People who rushed the stage = Democratic Liberals.

Everyone Else = Conservatives

?

That was fucking AWESOME. I have restored faith in rich white kids (for now at least).

He's ashamed of us?? What shames me about Columbia is that the Minutemen were invited to begin with. How could they not expect us to get pissed off?? Seriously.

Um...no. Angry crowds have been used to silent unpopular speakers before. It didn't end well.

So it is now OK to rush anyone saying something unpopular? Regardless of what the speaker was saying, the students who rushed the stage should be ashamed of themselves. I was embarrassed just watching it.

If a bunch of pro-lifers rushed the stage to silence a pro-choice speaker, you all would (rightfully) be calling it a travesty. What hypocrites.

Now I wonder how come you found out about this before I did...

I just wanted to lend my support to those who chanted “ Racist go away!� and other “hypocrites�. It was awesome!

I love this stuff.

Noname - what is hypocritical about what happened? As Elie Wiesel has been known to say, tolerance is important but can be taken too far. Should the Columbia community sit quietly and allow racists to take the stage?

You're right, we would have problem with pro-lifers silencing pro-choicers. So by your logic do we have to allow absolutely EVERYBODY a platform for their views, no matter how offensive?

Is there any point at which you would say that a speaker was too offensive and/or dangerous to be allowed to speak?

I think that your view creates a false dichotomy in which one must either be a hypocrite or have no sense whatsoever and allow everyone, terrorists and murderers included, a platform. I disagree with your dichotomy; but if I have to choose one or the other, then call me a hypocrite.

Funny aside: I heard those protesters on the street last night. When I first hear them, I thought they were saying "naked Nazis," when in fact I'm suspect they were saying "hey, hey Nazis."

The First Amendment exists only to protect unpopular speech; popular speech needs no protection. There are many and far better ways to protest the "minutemen" and expose them as racist murderers, would-be or otherwise, than emulating jackbooted thugs.

Noname - what is hypocritical about what happened? As Elie Wiesel has been known to say, tolerance is important but can be taken too far. Should the Columbia community sit quietly and allow racists to take the stage?

You're right, we would have problem with pro-lifers silencing pro-choicers. So by your logic do we have to allow absolutely EVERYBODY a platform for their views, no matter how offensive?
- DT

Actually, yes! We all have a Constitutional right to freedom of expression. No one has such a right to be protected from being offended. You may debate, question, boo, hiss, show placards, wear buttons, protest noisily outside. You may NOT threaten - and I think a mob rushing a stage may reasonably be counted as threatening. Your civil liberties end where mine begin. I get to say what I think, even if that bothers you to the core. If I cross the line & what I think may be reasonably construed as a direct threat or "inciting to riot" (the good old "FIRE!" in the theater), then it is your right to report me and have the authorities intervene.
What's reprehensible about the Minuteman Project is the vigilanteism combined with racism. Acting as vigilanties just put those students on the exact same moral plane.
A really pointed Q&A that exposed the speakers for what they really are would have been REALLY the thing to do.

Course, I wasn't there...

But my take on the video is that the people rushing the stage only did so after the College Repubs and Minutemen started a melee to take away a perfectly legitimate protest banner.

As for the shouting, well, if you're publicly condoning an atmosphere of racism and vigilantism I'd expect you'd get booed.

I'm confused. Was he speaking in a "lets take the law into our own hands" sort of way? If he was spewing racist things, advocating violence or humiliationg and degrading persons than I can see people getting upset. I'd much rather see them standing up and chanting than rushing the stage violently, however, and it wouldn't have distorted their clear and justified opposition.

I may be unpopular for saying this but illegal immigration is a real problem. Letting people come and go freely just isn't smart politics and an intense drain on the public systems which don't get enough support as it is. I'm talking about schools and hospitals and other tax funded and necessary institutions that are suffering and closing here in Southern California. No, it's not all the fault of illegal immigration but it is partially responsible, especially when illegal immigrants don't pay income tax (and probably don't even make enough to be taxed fairly, which I think is sad).

I don't think violence or racism is the answer to these problems, but I do think we need a more secure border. I think people throw things like race into the mix to distort the real issue.

There are definantly vile, racist, scumbags who support tightening the borders and disgusting, inhumane actions and treatment of person which I will never support and make the very idea look absurd and cruel. At the same time, rushing the stage, while nicely symbolic from a liberal standpoint, hurts the cause more than it helps it. IMHO

"Noname - what is hypocritical about what happened?" - DT

I didn't say what happened at Columbia was hypocritical. I said that posters here supporting what happened are hypocrites. What happened at Columbia was an embarrassment.

“Should the Columbia community sit quietly and allow racists to take the stage? – DT

Not necessarily. Is sitting quietly really the only alternative to rushing the stage?

As an aside, I looked through the Minuteman website and don’t see anything racist about it. While I don’t agree with vigilantism, they seem only to be working to enforce laws already on the books. Is demanding that immigrants enter the country legally really racist? Of course, my only information here comes from their site, so obviously I may have a slanted view of things. This is the first I have ever heard of them, so I truthfully don’t know. Have the Minutemen as an organization shown themselves to be racists in some way that I am missing?

The Wiki article on the Minutemen Project is pretty good, and has several links to critical articles as well as various Minutemen sites. At best, they're more or less a paramilitary group. Whatever your thoughts on illegal immigration, you have to wonder about the motivation of civilians "patrolling" the border armed with guns.

"You may NOT threaten - and I think a mob rushing a stage may reasonably be counted as threatening."

Weren't they rushing the stage to hold up a banner? It is unlikely that they wanted to get violent, especially since most of them are likely privileged liberal Democrats who would look down on such direct action/protest.

"A really pointed Q&A that exposed the speakers for what they really are would have been REALLY the thing to do."

http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=13814

"Have the Minutemen as an organization shown themselves to be racists in some way that I am missing?"

They officialy proclaim that Non-US cultures will destroy the country.

The thing is, the leaders of the movement may proclaim to not be racist, but most of the members are racists who have found a place for their racism to be accepted, just like most leftist organizations are full of hippies who don't really understand the philosophy, but are accepted because there's power in numbers. I've written a lot about immigration in my blog. I appreciate your open-mindedness, except for the whole saying we're all hypocrites thing.

Was he speaking in a "lets take the law into our own hands" sort of way? If he was spewing racist things, advocating violence or humiliating and degrading persons than I can see people getting upset.

They just rushed the stage to hold up a banner. The Minutemen are a let's take the law into our own hands organization, an all-white self-styled anti-Mexican militia that spews racism, advocates violence, degradation and humiliation. Besides, US trade policy is the main cause of illegal immigration from Mexico. Salinas and Clinton should not have signed NAFTA.

Corporate globalization and U.S. trade policies have more to do with how many people cross our borders illegally than U.S. immigration policy or any potential reform thereof. On NAFTA: Rather than complaining about immigration from Mexico, the U.S. could stop causing it.

My understanding (here at Columbia) is that it's not clear who started the violence. Needless to say, both sides blame the other. I don't condone violence, but I've pretty much taken it out of the equation since we just don't know who's responsible for it. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'm also against illegal immigration. If I wanted to effect meaningful change in that area, I would lobby Congress to, for example, stop providing farm subsidies to agribuisnesses that hire undocumented workers. Or you could follow Donna Darko's suggestions. Or do something constructive.

The illegal immigrants coming across the border are the result of a problem, not the problem itself. To express one's displeasure with illegal immigration by targeting the poor people taking the jobs rather than the rich people offering them... well, I feel that there has to be some other motivation. My first guess for that motivation is racism.

The suggestions were from Common Dreams. US trade policy and foreign policy causes illegal immigration and terrorism, the US starts wars on immigrants and Muslims and the same rich and powerful people in government and corporations become more rich and powerful all the while blaming Mexicans, Arabs and Muslims. It's like Foleygate. Blame everyone except who caused it.

"Corporate globalization and U.S. trade policies have more to do with how many people cross our borders illegally than U.S. immigration policy or any potential reform thereof." - donna darko

I think it has more to do with the rampant corruption in the Mexican government. They have enough natural resources and tourism that poverty and lack of education shouldn't have to be exported.

