next »

[kaysixteen]

Unless I miss my guess, as a head of state he has the right to enter the US to address the UN, etc., and needs no visa, etc.

In any case, Columbia has the right to have him, but ought to have another speaker soon, such as the PM of Israel, to balance his views out, and, when doing so, prevent leftist protestors from shouting said speaker down, etc.  In any case, whatever the hell his name is is a nut, listening to him might well show the world just how nutty he is, and how destructive his nuke ambitions are.

But forbidding the ladies to smoke is actually in their best interest.

[mrbreeze]

You have got to be kidding?!  What continues to fascinate me about Americans is their "feel good" naivete, their liberal quest to be "good", "saintly" and the other s*** they force onto other peoples because they inherently know what is "good" for other tradtions. 

Faux pas #1: Don't assume that everyone in this forum is an American.

You see, Mr.breeze, you don't see the disservice you're committing by suggesting "other sides should speak" because of what you refer to as a democracy?  Why do Americans imply that this is "correct"? that others "need" it? 

Last time I checked, Columbia University was located in the USA. If Americans feel that "other sides have the right to speak" on their land, they are entitled to "allow" such activities and consider that democracy, free speech or whatever they want. I will not argue with you why democracy is "correct" .  Your point that "others need it" is irrelevant in this case. Columbia is a US institution.

Does Ahmadinejad comprehend American democracy? Does he?  Or is he a tangible, physical form of "hate speech"? 

Does Bush, Blair, or any of the 49 countries participating in the "coalition of willing" comprehend the notions of freedom or sovereignty of other nations? Or they are a tangible, physical form of "hate actions"?

And are you suggesting that true, practiced democracy should be tolerant of intolerance, hatemongers?  Love our enemies?

Of course, and the democracy itself will reject and marginalize them. This is how it works....We don't need pimps.

Would you also, btw, think that hanging nooses in campus trees is freedom of expression, dissent?  Within the rights of the Bill of Rights? Hate speech?

You are trying to press the buttons of Americans who have tremendous hang-ups and guilt about slavery but this does not work with me. I would find such activities distasteful, insulting and disgraceful. But, as much as I disagree, I defend their right of expression.

Please expalin. It is too red, white and blue for me.

Out of curiosity, what country are you from? It would be interesting to know where you draw your examples of "democracy" and "free speech"....You seem to be pointing the finger to Americans quite liberally (no pun or insult  intended for a right-winger like you...).

MRB

[husqvarna]

Rights are not granted by governments, they are inherent.

...according to the views of particular governments. 

I think that's jtsmr's point.  But then, if the inherent right of free speech is a view of the American government, then it doesn't matter what A. believes... jtsmr's point sort of cuts the branch out from under itself.

I have mixed ideas about this whole mess.  For now I'm very much enjoying this conversation, though.

[jtsmr]

Ahmadinejad has the right to free speech because every human being on this planet has the right to free speech. That is a founding principle of this country. Rights are not granted by governments, they are inherent.

You just saying that. You're making my point larryc. You're making sense of "free speech" through your Americanization of it.  Ahmadinejad cannot speak to your point here.  He is Muslim.  Only Allah has the Right to tell us what to do, NOT DEMOCRACIES which are made by man.  Do you see the difference?  You're espousing secularist/enlightenment philosophy which is all right in my book.  But where Ahmadinejad hails, he would never make such an obviously heretical statement.

Separate yourself, and others especially, from principaled, democractic American values who have caused, and continue to cause, havoc around the world.

And do not appease, never appease dictators, despots.

[case_insensitive]

I would not have given the little rat f*cker a platform for his views. But I will defend the right of Columbia University to do so. We have become way too comfortable with restricting speech in this country in recent years.

I'm with larryc on this. I wouldn't give him a soapbox, but if Columbia wants to, well, that's part of having free speech in our society and, given Columbia's so-called record on free speech, just makes Columbia look all the more stupid.

case who has attended some world cup soccer games so is not likely to be welcomed by Ahmadinejad

[jtsmr]

You have got to be kidding?!  What continues to fascinate me about Americans is their "feel good" naivete, their liberal quest to be "good", "saintly" and the other s*** they force onto other peoples because they inherently know what is "good" for other tradtions. 

Faux pas #1: Don't assume that everyone in this forum is an American.

And don't project that I am.

Last time I checked, Columbia University was located in the USA. If Americans feel that "other sides have the right to speak" on their land, they are entitled to "allow" such activities and consider that democracy, free speech or whatever they want. I will not argue with you why democracy is "correct" .  Your point that "others need it" is irrelevant in this case. Columbia is a US institution.

Irrelvant.

Does Bush, Blair, or any of the 49 countries participating in the "coalition of willing" comprehend the notions of freedom or sovereignty of other nations? Or they are a tangible, physical form of "hate actions"?

You mean more than Ahmadinejad or the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia??

As much as I detest the American Village Idiot, I'd rather be in his country than any other one in the Middle of Near East, not including Turkey but including Israel.

Of course, and the democracy itself will reject and marginalize them. This is how it works....We don't need pimps.

There's that word "democracy" again.  You seem to know what it looks like and how it works.  Then again you could be another leftist-thug-red/whit/blue-WASP-pimp.  I can never tell these end days.

You are trying to press the buttons of Americans who have tremendous hang-ups and guilt about slavery but this does not work with me. I would find such activities distasteful, insulting and disgraceful. But, as much as I disagree, I defend their right of expression.

