Leftist students prevent a rational discussion of hate speech
We read:
"On Wednesday night, Don Feder's Republican Club-sponsored speech on hate crimes was abruptly cancelled due to a high level of disruption by student protestors.
"Feder refused to speak anymore," said University of Massachusetts student Greg Collins, president of the UMass Republican Club, of the official reason for the event's cancellation. "Overall, I don't believe he spoke for more than 10 minutes."
In response to the event's cancellation, many UMass students - and even alumni - have commented on Dailycollegian.com: Some speak with anger at Feder's views, others with a defiant belief in some of the points he made. But more than anything else, most have commented with disgust that none of these views were able to be explored at a deeper level because those who disagreed with Feder disrupted the event to such an extent that he no longer wished to speak to his audience.
Source
The usual Fascist behavior we expect from the student Left -- aided and abetted by their professors.
6 comments:
So, how many of those leftists were booted from the meeting? Remember their motto, "do as we say, not as we do".
Based on what I've read, there were about 3-5 removed from the meeting, leaving about 40 to carry on the disruptions.
That was simply to make it appear as though something was being done.
Was there any admission fee charged? If so, the paying customers have grounds for damages against those who disrupted the speech and breached the implied contract that they would not disrupt what others had paid for. The violation of other patrons' property rights is an outright crime that needs to be prosecuted. But if there was no admission charge, then no violation of property rights.
Robert,
The Republican Committee paid to have the speaker there, though none of the articles I've read stated who they paid. (Don Feder, the University, etc.?) They certainly suffered a financial loss.
I wish Mr. Feder had taken on the disrupters' challenges directly instead of engaging in rhetorical volleys which didn't have much substance to them.
For example, he should have asked the guy with the sign, "What do you mean by 'hate'? How do you define 'hate speech'?"
Keep in mind that children often "hate" their parents for not letting them do what they want. "Mommy won't let me eat as much candy as I want. I hate her!" or "My Dad grounded me from driving the car after he caught me drinking. I hate him." Just because a hearer doesn't like what the speaker is saying does not mean the speaker is wrong.
I was actually referring to the patrons, and whether they paid an admission fee to get in to hear the speech or not. Try adapting these paragraphs, particularly the last one, from "For a New Liberty", up a page above the notes:
Free Speech and Property Rights
"But the problem here is not that rights cannot be pushed too far, but that the whole case is discussed in terms of a vague and wooly "freedom of speech" rather than in terms of the rights of private property. Suppose we analyze the problem under the aspect of property rights. The fellow who brings on a riot by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is, necessarily, either the owner of the theater (or the owner's agent) or a paying patron. If he is the owner, then he has committed fraud on his customers. He has taken their money in exchange for a promise to put on a movie or play, and now, instead, he disrupts the show by falsely shouting "fire" and breaking up the performance. He has thus welshed on his contractual obligation, and has thereby stolen the property — the money — of his patrons and has violated their property rights.
Suppose, on the other hand, that the shouter is a patron and not the owner. In that case, he is violating the property right of the owner [p. 44] as well as of the other guests to their paid-for performance. As a guest, he has gained access to the property on certain terms, including an obligation not to violate the owner's property or to disrupt the performance the owner is putting on. His malicious act, therefore, violates the property rights of the theater owner and of all the other patrons. There is no need, therefore, for individual rights to be restricted in the case of the false shouter of "fire." The rights of the individual are still absolute; but they are property rights. The fellow who maliciously cried "fire" in a crowded theater is indeed a criminal, but not because his so-called "right of free speech" must be pragmatically restricted on behalf of the "public good"; he is a criminal because he has clearly and obviously violated the property rights of another person."
Post a Comment