quote:There were reasons aplenty not to have invited Churchill and, once he was invited, to have rescinded the invitation. Hamilton would not do so. It flung around the First Amendment with abandon, as if Churchill was a faculty member whose job was at stake. Then Bill O'Reilly struck. The Fox TV commentator went to town on the controversy, finding the usual liberal idiocy at the usual liberal college perpetrated by the usual liberal morons. Having rounded up his usual suspects, O'Reilly ended a segment about Hamilton by providing the name of the college's president, Joan Hinde Stewart, her e-mail address and the school's phone number. Then, blood dripping from his evil heart, he asked his deranged viewers to "keep your comments respectable."
The school caved. Stewart reported getting 6,000 or so messages, and I know, because I get them all the time, that many of them were vile and obscene and even threatening. But this is the true cost of free speech. It is not some rarefied principle, not some slogan, not some trivial right for professors to abuse in comfortable distance from the targets of their ideas, but the most powerful and dangerous right of them all. And because O'Reilly had, in effect, organized an Internet lynch mob, a collection of cyber-goons -- one of whom threatened to bring a gun -- the school simply junked the program. It chickened out.
Hamilton should not have invited Churchill in the first place. His ideas are trash, cliches to boot, and the school could have -- as that Catholic school did with me -- changed its mind once it found out more about him. But once he had accepted, and once Hamilton had insisted by all that is holy that it would stick to its guns, it could not then collapse because those ideas, as loathsome as they are, might have real consequences.
Hire some guards. Frisk the audience. But don't cave to the mob.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with him. Does the presence of bad commentary (threats, etc.) mean all good commentary is invalid? But at some point you do have to make a stand and say the mere presence of so many threats means caving in can send a bad message to the mob.
In short, this school did pretty much everything wrong about this. And this is why I hate it when people use bad means to advocate positions I also hold.
Dagonee
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Isn't Jay the only person who could have? Wasn't he the author of the thread?
FG
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Actually, if you listened to O'Reilly and Limbaugh (which I did) regarding this, they fiercely defended Churchill's right to free speech and to his opinions. They did disagree with his opinion, and totally slammed him on that, but not at all on his right to say it.
Farmgirl (which I see is not really addressing what your posted quote says, Dag) I agree with you. (and I can't type straight worth squat today)
[ February 03, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. Sending 6,000 emails to the president IS the height of free speech. It's the threats that annoy me.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oops. Guess I deleted that one when I took away some of my others threads. I did a mass delete when the last food thread got hate mongers attacking. Only message board where I’ve seen complaints about posting, especially when people responded so great to the food themes. It is in the name of the board. Guess I should have chalked it up to people being negative to me since I’m such a strong supporter of President Bush. Didn’t realize that meant we couldn’t talk about what we were having for lunch. Oh well. Lesson learned.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
While it's certainly their right to do this, I'd hardly characterize it as the height of free speech. This seems to me to be an attempt to prevent someone from speaking by meddling in the affairs of an independent institution through overloading their system. Even leaving aside that, as it's an O'Reilly audience, there's going to be a lot of hatred expressed, it's pretty much a DOS attack.
The height of free speech would be to press the college to provide time for a responsible rebuttal. This is hounding some guy you don't like and anyone that gives him a podium to speak from by clogging their communications and security systems. It's their right, but it's hardly the shining ideal of the proper use of free speech.
edit: The situation would be somewhat different if Hamilton were a public college, but from my quick look, it seems that they are a private institution.
[ February 03, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The situation would be somewhat different if Hamilton were a public college, but from my quick look, it seems that they are a private institution.
And that is probably the nail on the head, MrS. Being a private college, they can't afford to alienate their financial supporters. So it is much different than a reaction directed to a state-funded university. If even a few of those e-mails again Churchill were from major funding supporters, I'm sure they would react. I have seen that happen locally at private colleges, on much less nation-wide issues.
Farmgirl
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
O'Reilly specifically said on his program that threats were out of line. Why shouldn't he provide a way for people to contact the college when they believe that allowing him to speak in an official fashion is insulting?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Jay,
I'm not big on deleting threads. Watching positions form and change is educational. I figure once you start a thread, it kind of doesn't belong to you anymore as much as it belongs to the dignity of the topic. But we live in a private property world where everyone can do what they want with what they think is theirs so maybe I'm asking too much, but I am asking you not to delete anymore of your threads.
[ February 03, 2005, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
FG, I think you may have missed my point. I think it's doubtful that any of Hamilton's major backers were part of this mass e-mailing. What I was trying to say is that there a likely very few in this emailing who have any connection or interest in Hamilton at all. The purpose was thus not to help guide an institution that they have a stake in, but rather to deny a guy they don't like a podium to speak from in any place he might find one.
I don't actually know all that much about this guy. From the little I've read, it seems that his comments about 9/11 were pretty stupid. According to the article, he was being invited to speak in a mostly unrelated capacity as an expert of American Indian issues. I have no idea what his credentials are, nor how much merit his views in this area have, but it's not, in my opinion, praiseworthy to use harrassment to silence him because you don't like him based on something he said about something else.