"They officialy proclaim that Non-US cultures will destroy the country." - viktor frankl

No, they proclaim that non-US cultures that refuse to become part of the melting pot will harm the country.

"Whatever your thoughts on illegal immigration, you have to wonder about the motivation of civilians "patrolling" the border armed with guns." - Heraclitus

Whenever the Minutemen have witnessed someone attempting to enter the US illegally, they contact the border patrol. They never attempt to apprehend someone themselves. With all of the heavily armed drug cartels along the border, it would be foolish of them not to be armed for self defense.

"The Minutemen are a let's take the law into our own hands organization, an all-white self-styled anti-Mexican militia that spews racism, advocates violence, degradation and humiliation." - donna darko

Wow, I hope you have some evidence to back up that much labeling. The first speaker the Minutemen had that day was African-American. By his own account, student protestors shouted numerous racial slurs at him. Including the N word.

The suppresion of someone's first amendment rights is never acceptable. Physically assaulting someone because you disagree with their stance on an issue is morally reprehensible.

No, it's not all the fault of illegal immigration but it is partially responsible, especially when illegal immigrants don't pay income tax (and probably don't even make enough to be taxed fairly, which I think is sad).

Illegal immigrants pay social security taxes, and giving amnesty to illegal immigrants who paid taxes will encourage more of them to pay income taxes.

No, they proclaim that non-US cultures that refuse to become part of the melting pot will harm the country.

That, and they lie about the degree of assimilation of Hispanic immigrants. Second-generation Hispanics assimilate just like second-generation Italians and Germans and Irishmen and Poles did a century ago; it's just that more and more of them are coming, so you don't see Hispanic subculture disappear in the same manner other ethnic subcultures did.

To reiterate: we DO NOT KNOW which side started the violence. Both groups rushed the stage, although the anti-Minutemen group did so first. So if your argument is anti-violence, it's not so relevant since you can't be sure which side you're arguing for.

Here's a link to the Columbia article: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/10/05/News/Protestors.Rush.Minutemen-2333693.shtml?norewrite200610060930&sourcedomain=www.columbiaspectator.com

For the record, you don't have to be white to be racist. Also for the record, Gilchrist said that spoken English was a citizenship requirement. Are we living in the same country?? What about all the people born in this country who grow up speaking Spanish or some other language and never learn a word of English? I hate to be the one to tell Gilchrist that those people are citizens just as much as he is.

I agree that fundamentally, the immigration of Europeans altered Native American culture in such a way that it can never be restored. Those Europeans never really did become part of the melting pot, did they? But since we can't change the past, let's accept a mosaic rather than a melting pot model, shall we?

No-one has the right to decide what ideas can be heard by another citizen. Anyone attending that event was robbed of their right to assemble. We live in an age and a nation where our government is stealing our liberties on a daily basis. When we resort to it ourselves, we can hardly complain about those at the top any longer. The most dangerous ideas are those that must be most guarded.

I myself am (practically) an open borders proponent. I have followed the minuteman project from its inception. They have done a excellent job of maintaining discipline and keeping the subject on law enforcement and assimilation.

To tar them in a manner that suggests a host of views they don’t publicly express, is to play into their hands. The leftist mob exposed themselves as enemies of liberal society and reasoned debate. This only helps the minutemen look reasonable in contrast.

"So by your logic do we have to allow absolutely EVERYBODY a platform for their views, no matter how offensive?"

Um, isn't that the principle behind "freedom of speech"?

"Is there any point at which you would say that a speaker was too offensive and/or dangerous to be allowed to speak?"

Aren't there laws that determine when speech goes too far? If the speakers had crossed that line, the protesters should have reported it to the authorities, not taken the law into their own hands. I think that this shows right-wingers aren't the only ones who wish to suppress ideas they don't agree with.

I have not heard of any act of violence committed by the Minutemen.

Can anybody supply a link that contradicts this?

The Minutemen are a joke and Ivy League students know it. Rush the stage! Rah! :) I saw a CNN report about the Minutemen and that's all I needed to see. They're an offshoot of the Klan and the black minister was a cover.

"Um, isn't that the principle behind "freedom of speech"?"

I think the person might be referring more to the appropriateness of the speech, considering the venue?

"...not taken the law into their own hands."

are you opposed to somebody posing as a republican and disrupting the RNC? are you opposed to protests outside of corporate buildings where a significant meeting is being held?

"Can anybody supply a link that contradicts this?"

are you implying that the students were violent? how about you provide a link that says the protesters committed a violent act.

one could consider it an act of violence to scare away immigrants who are potentially dying of thirst, hunger or fatigue and possibly forcing them to hide or run back.

the minutemen do carry weapons, don't they?

A hat tip to those of you here who seem to understand that the foundation of a liberal democracy is the free exchange of ideas. The astonishing thing is that there are so many that don't.

The speaker at Columbia was presenting ideas. The protesters could have responded any number of ways. They could have had a presentation the next day to refute his ideas, and present their own. They could have handed out pamphlets explaining why the Minuteman concept is a terrible idea. They could have aired their views in any of a hundred ways.

But they didn't. Instead, they responded by attempting to *prevent* the other guy from airing *his* views.

There's a word for those people. It's not "protestors." It's THUGS.

- Alaska Jack

You're missing the larger point which is that the Minutemen are offensive thugs. The students have a social conscience. Like when people known to be offensive thugs i.e. Ann Coulter or Bill Kristol show up at universities they're shouted down or have things thrown at them.

You hear that? If donna darko thinks you are a thug, your rights are forfeit. Tough… but fair. :(

Noname -

I honestly can't tell if Donna Darko believes that, or is ridiculing it. I hope it's the latter ...

- Alaska Jack

:)

I like how talk about immigrant rights brings out MRA trolls -- Raging Moderate and Fitz -- and misogynists dave, Alaska Jack and noname, trolls so small-dicked they can't handle women *or* minorities.

I'm a misogynist? That's news to me. You advocate silencing people because you don't agree with what they are saying and then call me a troll?

Unbelievable.

And let's try to keep the personal insults to a minimum. We all slip from time to time (I shouldn't have called you all hypocrites, I should have said you were being hypocritical), but when the level of discussion descends to insulting one another's genetilia, no good can come of it.

You disagree with most the threads you post on. You're a sexist male. I think you've said you're half-white.

It's not slipping when I say you, Alaska Jack and dave are sexist males and Raging Moderate and Fitz are men's rights advocates. It's easy to see patterns from these individuals here and elsewhere.

Noname -

It's obvious Ms. Darko knows a thing or two about trolls. I'm sorry I failed to recognize this at first.

I know -- Let's ask Feministing to ban her!

Oh wait, I'm opposed to censorship :) May I suggest we simply ignore her?

- AJ

Yeah we see alot of trolls on feminist blogs. What's new?

You're right. It's probably best just to ignore her. She doesn't seem interested in anything more than hurling insults, anyway. And yes, I find being called a misogynist to be extremely insulting.

"You disagree with most the threads you post on. You're a sexist male. I think you've said you're half-white." - donna darko

Male + half white + has opinions = Troll?

noname, it's not a problem that you're a half-white male. There are white males who don't say racist and sexist things here. The problem is you consistently make sexist and racist remarks and behave like a troll. You convey trollish behavior. That's all.

Can you link to these racist and sexist remarks I supposedly made?

I'm going out now, but I can't wait to see what you come up with tomorrow. Good luck!!!

I ignore trolls. G'daye.

Oh, and while your at it, you might want to explain why you pointed out that I am a half white male. What were you trying to accomplish?

Check ya later!

A person of color who continuously shows racist and sexist biases is a troll i.e. someone who undermines the goals of a feminist, anti-racist site. A person of color wouldn't consistently show racist biases unless he was trolling.

Can anybody supply a link that contradicts this?

I don't have a link, but if I'm not mistaken, the Minutemen have taken to tearing down wells dug in the desert so that illegal immigrants crossing the border won't die of dehydration, and to harassing Hispanic-majority towns. I've heard both on Appletree (look for the series on immigration); if nobody else posts a concrete link within the hour, I'll probably dig it up myself.

