Protesters shout down anti-Islam speaker at MSU

[Orrin_73]

Source: Lansing state journal

EAST LANSING - When British Nationalist Nick Griffin took the podium at a Friday night Michigan State University event, he tried to explain how Islam is a threat to Western civilization.

Griffin was invited to campus by a conservative student organization called Young Americans for Freedom, or YAF.
Kyle Bristow, chairman of YAF, said his organization invited Griffin to promote intellectual debate.

Junaid Mattu: "I am a supporter of free speech, but at the same time there has to be a benchmark," he said. "Why does MSU time and time again show its insensitivity to minorities by inviting racists?"
Because several speakers invited to MSU by YAF have sparked controversy, MSU Trustee Faylene Owen is asking the Board of Trustees to take action.

MSU President Lou Anna Simon said that Griffin's views on immigration and multiculturalism were "inconsistent with the values of Michigan State University."

Read more: http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071027/NEWS01/710270332/1001/news

---

Over at littlegreenfootballs they are going nuts over this. Prime lizzard Charles Johnson and his saurian horde are furious why a conservative organization invites anti semites for a speaking event. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=27710_BNP_Leader_Invited_to_MSU_by_Conservative_Students#comments">Link

Here is the link to Kyle Bristow's personal site, notice the pick with Nick Griffin. Kyle Bristow

[NMMNG]

1. Good for them

This is nothing more than racist BS.

[spartan61]

2. Way to go spartans!!!!!

[maddogesq]

48. Yep, good on them. Sparty on dude. :) NT

.

[Traveling_Home]

3. Here's their Website

http://www.msu.edu/~yaf/NewFrame.htm

[Devlzown]

4. Congratulations to them on their success!

n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

5. "I am a supporter of free speech, but at the same time there has to be a benchmark,"

I couldn't disagree more.

[muntrv]

7. Yep. That's what the reich wingers say about free speech.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. "I don't think he should be allowed to speak. You can use free speech until...

you hurt another person." :wtf:

Who teaches these kids this crap? A pre-med student that doesn't even get the concept of free speech scares me a hell of lot more than the moron they wouldn't let speak.

[amandabeech]

17. I'm with you. Michigan used to require a high school senior to take

a semester of U.S. poli sci in order to graduate. Either that requirement no longer is in force, the speaker wasn't listening or the speaker had a hugely awful teacher. Perhaps a course on U.S. government and the Constitution ought to be a requirement for college graduation, too, with any major.

I went over to LGF. I don't agree with that group on a a lot, but they were sickened by Griffin the British racist, thank heavens.

I think that the person misunderstanding free speech was on of those demonstrating against Griffin. An article from the student paper or the local paper (I didn't book mark) said some of the protesters chased some of the young fascists to their car with the shouts of "Get them." I don't agree with that, either. It reminds me too much of a bunch of brown shirts in early 1930s Germany.

[Cobalt Violet]

23. I would like to be able to decide for myself if I want to hear someone talk or not.

Sometime I like to know what my foe is saying or thinking.

[amandabeech]

26. Agreed. I generally don't like hecklers myself.

Driving folks off the stage seems brown-shirtish, but I don't think that I'd go preventing heckling unless it could be shown that the object was to completely erase the thoughts from discourse and criticism, although I'll give it some more thought.

[Occulus]

29. I graduated in 1993

I think that requirement was watered down even back then, because the only remotely political class I ever took in high school was the required government course, which was being "taught" by the head football coach. We learned nothing we couldn't take in spoonfed form and regurgitate when required. There was absolutely zero thought or discussion.

It made me realize coaches should never, ever teach their players in a classroom setting.

[amandabeech]

31. My teacher, back in '72-'73 took it much more seriously.

He taught only government & economics, and believe me, was not qualified to coach. In fact, he took it very seriously, and had the hardest course in the school. He got huge amounts of flak from the parents because he made the kids study, and eventually got depressed enough to kill himself. IMHO, he was too good for the district.

