http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/458736p-385995c.html
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/10/05/_minutemen_prot.php

Apparently, if your views are 'conservative', you don't actually have a right to express them at all. Who knew?

I knew.

-I'm pretty sure it's in the constitution. Can't remember where. Who cares, it's not like anybody pays attent5ion to it nowadays anyways.

Although they were an invited guest, I sympathize with the protesters's cause.

The government didn't interfer with the Minutemen's right to free speech. Their rights weren't violated.

The Minutemen expressed their opinions, the protesters expressed their opinions--albeit in an over-the-top and perhaps inappropriate manner--and things got out of hand.

The protestors infringed on the Minutemen's right to free speech by interfering.

"Perhaps inappropriate"..? Understate much?

By using the word 'protestor', I hope you realize you refer to both parties. That is what the Minutemen are: They are protestors, protesting the government's border policy (Or more accuratly, lack there of) They have a right to make that protest. What is most disturbing about this incident is not the actual events, it is the student's claims that they were excersizing their right to free speech. Yes, they were; but they were also being rather intolerant of the Minutemen's point of view. While they claim the minutemen are the racist ones, they are themselves acting out of prejudice. When you do not even allow the other side to express their opinion, you are not protesting them; you are repressing them.

Do you mean to imply that citizens do not interfere with other's rights, but that it is only interference when it is the government that prevents the speech? That is what you seem to suggest, and that is quite false. There were certainly students there who did want to hear the Minutemen's point of view, and I'd hope a number who actually wished to hear both sides. Don't they also have the right to hear both arguments, and make their own decision, then to have the decision forced on them by one group supressing their opposition's message?

I don't know. I think we might be talking in technicalities. If an admin bans a user... is that infringing the posters right to free speech? If I tell my friend to "shut up" am I infringing on his rights? I don't think the Constitution protects you from being yelled at.

I don't see anyone getting all that bent out of shape when the Patriot Guard Riders drown out Fred Phelps' anti-military protests. Isn't this essentially the same thing?

Personally, I think it was inappropriate to bring Minutemen representatives into an academic setting. They are a vigilante group that frequently attracts white supremacists—despite their claims not to accept such people. I have no problem with conservatives commenting on immigration policy, however I don’t think extremists should be seriously brought into the debate. An extremist is brought to speak and it elicits an extreme response? Not surprising.

If I were a conservative I would distance myself from the Minutemen; there must be better voices for immigration policy.

First, I object to your use of the term 'vigilante' in describing the minutemen. To be a vigilante, they would have to at the very least make some sort of arrest. In this case, they are more of a neighborhood watch. They see the crime, and they report it.

Second, I object to the labeling of them as 'extremists'. That is, of course, a subjective term. From my perspective, they are not extreme at all, and someone whom you might find 'normal' can certainly seem extreme to me.

This exposes the fundamental flaw in your argument. You have said that 'extremists do not belong in an academic setting'. In order to make such a statement, there must be an objective measure of 'extremity', which is quite impossible. What you have really said is 'The people I consider to be extreme do not belong in an academic setting'.

You can choose not to listen to their message, but you cannot make that choice for others. Preventing the expression of opposing views is the very definition of fascism.

There are some fundamental differences between the Patriot Riders and those students who rushed onto the stage. In fact, the purpose of the riders is to prevent exactly that thing. They protect the forums from the dissenters, but they do not deny the protestor's their right to protest. Firstly, they protect funerals from picketers. The funeral is not a public forum, those protestors have no right to intrude on what is, by all accounts, a family affair. Second, the Patriot Riders do not charge onto stages and chase the protestors away. They just stand in their way as counter protestors.

Furthermore, it is an error to assume that just because we do not comment on a particular event, that we agree with what happened. In fact, I remain wholly un-aware of the details of the event you indicated. The link you provided was to the patriot rider's website, not to any sort of news article.

There is also a difference between peacful protest and what happened at this school. You can protest someone's message without denying them a forum. At this incident, there were peaceful protestors outside. They did not prevent anyone who wished to hear the message from entering, nor did they interfere with the delivery of that message. The behavior of the students inside was wholly inappropriate.

Certainly, they have aspects that the racist would find attractive. We should extend this mataphor. Soldiers are evil, because the circumstances of that activity are especially suited to murderers. Chemists are evil, because the circumstances of that activity are especially suited to druggies. Teachers are evil, because the circumstances of that activity are especially suited to peadarasts. Drivers are evil, because the circumstances of that activity are especially suited to vehicular man slaughter.

you can just edit on to your last post

and not have to do this every

time.

I like to seperate my thoughts.

Plus, I don't have a signature.

So the space between my posts is rather small.

First amendment "right to free speech" only states that CONGRESS can't pass a law infringing on (what they define as free speech/press). Therefore "free speech rights" are irrelevant in this case, and in other cases such as when a parent forbids a child to use profane language, a school has a dress code that bans certain slogans, etc. etc.

Unless you're talking about a natural right to say what you want. Which is totally different.

I fail to see how trying to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country makes you a racist.

I shall repeat myself.


And tofu - it doesn't!

Thanks for not quoting the last line of my post which addressed what you said!

I didn't see how it did. :/

At any rate, the campus wasn't a public space, so noone had any right to say anything at all. The university has every right to punish them, but it won't.

The Columbia College Republics sponsored the event, and had the right to have it conducted in an orderly fashion. The Chicano Caucus protestors infringed on that right by trying to prevent the Minutemen from speaking. In short, it's the CR's event, so they, not the CC, have the right to determine what kind of speech will be allowed there.



This is different because it takes place in what is legally a public venue (though I believe some states have passed laws to change that). By law, both the Patriot Guard and Westboro Baptist both have every right to make all the noise they want in that situation.



