I'm sure that this had a lot to do with his previous speaking engagement -- and the subsequent fallout -- at Emory in 2002. It was not a happy campus after he printed his open letter to the campus community and the Black Student Alliance.

[Edited on November 5, 2007 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/5/2007 1:47:12 PM

Please, tell us more.

11/5/2007 2:22:58 PM

This is actually a good thread. Page 1 mostly failed, though... a few really good points/observations/questions were lost amongst the non-stop trolling from both sides. maybe page 2 will get back on track.


i think this is key to understanding the entire issue:

Quote :

" Most of the vocal protesters at the event were not affiliated with the University, according to the College Republicans, the Muslim Students Association, University administrators and some professors at the event. ... Muslim Students Association President Sarah Zaim, speaking on behalf of the MSA, disagreed with the confrontational tactics that suffocated Horowitz’s speech. “It’s such a shame,” Zaim said. “This is an academic environment. We’re supposed to listen, especially if we disagree.” Zaim said none of the MSA members attending the event stood or voiced protest. ... Afterward, she bumped into Horowitz at Starbucks and told him she regretted how the event transpired. “That was a very generous thing to do,” Horowitz said. “It made me very interested in what she thinks.” ... [The protesters' opinions were not] shared by other attendees, such as Emory English professor Mark Bauerlein, who decried what he saw as a suppression of an Emory event by outsiders. An event, he said, that could have prompted a valuable educational opportunity for students. “This is a poor day for academic debate,” he said. “This is not simply something against David Horowitz, it’s something against Emory University.” University President James W. Wagner did not attend the speech but said the outcome would have been different had it been limited to Emory students and faculty. "I'm confident that our Emory community would have expressed its support or disdain in a method more consistent with academic discourse," he said. "It is a sad reminder that the sort of ideals that we hold as community at Emory are not universally appreciated and practiced." ... Horowitz also said he thought the event had been overtaken by a group of outsiders he later identified on his blog as the United for Peace and Justice. “All they wanted to do is say their slogan,” he said. “They just came to destroy [the event]. It’s going to, unfortunately, give Emory a black eye, which it doesn’t deserve.” -- http://emorywheel.com/detail.php?n=24510 "

11/6/2007 12:31:15 AM

Quote :

"Emory University is a private institution. As such, they're free to allow whoever they like to attend their functions, and they're free to run their auditorium as they see fit. When Horowitz owns or rents his own auditorium, then he can run his speeches as he would like. In the meantime, Horowitz has no legal right to free speech that compels the audience to sit politely and listen."

A Tanzarian

Yeah, and if Emory tried to bar idiot non-students from attending events such as the one at issue, you or some other moonbat would convulse and begin howling charges of fascism or exclusionism or some stupid shit. It's funny how if John Kerry's speech gets interrupted, the cops move in with the tasers. If Horowitz--an invited quest--is shouted down, nothing is done and the attitude is "Fuck that racist motherfucker!" GG!

BTW, in the context above, you should have used "whomever" not "whoever" [sic]. Who (subjective case) does something to whom (objective case). FYI.

11/6/2007 1:05:34 AM

Quote :

"ou should have used "whomever" not "whoever" [sic]"

why do you do that?

here are people trying to engage your threads on its merits, yet you almost seem to /want/ it to devolve into a bunch of tangential bullshit.

Quote :

"Yeah, and if Emory tried to bar idiot non-students from attending events such as the one at issue, you or some other moonbat would convulse and begin howling charges of fascism or exclusionism or some stupid shit."

again, why do you do that? the baseless accusations combined with namecalling? it appears you want to attract trolling rather than discourse. IANAP(sychologist), but I wonder if you have some complex that requires conflict so you can claim persecution, or something.

In any event, No one has ever done that [claimed exclusionism], that I'm aware of. Universities have every right to restrict events to student/faculty/staff. especially private ones. I don't know why they didn't in the first place.

personally, i think Emory fucked up. they should have ran those non-student agitators out on the end of a cattle prod. it was a small number of people that tried to impose their own agenda by shouting down an invited speaker. that's just bullshit, and has no place in a free society, much less an academic institution.

in Emory's defense, i think they were trying to avoid the media circus and howls that they were oppressing free speech that resulted from the "don't tase me bro" douchebag incident at the Kerry speech.

finally theres a big difference between a prominent US Senator, and a book author. you're an ex-LEO, you should know better than that.