I was in the honors section. We were required to read the book, take the tests and write 3 research papers per semester. I loved it.

We had no coaches that I would trust with government & econ. I think that they are subjects that are important subjects for adults-to-be, and are even more important for developing good citizens. Debate was essential, and our coaches weren't so good at that. They taught gym and math. It is too bad that it was treated so lightly in your school.

[knitter4democracy]

45. It's still required--and it's been expanded down to the elementary curriculum.

Civics and understanding of our government are all throughout the curriculum. Doesn't mean that a student was paying attention or putting it together, though.

[amandabeech]

54. I'm glad that they're at least making an effort.

I hope that they are successful.

[knitter4democracy]

59. They seem to be with my daughter so far.

She's in second grade and learning a lot about local city government.

[amandabeech]

65. Good!

[alarimer]

66. Yes, it is better air these things out

Get all the racists out in the open. Hear what they have to say, even if you do not agree with it. At least then we know who they are.
Speech itself is not a threat, no matter how unpleasant it may be.

[12string]

15. free speech benchmarks

You are right.no benchmarks.I feel this is more akin to
yelling fire in a crowded theater,or inciting a riot, which is
not legally allowed.Just mho.

[TheModernTerrorist]

6. damn, I missed it

if I had known, I would've been there.

[muntrv]

8. Griffin is also an anti-Jewish speaker.

[Progressive Friend]

37. Nick Griffin = English neo-Nazi

[McCamy Taylor]

9. Islam is a threat to the Neo-Cons plan to steal some MidEast oil.

If the people of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia were all Mormons, the Department of Homeland Security would be profiling Mormons (and Romney would be in Gitmo instead of running for president).

[Tzimisce]

11. Sigh.

Stifling speech you disagree with by these means comes across as nothing but a cheap and rather mindless stunt. The man was an invited speaker, and however repugnant his views might be, he does have the right to voice them without a bunch of morons shouting obscenities and acting like spoiled children. A more proper response to his views would have been to shoot them down in a calm and rational fashion, exposing them for what they are. The protesters' actions here smack of censorship, at least to me. Disagreement and debate are acceptable in a society that values free speech. Disruption with the goal of preventing another from speaking is not.

Even if I don't agree with a person's views, even if I find them repugnant and vile, I will fight tooth and nail for their right to have and voice that belief, even as I try to debate and change their point of view. To do otherwise is to trample on their rights, at least in my opinion.

[Riktor]

25. Rights versus Responsibilities

First off, I dig your nick. I used to play as a Tzimisce way back in the day.

As for more pressing matters, I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech, even if that includes allowing some fascist pinhead to spew his ignorance from behind an academic podium. However, jeering his stupid-ass off the stage is not an infringement of his First Amendment rights. He voiced an unpopular opinion, and the crowd registered their disgust. For this punk to claim the crowd violated his freedom of speech is to truly demonstrate his utter incomprehension of the concept. Freedom of Speech allows you to say what you will without fear of legal action; it does not protect you from criticism should you say something profoundly stupid.

The same applies to David Horowitz's bungle over at Emory. He sobbed like petulant child, claiming "left-wing fascists" violated his freedom of expression by interrupting his spiel. Are we to believe freedom of speech only applies to David Horowitz, and that the audience must, by law, remain silent and respect his asinine point of view? He had every right to take the stage, and the audience had every right to grill him. Having the freedom to say what you want doesn't absolve you of taking responsibility for what you say.

[EST]

42. What you say is accurate.

The right of a protester to his free speech is just as important as is that of the person behind the podium. Speech carries responsibilities.

It might be rude and offensive, but there is no fundamental right that protects anyone from rudeness or offensiveness.

The government, and, Imo, that also includes implied government, has no right to limit free speech, but an individual in pursuit of his own rights may well do so.

(Of course, that brings into consideration other responsibilities)

[Igel]

68. In the few circumstances in which I've been present for

hecklers (and I was in the audience), I've had this tendency to also engage in free speech and ask why the heckler thought himself--or herself--more important than anybody else.

