Free speech or no

Posted on September 26, 2007
Filed Under Politics, World news |

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an invited speaker at Columbia University has raised several eyebrows, aside from the political climate regarding the war in which he has questioned the Sept 11 attacks, doubts the Holocaust and is a staunch supporter of the destruction of Israel and apparently was rumored to say death to Americans upon leaving the country, why would such a person be given a forum to recapitulate many of these beliefs. Although the Columbia student body was out in full force and along with the University president who called President Ahmadinejad ..”a petty and cruel dictator.” during the question and answer period of the Iranian leader’s presentation, what was the purpose of allowing him to give a presentation? Was this in someway to draw unwarranted attention to an already great University?

The line, and dare I say the party line was, the right to free speech. There is of course the argument that free speech is absolute, otherwise we begin a slippery slope into apparently….anarchy. However, is this really the case? I agree that there are arguments to be made against censorship many of which are valid and can in fact lead down a path that will result in restrictions. But these should be taken on a case by case basis along with a little common sense. The truth of the matter is, as much as we would like to believe we are in a free society, we are not in a free society where we can say and do what we want. Ask Michael Richards, Mel Gibson, or Don Imus. However, even though these individuals have in effect been disappeared from, at least the entertainment landscape for using words that are offensive these people never said they would kill anybody. I hope you can detect the sarcasm in reading that last line. I am in no way trying to defend these entertainers, but, we cannot condemn some and condone others and claim free speech when we want to. To allow an individual like Ahmadinejad to spew out hatred regardless of the “spirited dialogue” that may ensue afterwards in no way excuses giving him a public forum. Yet we are the ones picking and choosing who gets censored and who doesn’t.

The point is weighing a president’s views which clearly carries important political and global consequences and whose views contain the destruction of a people, should be examined a little more carefully before they are given a public voice.

Comments

Leave a Reply




Your Ad Here