<p>Quote: This type of thing is nothing new.</p>
<p>Here is a better example: </p>
<p>The October Revolution, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution or November Revolution, was the second phase of the Russian Revolution of 1917 It is the first official Marxist communist revolution of the twentieth century. The revolution overthrew the Russian Provisional Government, which led to the Russian Civil War from 1918-1920, followed by the creation of the Soviet Union in 1922.</p>
<p>The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 649 elected delegates; 390 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Kerensky Government. When the fall of the Winter Palace was announced, the Congress adopted a decree transferring power to the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, thus ratifying the Revolution. The transfer of power was not without disagreement. The center and Right wings of the Socialist Revolutionaries as well as the Mensheviks believed that Lenin and the Bolsheviks had illegally seized power and they walked out before the resolution was passed.</p>
<p>What Wikipedia does not mention, is that Bolsheviks convinced the speakers of Provisional Government - the only democratic government in the entire Russian history - to walk out by pointing guns towards them, firing into air and shouting them down. Today that Bolshevik heroes are considered terrorists, who knew that they were only exercising their rights to free speech </p>
<p>So much for Columbia students carefully selected for admission to one of the most prestigious universities based on their essays, leadership, exceptional intellect, communication and debate skills </p>
<p>If you also look at the Velvet Revolution, the Orange Revolution, and many others (I did my highschool senior project on them), they were all prompted by student's. Student's overthrew communist puppet governments. Student's should use their voices.</p>
<p>Those students were denying these invited guests their right to free speech. When the African American man spoke, they called him (you know) and other bad words. </p>
<p>When liberal groups at Columbia invite radical speakers, no one shouts THEM down. Yet, the conservative groups have to pay for extra security so that their speakers are protected.</p>
<p>Columbia students have the right to express their views.
Better question would be: What were the Minutemen doing in New York? On a recruiting expedition?
I have heard their leaders interviewed plenty of times, and - aside from the fact that they can't even articulate their rather odious ideas - it is evident that they are not the "country's saviors," as they purport to be.
No wonder that the Minutemen did not even last a New York minute.</p>
<p>They were invited.....The next time your ranch in a Texas border county is overrun by Mexican drug mules carrying automatic weapons, let us know how you feel about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No wonder that the Minutemen did not even last a New York minute.
[/quote]
rimshot!
[quote]
Columbia students have the right to express their views.
[/quote]
guaranteed by the first amendment.
[quote]
What were the Minutemen doing in New York? On a recruiting expedition?
[/quote]
Exercising "their" right to express "their" views.
[quote]
I have heard their leaders interviewed plenty of times, and - aside from the fact that they can't even articulate their rather odious ideas - it is evident that they are not the "country's saviors," as they purport to be.
[/quote]
Then I guess we have nothing to fear because they shouldn't be too effective at recruiting. </p>
<p>So why the need to shout them down? Are they that bad that they don't deserve their first amendment rights?</p>
<p>The Minutemen are keeping "illegals" out while fruit in California rots on the trees from lack of workers to pick it. We need to admit our economy depends on illegal workers from other countries and come up with a guest worker program.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's unfortunate that this is kind of a small faction that chose to do that, because as much as I disagree with what Gilchrist stood for, and what the minutemen do, I still think that he should have been allowed to speak. The other view is, yeah, he can speak, but we can speak over him, which is the way they've been presenting it. Legally, that's true. Individual people aren't bound to recognize the free speech of others, it's institutions who are bound to do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Legally, that's true?</p>
<p>Well there must be something wrong with the law then. This leads us to the bigger bullhorn theory of free speech where the view with the biggest bullhorn is the only one that in effect can effectively exercise their right to free speech. In the end it usually comes to the view with the most money (able to afford the biggest bullhorn) wins. I don't think these guys want to go there.</p>
<p>It is such a shame that the extremists on all sides fail to recognize that the first amendment (and the whole constitution for that matter) was designed so that a civil population could freely discuss ALL ideas in a civilized manner, avoiding repression of thought from people with other viewpoints. This is what keeps the US having a stable government and avoiding coup of the month club. </p>
<p>We clearly do a poor job in this country of instilling a sense of toleration (not acceptance) of other viewpoints in our children in this country.</p>
<p>I did learn something in those years I was at Berkeley, despite the culture.</p>
<p>The facebook group has some good arguments. Also this was good "1- none of the protesters attacked anybody!!! they hopped and stage and where trying to unroll their banners but even before they could get on stage they were ATTACKED by the minute men people. this is clearly seen in every single video of the protest. (Especially if u saw the univision coverage)."</p>
<p>Ya they were gonna do wat I said! "we were going to stand up and turn around, and that was the extent of it. "</p>
<p>also
"Oh yeah. Most of the protesters don't agree with the rush of the stage, especially those who stood outside. A lot of people feel that it was a huge misrepresentation of our beliefs, as individuals, as protesters, as believers in free speech. I can see why they wanted to make a bigger point, since just sitting there isn't getting anything done, but I just don't think that was a good way to go about it. "</p>
<p>In the late 60s a group of armed black students took over the student union at my alma mater.</p>
<p>Years later they looked up these kids and IIRC a number of them are highly successful executives. The ringleader was in charge of a huge pension fund, or something like that.</p>
<p>The actions may not have been excusable. But, until they see what its like to support themselves "out there" for a few years, in my book they are still somewhat immature kids. Most of them will grow up. IMO.</p>
<p>Wow I just rewatched it looking for phsyical violence, and it ALL came from the minutemen. They were pushing, throwing, and ripping up signs. They were being the aggressive ones...all the protestors were doing was holding signs and yelling.</p>
<p>Just for future reference in watching the movies, (most) protestors were wearing white (some were sitting, some standing, some on stage. They were told to wear white when they came [but not all]). It mentioned that the audience was full of protestors (most of the audience).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow I just rewatched it looking for phsyical violence, and it ALL came from the minutemen. They were pushing, throwing, and ripping up signs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are we talking about the CTVnews video? I watched it several times again after reading your comment and the only "violence" that I can agree was documented was the tearing up of the protestors' sign and attempts to keep more people from getting on the stage by, I assume, College Republicans or supporters of the speakers. For all the talk of punches and kicks mentioned elsewhere, I can't say that there is any evidence of that happening on that video. Physical violence by the protestors may be documented in other video or photographic evidence, but that video is not convincing (to me).</p>
<p>I looked at the YouTube video. I didn't say punching or kicking (although others might have. "They were pushing, throwing, and ripping up signs". Which...did happen)</p>
<p>Maybe the liberals need to set up exclusively liberal schools like some of the conservatives have. They can interview students before they enroll and make sure they tow the liberal line. Then they don't have to be challenged by any other viewpoints, and they can listen to their liberal speakers in peace. Of course, they would need to forego any government funding to do so, but I'm sure they would consider that a small price to pay to be able to live in liberal utopia.</p>
<p>As a Columbia parent, I suggest that anyone who really wants to appreciate the virtues of free speech should read the Columbia Spectator, the student newspaper. It's full of letters, statements, opinion pieces, and reporting on this. Yesterday, a strong editorial condemned the protest as disgraceful and supported everyone's right to speak. Today, another well written editorial took on those around the country who have jumped to condemn the entire Columbia student body, pointing out that not only was the Minuteman group invited by students (College Republicans) but that controversial speakers appear all the time on campus and, at most, are met by quiet protest. It makes the point others have made on here -- Columbia students tend to be engaged with the world and its issues. That's a virtue in my opinion, although the tactics in this case were the wrong ones in both senses of the word "wrong": they denied someone the right to speak and they made Columbia students rather than the Minutemen the focus of debate.</p>