[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 2:17 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 2:08:58 AM

Quote :

" It's funny how if John Kerry's speech gets interrupted, the cops move in with the tasers. If Horowitz--an invited quest--is shouted down, nothing is done and the attitude is "Fuck that racist motherfucker!" GG!"

Haha, do you seriously not see how idiotic this reasoning is?

You don't think John Kerry, a guy who was almost president, is going to have a little more security than a guy anyone's barely heard of?

Plus, the security at the venue is entirely up to the people running the venue. Horowitz likely could have asked for more security if he anticipated the protests. It's not some crazy conspiracy like you think.

Not to mention that adumb above just posted something that can help shed even more light on what went on.

If you're honest with yourself, you can see that the assertions you have made in this thread are wrong. Your caricature of liberals is clearly flawed. And really, your posts as of late have been even more nutty than usual.

11/6/2007 2:11:31 AM

Quote :

"You don't think John Kerry, a guy who was almost president, is going to have a little more security than a guy anyone's barely heard of?"

David Horowitz is well-known enough, he's one of the few articulate neo-cons on the book circuit. but yeah, he's an author and a private citizen. John Kerry is a United States Senator. never mind that he was a presidential candidate. being a US Congressman is enough to warrant more proactive security from law enforcement, and Hooksaw should know that as well as anyone.

11/6/2007 2:20:53 AM

^^ Please stop with the "idiotic" and the "nutty" bullshit, man. It's played out and lame.

I used the Kerry episode simply because it's a more recent and well-known incident of a liberal being shouted down while speaking on a college campus. This doesn't happen very often to liberals, you know--but conservatives face this bullshit all the time.

I never indicated that the Emory situation or any other was a conspiracy--I'm not much of a conspiracy buff. And, yes, Kerry may travel with more security, but (1) Horowitz had to hire his own security, and (2) private citizens should be afforded protections in these types of situations, too.

Horowitz was an invited speaker and his comments should have been allowed to be heard in full.

11/6/2007 2:55:26 AM

Quote :

"Horowitz was an invited speaker and his comments should have been allowed to be heard in full. "

Yes, most people in this thread agree with this.

Quote :

"Yeah, and if Emory tried to bar idiot non-students from attending events such as the one at issue, you or some other moonbat would convulse and begin howling charges of fascism or exclusionism or some stupid shit. It's funny how if John Kerry's speech gets interrupted, the cops move in with the tasers. If Horowitz--an invited quest--is shouted down, nothing is done and the attitude is "Fuck that racist motherfucker!" GG! "

I'll ease up on the nutty (sometimes the word is really apt though) and kook thing if you ease up on the moonbat thing.

But, considering the above statement, what you've said here doesn't make any sense. You seem to be asserting that somehow someone made an effort to deliberately derail Horowitz, that is somehow related to all liberals in general. The fact of the matter is that several "liberal" groups and individuals have come out against the people protesting horowitz, and it seems it was actually an outside group, and that Horowitz has some history at Emory university.

Considering the perception that you're a very dogmatic right-wing ideologue, in the context of this thread, you have no basis for asserting that "the left" is somehow being unfair in this case. It was not right that Horowitz was shouted down and not allowed to give his speech. It wasn't fair to the majority of the people in the room that went to see his speech. But it happened, it has nothing to do with the left in general, and there's nothing that can be done about it now.

11/6/2007 3:04:44 AM

Quote :

"moron: Yes, most people in this thread agree with this."

I'm not sure I agree.

It seems like every douchebag is spouting off these days. And I can change the station or the channel. Or click on the x. Or leave the room.

Or I can voice my disdain.

There are limits to free speech. Sometimes, they come in the form of someone telling you to shut the fuck up and talking over your ass until you do. Horowitz met his limits at Emory. It's a consequence of being offensive and incendiary.

Of course, etiquette and shit is important. I certainly would never find myself shouting down this Horowitz guy. Free flow of ideas, open lines of communication, tolerance, etc... all good stuff. Plus, dude is mad old and knows a bunch of interesting stuff. But like I said, there are lots of douchebags spouting off these days--don't know why Horowitz thought he would be the only one at Emory...?