You defend the right to "hateful speech"? Should words like n***** and kike be banned, btw?  The David Dukes of the land would be proud to hear you say this.  Hateful and intentionally harmful speech should be heavily policed. 

Your thoughts are predictable.

[husqvarna]

I don't know if anyone else is listening to A. live right now, but I must say, apart from questions of whether he should be here in the first place, the man ain't stupid.  He's handling criticism in a very smooth, clever way, as is his normal manner.  I think this is why it would be fascinating to hear him, regardless of whether Columbia was right to have him.

[scheherazade]

Personally, if I lived closer, I would go to hear what he has to say.

Am I an anti-Semite?  No.  Do I agree with terrorism?  No.  But I'd like to remind you of a little history.  Very few leaders read Mein Kampf, even after he took power in such a militaristic way.  One of the few to do so was Churchill, who was one of the first to speak out against against Hitler even before he became PM.  He spoke about Hitler's plans, laid out in a very public book, and warned other governments to thwart him quickly.  Other countries, such as the U.S., did not agree, in part because they did not believe him.  Later, several leaders read the book, but by then it was too late.

In short, it's best to listen to those that frighten you.  Anyway, I'm less concerned about the propaganda he may spew (somehow I don't think he'll have a huge following) than the propaganda he gains every time we violate the Bill of Rights in this country.  What do you think Al-Jazeera is going to do with a story about how the Iranian president came on a goodwill visit and was not allowed to speak anywhere?

Lucky you to have the taken-for-granted freedom to suggest, even to write, of violations of the Bill of Rights. Would you wager that our brethren in Muslim countries can easily suggest their own constant, historically consistent Human Rights Violations?  Even Orhan Pamuk had to appear in Turkish court for insulting the Turks "Turkishness." Please. What a ridiculous abuse of free speech.  But it should be respected, each countries description of itself whether it flies in the face of American democractic sensibility or not.

Yes, keep your enemies closer or closest.  Which says nothing about according them rights and principales.

Interesting.  I've never taken my rights or freedoms for granted.  I'm not certain what freedoms in other countries have to do with freedoms in ours.  It's hypocritical to claim that freedom of speech is an important right and blast other countries for not practicing it, and then to not allow it to a foreign leader.

We do not, in this country, make distinctions between the speech and people we like and the speech and people we don't (well, mostly we don't - there is that Patriot Act thingy).  That's why neo-Nazis and the KKK are allowed to march and speak.  Are you telling me that we should allow that, but disallow Ahmadinejad?

The light of day is the most effective tool for withering hate speech.  The more Ahmadinejad speaks in this country, the more he will isolate himself.

[husqvarna]

From A., right now:

"CU has invited me to be there... there are some pro-government members of the press that have objected to it... they've provoked the people."

"I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything."

"We think that the world can be led in more humane ways than it is now [said after crticizing US government's actions in world affairs.]"

"It goes against the grain of freedom of speech and freedom of information here."

"Last year a reporter asked me about what the President of the United States had said to the Iranian people... and I welcomed it... whatever comes to his mind, he ought to say it."

"I'm surprised that in a place where they have freedom of information, they are trying to prevent people from talking.  That's not good."

[By the way, not endorsing anything, just transcribing an interview in progress]

[case_insensitive]

From A., right now:

"I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything."

Except women and soccer...

[husqvarna]

From A., right now:

"I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything."

Except women and soccer...

Ah yes, here's an earlier nugget from A., same interview.  He said something like:

"The freest women in the world are the women of Iran."

uh-huh.  hmmm....

[case_insensitive]

From A., right now:

"I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything."

Except women and soccer...

Ah yes, here's an earlier nugget from A., same interview.  He said something like:

"The freest women in the world are the women of Iran."

uh-huh.  hmmm....

I'd like to look up free in his dictionary.  I don't think that word means what he thinks it means...

[ptprof]

From A., right now:
"I think we should all have the capacity to listen to everything."

Except for websites that criticize Ahmadinejad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2016552,00.html
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/09/8759CB76-EB6C-4F0D-80B0-48E776430D39.html

[larryc]

Ahmadinejad has the right to free speech because every human being on this planet has the right to free speech. That is a founding principle of this country. Rights are not granted by governments, they are inherent.

You just saying that. You're making my point larryc. You're making sense of "free speech" through your Americanization of it.  Ahmadinejad cannot speak to your point here.  He is Muslim.  Only Allah has the Right to tell us what to do, NOT DEMOCRACIES which are made by man.  Do you see the difference?  You're espousing secularist/enlightenment philosophy which is all right in my book.  But where Ahmadinejad hails, he would never make such an obviously heretical statement.

Which has nothing to do with anything. The Enlightenment is not just for those who believe it the Enlightenment, it is the unchaining of all mankind from centuries of superstition and brutality. That Ahmadinejad does not believe in the Enlightenment or allow his people to exercise human rights does not mean that those rights do not exist. And it does not give us the right to ignore his human rights. That is the road to Guantanamo.

And do not appease, never appease dictators, despots.

Who is appeasing? The man's views are not merely odious but ridiculous. When we allow him to speak, we open him to disagreement and ridicule. Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. This is not weakness on our part, it is strength, and is seen as strength across most of the world.

[acrimone]

I officially apologize for thinking horrible things about President Bollinger and Columbia University.  I never would have imagined that they had the guts to do something sneaky and backstabbing like that.

I approve.