Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Members of Columbia University's Chicano Caucus and International Socialist Organization had a press conference yesterday to discuss the fallout from last week's clash with the Minutemen group on campus. The protesters said they didn't mean to stop the Minutemen's head from speaking when they went on stage, but, as the Chicano Caucus' political chair reasoned, "We are sure that if the Ku Klux Klan came to campus, African Americans would be there to protest. So would we." The protesters also emphasized that the violence was instigated by the Minutemen and College Republicans - not the protesters.
The Bwog, the Columbia blog, covered the press conference with flair:
Next a lady from Washington Heights brings it all back home with a reference to that other issue, Manhattanville. "We're not only exploited in our countries, we also find exploitation here," she says. "They seem to forget that Columbia is in the midst of Harlem, which is a disgrace, a disrespect, and we will not stand by it." She's a practitioner of "radical compassion" and "subversive love." Hey...can we get some of that?According to the NY Sun, Dols was "challenged by reporters to square her advocacy of free speech with her decision to take the stage at last Wednesday's event," and simply answered, "The nature of these questions shows there's more concern for the Minutemen than for helpless illegal immigrants."Last up is Adhemir Romero, president of the Chicano Caucus, who tippytoes around the issue by dissociating the group from the inside protest while defending the principle. "We were exercising our right to free speech," he said.
Then came questions, answered by Karina and Monique [Dols, student leader of the ISO]. A Sparticist tries to offer statement as question, the New York Sun challenges the violence, the press gets angry at the students' opacity, and the event becomes a circus.
Columbia president Lee Bollinger said that the incident would continue to be investigated, "My own view is that seizing the stage does constitute a disruption [of free speech]...It's simply too early to rush to any judgment as to whether disciplinary action should be taken." But it's not too early for Alicia Colon of the NY Sun to demand that Columbia "hunt down all the students who participated in the anti-free-speech riot and expel them." It's a serious smackdown - she also says that the 1968 Columbia riots proved "that the revered university accepted morons into its hallowed halls."
Photograph of the press conference from the Bwog
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
I'm not the only one who thinks that stage rushes are a pretty celebrated protest technique that generally do not result in a speech ending, am I? Usually the protesters rush the stage, make a nuisance get escorted out by security and everything continues as it was. I don't think we can blame the protesters for not expecting there to be a violent reaction, and the blame for the speech ending clearly falls on the Minutemen and their penchant for kicking people in the head.
typical liberal college fascism
Leftists deflecting genuine questions and concerns and then playing the victim card? That's so tired.
Is there a feud between bloomberg and bollinger?
Per NY1, they just had a sit down and the mayor is still dissing him. or should I say berate him with his he needs to allow free speech AKA Mr. mayor, do as I say, not as I do.
what a bunch of idiots. "no one is illegal" ??? these kids go to columbia?? schools are eager to take anyone's money these days huh?
Bottom line--they were invited to speak. If you don't want to listen, don't go. If you want to protest them being there, protest. Don't rush onto the stage and try to shout them down like a bunch of third-graders at a food fight. This is not free speech -- it's just embarrassing.
I wonder the same thing "my way..." is wondering, what is the deal between Bloomberg and Bollinger? PrezBo came out clearly for free speech yet the mayor keeps (almost nastily) harping on how Columbia has to allow free speech.
Maybe it is because Bollinger is about as sincere as a White House press briefing?
So a coalition of socialists and open-borders advocates loyal to foreign countries is justifying violence? Ah, college.
So the Minutemen are practicing violence, and getting away with it. Ah... the real world.
The most amazing thing to me is how much this has illustrated how little anyone understands the First Amendment--Bloomberg and Bollinger included.
"Freedom of speech" = your right to say whatever you want without fear of being shut down or persecution from STATE ENTITIES for the content of your views.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with having your views heard. There is no freedom to be heard. Gilchrist could continued speaking all he wanted. He just wasn't going to get heard. Is that impolite? Yes. Is it a free speech violation? No. If you disgree with someone's views you have every right to try and interrupt them. Is that the best way for a civil discourse? Of course not. But it's not a constitutional principle that every view is granted the space to be heard.
Shouting (or storming a stage or pulling out a banner) while someone else is speaking is not an impingement on their constitution rights to free speech.
If that were the case, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and just about every other blowhard talk show host would be guilty of this crime on a daily basis whenever they choose to shout down whoever they are speaking with when they don't agree with the content of their guest's views.
'"Freedom of speech" = your right to say whatever you want without fear of being shut down or persecution from STATE ENTITIES for the content of your views.'
You're an IDIOT.
We already covered the facts, he has the right to say what he wants, without yelling "fire" in a movie theatre. That's the interpretation-you don't have the right to charge forward and try to shout him down-you have the right to leave.
Your O'Reilly analogy was moronic-because we can all turn hin off!
The funny thing about knuckleheads like ZB, Damiano and people rushing the stage is that they decry people like Bill O'Reilly for being "bullies" but they covet that kind of power for themselves. Since nobody will ever put losers like them on television they are reduced to childish stunts to get some attention. Poor, neglected children.
Tough guy!
Iron sheik will krush you.
Bill O'rly.
Typical left wing college dumbasses. They take a couple of classes and all of a sudden they are smarter than everyone else and get to determine who has free speech and who doesn't.
They really proved what racists the minutemen are by screaming racial slurs at the black minuteman who was speaking.
I hope they all get expelled from Columbia but that won't happen.
Everyone I know who went to Columbia as an undergrad was either dumb as shit and rich or just a douche-bag (and possibly rich).
I think we need to keep in mind that most of the protesters are barely out of childhood. Therefore, most of them haven't matured into adults and clearly do not know how to behave at public events. Like my 7 year-old son, the protesters think stomping their feet and covering their ears is the way to get want they want. And when that doesn't work they cry and claim victimhood.
I'm not saying their immaturity excuses their behavior---far from it, they need to be punished so that they learn from their mistakes. If they're not punished then many of them will be forever stuck in adolescence.