And, having said his or her peace, s/he should do the proper thing and excise his/her body from the audience. It's not just the speaker whose engaged in a battle for freedom of expression, but those who have taken the time to come and hear what's said.

Activists don't have to be courteous, kind, respected, decent, or moral people. Many can be complete and total idiots and assholes. And, of course, they have the right to make sure everybody knows how borish they are. Many do.

Why? Because their free speech doesn't involve *speaking*, but *silencing*. It's easily possible to say what you need to say in a matter of a minute. But many don't want to speak for the purpose of saying things, they want to speak for the silence they impose. And that is about as unliberal--in a classic sense, not in a late '50s/early '60s social activist sense--as you get. Why?

Because--among other things that actually involve principle, not perception--it makes the conservatives that wanted to shut down Neejad at Columbia our liberal, intellectual allies. You know, freepers, those who hate, and others that we so admire and so try to emulate (although in many ways they're emulating "us", which is to say, "not me"). Now, I think no invite should have been extended to Neejad. But having been extended, the discussion should have been effectively over.

[EST]

72. Well said.

It is often that the audience must impel their own anti-rudeness measures in order to protect their own rights.
Responsibility for one's actions is not always the path of preference for some people and that's why we insist on the rule of law. It is left up to us to deal as well as we can for our immediate surroundings.
I would not advocate harsh measures, but an audience can generally get what it wants.

I am of mixed feelings about just where the line lies between being a boorish nuisance and a useful advocate for a cause.
I know there have been times when I was embarrassed--even angered--by some loudmouth who decided to take over the program, but, on later reflection, I figured out I was totally wrong.
Not only was I wrong and the person being obnoxious right, but it got the attention of the right people and helped bring about valuable and overdue change.

It's a tough question, sometimes, especially for me.

[Malikshah]

44. This argument has been used time and time again and as ever

misses the issue of equal protection of free speech.

Was the individual gagged with tape and dragged through the campus before being ignominiously thrown off campus? No.

He was shouted down for his bigoted statements. Showing that humanity does have a voice and will use it. Not just the haters.

[Warren Stupidity]

77. "he does have the right to voice them"

yes he does. Hecklers have an equal right to voice their objections. Free speech is not about you and I having a shouting match, it is about the government controlling our shouting match. Now you may have a valid objection that this is rude or childish behavior on the part of the audience, but until the state steps in, free speech rights have not been abridged.

I for one salute the willingness of activists on campus to start taking direct non-violent action against the culture of acceptance of 21st Century Fascism. We cannot sit quietly having polite debates with these people. First of all, there is no polite debate, there is a monologue. Secondly, the new fascist ideology permeates public discourse. It is most certainly not the case that these views are not being allowed into the public discourse: they are drowning out all other viewpoints. There is a 24/7 ubiquitous one sided shouting match that has been going on for at least 25 years. We need more childish disruptors. Yipee! They need to be everywhere. Every public event conducted by the War Party and its minions needs to have our voices calling out the truth and upsetting their little set piece events.

[mark414]

12. the best weapon against bad speech is more speech

[DBoon]

14. Good speech will drive out bad speech

usually.

If it doesn't we are in big trouble

[mark414]

19. it hasn't been lately

or at least it seems that way...i guess we will just have to espouse good speech, louder and more often

(and off topic, i'm listening to double nickels on the dime right now, Mr D Boon)

[DBoon]

22. The original D Boon had a guitar with the Woody Guthrie saying

FYI

[ohio2007]

51. tell it to the cartoonists union in Europe

it seems alla doesn't have a good sense of humor when it comes to exercising freedoms the way they are done in the X-tian side of the shrinking planet.

