"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought -- not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." -- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Justice Holmes, in his opinion in the 1919 landmark Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States, set the "clear and present danger" precendent as the only time that the government has the constitutional right to surpress the right to free speech and thought. In Schenck v. United States, Holmes announced this doctrine for a unanimous Court, famously declaring that the First Amendment would not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
Today, the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in New York, speaking at Columbia University. Earlier, in a prelude to the UN General Assembly meeting, Ahmadinejad said he had wanted to go and lay a wreath "to show his respects" at Ground Zero. He was rejected by New York authorities. He will run a gauntlet of protesters at Columbia decrying his outrageous views, including his denial of the Holocaust, his call for Israel to be wiped from the face of the earth, his country's development of nuclear weapons and its sponsorship of terrorism.
A USA Today editorial states: "The public display of Ahmadinejad getting to taste two fundamental pillars of democracy — free speech and the right to protest — should speak volumes about what the United States stands for, and what he and Iran don't. "
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/09/our-view-on-ahm.html
But others have an oposing view. And even a satirical view, including this report of the Irania president getting Tasered.
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1929
Ultimately, Ahmadinejad and his views will get more media coverage then the top agenda item on the UN General Assembly docket: the Global Climate Crisis. My questions for your are: 1)Is the Iranian president Infotainment, or his he the real story? And, 2) Should the Ahmadinejad and his hateful rhetoric be welcomed here?
6 comments:
I believe Mr. Ahmadinejad is definitely infotainment. Yes he is a foreign leader, but what is more important, a wacko from a rogue state, or a vital international conference?
As to the second postulation, I do not believe Mr. Ahmadinejad's words will be received kindly, at least not outside the notoriously liberal confines of Greenwich Village. However, if Columbia University really wants this nut to speak, they have the right to make the necessary arrangements. But every student and teacher at Columbia needs to know that Americans have the right to protest against his coming here. Given Mr. Ahmadinejad's track record of calling for the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, supporting terrorism, and flaunting the Iranian nuclear program (to say nothing of his authoritarian domestic policy, which has not endeared him to his people), Americans have every right to protest. I would not hesitate to join these protesters in the forlorn hope that Mr. Ahmadinejad gets Tasered!
Ahmadinejad is NOT infotainment. Infotainment is Paris Hilton, OJ, Micheal Jackson, etc.
The average American will not recognize his name, and if you show them his picture its more likely they'll say its Mike Ditealla than Mahmmoud Ahmadinejad.
His comments, unusual though they may be, are about as much BS as any other politicain's; so I would assume that most people remotley interested in foreign affairs will be curious as to what he says.
He has a right to speak and should be allowed to do so because it will finally be a speech here in the U.S. No media censorship, no unreported speech - he will speak and pepole will hopefully look at Iran more objectively.
On the second question, Ahmadinejad needs not necesarily be welcomed, but he should be respectfully allowed to speak. Though i do not agree with many of his viewpoints - i like him as a leader who stands up to the West in the face of threats and sanctions. His hateful rethoric should be abhorred, but it should at least be given a chance to be expressed.
And if he is tassered, we can all laugh at him when its posted on YouTube.
I think that it could be infotainment or real news, depending on what he actually said at Columbia. He will probably not say anything too radical because of the crowd. If he did say something that went beyond or upt to his previous comments like denying the Holocaust or openly declaring his support of terrorism, it would most likely lead to a riot.
His hateful rhetoric shouldn't be welcomed, but as long as he doesn't say anything like "I'm going to kill all Americans, starting with your President" then he should be allowed to express his opinions.
-dell
This man has no right to be saying what he is saying. The government needs to censor him. If he and others are not censored, how will people know what they should and should not hear? Furthermore, all forms of media need to be controlled. Just as Nixon banned Fahrenheit 451, our government needed to ban Fahrenheit 9/11. The value of ideas is determined by how much they benefit the government. Since these ideas do not directly contribute to how great the government is, they are worthless. The media is a tool to be used to aid the government, not to express facts, opinions, controversy, or any other nonsense. This man is stirring up controversy. People are developing opinions about him and other things of that nature. This is the last thing we need. Opinions should be decided for us by our government, or even better, we should not be put into the position of needing to have an opinion.
Well, it is the universities choice to let this man speak at their campus, and I seem to be the only person in my class at least a little bit fond of this man. He is indeed a crazed islamofacist when it comes to ruling his country but the way I look at it is that he at least has the cajones to stand up to other world powers and follow through with what he wants to do, not what he is told to. Under his new regimes, something have rolled back such as women's rights but Iran is gaining strengths in other terms, such as developing nuclear power and so on, which wouldn't have happened if he had buckled under the US conditions. Although, nuclear power may become a threat to us in the future, I believe the safest we could be is if everyone or no one has nukes, and since the latter is impossible, I'll stick with the former
lol the person who posted as "big brother" is funny...
I'm just posting to say how much I like that justice's definition of free speech. How you have the right to say anything unless it's like for the pure purpose of causing mass panic & danger. One of the reasons that I like it is because of how many interesting situations it could be applied to...how many interesting ways it could be applied in. It could be skewed in totally awful ways, but it could also be used for great protection. Like a lot of court opinions, actually.
Post a Comment