Again, to me it didn't look like the violence started until the Minutemen supporters tried to kick people off of the side of the stage and tear the protest banner away.

Some of the trolls here have pointed out that there were other ways of countering the Minutemen other than the protest. But last time I checked, the right to protest is still entrenched in the constitution. These protestors decided to do so by holding a banner on the side of the stage during the actual presentation.

The Minutemen still could have gone on with their talk but chose to engage in a confrontation instead.

Anyone choosing to give a public presentation risks getting heckled, booed or even protested - depending on how radical their views are. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that the philosophy and rhetoric behind the Minutemen would provoke an equal and opposite reaction from those of us who care about such silly things as individual rights, and who see a problem with xenophobia and racism. If you trolls are truly concerned about free speech and freedom of assembly, like you say, you would be asking why the Minutemen were trying to pull the protestor's banner away from them.

Those of you who are trying to paint the Minutemen as the victims here are only showing your willingness to tolerate such radical xenophobia and racism. You can put lipstick on a pig, but at the end of the day it's still a pig.

Republicans are similarly trying to paint Mark Foley as the victim. Last time I checked, he's a child predator.

"The Minutemen still could have gone on with their talk but chose to engage in a confrontation instead." - Coati

I agree, there should not have been a tug-of-war over one of the banners (maybe there was something offensive on it?). However, they could NOT have continued with the presentation because of all the noise from the protestors.

"The students have a social conscience. Like when people known to be offensive thugs i.e. Ann Coulter or Bill Kristol show up at universities they're shouted down or have things thrown at them." - donna darko

That is not exhibiting a social conscience, that is suppresion of the first amendment and physical assault. This has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's opinion. I loathe those that harass the staff at abortion clinics.

I do not believe that sharing information and points of view to be sexist, trollish, or misogynistic. If I have been, then I would properly apologize and adjust my behavior. Please supply me with examples.

"are you opposed to protests outside of corporate buildings where a significant meeting is being held?"

No, and I wouldn't have a problem if the protests took place outside the venue in this case either.

"are you implying that the students were violent?"

I wasn't, but I think the video speaks for itself.

"the minutemen do carry weapons, don't they?"

I believe some do, but I haven't heard of an instance where they used them. Have you?

"they can't handle women *or* minorities."

I'm Canadian, so I have no dog in your immigration fight. I just think that the conduct of those who shouted down the speaker was deplorable, and contrary to the principle of "freedom of speech".

"I think you've said you're half-white."

Racist.

"A person of color who continuously shows racist and sexist biases is a troll i.e. someone who undermines the goals of a feminist, anti-racist site. A person of color wouldn't consistently show racist biases unless he was trolling." - Donna Darko

Is your definition of a troll really: "Someone who undermines the goals of a feminist, anti-racist site"? If so, which do you think undermines these ideas more, my discussion of them, or your unsubstantiated insults and accusations in support of them? By the way, it is a bit disturbing to see you making such sweeping judgments based on race.

“I ignore trolls. G'daye.� – Donna Darko

That's funny, you had plenty to say before I asked you to support your insults and accusations. Why so quiet now?

I agree, there should not have been a tug-of-war over one of the banners (maybe there was something offensive on it?).

Ah. Now we go from deploring the violence of the protestors to justifying the violence of the Minutemen because there *might* have been something offensive in the wording.

You can't agree with me if in the next breath you try to justify the action...

However, they could NOT have continued with the presentation because of all the noise from the protestors.

This is completely untrue on so many levels. Yeah, it might have been hard to ignore the crowd, but the presentation could have gone on. (Here's the trick - you wait out the initial furor... Ask if you can continue with the presentation and then keep going. This usually calms down the situation and allows both the protest and the presentation to go forward - with the exception of the occaisional yelled comment...)

This is called diplomacy and tact - and should be in the arsenal of any public speaker when faced with a very hostile crowd. Unfortunately in this case, either the Minutemen were lacking it or they were looking for the confrontation that occurred...

RM and noname, rather than address any of the points made in my post (or that others have made in theirs,) you instead attempt to hijack the thread and turn it into a confrontation between DD and yourselves..

Thus you are trolls.

I just think that the conduct of those who shouted down the speaker was deplorable, and contrary to the principle of "freedom of speech".

Doesn't answer this:
If you trolls are truly concerned about free speech and freedom of assembly, like you say, you would be asking why the Minutemen were trying to pull the protestor's banner away from them.

Caoti - DD attacked me, not the other way around. If you remember, she called me a misogynist and a racist (without offering support). She also claimed that I make sexist and racist comments on this site (again, without offering support for her allegations).

By the way, not addressing your points (especially when they have already been addressed by others here) does not make me a troll, but I will take the bait anyway:

Rushing the stage is not an act of free speech; it is an act of physical intimidation meant to stifle free speech. Should the minutemen have taken the higher road and not allowed the confrontation to escalate, sure, but it was the students who caused the mess by rushing the stage in the first place. They can boo all they want, but they moment they rushed the stage they were in the wrong.

“Ah. Now we go from deploring the violence of the protestors to justifying the violence of the Minutemen because there *might* have been something offensive in the wording.� – Caoti

Dave was clearly being sarcastic with the “maybe there was something offensive on it?� aside. Can’t you tell when someone is mocking you?

Have a good weekend everyone. See you Monday!!!

Dave was clearly being sarcastic with the “maybe there was something offensive on it?� aside. Can’t you tell when someone is mocking you?

Once again, an attempt to hijack the thread.

They can boo all they want, but they moment they rushed the stage they were in the wrong.

Another example of the 'free speech zone' school of thought. Protest and dissent is fine, as long as its kept in its place. That place being somewhere where it can't interfere with the agenda of those in power.

"Another example of the 'free speech zone' school of thought. Protest and dissent is fine, as long as its kept in its place. That place being somewhere where it can't interfere with the agenda of those in power."

So I assume you'd have no problem with anti-abortion protesters rushing into an abortion clinic?

Or racist protesters rushing the stage at an naacp meeting?

How about Reverend Phelps and his band of crazies rushing into a cemetery to protest?

I think the protesters motivation was noble, but their actions were not.

So I assume you'd have no problem with anti-abortion protesters rushing into an abortion clinic?

As an abortion clinic is private property involving medical operations, of course there would be a problem with this.

Or racist protesters rushing the stage at an naacp meeting?

Nope. Wouldn't have a problem with this one. I don't think the protestors would get much support though.

How about Reverend Phelps and his band of crazies rushing into a cemetery to protest?

I actually don't have a problem with this one either, asides from the message that the folks of Phelps are trying to express.

In all cases where I'm disgusted by protests, it's not the protest that disgusts but rather the material that the protestors are trying to communicate.

And if you have a problem with the message of "No-one is illegal" then maybe you need to look within and try to figure out why.

"And if you have a problem with the message of "No-one is illegal" then maybe you need to look within and try to figure out why."

I know you want to paint me as a racist, but if you re-read my comments, you'll see I have no problem with the message of the protesters ("I think the protesters motivation was noble"). It was their method that bothers me.

Perhaps it's a cultural thing; I'm Canadian and violent confrontations are not acceptable here, regardless of motivation. You Americans do have a history of using violence to solve disagreements, but that's not our way.

I'd suggest that if you have a problem with your immigration policy, you agitate for the laws to be changed, instead of harassing those who wish the current laws to be enforced.

It might have made them feel good, but I don't see how this scuffle has helped their (and your) cause in any way.

I'm Canadian and violent confrontations are not acceptable here, regardless of motivation.

Heh.. You assume I'm American just as you assume I was directing my 'look within' comment directly to you. Rather, it was a general comment directed to all - if you don't have a problem with the protestors motivation, you shouldn't have a guilty conscience.

And for the record, I'm a Canuck myself. Careful when you make assumptions.

All your posts fail to acknowledge the fact that the violence in this protest didn't occur until the Minutemen started it. (i.e. forcing people off the stage and tearing away the banner.) They did not 'escalate' the confrontation, they initiated it.