The doctrine of free speech is primarily centered around the idea of allowing people's ideas to enter into the marketplace of ideas where they are open to rebuttal and can be judged on their merits. This is not a case of that happening. It seems to me to be prety much the opposite. So I was taking objection to the desciption of it as the height of free speech.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What I want to know is why he deleted the basketball shot thread. I wanted to show it to my husband, and it was gone. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Don’t do this on the board. Don’t post that on the board. We talked about this yesterday on the board. Complain complain complain. For a bunch of liberals who usually like anything goes there certainly is a lot of rigidly held beliefs about the board itself on here.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Would you stop calling us a bunch of liberals? It's really kind of demeaning to those of us who are, and probably insulting to those who aren't.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
The basketball one too? Oops. I really did get delete happy.
FG
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's not a rule. It's something to thinking about, and I think if you think about it, you'll see the indignity in deleting threads, and understand why not to delete them, even though it's within your right and power to do so.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thank you for the link, Jay. My husband enjoyed it. Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
You know, Jay, there's a possibility that you could be a positive member of this community if you could get it in your head that people don't disagree with you because they're liberals, hate-mongers, or jealous of your giant penis, but because you're usually wrong.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
I always find it humorous that calling someone a liberal is demeaning. Why not wear it as a badge of honor? What is the shame in your belief? If you are ashamed of your belief are you sure you should have that as a core belief? I was also careful to say “bunch” not “all” or “everyone” so that should take care of those who aren’t. I think the political test thread showed that this is a board mostly visited by a bunch of liberals. Oops… I said mostly. Great. I think I’m ok still since that’s not all inclusive. Conservative to me is a core belief that I’m proud of. I don’t hate liberals, even though this has been accused of me. I enjoy a good discussion. But discussing at times here has been rough because of the bias shown towards me. I rather be slammed on a point then the typical non discussion that seems to happen. Oh well. Guess I’m off topic here. I think I hear the thread police coming.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thread deletion by creators is an artificially inserted externality which disrupts the natural market on hatrack -- discussion. It is not a part of any principle of private property, unlike post editing and personal post deletion, which arguably are.
<--- economics geek, among other things.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: jealous of your giant penis
How mature
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It's demeaning because you're dehumanizing us. I don't mind being called a liberal, but honestly, I don't really get into political discussions on this forum, because I've seen the stuff political threads get into and I don't like it. Also, I'm not a clear-cut Democrat, which you seem to think is synonomous with Liberal. And virulently liberal Democrats, at that. I hold some conservative and some liberal positions. I don't like being grouped with "all you liberals" as a way of putting me down (which is what you seem to intend) and making me "other" so my opinion doesn't count. Especially when I have not said one thing to you that was politically motivated, only based on what I consider acceptable standards of polite behavior.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm jealous of his giant penis.
There.
I've admitted it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Oh, wait--
did I just hit "Add Reply"??
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
The support group is down the hall, Icarus. Door's labeled "Hatemongers, Liberals, and Penis Enviers Anonymous".
They tried for "HELPA", but they just couldn't make it work.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Well, heck, I call some GOP buddies liberals all the time. It’s a fun term to throw around. And heck, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are some of my favorite Democrats. Anyway….. it’s just how I talk.
I’m really disturbed about the anatomy part of this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then it's the height of free meta-speech.
It's 6,000 people expressing their opinion. That their opinion is that person X shouldn't be given a respectable platform doesn't make that any less expressive.
Dagonee
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
The problem is, Jay, that you talk about us like a racist would talk about the "darkies". You're free to have your opinions, and you're free to express them. But we're also free to express the fact that we don't appreciate being talked about like wayward children or lesser beings.
If you haven't noticed, no one else is taking pot shots at "the liberals" and neither are we (most of us, anyway) retaliating to YOUR comments by decrying the ignorance of "the conservatives".
And I agree with ketchupqueen, in that I hate politics but I hate rudeness and condescension even more.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
From the perspective of someone politically neutral, Jay just pretty much comes across like a broken record. Not offensive, just not very interesting.
Though, the penis comment did spice things up, even if it was directed at him rather than by him.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Jay.
Get off the cross.
We need the wood for the fire.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
PENIS Penis Enviers Need Immense Support
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I would think that the penis enviers wouldn't need much support.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote:Guess I should have chalked it up to people being negative to me since I’m such a strong supporter of President Bush.
We've been over this and over this. It's not what your opinions are, but how you express them. Okay, maybe that's not entirely right. If your opinion is not just that you support Bush (which I also do, thank you very much) but that anyone who doesn't support him must be crazy, stupid, or evil then we are going to have problems. There are plenty of the liberals here that take the crazy, stupid, and evil tack against conservatives.
As you've said in a not so sportsmanlike manner on occasion, they can call names all they want. Bush was democratically elected. Getting all huffy that nearly half the country dissented makes you look crazy.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I wanted to show it to my husband, and it was gone. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)