1. That only those who have power and control can be discriminatory, prejudiced or bigoted, while all others are exempt.

A bigot is one person who is fearful and ignorant of others not like himself, and expresses that through his words and actions; like spreading hate and lies about classes or groups of people.

No big deal, until the bigot is in a position to make decisions that affect others.

Discrimination ranges from not hiring (or firing) or not giving a loan, or other actions by a person in a position of authority, based on simple trait such as race, religion, etc.

Racism is when discrimination is part of a system, like a community, government or institution.  This can be through the creation of discriminatory laws as well.

So, yes indeed, only those in power can be discriminatory. By definition.

I never meant to say that only those in power can be prejudiced. You are the one mixing the two concepts: discrimination and racism are not the same as prejudice and bigotry.

Perhaps if people of color controlled things, more white people would be discriminated against than people of color. But we do not know for sure. All we do know is what whites—in power—have been systemically discriminating for a very long time. That cannot be denied.

2. That the social ills I listed are not afflicting the black community, but fabricated by imaginary “biggots [sic]... [who can] get out statistics…” that racist, gullible fools like me will easily believe.

I never said nor implied that those “ills” do not exist. You said: “the endemic problems of black teen pregnancy, black drop out rates and black-on-black crime continue unabated.” As if blacks were somehow not like “normal people,” and are of a lower, inferior character. That is the typical statement of a bigot. Social ills are directly affected by political and economic ills and injustices—as well as being fostered and spread from within a community (ever hear of buring witches?). But notions of inherent racial or ethnic inferiority/superiority are an absurdity.

Oh, and what about this which you wrote earlier?

You’re smoking crack like a welfare cheat from Cabrini Green if you do.

That is a bigotted statement. Keep opening your mouth. Your foot fits well.

The difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George Bush seem to be minor.

Personally perhaps, but not constitutionally. Yes, both the U.S. and Iran have constitutions, both defining presidential roles. Becuase of other differing aspects of the two constitutions, there are more than minor differences between the two roles.

I bring this up just to place the two in perspective.

NPR had a really good Talk of the Nation broadcast about the Iranian presidency today:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14860665

[Yelling fire in a crowded theater] is a matter of some sick bastard wanting to purposely cause harm to other people on the basis of nothing more than watching a pack of people get hurt and/or killed.

And what if there was a fire?

Everyone should brush up on their supreme court history. (Yeah, right, like anyone really would.) But you can go here, now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

Falsely shouting fire in a theater is an example of “speech” (an utterance) that is not “protected speech.” There are many cases where the courts have deemed some speech (spoken and written) as not protected.

Too many people people want to define “free speech” as speech that they personally deem “appropriate” to their (or their children’s) ears. Or sometimes that they personally deem to be “appropriate” to other people’s ears. (It is this latter concept that drives the anti-pornography crusaders.)

So, some boob gets his speech televised wherein he states that the Holocaust did not happen. That is offensive, perhaps, but also protected. (In the U.S.)

Anyone who would want to have had the Iranian President’s speech somehow prevented, to somehow have his (or his kind of) speech to be declared “non-free speech” and to be made prohibited by law, is an ignorant fool.

The classic example from the left is when a black American makes racist, bigoted statements, or takes similar actions, against whites and nary a criticism is heard, while some stupid white public figure utters a racially-charged phrase and we’re deafened by calls for his head. Where is the balance?

The point is that there is no balance, really, when you are implying that there is.

Why do blacks give a shit about Imus? Becuase the media has been full of Imuses for decades! There is no balance. Whites, bigoted whites, have dominated this country’s media for decades. Racist, white, organized groups have have dominated this country for decades.

There are black bigots too, you say. O really?

Well, how many black bigots control the loans at banks? How many black biggoted judges are there? How many black biggoted politians are there? How many black bigots have been controlling city mangagement and growth for the past 100 years! Etc. etc. The list goes on and on.

<i>And yet the endemic problems of black teen pregnancy, black drop out rates and black-on-black crime continue unabated.</b>

A bigotted statement from a fool. Like, blacks have some genetic dispostion to commit crime, eh? Or could it be that being shit on by the upper classes might have some affect? Or could it be that biggots can get statistics out which you simply believe without question?

Do you actually think that black teens want to conform and grow up to be like…. you?