If a university -- especially an Ivy League university -- is not an appropriate setting for introduction and discussion of extreme viewpoints, then what is?



Agreed on this. But then, it's my opinion that the very idea of reforming immigration policy to keep more people out is essentially flawed.

I think you are arguing semantics. However, Bush referred to them as vigilantes, and they referred to themselves as vigilantes... or at least they did until they realized that made them sound a little wacky.

Chris Simcox, a prominent spokesperson for the Minutemen, called the Citizens Homeland Defense, an early form of the Minutemen "a committee of vigilantes" (link).


According to Simcox in an interview 2003, spokesman for the Minutemen:
"These people don't come here to work. They come here to rob and deal drugs."
AND
"They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil people."
(see above link)

Sounds a bit extreme to me. Keep in mind this guy is a spokesperson, not just some average joe. Sure, they've toned down their rhetoric now that the national spot light is on them, but those statements are very telling.

Now about the article I posted a link to: Yes, the writer obviously is biased against the Minutemen. However, he spent time going on patrols with them and I think it is safe to say that he didn't fabricate anything. It's nice to read about Minutemen (wielding weapons as they patrol) discussing decapitating Mexicans and how much they hate Jews.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]This is different because it takes place in what is legally a public venue (though I believe some states have passed laws to change that). By law, both the Patriot Guard and Westboro Baptist both have every right to make all the noise they want in that situation.[/QUOTE]
Good point. I forgot to consider that.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]If a university -- especially an Ivy League university -- is not an appropriate setting for introduction and discussion of extreme viewpoints, then what is?[/QUOTE]
I agree with you on this too, but I feel like there is a distinction between discussing extreme viewpoints and inviting the extremist to speak. I don't know. I definately see what you are saying.

The Chicano Caucus should have taken the high road--even protesting outside the event would have been appropriate and nondisruptive--but I can certainly understand their anger.

Emphasis mine.

The 'right to free speech' is that of the government not infringing upon you expressing your opinion. It says nothing at all about what my response, as a free citizen, to you expressing your opinion ought to be.

Has the government been involved in this situtation at all? No. So the 'right to free speech' has been upheld.

People chanting the pledge of allegiance are scary.

What kind of ridiculous article is this anyway?



OMG HE'S GOT A PONYTAIL, HE DEFINITELY CAN'T BE A STUDENT!

The minutemen's right to speak at a private function to which they had been invited to do so was impinged by a group from within the audience. Whether or not it breaks free speech rights is fairly irrelevant. The protesters had no right to invade a private function and ruin it.
The protesters ought to have been thrown out, ushers at a theatrical play would do the same if you loudly interrupted the show, so why was that any different?

At the risk of Godwinning the thread, other thuggish political groups have staged similar tactics in the past disrupting talks like these, as the brown shirts did to communist meetings in Weimar Germany. I really couldn't give a crap what political views either side were putting forth, what the Chicano Caucus/International Socialist Organization guys did was wrong in using loud voices and distraction to ruin another group's opportunity to speak freely in a private setting.

ding ding ding!

Are you saying that doesn't sound extreme to you? Saying that Mexicans are drug-selling rapists? Saying that Latin Americans who enter the U.S. are evil people?

Someone gets it.

However, while the government can be held accountable for shafting your right to free speech, individuals cannot. Columbia can censor and kick out whoever it likes whenever it likes as it's a private university.

No. .. there are no laws on teh intarweb. Think of it as the wild west.

My opinion is just as irrelevant as yours. We do not get to decide who can express their views and who cannot.

I'm not trying to decide who can express their opinions and who cannot. I believe everyone should be able to express their opinion. In fact, I want to know your opinion on this particular issue.


Does your opinion change now that you've learned that their spokesman labeled Latinos entering the US as evil, drug-selling, rapists?

I didn't read everything, but I'm on alot of anti-war and anti-racism email lists, so I thought I'd share this
To: The Columbia University administration and President Lee Bollinger

On October 4, the College Republicans at Columbia University hosted
Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist. The Minutemen are known for
inciting racist violence against immigrants. In an exercise of free speech,
students unfurled a banner on the stage reading "No One is Illegal",
prompting audience members to join them on the stage with another banner
with the message, "No to Racism". These peaceful protesters were violently
assaulted. We fully support these students' courageous stand against racism
and violence and demand that no reprisals are taken against them.

http://www.petitiononline.com/nominute/petition.html

For video: http://www.ctvnewsonline.com/

The following short statement was put together collectively after the event
by the audience members who had climbed up onto the stage:

>From the State Stormers

We celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen
to speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and
spoke ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by
members of the College Republicans and their supporters, who are the
very same people who invited the Minutemen to our campus in the
first place. The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on
immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared
open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over
3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have
free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human
being is illegal.

Draw, slimeball!

But Columbia didn't. This was just a student group showing up uninvited to a private event and shouting down another student group's speaker.

Guys, forget about the First Amendment, it doesn't matter here. Think instead of the principle that your rights end where another person's begin. The Chicano Caucus had no right to interrupt that event.

Racism is far too common to be considered an extreme position.

Regardless, I am against our current open-border policy, and support the minute men in the context of protesting against that. However, I certainly do not blame the immigrants (except for those that actually are smuggling drugs) for coming here. Were I poor and mexican, I would try and get here too. Instead I blame the corrupt mexican government, Reagan amnesty, big corporations, sanctuary cities, and political correctness. In that order.

Let me offer you this: If this were a 'liberal' group, speaking about something like legalized narcotics, and a group of 'conservative' students stormed the stage, would your reaction be the same?

Also, that website you linked that claims all those horrible things about the minutemen is quite amusing.