[Oak2004]

79. Unfortunately, it doesn't

There's been a lot of sociological research done on speech, propaganda, and persuasion since the (simplistic form of) principles of the Enlightenment were first elucidated, and good speech does not always prevail over bad speech -- not just in practice ("I had the truth but my opponent had more money"), but in principle (as in certain types of statements are likely to be believed even when demonstrated to be false, even when the subject is well educated, so long as the subject has no special knowledge of the matter with which the lie is concerned -- and no one can be a specialist in everything).

Humans are not the purely rational beings a simplistic model of free speech presumes. We can be deprived of our freedom to know the truth by clever manipulation of language. It would of course be a horrible mistake to throw out the underlying values of the Enlightenment because they are wrong in their most primitive iteration. Instead I think we as a society need to face what we don't want to face: that we are irrational beings, that we can be lied to in ways so devastating as to prevent us from seeing the truth for a time, that certain forms of speech are inherent violations of our freedom , and that we need to prevent psychological warfare as much as we need to prevent physical violence to an individual.

In fact, such psychological warfare may just kill us all: much of modern advertising is built around this kind of manipulation. Most people know we teeter at the edge of environmental and economic disaster, most people want to do something about it, and most of us continue to consume resources as if we didn't understand the crisis. That we're bombarded with skillfully crafted messages, messages intentionally designed to undermine our will and short-circuit our reasoning, to consume as much as possible, is no coincidence. Countermessages can never be enough to combat this, because we're always more readily persuaded to consume than we are to conserve.

I don't have any simple proposals for how to deal with such forms of psychological warfare, other than that we should begin to grapple with the problem. Clearly any honest effort to do so has to come at it with the intent to protect and extend freedom, rather than to restrict it, and any effective effort will have to be built upon the best available science.

[Danger Mouse]

13. Free speech is still free speech, even if we dislike it.

Once we start advocating censorship, we beomce more like them.

[Cobalt Violet]

18. Oh yeah.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself doesn't become a monster. -Nietzsche

[Danger Mouse]

24. It's funny that he says 'I support free speech and all but...'

then goes on to say that he does not support Free Speech.
There are more than a few Duer's who try to curtail free speech on DU as well.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. There always seems to be that "but"...

At the end of "I like free speech"

[Danger Mouse]

35. As in 'I like free speech, but I hated that MoveOn.Org ad...'

and that is the slippery path we walk.
We can't clamor for free speech for our side while at the same time trying to suppress free speech for theirs.

[ohio2007]

50. it's a shame they threw those MoveOn dot ORGers in jail... oh wait

that was Buhdists in Burma that were denied free speech by the juanta

[Danger Mouse]

81. what does that have to do with it?

[Chulanowa]

16. Does anyone here comprehend what "censorship" is?

Interrupting and telling someone else to shut up, disagreeing loudly.. .that is not censorship. it might be rude, but then again calling an entire group of people evil because they have a different prophet is pretty rude, too.

If the police had been brought in to club down and drag away the speaker or the students, THAT would have been censorship. If his story got erased and never heard from again by the news carriers, that would be censorship.

I'm embarrassed to see so many people believing that interrupting hate speech with protest is "censorship"

[amandabeech]

21. Free speech can be rude and hurtful.

Under the First Amendment, everyone has the right to say all kinds of nasty things, including neo-nazi things. Hate speech is not forbidden by the Constitution under current Supreme Court precedent, and I, too, wouldn't want to change it.

However, hecklers can ply their trade, short of physical threats, but they cannot use that tool to forever suppress the expression of what you think are controversial, rude or hateful views. Besides real debate is much more effective.

Suppressing hateful speech makes it forbidden fruit, only enhancing its allure. Subjecting that same speech to criticism and debate in a public forum robs the speech of its power. Some Constitutional scholar once commented on the the disinfecting effects of sunlight on hateful speech. I wish I could remember who it was.

If you go over the the Little Green Footballs website you will find an article claiming that a few of the hecklers chased some of the YAF crowd to their cars with shouts of "Get him." That is a threat of physical violence and isn't allowed. The police are looking for those who made the threats.