And if you're trying to say that we don't have in-your-face, noisy and disruptive protests like this here in Canada, I suggest selling it to another crowd... That's complete BS.

"No, and I wouldn't have a problem if the protests took place outside the venue in this case either."

Fair enough...oh, and let's just pretend like I didn't ask my other question...right?

"I wasn't, but I think the video speaks for itself."

Explain. You saw the protesters attacking people first?

"I believe some do, but I haven't heard of an instance where they used them. Have you?"

Is this serious? This is beside the point. The point is you are calling people who held up a banner violent, but not the minutemen who actually carry guns...to....uh "defend" themselves in case an illegal immigrant crossing the border is carrying a sniper rifle and they have to engage in an epic sniper battle. Again, I guess we're just pretending like I didn't make my other point? So you don't have to respond to it?

"Rushing the stage is not an act of free speech;"

Regardless of what side you're on here, I don't see how anyone can think this is true. How do you define free speech?

"it is an act of physical intimidation meant to stifle free speech"

How are they intimidating? They are making a statement in defense of immigrants against the accusations made by the minutemen. They were going to interrupt the speech and hold up a banner. The fact that a fight erupted doesn't mean their protest was not free speech.

"So I assume you'd have no problem...."

Regardless of how I feel about it (the comment wasn't directed at me anyways), the three examples you cite would require protesters invading a private space (and before you say it, it would be very immature to say something like "funerals aren't private, everyone can see 'em!!"). This was not an organization's meeting, a family gathering or a medical institution. This was a public speech so your analogies don't hold.

"Perhaps it's a cultural thing; I'm Canadian and violent confrontations are not acceptable here, regardless of motivation. You Americans do have a history of using violence to solve disagreements, but that's not our way."

You have not responded to our comments about this not being a violent event on the part of the protesters' motivation.

"I'd suggest that if you have a problem with your immigration policy, you agitate for the laws to be changed, instead of harassing those who wish the current laws to be enforced."

Policy is just a part of the controversy. If it was that simple, it would have never left congress and political circles.

"It might have made them feel good, but I don't see how this scuffle has helped their (and your) cause in any way."

Letting the public know that Minutemen are not accepted by mainstream society by protesting them at every opportunity is a very strong statement.

DD, you are only causing harm to this discussion with name-calling.

Coati, good insight!

The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified The Minutemen as a Neo-Nazi hate group with ties to the National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nation, Stormfront and National Alliance. What would have happened at Columbia if David Duke (founder of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan) spoke? What would it say about the College Republicans who invited him? What do you think the proper response would have been?

(from the article) Lawless detailed 11 suggestions for ways to harass and terrorize undocumented immigrants, including robbery and "beating up illegals" as they leave their workplace. Martin posted her suggestions to a number of neo-Nazi bulletin boards. Those suggestions included: "Steal the money from any illegal walking into a bank or check cashing place." "Make every illegal alien feel the heat of being a person without status...I hear the rednecks in the South are beating up illegals as the textile mills have closed. Use your imagination." "Discourage Spanish-speaking children from going to school. Be creative." "Create an anonymous propaganda campaign warning that any further illegal immigrants will be shot, maimed or seriously messed-up upon crossing the border." Lawless was quoted on CNN attacking a humanitarian group that leaves food and water for people crossing the Sonora Desert to illegally enter the United States. "There are several tactics, some legal and some not-so," she wrote. "Sabotage the things they like: entertainment, food, beer...BRAVO to the person who cut down the Spanish language radio station towers just North of Phoenix! Now that sends a message!" She congratulated the NSM on provoking a riot in Toledo, Ohio, in October 2005. "I still think those riots were wonderful!" Lawless wrote.

"I have not heard of any act of violence committed by the Minutemen.

Can anybody supply a link that contradicts this?"

Well, besides the insane ramblings by Lawless noted above by donna darko, there has been this violence committed on behalf of the Minutemen by the LAPD.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8596418990561927797&q=minuteman+march+lapd&hl=en

In the video, Minutemen are marching in the street, complaining about all the Mexicans in Los Angeles. The counter-protesters are marching alongside them on the sidewalk. Suddenly, and for no apparent reason, the cops wade into the anti-Minutemen marchers and beat the crap out of several.

Anyone ever notice, that when the police step into a non-violent protest, it suddenly gets violent?

And how come you never see right-wing protesters getting clubbed by cops?

But what the hell do I know, I'm a paranoid moonbat.

As for this video, I see one instance of someone throwing a punch. It seems to be the guy defending the speaker.

And as for the whole rushing the stage and breaking up a speech thing, check out this photo essay of GOP politics, Texas-style. Watch what happens when Democrat Nick Lampson's speech is disrupted by GOP operatives, sent there by The Hammer's own campaign chair. At this event, a 69 year old woman was punched by rightist thugs.

Yeah, Mr. College Republican, keep crying for civil discourse while your own party sends out thugs. And cry even louder when some people decide that that is the way the game is played now.

Whoops, forgot this...

http://www.brazosriver.com/april_6_nick_lampson_press_confe.htm

"Dave was clearly being sarcastic with the “maybe there was something offensive on it?� aside. Can’t you tell when someone is mocking you?" - noname

Sarcastic and joking, yes. Mocking? Not so much. I was referencing an earlier comment from DT:

"Is there any point at which you would say that a speaker was too offensive and/or dangerous to be allowed to speak?"

If the protestors have a right to rush the stage because they find the Minuteman Project offensive, and if the College Repulicans find a banner the protestors are holding to be offensive then they have the right to rip it away. I was having some fun with another's flawed logic.

I really can't tell what is written on the banners. My Spanish is rusty and my Arabic is nonexistant.

Donna darko, it would only be fair for me to say that I know little about the background and financial support of the Minuteman Project. I do not know if the information you supplied is true to form or extremist bomb throwing. There is so much bomb throwing on the internet it becomes tough to tell what is accurate.

Let me give you an example of an extreme left wing speaker that has gone on college speaking tours: Ward Churchill. I consider some of his words to be hatespeech and I think he has a hate-filled view of the world. Example: calling September 11th victims "little Eichmans".

From my memory, none of Churchill's speeches were drowned out or interrupted. There were demonstrations held outside the buildings and/or opposing viewpoint speeches held at other times or places.

"Explain. You saw the protesters attacking people first?" - viktor frankl

I have been able to get personal accounts specific about the violence from the Minuteman Project website and possible joint statement from the protestors.

"Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, was speaking on the topic of illegal immigration at an event organized by the Columbia University Young Republicans when protestors stormed the stage and lunged toward him, forcing security personnel to hastily evacuate both authors." - www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp?contentID=193

"We celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen to speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by members of the College Republicans and their supporters, who are the very same people who invited the Minutemen to our campus in the first place." - nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/76890.shtml

I know there are three sides to every story, but unfortunately the camera was panned too far to the left to see what was happening with the speaker at the moment the stage was being rushed. We only have personal accounts to get information from.

"MMP has no affiliation with, nor will we accept any assistance by or interference from, separatists, racists, or supremacy groups." - www.minutemanproject.com

I just thought donna darko would find that interesting.

I believe the issue here to be either the protestors had a right to rush the stage or the Minuteman Project had a right to speak. A discussion on the legitimacy of the Minuteman Project is another topic and would probably gather another 66 comments. :)

There are usually plants in these situations who provoke violence and later make it look like the protesters fault. Here is the statement released by "Those who occupied the stage:"

We celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen to speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by members of the College Republicans and their supporters, who are the very same people who invited the Minutemen to our campus in the first place. The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal.

Maybe it was a set up!

After a 45-minute long diatribe by a preachy opening speaker, during which a packed crowd grew increasingly irate, main event Jim Gilchrist was rushed by a large group of students, in what descended into a free-for-all on the stage.

Finally, some voices of reason.

