Muslims Threaten Free Speech in New Mexico

[East of Eden]

From this morning's local paper:

"A lecture by an author known for her critical views of Islam resulted in a melee Thursday at the University of New Mexico as protesters interrupted her speech and were shoved by others in the audience.

Nonie Darwish was halfway through her speech, "Why the Arab Spring is Failing," at the university's Anthropology Lecture Hall when a group of about 10 protesters interrupted with loud chants. When a few audience members turned around to try to silence the protesters, a physical confrontation followed."


Here is an attempt to stifle freedom of speech in the US. No doubt due to political correctness these thugs won't be prosecuted as they should be. This is radical Islam trying to send a message to UNM not to have such speakers on campus. It is like organized crime when it tried to intimidate and make an example of someone.

Does this bother anyone here?
__________________

[micatala]

From this morning's local paper:

"A lecture by an author known for her critical views of Islam resulted in a melee Thursday at the University of New Mexico as protesters interrupted her speech and were shoved by others in the audience.

Nonie Darwish was halfway through her speech, "Why the Arab Spring is Failing," at the university's Anthropology Lecture Hall when a group of about 10 protesters interrupted with loud chants. When a few audience members turned around to try to silence the protesters, a physical confrontation followed."


Here is an attempt to stifle freedom of speech in the US. No doubt due to political correctness these thugs won't be prosecuted as they should be. This is radical Islam trying to send a message to UNM not to have such speakers on campus. It is like organized crime when it tried to intimidate and make an example of someone.

Does this bother anyone here?
__________________

As with slopeshoulder, I am hesitant to make a judgment without more information.


In general, I tend to think disruptive behavior like that described is unfortunate, whoever is doing it.

On the other hand, I really have to say I find it astonishing how often accusations of violating free speech are made against individual citizens or groups of citizens. However rude the behavior, this is not a violation of anyone's free speech rights.

Here is the First Amendment for reference.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Even expanding the meaning to cover all governmental bodies, as has become our practice, you cannot have a violation of free speech without government action. The amendment is meant to prevent the government from violating individual rights.

By that reasoning, the Salman Rushdie affair should be no concern to us.

You are ignoring some of what I said. Threats of murder are a violation of law and should be acted on. That the threats of murder are motivated by a desire to silence someone else's speech is reprehensible, but it would not be a violation of the First Amendment.


To get from what I said to the idea we should not be concerned about a hit squad is a rather large leap, is it not?

Now, certain types of behavior may be illegal for other reasons. If violence was involved, that should be acted upon.

But if all we have is shouting or speaking, then isn't that protected speech, even if it is disrupting the event?????

When Tea Partiers disrupt a town hall meeting, isn't that protected speech??

What Tea Party disruption? You must be thinking of the Occupy crowd.

I am thinking of videos I saw of Tea Partiers disrupting town hall meetings back during the health care debate.

It seems to me that if someone is behaving rudely, or otherwise uncivilly, the best tactic is to take the high road and civilly point out the inappropriateness of their behavior. There is no need to make it a religious issue, or to engage in hyperbolic overreach.

The lack of freedom to views that oppose aspects of Islam is spreading here. That should concern everyone. It is a pattern, here is another instance:

I understand you have a history of focusing on instances of bad behavior by Muslims, but I really think the appropriate way to deal with this is to focus on the behavior. All kinds of people behave badly.


Yes, some Mulsims get overly excited by perceived insults against there religion. We have had riots in Afghanistan for a number of days now. I am not saying we should ignore this reality. Within our country, those who violate laws as a result of their religous beliefs should be prosecuted.


But this is true for all individuals and groups, not just Muslims. Radical Christians who promote or perform violence against abortion doctors, or gays, or whoever should also be prosecuted.

It seems to be Muslims and radical leftist responsible for most of this thuggish behavior. Many conservative speaking on college campuses have gotten the same uncivil treatment from the local lefties.

Well, I am open to evidence on this, but isolated instances, unless compared with data on all such instances, do not support your blanket statement here.

[micatala]

I have, what does he have to do with this incident?

It has to do with Micatala's claim that unless the government is restricting the speech it is no big deal.

Uhhhh. Where did I say this???????


I said that if an individual is disrupting speech, it is not a violation of the First Amendment because that Amendment applies to government actions.


If I am wrong about that, I am willing to be correct. But please do not misrepresent what I actually said.

[dianaiad]

The details are very sketchy, and let's say I don't trust the source. Maybe the speaker spoke hate speech. so a small group of folks caused a ruckus.

But even if true, is this supposed to suggest that muslims and students are here to take away our freedoms, and that christianists have never done the same?

So...you think that it is permissible for Muslims...or anybody else...to 'take away our free speech' because 'Christianists' have been guilty of it?

Please remember that it was, mostly, 'Christianists' who saw to it that the idea of free speech was enacted here in the USA---and for that matter, almost everywhere else it exists.

