Am I Wrong?
Am I wrong or is freedom of speech a legitimate right as well as a fine thing for a people to have? I think I have heard that that is one of the things we are fighting for. Yet lately it seems that some Americans don't value it, at least for others. From reading and hearing the news lately I’m a bit confused because of conflicting and contradictory statements in the press, TV, and online, so would you help me out here?
I am going to list some of the things about freedom of speech that seem to be expressed in, say, the incident at Columbia University in connection to a speaker, Jim Gilchrist -- I believe he is the founder of the Minutemen, armed people who are guarding our border with Mexico in order to help stem the flow of illegitimate immigrants and who was invited by the Columbia College Republicans. Please read each statement and tell me if you think if you agree or disagree with any of them and I am right or wrong in my assumption that these are the points of view of activists and other students. Do any of them make any sense to you?
1. Those Minutemen are just plain ******* Nazis so a CC student has the right, even the responsibility to boo, yell, hold up signs, whatever, to let him know he’s not wanted here. We knew before he even started talking that it was all a lot of immigrant-hating stuff and we won't stand for that!
2. When he wouldn’t shut up what else could liberal, pro-immigration people do but rush the stage and wave signs in his face? He disrespected us!
3. When a press conference was held and some protesters were asked why we rushed the stage and stopped the event, one really quick-thinking girl said that we didn’t, that Gilchrist started the trouble first.
4. A legitimate protest was going on outside. Some of the protesters inside were asked why we didn’t join them, as we didn’t have to listen to what we don’t agree with. Well, we allowed the speaker to come here to speak and we had the right to speak when we didn’t like what he said.
5. Columbia University is a great institution of learning. If they are not teaching the student body civility and respect for a broad spectrum of ideas regarding legitimate behavior, they are failing their students, the students’ parents, and the expectations of American society. Students are just that -- they are enrolled in order to learn. They are exposed to a spectrum of ideas and they decide for themselves which they agree with. How can they learn critical thinking if they won't even listen to others' opinions?
Is freedom of speech a dying right if students are afraid to invite a speaker with strong, controversial opinions because violent, self-righteous "activists" will start a riot? Shouldn't the "activists" instead be planning their own event with a speaker they agree with, or back in the dorms studying? And here I've been thinking that we are starting to censor ourselves because of threats by terrorists to commit violence to people and property.
Am I wrong?
Am I wrong or is freedom of speech a legitimate right as well as a fine thing for a people to have? I think I have heard that that is one of the things we are fighting for. Yet lately it seems that some Americans don't value it, at least for others. From reading and hearing the news lately I’m a bit confused because of conflicting and contradictory statements in the press, TV, and online, so would you help me out here?
I am going to list some of the things about freedom of speech that seem to be expressed in, say, the incident at Columbia University in connection to a speaker, Jim Gilchrist -- I believe he is the founder of the Minutemen, armed people who are guarding our border with Mexico in order to help stem the flow of illegitimate immigrants and who was invited by the Columbia College Republicans. Please read each statement and tell me if you think if you agree or disagree with any of them and I am right or wrong in my assumption that these are the points of view of activists and other students. Do any of them make any sense to you?
1. Those Minutemen are just plain ******* Nazis so a CC student has the right, even the responsibility to boo, yell, hold up signs, whatever, to let him know he’s not wanted here. We knew before he even started talking that it was all a lot of immigrant-hating stuff and we won't stand for that!
2. When he wouldn’t shut up what else could liberal, pro-immigration people do but rush the stage and wave signs in his face? He disrespected us!
3. When a press conference was held and some protesters were asked why we rushed the stage and stopped the event, one really quick-thinking girl said that we didn’t, that Gilchrist started the trouble first.
4. A legitimate protest was going on outside. Some of the protesters inside were asked why we didn’t join them, as we didn’t have to listen to what we don’t agree with. Well, we allowed the speaker to come here to speak and we had the right to speak when we didn’t like what he said.
5. Columbia University is a great institution of learning. If they are not teaching the student body civility and respect for a broad spectrum of ideas regarding legitimate behavior, they are failing their students, the students’ parents, and the expectations of American society. Students are just that -- they are enrolled in order to learn. They are exposed to a spectrum of ideas and they decide for themselves which they agree with. How can they learn critical thinking if they won't even listen to others' opinions?
Is freedom of speech a dying right if students are afraid to invite a speaker with strong, controversial opinions because violent, self-righteous "activists" will start a riot? Shouldn't the "activists" instead be planning their own event with a speaker they agree with, or back in the dorms studying? And here I've been thinking that we are starting to censor ourselves because of threats by terrorists to commit violence to people and property.
Am I wrong?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home