Another college, another speaker, another cry for censorship

newyork.cbslocal.com...

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Controversy was mounting Friday evening over a decision by the City University of New York Graduate School of Public Health to invite a pro-Palestinian activist as the commencement speaker.

As CBS2 Political Reporter Marcia Kramer reported, activist Linda Sarsour has spoken out against the NYPD surveillance of Muslim communities under former Commissioner Ray Kelly.

“We were inviting him to our front door,” Sarsour told CBS2’s Tony Aiello on Feb. 18, 2013. “He was sending us confidential informants to our back door.”

Sarsour has also frequently been the public face of the concerns of local Palestinians.

Once again, someone with a controversial background is invited to speak and there is a cry to cancel and deny her, her freedom of expression.


I know, yet again, another thread on this.

If it bores you, I understand.

If we don't stand for all speech, then we are screwed.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yup, let all radicals, conformists, liberal or conservative speak and let the crowd grow or let the crickets chirp.

Does it really hurt you either way?

a reply to: DBCowboy

My guess is censorship will win once again.

You did read the part where she supports Radical Islam and Sharia Law?

This isnt just about being pro Palestine. It isnt about Freedom of Speech. Radical Islam and Sharia law have no place in American Society.

originally posted by: misskat1
You did read the part where she supports Radical Islam and Sharia Law?

This isnt just about being pro Palestine. It isnt about Freedom of Speech. Radical Islam and Sharia law have no place in American Society.

True, they don't.

But I wouldn't silence the commies and the socialists and all the other assorted nutbags just because I disagreed with them.

Even idiots have the right to speak freely.

And we should stand up for them to do so.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I agree that all should have the freedom to speak.
At the same time, the audience should have the freedom to exit the venue if they do not agree with her speech. If the auditorium is empty at the end of her speech....it will be a powerful message delivered without censorship, eh?

a reply to: diggindirt

Absolutely!

That would be a wonderful protest!

There is never an obligation to listen. Never.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I think a lot of people are going to be confused by your consistency on the issue.

Placing principles above politics does not compute with some folk around here.

“She is someone who associates with radical Islamists; supports them; shows support for them. She is someone who has said, clearly, she thinks throwing rocks at cars in Israel is a good thing,” Hikind said.

Everyone has the right to free speech.

Even people we disagree with.

That first is not just a part time amendment.

It's full time.

And for those that can't understand the first the fourteenth doubled down on it

Equal right equal play Equal air time.

No fat kids out at dodge ball so to speak.

(Just an expression).

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait what? Now you're complaining about a Democrat speaking out against Sharia law? Now I am confused.
That's why I think all this bipartisan thing is bull.

a reply to: DBCowboy

For one thing she doesn't support extremism and supports as well as conforms to Sharia Law on a personal, individual basis, not as in legal law. But to the free speech issue... CUNY had the right to invite her, she has the right to speak... people also have the right to say that it bothers them. Everyone has the right to express dissent whether it's against a government, a school, a business or a private person.

Take MissKat's post. She obviously feels very strongly about Linda Sarsour, feels threatened by her speech, who the hell is anyone to tell her (assuming) to shut up and that she shouldn't ask CUNY to reconsider because she feels it normalizes Radical Islam. MissKat doesn't have the right to resort to violence to stop Sarsour from speaking but she for goddamn sure has the right to stand outside CUNY with a sign and chanting as loud as she fking wants to that she disagrees with everything Sarsour stands for.

a reply to: DBCowboy

The primary difference from my point of view is that we've been witnessing censorship and violence against pro-America and America first speakers inside the United States of America whereas this would seem to be censorship and protests against a decidedly anti-American speaker inside the United States of America. While taken purely as a first Amendment issue, that difference my be moot... but taken from a nationalist position, I see a world of difference. I'll allow a visitor in my home to compliment my home and criticize my neighbors, but I'll toss you on your ear if you piss on my carpets and ask why my place isn't as spiffy as the one next door.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait what? Now you're complaining about a Democrat speaking out against Sharia law? Now I am confused.
That's why I think all this bipartisan thing is bull.

So I can't make negative comments against people who want to silence others?


You just don't want to agree with me. I see that now.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's why I brought up commies and socialists also.

We can't just allow nice speech.

We've got to allow ALL speech, even if it goes against the grain.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait what? Now you're complaining about a Democrat speaking out against Sharia law? Now I am confused.
That's why I think all this bipartisan thing is bull.

So I can't make negative comments against people who want to silence others?


You just don't want to agree with me. I see that now.

Cause it would be too much work for them to just simply say 'I agree'.

Which is called arguing just for the sake of arguing.

a reply to: neo96

This will be a good example.

That member will have a right to say whatever he wants.

I'll just quit reading his posts!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

Wait what? Now you're complaining about a Democrat speaking out against Sharia law? Now I am confused.
That's why I think all this bipartisan thing is bull.

So I can't make negative comments against people who want to silence others?


You just don't want to agree with me. I see that now.

You're a weird man but ok.
You keep making those threads lamenting about those who want silence the conservative voices and yet you made this thread complaining that a Democract don't want to support Sharia Law.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I do not agree with much of what she is saying but agree that she should be able to say it without censorship.

Free speech is about permitting what you do not agree with, otherwise it is too easy and freedom is not easy, it is hard work.

If you're worried about it ,you are a problem,because IT'S the law.

AND if nothing else, its a great platform to examine the pathology..so good.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You're a weird man but ok.

So true.

You keep making those threads lamenting about those who want silence the conservative voices and yet you made this thread complaining that a Democract don't want to support Sharia Law.

Consistency. You cannot pick and choose when it comes to freedom of speech.