Also remember that tu quoque is a fallacy for a REASONl

That said, it seems to me that a group of Muslims heckling a speaker is an example of free speech. They should have (I haven't read the article, so I don't know what was actually done) been moved outside as soon as their heckling became disruptive, but to shut them up completely?

nah.

what's your point? more fodder for paranoia and xenophobia, or have you moved on?

Never mind this poster---ARE you suggesting that as long as Christians are the TARGET of such tactics, rather than the perpetrator of them, it's OK?

[Thatguy]

Does this bother anyone here?
__________________

It bothers me. It always bothers me. College protest groups are often disruptive. It's not typical of Muslems in the US, but it is pretty common on campuses and has been for ages. Young, enthusiastic people are so convinced that their message is right that they figure they'll save the day by shutting up the forces of evil. I can remember being in college and attending a big teach in about the dangers of nuclear war/power. The student body president and his group marched in chanting about tuition hikes. It wasn't typical of the protesters' religion, race, national origin, or political party. It was typical of idealistic, mono-issue, activists with a misguided sense of what wins hearts and minds.

[otseng]

more fodder for paranoia and xenophobia, or have you moved on?

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making any indirect attacks against others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster.

[East of Eden]

From this morning's local paper:

"A lecture by an author known for her critical views of Islam resulted in a melee Thursday at the University of New Mexico as protesters interrupted her speech and were shoved by others in the audience.

Nonie Darwish was halfway through her speech, "Why the Arab Spring is Failing," at the university's Anthropology Lecture Hall when a group of about 10 protesters interrupted with loud chants. When a few audience members turned around to try to silence the protesters, a physical confrontation followed."


Here is an attempt to stifle freedom of speech in the US. No doubt due to political correctness these thugs won't be prosecuted as they should be. This is radical Islam trying to send a message to UNM not to have such speakers on campus. It is like organized crime when it tried to intimidate and make an example of someone.

Does this bother anyone here?
__________________

As with slopeshoulder, I am hesitant to make a judgment without more information.


In general, I tend to think disruptive behavior like that described is unfortunate, whoever is doing it.

On the other hand, I really have to say I find it astonishing how often accusations of violating free speech are made against individual citizens or groups of citizens. However rude the behavior, this is not a violation of anyone's free speech rights.

Here is the First Amendment for reference.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Even expanding the meaning to cover all governmental bodies, as has become our practice, you cannot have a violation of free speech without government action. The amendment is meant to prevent the government from violating individual rights.

By that reasoning, the Salman Rushdie affair should be no concern to us.

You are ignoring some of what I said. Threats of murder are a violation of law and should be acted on. That the threats of murder are motivated by a desire to silence someone else's speech is reprehensible, but it would not be a violation of the First Amendment.


To get from what I said to the idea we should not be concerned about a hit squad is a rather large leap, is it not?

Now, certain types of behavior may be illegal for other reasons. If violence was involved, that should be acted upon.

But if all we have is shouting or speaking, then isn't that protected speech, even if it is disrupting the event?????

When Tea Partiers disrupt a town hall meeting, isn't that protected speech??

What Tea Party disruption? You must be thinking of the Occupy crowd.

I am thinking of videos I saw of Tea Partiers disrupting town hall meetings back during the health care debate.

Nonsense, the Tea Party doesn't begin to compare with this list of criminal behavior:

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawk ... page/full/

I understand you have a history of focusing on instances of bad behavior by Muslims, but I really think the appropriate way to deal with this is to focus on the behavior. All kinds of people behave badly.


Yes, some Mulsims get overly excited by perceived insults against there religion. We have had riots in Afghanistan for a number of days now. I am not saying we should ignore this reality. Within our country, those who violate laws as a result of their religous beliefs should be prosecuted.


But this is true for all individuals and groups, not just Muslims. Radical Christians who promote or perform violence against abortion doctors, or gays, or whoever should also be prosecuted.

What you ignore is that over 90% of US terror plot convictions are against Muslims. See a pattern?

[micatala]

I am not interested in getting into a comparison of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.



I simply brought up the Tea Party asking whether when they disrupt a town hall meeting, if that counts as protected speech.



Do you or do you not agree that if someone, tea party or not, disrupts a town hall meeting with shouting or chanting, that that is protected speech?

[dianaiad]

I am not interested in getting into a comparison of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.



I simply brought up the Tea Party asking whether when they disrupt a town hall meeting, if that counts as protected speech.

Heckling is a time honored means of getting one's opinion across. Personally, I think that's protected speech, right up to the time such activity makes it impossible for anybody ELSE to speak. Then they need to be made to take turns.

.........but that's just me.

I do approve of your comparing the Tea Party 'disruption' to this, though--if only because it DOES point out the very, very, VERY real difference between the Tea Party---and the OWieS and this Muslim group. There is heckling and getting one's opinion heard---and then there is rank disruption that destroys anybody else's chance of being heard.

..................and again, that's just me.

[micatala]

I am not interested in getting into a comparison of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.