I think those who made those threats are embarrassing. I don't find the First Amendment protection of all speech embarrassing at all.

[Tzimisce]

20. Re: Chulanowa

You can be embarrassed all you like, but I stand by what I said. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with another's point of view, screaming and being disruptive to prevent them from voicing their belief is censorship after a fashion. Even if we don't want to debate semantics, they trampled the man's right to free speech. He was the invited speaker, the forum was there for him (yes, and others) to air his views, and by preventing him from speaking, they took away his right to freedom of speech. I'm sorry, I can't and won't condone that. The man's beliefs and opinions are vile, but he has every right to speak about them, and those who believe differently have every right to disagree with him, but they don't have the right to prevent him from speaking.

[ingac70]

28. A British Nationalist??

Shit! Do they hand out invites to the KKK and as well?

[amandabeech]

32. I read the Little Green Footballs link.

The kid who did this seems to have some fascist tendencies, but really, I think the kid just likes to stir things up to call attention to himself. I've known people like this, and I'm sure you have, too.

He'd invite the KKK, too, I'm sure, if he thought that he could get away with it. Look at all the publicity he's getting.

The way to shut this kid up is to ignore he provocations. If he doesn't get the reaction he wants, he'll calm down.

[NoGodsNoMasters]

30. If any religion is a threat to our society...

..it's Christianity. It blocks peoples' minds. It makes them ignore facts because they have "faith." It makes people think they are better than others because god likes them best and they're little book says so. Especially the southern Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell crowd. If any religious group is gonna destroy western civilization it's that lot.

[amandabeech]

34. I don't think that Christianity has a lock on mind-blocking.

Heavy-duty religion sometimes brings out the worst in people, and I don't think that Christianity is alone.

Islam has some nasty elements that treat women particularly poorly because that's what Allah told them to do.

I have been told by Jewish friends that there are some rabid Jewish folks in Israel, too. I lived in the New York area when Rabbi Schneerson, whose followers thought that he was the Messiah, had his car speed through traffic lights in Brooklyn where he lived because he was so close to God that he didn't have to wait with everyone else. He ran over an African American child in so doing and nearly caused a big riot.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Dominionist Christians like the ones you've named can be dangerous if allowed to dictate U.S. foreign policy, but I think that they have world-class competition.

[Danger Mouse]

36. I disagree.

Religious extremism in all its forms is going to be the destruction of us, in the end.
Islamic extremists are just as evil as the Christian ones.

[ohio2007]

52. which would cause a bigger riot, "piss Christ" or "piss Mohammad" ?

Then let's watch the fatwa witch hunt take it to 'a hoe nutha level' ;)

[amandabeech]

55. Right now, I think that "piss Mohammad" would cause the most upset.

If you consider history, however, I think that you might have a tie.

[ohio2007]

58. nobody ever "drew "a piss Mohammad pic so the point hasn't been tested yet

We know about the piss Christ outrage and amount of bloodshed that caused ;)
yeah,

but based on the lack of tolerance by a few scribbles done by European artists,
I'd say a 'tie' is out of the question.


Freedom FROM religion is the most valued right in America rather then what some have mistakenly mislabeled freedom OF religion

[amandabeech]

63. Perhaps you misunderstood me or I wrote unclearly.

Right now, I think that "piss Mohammad" would result in more problems than "piss Christ."

As you say, we've already had "piss Christ" and some Christians were pissed off, demonstrated, etc., but no one got hurt and there were no serious, public death threats.

My point is that Christians did some pretty wretched stuff on behalf of their religion in the past. One poster mentioned the Spanish Inquisition, which was really, really bad, but ended centuries ago. Also, there were religious wars in Europe between different sects of Christianity in which lots and lots of people died because their beliefs were different from their neighbors. But that stuff ended in the first half of the 19th century to my knowledge.

If you take all the bad stuff that happened in the name of Christianity for the past 2,000 years and compare that with, what, 1,400 years of Islam, I think that you'd see a more equal distribution of atrocities.

