Jewish Aggressors Censor Desmond Tutu

[Berzerker]

Violations of free speech aint limited to gov't intrusion, free speech is free speech. The 1st Amendment however does inhibit gov't intrusion, that doesn't mean we cant silence each other. These groups that go into presentations by controversial speakers to shout them down are violating the free speech of the speakers and their audiences.

"We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,"

Are they one and the same?

"I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy."

Clearly an anti-semite

[Proteus_MST]

After all it was unwise to compare the behavior of Israel to the third Reich. Hadn´t he used this comparison in his criticism, he woulnd´t have given these people the chance to swing the antisemitism-cudgel at him.

[Berzerker]

why is it anti-semitic to compare the policies of a government to the 3rd Reich (assuming he actually made the comparison)?

[Proteus_MST]

It doesn´t matter if it is (which IMHO isn´t the case) but if there is a chance that it could be perceived by people this way (which IMHO is the case, but only because it was a jewish government upon which he used this comparison, it would have been different if he had used this comparison for a non jewish government).
By making this comparison to a jewish state he gave these people (that posses an interest in suppressing criticism against israel policies) the chance to attack him (with the antisemitism cudgel) and they did so.

Would have been wiser of him to use another state not connected to the holocaust, for example south africa, or even the sowjet union under Stalin.

[Berzerker]

I agree with that

[Edan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Violations of free speech aint limited to gov't intrusion, free speech is free speech. The 1st Amendment however does inhibit gov't intrusion, that doesn't mean we cant silence each other. These groups that go into presentations by controversial speakers to shout them down are violating the free speech of the speakers and their audiences.

Fair enough, but it is the universities prerogative on to who to invite or not invite. No one has the "right" to be invited to speak.

[Berzerker]

True, but he was invited to speak. A few people didn't like what he said in the past so now he's uninvited because of his views...

[Edan]

Again, that's the university's prerogative. You may disagree with the decision, but freedom of speech hasn't been violated.

[Berzerker]

True, but he was invited to speak. A few people didn't like what he said in the past so now he's uninvited because of his views...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Edan

And that isn't a freedom of speech issue. If government were to censor someone, that would be a freedom of speech issue. A university is entitled to make it's own decisions on who to invite or not invite. One may disagree with their decision on who to invite or who not to invite, but it's their decision.

No. It's an academic freedom and academic credibility issue.

You Americans and your silly free speech stuff are irrelevant.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Edan
And that isn't a freedom of speech issue. If government were to censor someone, that would be a freedom of speech issue. A university is entitled to make it's own decisions on who to invite or not invite. One may disagree with their decision on who to invite or who not to invite, but it's their decision.

Expressions protected by the 1st amendment are only a subcategory of the broader idea of free speech. Just because an non-governmental act of censorship isn't legally proscribed by the Constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't a violation in principle.

(Note: I don't think there was any undue censorship in this particular case, just that your premise is an unconvincing way to argue why not.)

[Kidlicious]

dp

[Sirotnikov]

all Jews are going to pay when the backlash comes

Is this the part where you justify something bad that you're gonna do in the future?

Originally posted by Kidicious
dp

oddly enough, it's not even a single post

True, but he was invited to speak. A few people didn't like what he said in the past so now he's uninvited because of his views...

Which is fully in the right of the university's free speech
A university is entitled to an opinion that comparing Israel to the third reich is anti-semitic slander.

No. It's an academic freedom and academic credibility issue.

Tell it to British scholars who wanted to ban ties with Israel. Since when is academic freedom not related to political views?

Academies tend to be highly political, and most humanist arts professors are very political beasts indeed.

[Agathon]

Tell it to British scholars who wanted to ban ties with Israel. Since when is academic freedom not related to political views?

It's customary to ban ties with racist regimes.

[Berzerker]

Hey Aggie, if you haven't voted in the HoF this quarter, Guynemer needs a vote

Which is fully in the right of the university's free speech
A university is entitled to an opinion that comparing Israel to the third reich is anti-semitic slander.

True, but he was invited to speak. A few people didn't like what he said in the past so now he's uninvited because of his views...

I can keep repeating the same response too

But why is comparing the policies of a gov't to the 3rd Reich anti-semitic? Are we to equate Jews (aren't Arabs semites?) with the Israeli gov't and its policies? Such a comparison may be an exaggeration (aint Godwin always an exaggeration?) but people know that the point is to draw attention to immoral policies and the Nazis are the epitome of evil. Was it anti-semitic for Bush I to call Saddam Hitler revisited?