Mmmm,  yes,  the Iranian president.  What,  no tie?  But did anyone in the audience get tazered?

The deal with free speech is even though you can say what you want, you must face the consequences.  The constitution won’t protect you from making an ass out of yourself or proving you are an idiot.  Bush’s regime and the neo cons thought they had the American populace figured out, or should I say controlled and manipulated over the last 6 years. So the puppets who follow his line only reinforce his idiocy.  There has been a major attempt to suppress any opinion the differs with this jackass. I can say that, right?  Only now, the sheep begin waking up to a mess.

It would be good for each subject to download and memorize a copy of a CRS Report for Congress entitled ‘Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment,’ which is a 43-page PDF document citing 171 Supreme Court decisions to help further explain the exceptions that the Court has discovered in the penumbras, eminations, roots, and zones of the First Amendment.

#103555 by Robert Giacobbe on 9/29 at 8:42 pm

“But here’s my biggest issue, which is the PC hyper-hypocrisy that surrounds all this: does anyone really think Columbia would invite a speaker that denied the facts around slavery, or the oppression of any other minority group that was in Columbia’s sphere-of-sympathy, save the Jews?”

Robert you say “PC” (Political Correctness)
Before the term was hijacked by the Right as a convenient way of discrediting every liberal idea, one dictionary definition of political correctness included: “the avoidance of forms of expression… that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people”. This seemed a perfectly reasonable and laudable aim.

So Robert I wonder at your use of the term “PC” in a way that appears intended as a put down or to “insult groups of people”. Political Correctness is surely what you are complaining that the Jews are not getting the benefit of.

Yet Robert let’s consider all the PC that Jews can expect to benefit from:
1. We treat the Holocaust with reverence and acknowledge the suffering of many innocent Jews who perished under the Nazi rule.

2. We don’t re-examine aspects of the Holocaust in such a way that it looks like we may be Holocaust Revisionists which would have hurt many jewish people.

3. We are careful to say “the Jewish people” instead of “the Jews” so as to not sound like neo nazis and hence freak out people who have already suffered enough.

4. We carefully mention how we are against things that are done by the state of Israel without blaming the Jewish people.

5. We say certain “ZIONISTS” claim that the land from the Nile to the Euphrates has been promised to the Jewish people by God. Rather than saying ZIONISTS we could say “The JEWS” claim this, but we don’t because that would be vilifying a whole race or religion and would be hurtful to innocent people.

6. We quickly erase any graffiti showing “a Star of David equals a swastika” because it would be very hurtful for most jewish people if they saw it.

7. For years we couldn’t have any Palestinian representatives visit my country Australia to speak to the people about the sad situation of the Palestinian refugees because it would offend the Zionist lobby. Was it Political Correctness that stopped us from blaming the Jewish Board of Deputies for their immense influence on our government about this issue? The ultra right and neo nazis would have blamed “the Jews” but PC didn’t allow us to vilify Australian Jews.

8. We talked about the five times or so more Palestinians killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Palestinians in the intafada. We blamed “Israel” not “Jews” because of our Political Correctness in that we are not targetting the jewish race or religion which would be hurtful to innocent people who have hurt enough already.

The sensitivity in not targetting Jews for vilification is part of the very Political Correctness you seem to hold in such low regard. If political correctness as defined above was not the reason why people were careful of how they say things about Israel or Jews, all you have left is the sheer fear of being called an anti-semite by the various arms of the Zionist lobby. These days too often the Zionists call all critics of Israel “anti-semites”. Such namecalling of any critics show little respect for other people’s sensitivities. Blurring the difference between the racist extreme right and the PC left, has been a very dangerous practice by the pro Israel lobby around the world.

In my humble opinion it is really hard to have sympathy for you and your plea Robert, when you seem to think that only the Jews are targets for attack and everyones hypocrisy. Stop the Prima Donna carry-on. It is time you started seeing the suffering of others, just like you appear to see the history of Jewish suffering. And please, please, get some respect for the original idea behind “PC” (political correctness)
.

#103555 by Robert Giacobbe on 9/29 at 8:42 pm

“But here’s my biggest issue, which is the PC hyper-hypocrisy that surrounds all this: does anyone really think Columbia would invite a speaker that denied the facts around slavery, or the oppression of any other minority group that was in Columbia’s sphere-of-sympathy, save the Jews?”

