Free Speech Threatened at Columbia Universtity?
by Nick Friday, Oct. 06, 2006 at 4:18 PM
nickcooper--at--indymedia.org

Both "Minuteman" James Gilchrist and those who took over the stage when he began to speak at Columbia University were attempting to express free speech. Gilchrist had more authority to speak than the protesters, and that is the essential distinction. To portray it as an issue of free speech vs. anti-free speech is disingenuous.

Do invited speakers have more right to free speech than others? People in the U.S. are familiar with a society where invited speakers are allowed to have the stage for an hour and where audiences should keep quiet, but this is only custom. The members of the audience have every much a right to be heard as the more famous speakers.

To think of what happened at Columbia as nothing but an affront to free speech, is to pretend that there are not essential differences between the voices of the oppressed and the propaganda of armed groups or powerful institutions. In the market place of ideas, we listen and learn. However, that does not mean that groups that we consider to be racist paramilitary organizations should not be therefore denied venues. In a society where the voices of millions are routinely silenced, and the same empty meaningless nonsense of politicians dominates our media day after day, the voices of those in power and invited speakers need more often to be preempted by the voice of the people.

original article posted to the Narco News' Narcosphere

add your comments