"We feel that it is important to discuss and bring to light important issues concerning immigration, though they should be done in a peaceful manner. While we do not agree with Mr. Gilchrist and his organization's views, we respect everyone's right to freedom of speech and regret that his opinion was not heard." - Adhemir Romero, Chicano Caucus President

"The freedom to speak, to pursue ideas, and to hear and evaluate viewpoints totally objectionable to our own is an essential value of this university and, indeed, of our civil society. We defend the right to peaceful protest and expression of opposing views. But it is never acceptable for anyone to physically take to a stage and interrupt a speaker." - University Statement

Why do you think these groups are denouncing the actions of those who rushed the stage? Are they racists too?

"And if you're trying to say that we don't have in-your-face, noisy and disruptive protests like this here in Canada, I suggest selling it to another crowd... That's complete BS."

The only similar incident I can think of was the riot at Concordia University when Netanyahu came here to speak. But in that case, the protesters were roundly criticized, and the event was considered an embarrassment both to Concordia and Montreal (for the stifling of free speech as well as the violence) .

Donna,

Still wondering; why'd you bring up noname's race again?

I tend to believe the protesters/audience's version of the story because I've been in these situations where plants initiated violence and made it look like it was the protesters' fault. The university and Latino org's just have a reputation to keep up.

Not that you know anything about race issues but a poc who consistently shows racial bias is trolling. Period.

"The university and Latino org's just have a reputation to keep up."

My point exactly. Preserving one's reputation requires a denounciation of those who took to the stage to disrupt the speaker in an attempt to stifle free speech. These organiztions understand that. The protesters sullied the reputation of those organizations, so they were quick to distance themselves from them, and state clearly that they disapproved of their actions.

For anyone who truly believes in the principle of freedom of speech, it's the only position to take.

Hate speech should not be categorized as free speech especially in a university setting.

Donna Darko - You can't be real. Not even on this absurdly fascist blog. "Hate speech should not be categorized as free speech especially in a university setting." There are so many things horribly wrong and evil with that single comment that it is almost futile to try to oppose it. Maybe that's what you intended?

First, are you truly saying that some speech is not free speech - not if you determine that it is hate speech? And who determines what is hate speech? Is "pro-life" speech hate speech? Susan B. Anthony certainly would say so, though I doubt she would say that means it is not free speech.

"Especially in a University setting." Tell me where I'm wrong, but aren't universities the places where ideas and concepts are meant to be lobbied back and forth? Where all ideas are meant to be expressed and challenged - even if you think they're hateful? And so, even if there is such a thing as "hate speech", aren't universities the IDEAL place for such ideas to be expressed?

But I can't believe you're real? No. You are some of type of "troll" employed in a bit of Socratic Irony. I refuse to believe a legitimate human being could have such thoughts - well, at least outside of a George Orwell book.

If the protestors have a right to rush the stage because they find the Minuteman Project offensive, and if the College Repulicans find a banner the protestors are holding to be offensive then they have the right to rip it away.

If I climb onto a stage and hold a banner, I do no violence to another person. If I attack someone and rip away something they are holding, I do.

I know there are three sides to every story, but unfortunately the camera was panned too far to the left to see what was happening with the speaker at the moment the stage was being rushed.

I noticed this point myself. To see the actions of the protestors, the camerman had to turn his camera away from the speaker. This kindof gives credence to the idea that the protestors didn't want a violent confrontation. Otherwise they would have stood in front of the speaker.

Why do you think these groups are denouncing the actions of those who rushed the stage? Are they racists too?

Uhm, the university would say this because it is, by nature, a corporate entity. The politics of this situation would be such that no corporate entity would want to be involved. As for the other quote, it's called window-dressing and is common practice in politics.

The only similar incident I can think of was the riot at Concordia University when Netanyahu came here to speak

You don't hear about them because they don't get air-time on the mainstream news. (Would we have heard about this incident if we didn't read Feministing?)

A typical example would be every year when the university Board of Governers votes for the standard tuition increase. Pick your school, I've been to 4 protests like this at 3 different places for these occasions alone.

the protesters were roundly criticized, and the event was considered an embarrassment both to Concordia and Montreal

Thank you for your take on it. I know many who disagree.

Smug moral superiority is no part of the Canadian cultural identity. This is a colouring all of your own.

The protesters sullied the reputation of those organizations, so they were quick to distance themselves from them, and state clearly that they disapproved of their actions.

Like I said, window-dressing so as not to inflame right-wing leaning people. Unfortunately, the last four years have seemed to show that this does not work with right-wingers.

First, are you truly saying that some speech is not free speech - not if you determine that it is hate speech? And who determines what is hate speech?

Yes - speech invoking racism and violence towards a group of people (i.e. minorities or ethnic classes) is considered hate speech.

Who decides what is and what isn't hate speech? That would be the governments we elect to make such decisions for us.

How is this type of speech harmful? Why don't you just ask the next Rwandan you meet for an example?

Wow.

Wow.

Wow. Wow. Wow.

Wow.

Okay. I'll try to put it into words - - -

The government decides what is hate speech? And that speech can't be spoken, because the government says it is hate speech? And . . . wow.

Instead of just tossing out pathetic strawman arguments about Rwandans - ask Germans or Japanese or Russians who were alive during the reigns of Hitler or Hirohito or Stalin. Ask them what they think about the idea of a government telling people what they can and can't say.

Seriously. Back away from the combative nonsense. Think about what you are saying. Dwell on it. And then come back if you still believe that it's a good idea for the government to tell people what they can and can't say.

Also, if you're an American, take a look at that pesky First Amendment.

"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."

John Stuart Mill

Who decides what is and what isn't hate speech? That would be the governments we elect to make such decisions for us.

And what government would condone that ridiculous display of entitlement? Those students had a reason to protest, but they went about their protest in a completely ridiculous and intolerable manner. The ends in this situation do not justify the means.

I mean, seriously. While you may disagree with me, I'm not going to run to your house and unplug your internet cord while you do it. I'm not going to unplug your monitor or disconnect your keyboard or place my hands over your eyes or blast loud music as you type. That does nothing in constructively challenging your opinion.

Speaking of John Stuart Mill:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

tossing out pathetic strawman arguments about Rwandans

There is nothing 'pathetic' about the example of Rwanda. (Unless you are talking about the remainder of the world's reaction to it.) In that country, hate speech disseminated by the militias and meda, promoted and backed by the government, directly contributed and led to genocide.

It is a direct example of the harm that hate speech can bring if it is unchecked.

"Yes - speech invoking racism and violence towards a group of people (i.e. minorities or ethnic classes) is considered hate speech."

ranja, I meant hate speech should not be *encouraged* as free speech especially on a college campus. Free speech that invokes violence against a group of people such as a certain race or gender is not the goal of free speech. What do you think of the free speech in the email from India used to terrorize women on this site? Do you think this kind of free speech should be encouraged? The most important question is why are you, Dave, noname, Raging Moderate, Alaska Jack and Fitz supporting the hate speech from the Minutemen?

Here is the link if you missed it. This is hate speech because as Coati nicely defined it. It is speech invoking violence towards a group of people (minorities, women or gays, etc.)

Misogyny Rant

There are people on this thread who support free speech but it makes me wonder when the aforementioned group so strongly defends the free speech of a racist hate group.

Raising objections to protesters storming stages like hooting, hollering jackasses != supporting racist anti-immigration policy.

The means does not justify the end. If an anti-racist speaker were onstage, and racist protesters stormed the stage the same way, it would still be wrong -- not because they are racists, but because their behavior is rude and unwarranted during a time when someone was invited to speak. If you disagree with the speaker and there is a forum available for you to present questions to the speaker, challenge him then. If you want to display banners during the speaker's display, do so quietly. Storming stages like fools does nothing effective for any cause. I don't understand how you even think this sort of behavior is permissible for any protester, donna darko.

Because I believe their statement since I've been in situations with planted instigators.

"We celebrate free speech: for that reason we allowed the Minutemen to speak, and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by members of the College Republicans and their supporters, who are the very same people who invited the Minutemen to our campus in the first place."

Wow. Lot’s of new stuff here.

"There are people on this thread who support free speech but it makes me wonder when the aforementioned group so strongly defends the free speech of a racist hate group." - donna daroko

If you support free speech, you have to support the free speech of a racist hate group (and I am still not sure that label applies here) even if you find their ideas repugnant.