11/6/2007 6:18:06 AM

Quote :

"Horowitz met his limits at Emory"

i totally disagree, as would most people who were there (at least, the students and faculty) -- according to what they say ... even the people who vehemently disagree with his positions.

this was a concerted effort by a national leftwing activist group (United for Peace and Justice) who took it upon themselves to hijack an invited speaker's public presentation in an academic setting and censor him by shouting him down.

it's just not acceptable.




[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 12:13:14 PM

Quote :

"it's just not acceptable."

It's not acceptable in the sense of polite behavior. Certainly Emory should have had the hecklers removed.

In the end though, the venue belongs to Emory and not Horowitz.

In no way were Horowitz's rights violated.

11/6/2007 12:47:54 PM

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: i totally disagree, as would most people who were there (at least, the students and faculty) -- according to what they say ... even the people who vehemently disagree with his positions. this was a concerted effort by a national leftwing activist group (United for Peace and Justice) who took it upon themselves to hijack an invited speaker's public presentation in an academic setting and censor him by shouting him down. it's just not acceptable."

I read the thread. On page one, I implied that I thought it was the students who did the shouting. Since then, I read the post where you bolded the part about it being a group of activist "outsiders." I also caught the part where the students and faculty implied that they did not take part in the shouting-down.

Repeating the details with a lame "it's just not acceptable" isn't going to change my mind.

When you've got these great big egos and clashing personalities/viewpoints, shit happens every once in a while. And I'm okay with that. If it becomes some outrageous epidemic, I might be more concerned.





And let's take a look at your post to the WBC thread:

Quote :

"joe_schmoe: i would like to bring back Old Testament style justice just long enough to round the entire WBC up to be publicly stoned and/or beaten and driven into the desert to die a torturous death from untended wounds and general exposure . then I would repeal the Old Testament justice and go back to having modern civil rights and freedom of speech and shit."

/message_topic.aspx?topic=500337

You seem to be completely disgusted with the attitudes and actions of this "church," but you acknowledge their right to free speech, as did a few other posters in the thread.

In fact, the WBC was able to spew vile, vitriolic shit at funerals all over the country, and people were throwing their hands up, "What are you gonna do? It's freedom of speech!" It was only on some small detail that they finally ended up in a position to lose a lawsuit. And still now the new laws passed against protesting at funerals are criticized as infringing upon our right to free speech.

So what I'm getting from you is...WBC's free speech is more important than United for Peace and Justice's free speech.

And feel free to go ahead and point out the differences between Emory and the several funerals WBC protested without consequence...

But I'll grind my argument in further.

Not only are you saying that WBC's free speech > United for Peace and Justice's free speech...

...you're also implying that David fucking Horowitz > several dead soldiers...

Grats.

[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 12:58:56 PM

Quote :

"Of course, etiquette and shit is important."

BridgetSPK

How eloquent.

11/6/2007 1:08:59 PM

^That sentence was obviously designed to elicit a chuckle.

Try to keep up.

11/6/2007 1:13:42 PM

^ I simply made an observation. Are you paranoid?

11/6/2007 1:26:35 PM

Quote :

"personally, i think Emory fucked up. they should have ran those non-student agitators out on the end of a cattle prod. it was a small number of people that tried to impose their own agenda by shouting down an invited speaker. that's just bullshit, and has no place in a free society, much less an academic institution."

Yeah. When I think of freedom, forcing agitators away immediately comes to mind. That's not the only way to respond to jackasses, you know. I'd rather maintain respect for all people than gain the efficiency that comes with order imposed at the point of a sword (or cattle prod, in this case).

11/6/2007 1:40:14 PM

Quote :

"Not only are you saying that WBC's free speech > United for Peace and Justice's free speech... ...you're also implying that David fucking Horowitz > several dead soldiers... Grats."

If these were similar cases, then you would be right, the distinct difference is WBC isn't infringing on someone else's right to speak. To the best of my knowledge WBC has never prevented a funeral from occuring. This isn't to defend what WBC does, merely to point out that they seem smart enough to stop just short of serious right infringements.

