Little Green Footballs

Friday, October 13, 2006

On the radar/Off the radar

Charles Johnson has been making a lot about an incident at Columbia University this week, where an anti-immigration group meeting was stormed by protesters. Charles labels it an attempt to 'shut down free speech' - fair enough, though the logic by which anti-racist groups suddenly become "facists" still eludes us.

However another incident recently got absolutely no mention on LGF, even though it's a far more clear-cut instance of 'shutting down free speech'. Wonder why...

3 comments:

Skullhunter said...

Chuckles doesn't get it, as usual. The protestors at CU got up on the stage and unfurled a banner. Gilchrist's thugs responded in the only manner they're capable of when confronted with a different idea: physical force. Now Gilchrist wants to have CU's federal funding pulled, ostensibly because of the incident but more likely because he wants to teach those uppity lefties a lesson: free speech is only for people with power and money.

AJB said...

Here's some more news stories that won't be mentioned by Charles "Genocidal" Johnson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/6051180.stm

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-10/14/03.shtml

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article1870842.ece

David said...

Re shutting down free speech:

The protesters got up on stage and held a pair of banners while the audience shouted. That this provoked violence from the Minutemen was perhaps to be expected, but can't be blamed on them. MLK, in the Letter from Birmingham Jail:

"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with an its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God-consciousness and never-ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."