“The most important question is why are you, Dave, noname, Raging Moderate, Alaska Jack and Fitz supporting the hate speech from the Minutemen?� – donna darko

I am not defending what the minutemen have to say. I am defending the minutemen’s right to say it.

By the way. I am still waiting for you to support your claims that I have made racist remarks on this site. You might also want to explain your interest in my race as well. I’ll check back later to see what you come up with.

Did I miss that part of that video? Since when is speaking over another person invited to speak peaceful?

I disagree with their methods because that whole situation was a travesty. I do not think that the College Republicans should have reacted the way they did; their behavior was also disgraceful. But I cannot see any reasonable motivation for the protestors' chosen course of action. An exchange of ideas involves both sides listening to each other, and a shouting match does not fall under that banner by any means whatsoever. That was a reprehensibly juvenile display of silencing. If they had direct challenges to the assertions of the Minutemen, they should have waited until it was time to advocate them. They should have respected the forum in which the Minutemen spoke. And if this happens in a situation where the other side storms the stage in protest, I hope they don't feign surprise or indignation when they've obviously condoned such disrespect for expressing their own opinions.

skyanide, I agree with what you just said.

noname, I don't waste my time with trolls and only brought up your name with others as I am amused how those who consistently show sexist bias also show racist bias. I have no interest whatsoever in your race and have twice already explained why it makes you a troll. You have consistently shown sexist and racist bias over the last six months. That's all I need to say and that's all I will say.

"I have no interest whatsoever in your race and have twice already explained why it makes you a troll." - donna darko

My race makes me a troll? Wow. And you call me racist.

"You have consistently shown sexist and racist bias over the last six months. That's all I need to say and that's all I will say." - donna darko

So you feel no obligation to support these accusatons? Surely if I have been making racist and sexist remarks for the last six months it shouldn't be too difficult to link to a couple of them.

No, because you're a troll and not worth any time.

So let’s re-cap:

1. You insult me personally.

2. You accuse me of things, and then admit that you have no intention of backing up those accusations with evidence.

3. You judge me based on my race.

4. You call me a troll.

Incredible.

But I cannot see any reasonable motivation for the protestors' chosen course of action. An exchange of ideas involves both sides listening to each other, and a shouting match does not fall under that banner by any means whatsoever. That was a reprehensibly juvenile display of silencing

Skyanide, I think what you're talking about is the usual question protestors face - in other words subtle or direct action. In this case, the protestors chose direct action, choosing to occupy the stage and hold a banner. I think the question and answer sessions you propose belong to the subtle approach. (I'm curious to know whether questions were going to be taken in this case, or whether this was simply a public speech. My personal experience is that right-wing organizations like the Minutemen don't take questions, unless they are pre-screened in advance.)

Protests, by their very nature, are noisy animals. If your problem was with the noise, I'm afraid it would have happened in any case - whether the protestors took the stage or not.

My personal take on this is that your preference over the subtle or direct approach is exactly that - your 'preference.' I know many people who, like yourself, would disagree with the rudeness involved with taking the stage. But I know just as many people who believe that such in-your-face action is necessary to convey the point and attract attention. For example, if the protestors in this instance stayed outside the auditorium, obeyed all the societal conventions and held a 'good little protest' - would we be talking about it here?

Myself, I don't disagree with you. The act of jumping onto the stage and holding a banner during a presentation was rude, obnoxious and completely disrespectful.

However, when I look at the message the Minutemen send, I think it was completely called for.

Why am I supporting the "hate speech" of the Minutemen? Well, Donna, I still don't even know what they were saying at this assembly, but that doesn't matter.

It's as Voltaire said - "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it."

If you truly support the silencing of one viewpoint, then you have abandoned your own right to speak freely.

Donna darko, you are an incredibly closed-mined individual. You need to open up those floodgates and let some other ideas in there. And if you still disagree with them - then don't silence them, challenge them. That's how it is done in a democratic society.

If you support free speech, you have to support the free speech of a racist hate group (and I am still not sure that label applies here) even if you find their ideas repugnant.

I am not defending what the minutemen have to say. I am defending the minutemen’s right to say it.

Nope. Hate speech, the incitation and justification of harm to others based on class, race, gender or any other 'ism', does not have to be tolerated.

My right to live without fear of being harmed is the limiting factor to your right to say whatever the hell you want in the public arena.

For example, if it was Klu Klux Klan members, in their white hoods, on-stage giving a public presentation advocating their organization - would you still believe they would be entitled to say whatever they wished to?

It's as Voltaire said - "I disagree with what you say, but I will fight to my death your right to say it."

I was wondering when someone would quote Voltaire.

My response to the above is usually with another Voltaire quote:

"A witty saying is worth nothing."

Although this Voltaire quote might be more appropriate to the discussion:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"

Coati - Yes, I certainly would be defending the KKK's right to speak on a stage. Their speech can be curtailed if they threaten IMMEDIATE harm, which nobody in the Minutemen organization has done to date.

Actually, neither of your quotes are really relevant to that great bit of wisdom from Voltaire. True as the "absurdities" bit is, it doesn't for a moment mean that you have the right to silence the person speaking the absurdities.

Please study up on the First Amendment and the cases that have come out of it before you talk any more about what speech society has the "right" not to tolerate.

And if you continue to want to get rid of the First Amendment and stifle the free speech that it protects, then please do us all a favor and just hop on a plane somewhere that doesn't have this protection that you abhor so much. Thought-Nazis are not wanted here.

And I never did counter your Rwanda argument, did I? Well, that's an easy one. Two things -

1) Freedom often brings with it the risk of harm. The freedom to step outside carries with it the risk of being hit by a car. That's the bitch of freedom, isn't it? You can't quash free expression simply because it brings with it the risk of something harmful happening.

2) Usually, when groups like the Nazis, the Stalinists (and, I can only assume the Rwandans) start to take over, one of the first things they do is take over the papers, the radios and all forms of communication. The reason for this is that Free Expression is usually the silver bullet to their horrid ideals and goals. So the obvious point here is that the way to oppose "hate speech" is not to quash it, but to oppose it through open debates and speeches and radio shows and columns. That's how it's done in a free society.

But, if you truly do think that I'm nuts and that the First Amendment should be tossed out, then I once again invite you to head on out of this country. Maybe go out to Seoul and then see if you can't sneak up through the DMZ. There's a crazy Roy Orbison impersonator up there with ideals that are very similar to yours. You two might get along.

Quite a lively thread. My two cents: as I said above, the First Amendment exists only to protect unpopular speech; popular speech needs no protection. While I agree with Coati that, in principle, hate speech should not be tolerated, in practice the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that even the speech of the KKK and neo-Nazis enjoys constitutional protection. In any case, the minutemen are clever enough not to espouse that kind of overt racism, so the question is beside the point here. In short, I think the students behaved quite badly, although maybe that's just my total lack of sympathy for any angry mob chanting slogans, whatever its ostensible politics.

But what really fries my bacon about this is that the "right" has once again succeeded in setting the terms of the debate. Here we are, sitting around parsing the details of the minutemen's website and speculating as to who escalated the violence at various points, rather than shredding the minutemen's arguments and showing how dishonest and usually racist the customary immigration debates are. It's all about the minutemen, rather than the immigrants. And I imagine Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin will be riffing on this little stunt for weeks. Douchey McAsshole and his other college GOP buddies clearly invited the minutemen as provocation--the corporate wing of the GOP is the most pro-immigration political faction in the country, and somehow I think that's the wing to which the Columbia GOP belongs--and the "protesters" took the bait. Now not only do the minutement look like the victims, and not only are criticisms of current immigration policy and debate sidelined, but the focus has been shifted to the political-symbolic theater in which the "right" in this country excells.

Caoti - If the KKK wants to spew their disgusting ideas in public, that is their right. If the New Black Panthers want to spew their disgusting ideas in public, that is their right too.

As for your fear of being harmed: you are protected from threats, but not from ideas. In other words, I can speak badly of you as long as I don’t deliberately incite violence against you, directly threaten you, or lie with the intention of making you look bad. Am I missing other circumstances?