11/6/2007 2:26:23 PM

^^ How about letting an invited speaker finish his or her remarks and then engaging in a meaningful debate? This seems reasonable to me.

What if a band is playing somewhere and "agitators" verbally disrupt the performance? What about stageplays? Movies? Can people no longer enjoy music, stage, theater, and so on because of agitators' rights?

11/6/2007 3:38:40 PM

Quote :

"Can people no longer enjoy music, stage, theater, and so on because of agitators' rights?"

Certainly decorum would dictate that you remain quiet when others are speaking, and common sense would dictate that engaging someone is more fruitful than shouting them down. However, it is ultimately up to the venue owner/operator to enforce whatever rules of behavior that he/she sees fit. If you disrupt a movie, the theater owner throws you out. If you heckle a commedian too much, the comedy club owner throws you out.

Why did Emory not throw these people out? I have no idea. But the fact that they didn't is in no way an infringement upon Horowitz's rights.

11/6/2007 3:56:36 PM

^ So, disturbing the peace laws are invalid?

11/6/2007 3:59:48 PM

What makes you think that they would be?

11/6/2007 4:01:33 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK : So what I'm getting from you is...WBC's free speech is more important than United for Peace and Justice's free speech. And feel free to go ahead and point out the differences between Emory and the several funerals WBC protested without consequence... But I'll grind my argument in further. Not only are you saying that WBC's free speech > United for Peace and Justice's free speech... ...you're also implying that David fucking Horowitz > several dead soldiers... "

wtf? You and I must be having a communication breakdown ... i hope. otherwise,

I love the WBC and David Horiwitz
and I hate leftwing fringe groups as well as US Soldiers.


if youre going to take the time to summarize my "postions", at least try to be accurate.

What I advocate is was nothing less than death to the WBC. its a dream that i have. maybe someday God will reward me and take them all out with an F5 tornado in the middle of their sunday services. In the meantime, If they violated any laws i hope they are punished to the full extent possible, as long as First Amendment rights are not abridged.

But Free Speech does not give you the right to impose your agenda and shut down an invited speaker to an academic forum. this is not the case of Gary Birdsong in the Brickyard. like the WBC is alleged to have done in private funeral services, so have the group that hijacked Horowitz's speech.

i equate the two. UPJ and WBC. both appear to be in violation of others' rights, and their claims to free speech is suspect.

but IANAL, and i admit i dont know all the details.




[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 9:25 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 9:24:45 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: If these were similar cases, then you would be right, the distinct difference is WBC isn't infringing on someone else's right to speak. To the best of my knowledge WBC has never prevented a funeral from occuring. This isn't to defend what WBC does, merely to point out that they seem smart enough to stop just short of serious right infringements."

Lame.

Like I said, Horowitz met his limit. He could have kept speaking if he wanted to. You have a right to free speech--nobody said it was easy or that folks would wanna listen. If someone had physically forced him off the stage, I'd be concerned. As it is, I consider it pretty kickass that people care enough to wear pink arm bands and make up silly, rhyming chants like, "Racist. Sexist. Anti-gay. David Horowitz, go away!" And I think it's kickass that we're sitting here arguing about it right now.

Sure, perpetually shouting down people you disagree with is not polite and not conducive to intellectual, spiritual, political, whateveral growth. But it's not the end of the world if the occasional speech/forum devolves into an activist masturbation session. That's just a consequence of the freeish society we live in. And allowing it is certainly better for everybody than forcably removing perceived offenders.

11/6/2007 10:04:18 PM

so then, any event where someone is speaking, with whom i disagree ... i should be able to go into that public event and start shouting whatever arguments or bits of propaganda i wish, at the top of my voice, and drown out whatever the invited speaker is trying to speak on?

can i go into the statehouse and start haranguing the speakers there? can i go into a church in the middle of services and start clever chants like "Hey Hey Ho Ho Patrimony Has Got To Go!" for that matter, can i go to class and start chanting all my disagreements at the professor?

come on bridget.

tell me you're doing a devils advocate here or something. because even though it's weak as hell, the alternative is too hard to believe.