Thankfully, Christians no longer seem to want to settle problems with force except for a few extremists who think that Israel must rebuild the temple and that there will be an ultimate battle on the plains of Armageddon. Those folks take the worst of the Old Testament, combine it with Revelations and add a dash of seriously delusional thinking to form something that I don't quite see as Christianity. Nobody talked about this at the Methodist church that I was forced to attend as a kid. So long as we keep them out of foreign policy in the future and contain shrub and darth now, I don't see them actually doing anything but talking and donating their kids' college fund to some nutball preacher.

In conclusion, I don't think that we disagree on where these two religions are right now.

[ohio2007]

69. We can agree to agree. History is one thing, repeating history is another

It's safe to say Christianity is 500 years older and imo, make it wiser to it's own past.
I think the Pope ( at least two of them ) have apologized for the wrong caused in the past but saying sorry isn't good enough as we all know.
The Mufti's of Islam could learn from such examples but, dunno, they are employed and held in high standing by earthly rulers.**

Some people here point out what the Spanish did to the Moore's,Christians and Jews some 500 years ago is like saying the Muslims have a free pass, a right to "seek revenge" on the non Spanish X-tain world at large....
well, that is as long as they themselves are not lumped in as X-tain infidels of course ;)
"yeah, hey, don't hurt us,remember us, we're cool " LOL

History may repeat as
the Muslims owned most of Spain just a decade or two before the Columbus voyages. ( And we know why they were searching for alternate routes to the east don't we LOL )

So as it is written; what was once Muslim, is Muslim. Give them what they demand and they will leave us alone....for awhile.

Oh,
**I'm not talking about the majority followers of Islam but rather the minority radical types that are basically funded by our Saudi oil friends of course.

[amandabeech]

70. Okay, Christianity may be wiser for its past. Or exhausted.

I hope that Islam follows the same path of wisdom at a very quick clip.

I, too, am not a friend of radical Islam. They don't treat us ladies very well, for starters.

[ohio2007]

73. Christianity has evolved and let women join the ranks that preach

in the places of worship.Thats something that the muslim world ( leaders) views as an abomination and insult to men.


btw

The main reason the Catholics do not allow marriage in their church hierarchy is to prevent any one " family" to control the political institution of the Papacy. Absolute power ya know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqtada_al-Sadr

Don't know if it really has a negative influence under the Islamic law---- woman ;)


Muqtada al-Sadr ---->


Mohammad Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mohammad_Sadeq_al-Sadr

[Orangeone]

75. Context

I think there would have been rioting about the Piss Jesus if a Super Power was killing Christians left and right. I think Muslims are more sensitive because of the war in Iraq and the justified perception that the US is at war with Islam. It's easy to be tolerant when you are top dog.

[ohio2007]

76. We no longer have military presence in Saudi Arabia . The context changed to

fit the current situation.
They wanted the US out of the land of the prophet. We left.
The Muslim trouble in the Phillipine Islands can't be traced to US military occupation nor the Seychelle Islands or Yemen, Chad,Sudan,Algeria.
The US military isn't opressing the provinces of Pakistan where the US is not top dog.

[Orangeone]

83. You're talking out of your ass as usual

Funding repressive 'secular' regimes in Pakistan, on top of the military occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the having proxies like Ethiopia attack a popular Muslim government in Somalia...one doesn't always have to actually have troops there to attack a muslim country. Here's a little history lesson for the historically challenged: that 'Muslim trouble' in the Phillipine islands isn't religious but a result of long standing discrimination and neglect.

'Islamofacism Awareness Week' is dead and buried and everyone is dancing on it's grave. Get with the program.

[bjobotts]

33. Bad, bad Islam...bring back the Inquisition and show 'em how it's done

[ShadowLiberal]

38. Man is this guy in need of a history lesson.

"Islam is horrible. The extreme in Christianity is 'love thy neighbor,' with Islam it is violence."

