Censoring unpopular speech: do conservatives think this is the American way?

Question

Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas? Is the campaign of lies against Iran more important than the Truth?

Daniel L, we are lucky that Freedom of Speech prevailed today. Not everybody wanted it to, they could have gotten their intolerant way.

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

It's the illiberals that are against free speech. How come the Minute Men and the ROTC weren't allowed to speak at Columbia University but Hitler was? How come the illiberals at C-SPAN covered Ahmadinejad but they shut off their cameras at the "Talkers convention" when talk show host Michael Savage received an award? How come illiberals are trying to silence free speech that they disagree with with the fascist doctrine? Patriotic Americans need not apply? Only murderous dictators that hate the United States and Israel should have a voice in America? Do liberals think that is the American way?

We didn't learn anything new from the dictator of Iran today anyways. He didn't even answer a lot of the questions. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about freedom of insanity.

Answer 3

To what are you referring?

Answer 4

Was he censored? No. Was he allowed to speak? Yes. Was everyone happy with it? No. Did the people that did not like it protest, as is there right. Yes. Was the Iranian President pelted with a pie by liberal students like Ann Coulter was? No. So tell me, where was the censorship and which side attacked a speaker they disagreed with?

edit: You seem to missed the point about Ann Coulter. The intolerance of stances is on the left. The right doesn't always like to hear what people have to say, but it's the left that attacks people, the left that throws paint on people, it's the left that riots every year at the WTO meeting, so please talk to the left about intolerance. Before you accuse me of it.

edit again: FYI, I actually wanted the Iranian President to speak. I wanted to see him face hard questions, and he did. He was unnerved, but answered the questions. And, I hope this experience is a chance for talks to begin with our two countries. I don't like the guy. I hate some of the sympathisers he has on Y/A. But, I never said he shoudn't be allowed to speak.

Answer 5

If by censorship you mean governmental suppression of speech, no conservative believes in censorship. On the other hand, I know for a fact that Iran censors free speech. Just a couple of days ago, the Iranian government shut down an anti-government website.

Answer 6

The market of ideas is still there for every presidential candidate to get the hold of, and yes, that goes for the democrats as well. The president of Iran is not on the ballet (the last I checked) though if the dems had a chance they might like him even better then what the rest have to offer

Answer 7

Censorship is when the GOVERNMENT limits free speech. And free speech under the Constitution has its limitations. The iranian president is an enemy of the US. He has openly declared death to our country and our way of life. We are positive he is helping terrorists in Iraq kill our troops and other Iraqis. He should have been arrested the second his pathetic body set foot on US soil.

When was the last time you heard a right wing or ultra religious speaker step foot on that campus? So much for you concept that it is conservatives blocking the marketplace of ideas.
Far left liberals only believe in free speech when the speech being blocked is consistent with their own.

Answer 8

It isn't the way, that's why when conservatives are continually shouted down by the hysterically shrill cries of the liberals, they know it's just a sign of the times. "The time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine, but instead will surround themselves with teachers who teach what their itching ears want to hear". The libs have gone on and on and on ad nauseum with their bleeding hearted liberal tripe, and all along telling anyone who will listen how they are being censored even as they continually spread their poison everywhere in society: newspapers, bleeding hearted liberal magazines such as Newsweek, Time, Vanity Fair, etc, television ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS...everywhere you look the bleeding hearted liberal viewpoint is broadcast nationwide, while as it's happening they'll tell you they are being censored. Will the comedy troupe that is the bleeding hearted liberals ever end? I hope not. Where will we get our entertainment then?

Answer 9

Conservatives have never cared ultimately about "the American Way" by any means you define it, except the most shallow such as throwing the biggest, most flag-waving 4th of July ever. Otherwise, when it comes to discussing rights and values, they always come down heavy in favor of stifling dissent, disenfranchising the minorities and the poor, and suppressing workers' rights. All they have ever cared about ultimately is how to make the rich richer and to keep the poor down in their place and quiet.

Answer 10

US citizens have the constitutional right to free expression. Not only doesn't Ahmadinejad afford that liberty to his own people but he as not a US citizen does not get that right afforded to him.

Take your straw man elsewhere.

Sageandscholar: We the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Seems pretty clear to me.

The Preamble established an implication of American citizenship. The amendments, that we now call the Bill of Rights, were amendments to that Constitution.
That Constitution was written by and for the Citizens of the United States of America. It does not apply to Citizens or Subjects of another Country.

Now as that applies to immigrants both permanent and temporary, there is no precendential law that states it applies to visitors and foreign dignataries.

There is however precedent that states visitors may be barred entry to the country for their speech, which is not true in the case of citizens. So the laws are not apparently equal for citizens and non-citizens as regard expression.

Let me give ya another part of the great document:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Read into that what you will.


Sageandscholar: How exactly does your statement refute my argument beyond calling it ludicrous? Tourists and other visitors are not, in fact, protected by the Constitution of The U.S. There are innumerable rights that a citizen carries that do not apply to visitors.

And still not allowing a foreign dignitary a forum for public speech has no relationship nor similarity to censoring unpopular speech and it is not a valid argument in any form no matter how you TRY to interpret the law.

Answer 11

As we saw today, yes. I was against him speaking here but I watched it and I'm glad that I did. He made some very valid points that we, in a free speech society, need to consider. I would have liked to hear everything that he had intended to say.