Heraclitus, I agree with you 100%. The protestors were extremely badly behaved, the Minutemen looked like the victims (even though I believe they initiated the violence), and the focus is now on the protestors actions rather than the Minutemen's agenda. This is all part of the negative side of the 'direct action' approach, and why many people like yourself and Skyanide do not approve of it.

But the fact remains that we *are* talking about an event that we might not otherwise have discussed - and some feel that even negative publicity is still publicity. As for discussing the Minutemen agenda, I believe it speaks for itself and requires no shredding or deconstruction. Only those who feel comfortable with it will even pretend it is anything but a front for racism and xenophobia.

As for your fear of being harmed: you are protected from threats, but not from ideas. In other words, I can speak badly of you as long as I don’t deliberately incite violence against you, directly threaten you, or lie with the intention of making you look bad.

noname, I don't disagree with this. But it is a slippery slope and a fine line. I believe others in this thread already have already provided links and examples of where the Minutemen have crossed this line.

Ranja, your arguments have taken on absurdity and do not merit a response. It is interesting how your argument is that the concept of free speech is to be absolutely respected. Yet unable to gain traction in the debate, you resort to 'inviting' me to leave the country, or to be quiet until I have studied the First Amendment. Kindof goes against your argument, doesn't it?

"noname, I don't disagree with this. But it is a slippery slope and a fine line. I believe others in this thread already have already provided links and examples of where the Minutemen have crossed this line." – Caoti

Fair enough. Like I said, I don’t really know much about the Minutemen (the whole immigration issue never interested me much), so I can’t be sure what they stand for. As such, I have no real interest in defending their ideas. I still have some questions for you, if you don’t mind:

1. Was there a direct threat posed by the speaker?
2. If so, aren’t the students obligated to inform authorities of this rather than taking the law into there own hands?

But the fact remains that we *are* talking about an event that we might not otherwise have discussed - and some feel that even negative publicity is still publicity. As for discussing the Minutemen agenda, I believe it speaks for itself and requires no shredding or deconstruction. Only those who feel comfortable with it will even pretend it is anything but a front for racism and xenophobia.

But I don't understand how this publicity benefits anyone, honestly. If people protest now for the sake of protesting -- just shouting and storming and cheering with no communication of a message -- what's being achieved?

Also, Coati, I understand what you're saying about subtle vs. direct action, but I don't see how posing questions is in any way subtle. I also don't see how shouting at a speaker and storming the stage is exactly direct. To be honest, I think the designations are inverted. The only achievement that I see from this protest is that one side stopped another side from speaking by shouting over the visiting speaker. I don't know what the visiting speaker would have said. I don't quite understand what the side that stopped the speech stands for except wanting the "racist" to "go home." I only vaguely know that the whole incident concerned immigration. And the only resource I mainly have available is the Minuteman Project website.

I don't know whether to call what happened a protest or a mob's well-executed temper tantrum. And the one thing I can say for civil rights protests is that they were successful because the protesters behaved in a way appropriate to the forum where they protested.

When sit-ins were staged, no one danced on the counters and trashed the diners.

When marches were coordinated, no one broke shop windows and littered all over the streets.

There's a line that you don't cross when making a legitimate protest, and that's stooping to the other side's level. If someone's promoting a hateful agenda, it solves nothing to reply with an equally hateful display.

Ranja, I never spoke against free speech. In fact, I supported what the students did which was a form of free speech. I simply said it was interesting how the aforementioned group so strongly *supported* free speech that is racist, hate speech as evidenced by the SPLC and University blog links.

Heraclitus, you hit the nail on the head:

"But what really fries my bacon about this is that the "right" has once again succeeded in setting the terms of the debate. Here we are, sitting around parsing the details of the minutemen's website and speculating as to who escalated the violence at various points, rather than shredding the minutemen's arguments and showing how dishonest and usually racist the customary immigration debates are. It's all about the minutemen, rather than the immigrants."

I introduced the immigrants rights issue upthread. On 10/6 @ 1:38am I quoted from Common Dreams:

Corporate globalization and U.S. trade policies have more to do with how many people cross our borders illegally than U.S. immigration policy or any potential reform thereof. On NAFTA: Rather than complaining about immigration from Mexico, the U.S. could stop causing it.

Someone suggested immigration is also due to corruption in the Mexican government and I agree that has something to do with it. Calderon recently won a fraudulent election 50.58% to 49.42% (sound familiar? and they used Diebold machines) is in Bush's back pocket moreso than his predecessors so illegal immigration will be worse than ever. It is the governments and their trade policies not the immigrants' fault. So we need to support immigrants' rights.

Heraclitus said:

"And I imagine Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin will be riffing on this little stunt for weeks. Douchey McAsshole and his other college GOP buddies clearly invited the minutemen as provocation--the corporate wing of the GOP is the most pro-immigration political faction in the country, and somehow I think that's the wing to which the Columbia GOP belongs--and the "protesters" took the bait. Now not only do the minutement look like the victims, and not only are criticisms of current immigration policy and debate sidelined, but the focus has been shifted to the political-symbolic theater in which the "right" in this country excels."

I also suggested on 10/8 at 6:32am that it very well could have been a set up. From the Columbia University blog:

"After a 45-minute long diatribe by a preachy opening speaker, during which a packed crowd grew increasingly irate, main event Jim Gilchrist was rushed by a large group of students, in what descended into a free-for-all on the stage."

Finally, a word on immigrants from the students' statement:

"Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations, but individual people not? No human being is illegal."

Like I predicted, plants initiated the violence. From the university blog:

"Students rise en masse from the audience and rush the stage. The Minuteman and the students engaged in a tug of war with the banner. More people rush the stage, prompting a fist-fight. One female student is kicked in the head. A guy in a pony tail (definitely not a student) rushes the stage and fights with students (several witnesses saw him kick a student) and then banded together with the Minuteman to shout the pledge of allegiance as the rumble spun out of hand, "One nation! Under God! Indivisible!""

That's so reprehensible and completely unsurprising for some reason.

How does that show a plant initiating the violence? Do you mean the pony-tail guy? If so, he joined the fray after the violence had started, and we have no idea what he was doing there (or if he was a student himself).

It is too bad they rushed the stage. They were doing everything right up until then. Standing up and turning their backs to the speaker seems a particularly effective message. Too bad they screwed it up in the end by making themselves look bad.

Also, this account contradicts the assertion that the tug of war caused the rest of the students to rush the stage. Donna's account actually shows the students going up with the banner, then MORE students rushing the stage, then fights break out, then Mr. Pony Tail (Donna's plant?) running up to join the fray already in progress.

The main question is who initiated the violence and by this account, the Minutemen started a tug-of-war with those who were peacefully displaying the banner "There are no illegals." The plant, a non-student from the audience, appears to have caused the most injury and chaos.

"Students rise en masse from the audience and rush the stage. The Minuteman and the students engaged in a tug of war with the banner. More people rush the stage, prompting a fist-fight. One female student is kicked in the head. A guy in a pony tail (definitely not a student) rushes the stage and fights with students (several witnesses saw him kick a student) and then banded together with the Minuteman to shout the pledge of allegiance as the rumble spun out of hand, "One nation! Under God! Indivisible!""

People, don't bother arguing with Donna Darko.

She has continually shown contempt for minorities, immigrants, women, and homosexuals on this site. She was in favor of pedophilia in one thread, and forced sterilization in another.

It's not worth the effort to try to reason with that type of hatred and bigotry.

You're obviously confusing me with someone else. You don't want to talk about immigrants' rights or the incident, do you.

Erm.

OK I watched the video again and located the plant. Two groups rushed the stage to hold up two signs. The plant is very visible, the guy in the white shirt and cap. Notice how there is no fighting or conflict whatsoever until he starts tugging at the banner? The camera cuts away and he is later shooed by the Minuteman side probably for being too obvious. He's the only one causing conflict and led to the fighting which is not shown in the clip.

"You don't want to talk about immigrants' rights or the incident, do you."