Umm, yeah, this guy might want to read up on all of the many wars that were fought in the name of Christianity and that got started by Christian fanatics. I mean the holy crusades were hardly about 'loving thy neighbor' now was it?

The difference is Christianity has lost much of it's power in nations where Christians are an overwhelming majority, the Pope used to be able to control even kings. While in Islam nations Islam hasn't lost it's power at all.

[BobTheSubgenius]

39. "I am a supporter of free speech..."

One of the 3 ubiquitous "but" phrases, in my experience.

"I am a supporter of free speech..."

"I love him\her dearly..."

"I'm no racist...."

Have you EVER heard anyone say any of those phrases without the "but" that's going to make them meaningless? It's a cheap, transparent ruse to try to soften what's coming next....something they know they shouldn't say.

[IndianaGreen]

40. My first encounter with Young Americans for Fascism (YAF) was during Vietnam War

They were all elitist chicken hawks.

[Psephos]

41. I was one of them. Nick won't be coming round this way again anytime soon. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

74. Good for you!

He is a disgrace to our country.

[LeftishBrit]

43. Nick Griffin is basically Britain's answer to David Duke

He is the leader of the BNP, which is the slightly more officially respectable successor of the National Front: a racist, basically neo-fascist party. They hate Muslims and Jews and immigrants and gays and anyone who isn't white. Fortunately, they haven't got any MPs into Parliament.

There is controversy here at the moment, as the Oxford Union (the university debating society) have invited him to speak later in the term.

This has been opposed by the National Union of Students; local MP Andrew Smith; and the Oxford University Student Union. I hope he doesn't come!

www.nusonline.co.uk/news/274787.aspx

www.andrewsmithmp.org.uk/?PageId=96b0dadc-2582-6844-f153-3d8b8f2d2161

www.ousu.org/news/ousu-council-votes-to-oppose-nick-griffin-and-david-irving
o

[Paladin]

46. Something Else For Michelle Malkin To Get Wet Over..... (n/t)

[knitter4democracy]

47. Yet another attack on the liberals at Michigan State.

MSU is a very liberal place with a long history of social protest and support for liberal/progressive causes. That drives the conservatives in Michigan crazy. They seem to understand that UofM will always be liberal and don't go after it as much, but MSU is in East Lansing, not the Detroit area. Most of the state outside of Detroit is more conservative or very conservative, so they are going after MSU as much as they can. Same at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. Kalamazoo itself is very liberal, as is the university, but the surrounding area is very not, so the College Republicans there are constantly trying to get in the news about how they're trying to make the college conservative.

That's probably why the speaker was shouted down--people are tired of those punks getting horrible speakers that make the college look conservative when it's not. People are getting tired of the conservatives at MSU and WMU in general.

[amandabeech]

56. Has Grand Valley already gone over the the dark side, or is it resisting?

U-M grad here. Did a little protesting in my day.

[knitter4democracy]

60. Not from what I've heard.

They've always been slightly more conservative, from what I've heard from students there I've known, but they seem to be holding their own.

[amandabeech]

64. Glad that Grand Valley is hanging in there.

I agree with your description of the MSU idiot as a "punk." In fact, that's the word that came to my mind when I reviewed his website. He also seems to be really into himself. Yuck.

[ohio2007]

71. Columbia university "punked" the president of Iran a few weeks ago

that was great comming from a not so conservative center for higher education.
And as a result,the world hasn't erupted into the next comming of the 12th Imam because of it.

You invite folks in for a little free speech and see what shakes out.

[knitter4democracy]

78. I'm all for free speech, but I think what happened was more about the conservatives.

The College Republicans and other conservative groups on Michigan campuses are getting really out-there in their tactics and rather in people's faces. I think the heckling was less about the speaker than it was about the group hosting him.

[ohio2007]

49. How many of the 19 hijackers were from Michigan ?

oh wait.

this thread is about "benchmarks being breached."