[Edited on November 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/6/2007 10:52:24 PM

^^ An invited speaker, Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist, being physically attacked and forced off a stage at Columbia University:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PuNXmy0e5fc

Ann Coulter's speech disrupted as she is physically attacked at the University of Arizona by "al Pieda" members:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fv9xa-VxchM

BTW, check out the brain surgeons who initiated the Coulter attack:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1022042coulter1.html

Pat Buchanan being physically attacked at Western Michigan University:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2005/04/pat_buchanan_at_1.html

Bill Kristol being physically attacked at Earlham College:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEHi52z11U8

Do you care about these incidents? Of course you don't--you apparently didn't even know about them.

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 4:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2007 4:06:42 AM

Viva al-Pieda

11/7/2007 11:17:39 AM

A pie is a physical attack?

11/7/2007 11:23:06 AM

go up to someone random person in public and pie them. i reckon you would get an assault charge.

id be surprised if the al-Piedas didnt. i mean, she's an angel and all, but i cant imagine Coulter being /that/ gracious.



[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 11:27 AM. Reason : ]

11/7/2007 11:27:08 AM

Right-- legally speaking.

But for the sake of rational debate, throwing a pie at someone should not be called a "physical attack."

11/7/2007 11:30:26 AM

i think you just played into hooksaw's trap. we'll be expecting him to descend upon you shortly

11/7/2007 11:49:03 AM

Quote :

"^^ How about letting an invited speaker finish his or her remarks and then engaging in a meaningful debate? This seems reasonable to me."

Sure, but don't enforce it at the point of a sword.

Quote :

"What if a band is playing somewhere and "agitators" verbally disrupt the performance? What about stageplays? Movies? Can people no longer enjoy music, stage, theater, and so on because of agitators' rights?"

Perhaps enjoying such things would become more difficult, but, as I wrote, I'm more than willing to accept that in exchange for treating everyone with dignity. I suspect most disrupted could be handled without resorting to force. This wouldn't be as efficient, but I don't care.

I don't believe that removing the threat of force would transform us all into jackasses. Agitators typically have some cause they feel strongly about. In most cases, we should listen to them. Consider what you would do if one of your buddies caused a disruption at a public event. Would you immediately insist he be forced away and possibly further punished? I doubt it.

Why not treat all people the same way?

11/7/2007 2:18:11 PM

Quote :

"Smith, a UA student, and Wolff were charged with criminal damage, a felony, and misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct, vandalism, and assault without injury. The felony charge resulted from damage to a backdrop that school officials estimated at $3000. The report describes the woven cloth backdrop as a 'muslim scrim.'"

These were the charges in the Coulter incident. And the rolly eyes about whether a pie in the face is assault is irrational. (1) Unwanted material makes physical contact with the person--usually in the face. Would you like for me to do that to you, Boone? (2) No one knows what is in these pies--yours would contain some of Uncle hooksaw's special nut butter, I can assure you, Boone. And (3) Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Today, I'm confident that Justice Holmes would include pies and any other unwanted material in that quotation.

^

Quote :

"Consider what you would do if one of your buddies caused a disruption at a public event. Would you immediately insist he be forced away and possibly further punished? I doubt it."

(1) My friends wouldn't act like assholes at a public event and ruin it for everyone else. And (2) if a friend ever lost his fucking mind and did such a thing, I would have no problem whatsoever with him being hauled out and charged.

11/8/2007 12:21:02 AM

oh come on man.

the old Pie-In-The-Face routine?

it's so Three Stooges! where's your sense of comedic timing?

the only thing that would be cooler is, if right after the pie hit her face, this big huge hook slowly came out from the side of the stage and pulled her off the stage. Maybe someone could say "Exit... stage right!" in a voice like Snagglepuss.

come on, now. thats shit's funny, maaaaan.

11/8/2007 1:11:19 AM

^ Look, I laugh when people get pies in the face, too--and a lot of other shit that I probably shouldn't laugh at. But (1) that doesn't mean it's not assault, and (2) the pie-in-the-face routine gets a lot less funny when it's unexpectedly in your face.

I might go for the hook thing if the background music is from the old Warner Brothers' cartoon: "Oh, we're the boys of the chorus / We hope you like our show / We know you're rooting for us / But now we have to go!"

11/8/2007 1:57:55 AM