Nope, and if you try to, I'm gonna organize an angry mob to shout you down. You have no right to offend me with your racist ideas.

Free speech is fine for those I agree with, but is offensive and downright dangerous when used by those who I disagree with.

Trolls are boring because they're braindead.

"The main question is who initiated the violence" - Donna Darko

No it's not. The main question is if the students had the right to rush the stage in the first place. The violence was secondary (and seemed to be mutual). Good to see you have dropped the whole "plant" idea, though.

"They can boo all they want, but they moment they rushed the stage they were in the wrong." - noname

"Another example of the 'free speech zone' school of thought. Protest and dissent is fine, as long as its kept in its place. That place being somewhere where it can't interfere with the agenda of those in power." - Coati

I think you are confused about free speech. It protects freedom of expression, not location. Just because I can express my ideas doesn’t mean I am free to go anywhere I want to. The students were not authorized by the university to be on the stage. It is like if I go to a Columbia football game: I can scream my head off in the stands, but I’m not allowed on the field. Running on to the field and disrupting the scheduled game would probably get me arrested, in fact.

Thanks for bringing that up, noname. The Supreme Court has even ruled on appropriate forums and methods for exercising free speech, mainly to make sure that people are protected from "wilder" protesters so to speak (or "active protesters") and to make sure that the protesters are heard without overshadowing another person's speech.

Skyanide, noname, ranja (and anyone else with half a brain):

I loved this release from the thugs:

"We celebrate free speech: for that reason we *allowed* the Minutemen to speak [my emphasis -- wow, mighty gracious of them!], and for that same reason we peacefully occupied the stage and spoke ourselves. Our peaceful protest was violently attacked by members of the College Republicans and their supporters."

I have to say I really sympathize with them. When you think about it, it's just like when the Soviet tanks "peacefully occupied" Hungary in 1956. It's not the Soviets fault they were "violently attacked" by Hungarians!

Or remember that time when Germany "peacefully occupied" Poland? Again, it's absurd to blame Germany just because their troops were "violently attacked" by Poles and whatnot.

:^) Give it up guys. If these nuts don't understand, by now, the difference between exercising your own free speech, and preventing others from exercising *their* free speech, well, no amount of explaining is going to get them to suddenly get it.

- Alaska Jack

Watch the hottie at :28 pwn Gilchrist.

*Eyes bugger out*

And ditto on everything she said.

Jon Stewart ridiculed those who rushed the stage on The Daily Show. Who knew he was such a racist?

Did you or Jon Stewart watch this video? The MSM including Comedy Central doesn't know the students' POV or what really happened. It wasn't an issue of free speech because

1. The students peacefully exercised their free speech and respected his right to free speech. People hold signs and banners all the time at speeches without blocking free speech.

2. Gilchrist decided to give up his own free speech when he learned the students knew exactly what he was.

3. The Minutemen assaulted the students.

Like she said it wasn't about free speech. It is our duty to speak out against murderers and racists while respecting others' free speech. Gilchrist was never physically threatened. He decided to stop speaking because he was ideologically overcome.

Donna -

Don't worry, I'm not going to try to explain this to you again -- clearly, a futile effort. However, in the interests of broadening my worldview, I would like you to help me understand your insanity a little better.

As I understand it, your current position is that, even though the speaker had reserved the stage, it was ok for the brownshir -- sorry, *protestors* -- to come up and "peacefully occupy" the stage. So here are a few questions to help me clarify your position:

* If the protesters went up to the stage and unfurled a banner right in front of the speaker, blocking him from audience view, would that be OK?
* How about standing right next to him -- say, one foot away?
* How about chanting loud enough to drown him out, or at least make him difficult to hear?
* Would it be OK to unplug his microphone?
* What if a ring of his supporters stood shoulder-to-shoulder in front of the stage? Would it be OK to forcibly barge through them?
* If you went to watch a concert at the Met, and a bunch of pro-lifers got up on stage and quietly stood there with a banner, would you consider that "disruptive"? What about the musicians? Do you think they would consider it "disruptive"?
* Let's say you have put up, in a public square, a display advocating a feminist issue -- the ERA, let's say. You are clearly exercising your first amendment rights, no? That night, I come along and tear it down, exercising what I claim to be *my* right to expression. On what grounds do you condemn my act?

These aren't rhetorical questions -- I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers to them.

- Alaska Jack

Alaska Jack - Who cares. They shouldn't have been on stage in the first place.

I stand with my position. You can't really tell what happens at protests unless you are there. If you watch the Democracy Now segment, the students say they went to the stage and unfurled two banners. This is not standing in front of the speaker and this kind of thing happens all the time at speeches. It's hard to say from the video in the OP how disruptive they were because of the quality of the video. The Democracy Now video says the the Minutemen are to Mexicans what the KKK is to blacks. If the KKK spoke at Columbia or any other school, it is our duty to shut them down. As the student said, the protesters were speaking to a larger audience. She said the protesters were speaking to the country, to the millions of undocumented immigrants, to students everywhere and saying this is a racist, violent, fascist organization. In this vein, it is our duty to speak out against these types of organizations. The reason I this thread made me so happy is that Ivy League institutions do not normally have loud eruptions like this and if the most privileged can get up in it this is a good sign. We can take this protest as a good example of how to stand up against fascism. We need to see this more and more in the face of fascism.

You have to remember that the students did not shut down the speaker. The students knew exactly what this organization was and the speaker knew he was outnumbered ideologically not physically. He was never physically threatened. He chose to leave because no one would listen to him. You also have to remember that it was the Minutemen who started the melee and violence and shut the speech down. The students and the Minutemen were exercising free speech, the Minutemen shut the talk down with their violence and the speaker decided to leave because no one would listen to him.

"We need to see this more and more in the face of fascism."

Who is to decide what is fascism? If I decide that this website is fascist, then by your standards I have the right to hack into it and shut it down.

"If the KKK spoke at Columbia or any other school, it is our duty to shut them down."

First of all, I don't agree that the Minuteman Project can be compared to the KKK. However, that shouldn't matter. They were invited to speak at the university. The first amendment allows them the right to speak.

I am sickened by the views of the Nazis, but any Nazi party member around here has the right to speak. I would shun that person, NOT shut down.

"If you watch the Democracy Now segment, the students say they went to the stage and unfurled two banners. This is not standing in front of the speaker and this kind of thing happens all the time at speeches."

I believe the banner to the right was attempting to be unfurled directly in front of the podium.

"Gilchrist decided to give up his own free speech when he learned the students knew exactly what he was."

According to a statement on the Minuteman Project website, campus security escorted them from the stage.

"... this is a racist, violent, fascist organization."

I have not seen any solid evidence to support these allegations. If you know of some statement from the Minuteman Project that would support your claims, then please present them.

The only evidence I know of racism at the event was protesters shouting the N word at one of the speakers.

The definition of fascism from dictionary.com is a governmental system lead by a dictator supporting aggressive nationalism and racism. The Minutemen fall into this category because they support our increasingly fascist government.

Fascism 1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. 2. the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3. a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

One cannot say the same about marginalized groups that have never been a dominant party in our government or dominated our society such as feminists or undocumented immigrants. If blacks say the KKK is a racist, violent, fascist organization you should believe them. If Mexicans such as the organizer of the protest outside the building say the Minutemen are the KKK for Mexicans, I'd take her word over the Minutemens'.

I believe the banner to the right was attempting to be unfurled directly in front of the podium.

I haven't seen any evidence of this.

According to a statement on the Minuteman Project website, campus security escorted them from the stage.

If you watch the video on Democracy Now he waved goodbye to the crowd in an Nazi-like salute and decided to leave on his own. Campus security and the New York City Police were at this speech from the outset so it doesn't make a difference that they escorted him off the stage. It's an undisputed fact that they recruit from neo-Nazi groups and are known to say "Shoot illegals on sight" so one can't deny they are a racist, violent, fascist group. What Gilchrist and some on this thread are trying to do is censure the voice of undocumented immigrants and because these views reflect those of our increasingly fascist, racist Republican government, they are the ones who are fascist.