At least, certain benchmarks have been breached by

those that know whats best for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dpH2HookWo


nothing to see here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHm0SBhvBrA

[Amigust]

53. Shouting down college speakers ...

Reminds me of the speech Chris Hedges made at Rockford College a few years ago criticizing Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Wingers came prepared to drown him out and made it all but impossible to hear him at times. Turns out, of course, that he was right in all his charges. But I doubt that wingers would even now admit that. Who cares about facts when you have irrationality on your side.

[jonnyblitz]

57. holy crap, MSU-YAF must be really bad if they believe

Little Green Footballs is a "left-wing PRO Muslim blog". Why don't the MSU_YAFFERS just break out the jackboots and swastika's for chrissake and be their true selves. UNBELIEVABLE!! :wow:

http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/2007/10/msu-yaf-denounces-little-green.html

[ohio2007]

62. Isn't the Spartan blogger that said Mexican seperatists started the California fires?

and CNN parroted his every word?

CNN got punked again

Separatists claim responsibility for California Wildfires

ORANGE COUNTY, California (CNN) -- Radical Hispanic separatist organization MEChA ("Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan") is taking responsibility for setting the wildfires in California, confimed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
snip

http://www.cnnheadlienews.com/2007/US/10/25/fire.mecha/index.html


Saturday, October 27, 2007
MEChA Terroist Group Started Fire
ORANGE COUNTY, California (CNN) -- Radical Hispanic separatist organization MEChA ("Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan") is taking responsibility for setting the wildfires in California, confimed Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
snip

http://spartanspectator.blogspot.com/2007/10/mecha-terroist-group-started-fire.html

dunno, the guy added the CNN link later

[Oak2004]

80. CNN headLIE news is not CNN headline news :)

CNN headLIE news is not CNN headline news :)

I think you got bit by a parody site.

[Honeycombe8]

61. Why not just have a speaker schedule to present an opposing viewpoint?

If someone REALLY believes in free speech, then that is the way to handle free speech. Someone gets a podium to present one viewpoint. Someone else gets the podium to present the opposing viewpoint.

Fascism: Stop anyone who has a different viewpoint from yours from speaking.

This is getting to concern me...all those who supposedly represent a freer society, have in recent months begun to limit others' free speech, more and more often. They interrupt others' events by standing and shouting, interfering with anyone else presenting a viewpoint. Then resisting arrest. Then interfering when anyone is allowed to speak a viewpoint that they don't espouse.

This is so weird. Not at all like the Vietnam Days. Those people protested by having sit-ins, marches, etc. They did not interfere with anyone else's presentation of a viewpoint. That's because, of course, they were so confident in the rationality of their own viewpoint.

There is never a threat for someone else presenting a viewpoint, as long as the opposing viewpoint gets a chance to present theirs.

[ohio2007]

67. .Hey, you could put that idea on Pay Per View.....

Maybe NOW could invite them all and moderate the debate LOL
How to beat up an islamic woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdByHqC_bQg

Atheists must watch this video Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkZm2CxbdI0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI5WoXpmPiM

[Warren Stupidity]

82. Nobody stopped anybody.

"Fascism: Stop anyone who has a different viewpoint from yours from speaking."

The speaker spoke, members of the audience spoke back. Sounds like a plethora of free speech to me. Nobody hauled the speaker off the stage.

Perhaps your view is that we ought to be polite and let the speaker have his say uninterrupted. Ok, that is a valid viewpoint, one, given the current situation, I happen to disagree with, but a valid view.

"Those people protested by having sit-ins, marches, etc. They did not interfere with anyone else's presentation of a viewpoint. That's because, of course, they were so confident in the rationality of their own viewpoint."

Were you actually around during the Vietnam War? I was, and we disrupted lots of polite chats by rightwing tools. We also had riots of various sorts, bombings, mass arrests, mysterious murders, not so mysterious murders, goon squads, red squads, university shutdowns, and general chaos. I think you got the sanitized version of that era.