I simply brought up the Tea Party asking whether when they disrupt a town hall meeting, if that counts as protected speech.

Heckling is a time honored means of getting one's opinion across. Personally, I think that's protected speech, right up to the time such activity makes it impossible for anybody ELSE to speak. Then they need to be made to take turns.

I pretty much agree. The other issue is the venue. A public speech, and I would include a town hall, is fair game. I would say that a college or other other organization that invites in a speaker I might look at a little differently.

Heckling may be rude and uncivil, but if it is just shouting, I tend to think that even with negative consequences (e.g. you can't hear the speech) is is protected.

I do approve of your comparing the Tea Party 'disruption' to this, though--if only because it DOES point out the very, very, VERY real difference between the Tea Party---and the OWieS and this Muslim group. There is heckling and getting one's opinion heard---and then there is rank disruption that destroys anybody else's chance of being heard.

..................and again, that's just me.

Certainly I did not mean to say by comparing the Tea Party to the other specific instance, or to Muslims in general, that I am saying they are all in all ways the same. We are fortunate in this country not to have the level of violence or intimidation that exists in many other places.

I would say that it is not really fair to lump all the Occupy Wall Street crowd into one group. Some of them have behaved very inappropriately. Most of them have been civil. Same for the Tea Party. MOst of them have been very civil, and I won't argue the point that they have been on average less disruptive than OW.

I just don't see the point in either trying to deny the inappropriate behavior of some or in painting with a broad brush, especially an ideologically motivated brush. A lot of the criticisms of these groups' behaviors, or the distortions created by lumping them with the most disruptive elements, is simply a form of ad hominem argument against the message.

MSNBC did play up some instances of Tea Party behavior because they don't like the Tea Party message. FOX has done the same with OW and it is done to Muslims by all sorts of folks constantly.

We are all responsible individually for our own behavior, whatever groups we may voluntarily or involuntarily belong to or are "assigned to" by others.

[dianaiad]

I am not interested in getting into a comparison of Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.



I simply brought up the Tea Party asking whether when they disrupt a town hall meeting, if that counts as protected speech.

Heckling is a time honored means of getting one's opinion across. Personally, I think that's protected speech, right up to the time such activity makes it impossible for anybody ELSE to speak. Then they need to be made to take turns.

I pretty much agree. The other issue is the venue. A public speech, and I would include a town hall, is fair game. I would say that a college or other other organization that invites in a speaker I might look at a little differently.

Heckling may be rude and uncivil, but if it is just shouting, I tend to think that even with negative consequences (e.g. you can't hear the speech) is is protected.

I do approve of your comparing the Tea Party 'disruption' to this, though--if only because it DOES point out the very, very, VERY real difference between the Tea Party---and the OWieS and this Muslim group. There is heckling and getting one's opinion heard---and then there is rank disruption that destroys anybody else's chance of being heard.

..................and again, that's just me.

Certainly I did not mean to say by comparing the Tea Party to the other specific instance, or to Muslims in general, that I am saying they are all in all ways the same. We are fortunate in this country not to have the level of violence or intimidation that exists in many other places.

I would say that it is not really fair to lump all the Occupy Wall Street crowd into one group. Some of them have behaved very inappropriately. Most of them have been civil. Same for the Tea Party. MOst of them have been very civil, and I won't argue the point that they have been on average less disruptive than OW.

I just don't see the point in either trying to deny the inappropriate behavior of some or in painting with a broad brush, especially an ideologically motivated brush. A lot of the criticisms of these groups' behaviors, or the distortions created by lumping them with the most disruptive elements, is simply a form of ad hominem argument against the message.

MSNBC did play up some instances of Tea Party behavior because they don't like the Tea Party message. FOX has done the same with OW and it is done to Muslims by all sorts of folks constantly.

We are all responsible individually for our own behavior, whatever groups we may voluntarily or involuntarily belong to or are "assigned to" by others.

Now, how can we get a good debate going if both sides agree with one another?

I do have one niggle, though...yeah, Fox pointed out the problems with the OWLS folks; but I think that this is noticeable more because nobody else did than that Fox was 'out to get' them.

Personally...here in my little town (well, not so little--it's bigger than half the state capitals; it's just 'little' in comparison to greater Los Angeles!) we have had both Tea Party AND OWL demonstrations. The Tea Party group had about three hundred or so people, and quite literally left the meeting area cleaner than they found it.

The OWLS had about fifty people (I'm actually being generous)...and trashed the small park where they were. It took two days, including closing down the street for a few hours, to clean up after them. I understand that this is not exactly an unusual comparison, for either group.

Now I don't go along with EVERYTHING the Tea Party wants, nor am I opposed to everything OWLS wants (when they can actually articulate what they want, that is). It's just that I'd rather deal with grownups than mobs. I've already had to face down a mob at gun point once. I get really nervous when that sort of thing starts to happen again--I'm 20 years older and nowhere near as spry.