California campus is now congratulating itself over its commitment to "academic freedom."

True, renowned Stanford psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo is unhappy. "They can have any fascist they want there," said Professor Zimbardo, "but this seems egregious." But, hey, don't worry: he was protesting not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presence at Columbia but Donald Rumsfeld's presence at the Hoover Institution.

At some point during this last week, it was decided the relevant Ahmadinejad comparison was Nikita Khruschchev. The Soviet leader toured America in 1960, was taken to a turkey farm, paid a visit to Frank Sinatra and company on the set of "Can-Can" and pronounced the movie "decadent." And yet the republic survived. As one of my most distinguished fellow columnists, Peggy Noonan, put it in the Wall Street Journal, Khruschchev's visit reminded the world "we are the confident nation." And, as several e-mailers observed, warming to Miss Noonan's theme, back then hysterical right-wing ninnies didn't get their panties in a twist just because a man dedicated to destroying our way of life was in town for a couple of days.

[Rummyfan]

By its action last week, Columbia University has given rank hypocrisy a new definition.

[weegee]

Khruschchev did not get to visit Disneyland as he wanted.

Did Khruschchev blame the “zionist run media” for the evils in the world as the Iranian dictator did during his visit to the US?

[Tzimisce]

The KKK has a right to speak in the United States...but I’m not going to invite them over to my place for a Klan rally. What on earth are they going to say that they haven’t already said a thousand times over?

Furthermore - I demand my right to speak at Columbia. I’m quite serious. If they extend this “right” to a foreign tyrant who wants to tear down the United States (note that every court so far has ruled that violent overthrow of the government is not protected by the first amendment) it should also apply to me.

I want to speak at Columbia - they owe it to me. It’s my right.

[Michael.SF.]

Although I was firmly opposed to Ahmadinejad's even being allowed into this country, I think more damage was done to the University and to Iran's cause by his speaking at Columbia, then if he had never appeared. Specifically:

He was fully exposed for the lunatic that he is.

Columbia's President Bollinger was fully exposed for being a rude ass to an invited guest.

Columbia was fully exposed as a total hypocrite in regards to both 'academic freedom' and 'freedom of speech'

[weegee]

President Bollinger “punked” Ahmadinejad.

But where were the pie throwers that day? Are they only allowed to do this to conservatives?

Or was there too much fear of an international incident over a pie being thrown at his face?

[Bruinator]

Last time I checked, freedom of speech in this country is a protection distinctly granted to American citizens. No foreign head of state has the right to speak in this country. They must be invited, just as this lunatic was. The freedom of speech excuse, argument, blah blah blah, has no basis in the argument for or against this nutjob being allowed to speak on U.S. soil without reprimand.

[Michael.SF.]

The freedom of speech excuse, argument, ... has no basis in the argument for or against this nutjob being allowed to speak on U.S. soil without reprimand.

The reprimand though, IMHO, should have come from the audience and not from the University President, who invited him.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Last time I checked, freedom of speech in this country is a protection distinctly granted to American citizens.

Beg to differ. The Constitution states that the "right of the people" is: 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.

PEOPLE in the United States have the same rights, because they are people. It's not to say that I consider AmaNutJob to be a "people"... he's a coward, a terrorist, and because of him a lot of people sat as hostages for 444 days. His own picture is shown in several places holding those hostages.

I don't think we should have allowed the ass into the country, at ALL. But, even illegal aliens have "rights" too. They are people. They have the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, etc. :)

[Bruinator]

THE PEOPLE. My interpretation is THE PEOPLE of the United States. If it were meant for scum bag terrorist state leaders etal, it would have said ALL people. Again this is my interpretation.

[Bruinator]

I agree.

[Cacique]

btt

[Rick.Donaldson]

Well, it is an interpretation, which was my point. In fact, it doesn't say "citizen" as you stated. It says "People". And what that means is ALL PEOPLE. Americans aren't in any way trying to limit rights to other people, and this is something that some of us seem to forget.

I'm very much against illegal aliens getting a free ride, or anything free, or getting citizenship without going through the hoops others had to go through. On the other hand, you can't deny BASIC HUMAN rights to someone simply because you don't LIKE them.

I want to see them all deported, right now. And I think we should not give someone like ImonaJihad a place to speak in our country. In fact, based on the very fact he has been directly involved in taking hostages, killing Americans (in 1978) then the ass should never have been allowed in the US at all.

But before people start "denying rights" based on citizenship, we ought to re-read our own Constitution first. When it says "people" it means people.

My problem with what you said was simply the wording, and perhaps your own interpretation, not that I disagree with what you said, just how you said it.

[Bruinator]

I guess I find the word “the” in “the people” to represent the citiznes of the U.S.

I agree in a sense. We should not limit human rights to all people, but through the rule of law non citizens rights are inherently limited. However we all understand that not to work in reality, because our govt does not enforce the rule of law regarding non citizens.