Robert you say “PC” (Political Correctness)
Before the term was hijacked by the Right as a convenient way of discrediting every liberal idea, one dictionary definition of political correctness included: “the avoidance of forms of expression… that are perceived to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people”. This seemed a perfectly reasonable and laudable aim.

So Robert I wonder at your use of the term “PC” in a way that appears intended as a put down or to “insult groups of people”. Political Correctness is surely what you are complaining that the Jews are not getting the benefit of.

Yet Robert let’s consider all the PC that Jews can expect to benefit from:
1. We treat the Holocaust with reverence and acknowledge the suffering of many innocent Jews who perished under the Nazi rule.

2. We don’t re-examine aspects of the Holocaust in such a way that it looks like we may be Holocaust Revisionists which would have hurt many jewish people.

3. We are careful to say “the Jewish people” instead of “the Jews” so as to not sound like neo nazis and hence freak out people who have already suffered enough.

4. We carefully mention how we are against things that are done by the state of Israel without blaming the Jewish people.

5. We say certain “ZIONISTS” claim that the land from the Nile to the Euphrates has been promised to the Jewish people by God. Rather than saying ZIONISTS we could say “The JEWS” claim this, but we don’t because that would be vilifying a whole race or religion and would be hurtful to innocent people.

6. We quickly erase any graffiti showing “a Star of David equals a swastika” because it would be very hurtful for most jewish people if they saw it.

7. For years we couldn’t have any Palestinian representatives visit my country Australia to speak to the people about the sad situation of the Pa;estinian refugees because it would offend the Zionist lobby. Was it Political Correctness that stopped us from blaming the Jewish Board of Deputies for their immense influence on our government about this issue? The ultra right and neo nazis would have blamed “the Jews” but PC didn’t allow us to vilify Australian Jews.

8. We talked about the five times or so more Palestinians killed by Israelis than Israelis killed by Palestinians in the intafada. We blamed “Israel” not “Jews” because of our Political Correctness in that we are not targetting the jewish race or religion which would be hurtful to innocent people who have hurt enough already.

The sensitivity in not targetting Jews for vilification is part of the very Political Correctness you seem to hold in such low regard. If political correctness as defined above was not the reason why people were careful of how they say things about Israel or Jews, all you have left is the sheer fear of being called an anti-semite by the various arms of the Zionist lobby. These days too often the Zionists call all critics of Israel “anti-semites”. Such namecalling of any critics show little respect for other people’s sensitivities. Blurring the difference between the racist extreme right and the PC left, has been a very dangerous practice by the pro Israel lobby around the world.

In my humble opinion it is really hard to have sympathy for you and your plea Robert, when you seem to think that only the Jews are targets for attack and everyones hypocrisy. Stop the Prima Donna carry-on. It is time you started seeing the suffering of others, just like you appear to see the history of Jewish suffering. And please, please, get some respect for the original idea behind “PC” (political correctness)
.

Dear Doug,

Tie, lie. Same same. Both have to have knots in them to work….

Columbia is a private universsity so policy is controlled by trustees/directors.  You might be interested in Columbia’s mission statement, located on their website.  I still think you can argue your way all through the courts that you have the right to say whatever you want but you may not like the outcome, even if the courts are liberal.  And therefore, I think “free speech” is not an absolute in this democracy in spite of what the constitution says, Don Imus. You have the right to say what you want; just make sure it’s the right thing, said the right way.  Anyway, isn’t “free speech” just a euphemism for openingly criticizing your government?  We see that that doesn’t have any effect whatsoever on how it acts; they just go ahead and do whatever they want and get away with it.

Neither CONGRESS, nor ANYONE ELSE

Somesone correct me if I’m wrong, but despite a possible narrow interpretation of the 1st ammendment, the courts have ruled that no one may interfere with the free speech of another.

That may or may not apply here, but its putz’s like Scalia and Scalito (I know, I know, but to me he’ll allways be Scalito) who love to put the narrowest possible frame around rights.  I thought their job was to protect rights of individuals… not authorities, governments, or corporations.

103579 by WykydRed on 9/30 at 3:45 am: “...I’m sorry. Your right to free speech has been removed….. Never trust a tie….”

Quote: “The criminalization of the State is when the sitting President and Vice President use and abuse their authority through executive orders, presidential directives or otherwise to define “who are the criminals” when in fact they they are the criminals….” http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/bush-executive-order-criminalizing-the-antiwar-movement/

I gues you meant “never trust a LIE”, WykydRed, but getting your link to turn out was an effort, too.

The trouble is that the American people have been “trusting a lie” ever since the pyjama-pants man with the top hat poked his finger at them and said “I want you sons!” and cornfields were turned into battlefields soaked with the blood of thousands of them.

What has changed to day is only that conscription is too expensive and there aren’t enough drones intelligent enough to figure out how to use the new military technology. Otherwise, they still bleed and and die on battlefields. Your sons and a few daughters now, too!!!

I’m sorry. Your right to free speech has been removed.

“The Executive Order criminalizes the antiwar movement. It is intended to “blocking property” of US citizens and organizations actively involved in the peace movement. It allows the Department of Defense to interfere in financial affairs and instruct the Treasury to “block the property” and/or confiscate/ freeze the assets of “Certain Persons” involved in antiwar activities. It targets those “Certain Persons” in America, including civil society organizatioins, who oppose the Bush Administration’s “peace and stability” program in Iraq, characterized, in plain English, by an illegal occupation and the continued killing of innocent civilians.”

<a href=“http://dissidentnews.wordpress.com/2007/07/22/bush-executive-order-criminalizing-the-antiwar-movement/”>Full story by by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Never trust a tie.

those who consider themselves as free-est of people are the easiest to be deceived and then….conquered…..the only thing you need is one big incident and after that…you can do anything you like with them…..think of 911 and the Patriot Act…

I, also, was curious that his lack of a tie was somehow important? In my experience the worst people I’ve met have all worn ties.
Are the people of USA really so much freer than the Iranians? I wonder. Ignorance is also a kind of prison

I’m not about suppressing anyone’s constitutional right to free speech as we define it in this country.  Anyone who’s gone to school knows that free speech isn’t unrestricted:  you can’t threaten people, assault people with hate speech, endanger the community by fooling them.  You can, if you want, debate zionism, evolution, homosexuality, racial differences. 

What bothers me is how little I get to fully exercise my full speech rights, how few opportunities I get to question, for example, a presidential candidate without my questions first being filtered and approved. We used to rely on the media to ask those questions for us, but they, apparently, have been bought off and no longer serve the public interest.

I’d like to ask such questions of the candidates—

1.  Who are your best friends?
2.  If you discovered that a community was being slaughtered, would you do anything about it, especially if that community didn’t have any oil or other resources that interested you?
3.  Have you ever lied to your constituents? 
4.  Would you submit to drug, background, behavioral, and polygraph tests to become president of the U.S.?

The difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and George Bush seem to be minor. They are both would-be tyrants. Both are fanatics. Both have little concern for the people, are somewhat sociopathic. Both believe they are personable. The differences are the restrictions our democracy still impose on our feckless leader. Both lie but I really believe that Bush has the upper hand there. For example, when Ahmadinejad said that have no homosexuality, it’s probably true because known gays leave or are eliminated. Ahmadinejad has less reason to lie while Bush’s lies are never aired by the corporate media

Wait a minute - this is the fifth blog on Ahmadinijad here this week! isn’t that a kind of way of outwitting free speech?

One wonders whether Columbia University would go so far as to let Adolph Hitler or George W. Bush speak.

I’ve heard that an invitation is to be extended to the shrub to speak at a Q&A;in Iran. Wouldn’t that be lovely? Do you think he could answer without a teleprompter or some sort of feed into his cute little ear, sort of like during the so-called debates a few years back?
Thanks for reminding us that Free Speech IS free. Am so tired of being told that all the soldiers in Iraq are “fighting for my freedoms” including my right to free speech. At the moment I’m afraid that we really are losing this Right, but I shall continue to use it until they cart me off…

Wear a tie?

That piece of decorum has always escaped me a to its usefullness except to wipe your mouth with. 

If men don’t wear a tie does the weight of what they have to say have less meaning?

I give President Ahmadinejad credit for the balls to come to this country and face the people and zionist press and allow them to Q&A;him.

It’s one thing to talk shit behind ones back, another to say it to their face. 

Think George would do that, quid pro quo?