Thursday
14Apr
David Horowitz
Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 09:51AM
Quids I and II were on hand last night to see David Horowitz give a lecture in an event sponsored by the University of Texas Federalist Society. We were treated to our own homegrown rabble of communist/socialist/fascist/totalitarian
wannabes who looked just an awful lot like well-fed middle class white kids with cheesy felt pen on poster board signs that read "Stop Fascism Now!" and "Dissent is not Unpatriotic" and "Stop Censorship Now!" and "Defend Muslims" and "Free Speech Now!" and "David, We Love You Now!!"
OK, that last one we made up. We wish we had thought to bring our own signs. Like, "Learn to Spell Now!" and "My Tax Dollars and These Twits go to the University of Texas!" and "Go Away Now!" and "No One Put Me up to Making this Crappy Sign" and "Hey, I Want the Butch Security Guard to Cuff Me, Too!"
The lecture was fraught with a certain tension due to the uncouth and uncivil behavior of the rabble and those of us who tossed back their garbage ("Her purse is ugly! Get her out of here!"). Nevertheless, Mr. Horowitz delivered, despite interruptions, despite the passivity of the security guards and despite the disorganization of the Federalist Society. The whole scene became a perfect example of what Mr. Horowitz has been fighting for decades: censorship and thought control on American campuses. The picture of these spoiled children, who adopt Marxism with less thought than they put into choosing a cell phone style, shutting down a lecture because they don't like...correction: because they've been told they shouldn't like what will be said, is really exquisite. One young man, one of the few Leftists who stayed for the whole talk, was irritated that Mr. Horowitz lumped all Leftists together. He was at pains to point out that he himself has rejected Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism. After explaining (clearly and politely) that yes, indeed there is a spectrum of views on the left. Mr. Horowitz said, "As to your beliefs, all I can say is talk is cheap." Again, this young man proved one of the points that Mr. Horowitz was making about the mindset of the left, that for them the glass is not only half empty but they refuse to see that it's being refilled as they watch. They see faults everywhere and reject life as it is, with all of its blessings, in favor of the utopian ideal (in this case , unspecified) which will invariably depend on making everyone else toe the line. Reject Capitalism? Reject away! Outlaw it and tell everyone exactly how to live to make your Utopia work.*
The group that was apparently organized to disrupt the lecture used three main tactics: holding up aforementioned cheesy signs, shouting and interrupting verbally, and using cell phones and air horns to create noise. At various times some were hustled out by campus security, some left noisily of their own accord and some put up a fuss so that they had to be handcuffed, which is the pseudo-revolutionary's martyrdom. You get extra points if you manage to wrest your arm away from the cop long enough to hold your fist high and scream, "Power to the peopllllle!!" Such courage, such passion, such fervor. One could almost hear the the plaintive chorus of babushka-ed garment workers singing "Bread and Roses."
And what of those few who actually stayed long enough to "engage the enemy?" We think that one of them drew the short straw and actually had to stay behind and ask a question while the others, including the cuffed martyrs, regrouped outside on what was a beautiful Spring night. This fellow warned Mr. Horowitz and the FS hosts that his question was going to be a bit longer than the twenty seconds allowed by the rules (we needed rules). Well, predictably, it ran a full minute, causing us to come up with another rule, to wit: if you're going to ask a question that either goes longer than 20 seconds or uses the word "dialectic" (almost always in these circumstances both criteria are met), you have to share your funny cigarettes with the rest of us. This is to enhance the enjoyment of the audience, for sure, but it has the added benefit to the questioner of making him/her appear more intelligent ("oooohhhh, yeah, duuuude. That's heavy"). In any event, Mr. MyQuestionCouldFillABook left (noisily) before Mr. Horowitz had finished his answer. Maybe he was going to faint or be sick. Some people can't handle the truth.
*[They...work] added by author 4/15/05
wannabes who looked just an awful lot like well-fed middle class white kids with cheesy felt pen on poster board signs that read "Stop Fascism Now!" and "Dissent is not Unpatriotic" and "Stop Censorship Now!" and "Defend Muslims" and "Free Speech Now!" and "David, We Love You Now!!" OK, that last one we made up. We wish we had thought to bring our own signs. Like, "Learn to Spell Now!" and "My Tax Dollars and These Twits go to the University of Texas!" and "Go Away Now!" and "No One Put Me up to Making this Crappy Sign" and "Hey, I Want the Butch Security Guard to Cuff Me, Too!"
The lecture was fraught with a certain tension due to the uncouth and uncivil behavior of the rabble and those of us who tossed back their garbage ("Her purse is ugly! Get her out of here!"). Nevertheless, Mr. Horowitz delivered, despite interruptions, despite the passivity of the security guards and despite the disorganization of the Federalist Society. The whole scene became a perfect example of what Mr. Horowitz has been fighting for decades: censorship and thought control on American campuses. The picture of these spoiled children, who adopt Marxism with less thought than they put into choosing a cell phone style, shutting down a lecture because they don't like...correction: because they've been told they shouldn't like what will be said, is really exquisite. One young man, one of the few Leftists who stayed for the whole talk, was irritated that Mr. Horowitz lumped all Leftists together. He was at pains to point out that he himself has rejected Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism. After explaining (clearly and politely) that yes, indeed there is a spectrum of views on the left. Mr. Horowitz said, "As to your beliefs, all I can say is talk is cheap." Again, this young man proved one of the points that Mr. Horowitz was making about the mindset of the left, that for them the glass is not only half empty but they refuse to see that it's being refilled as they watch. They see faults everywhere and reject life as it is, with all of its blessings, in favor of the utopian ideal (in this case , unspecified) which will invariably depend on making everyone else toe the line. Reject Capitalism? Reject away! Outlaw it and tell everyone exactly how to live to make your Utopia work.*
The group that was apparently organized to disrupt the lecture used three main tactics: holding up aforementioned cheesy signs, shouting and interrupting verbally, and using cell phones and air horns to create noise. At various times some were hustled out by campus security, some left noisily of their own accord and some put up a fuss so that they had to be handcuffed, which is the pseudo-revolutionary's martyrdom. You get extra points if you manage to wrest your arm away from the cop long enough to hold your fist high and scream, "Power to the peopllllle!!" Such courage, such passion, such fervor. One could almost hear the the plaintive chorus of babushka-ed garment workers singing "Bread and Roses."
And what of those few who actually stayed long enough to "engage the enemy?" We think that one of them drew the short straw and actually had to stay behind and ask a question while the others, including the cuffed martyrs, regrouped outside on what was a beautiful Spring night. This fellow warned Mr. Horowitz and the FS hosts that his question was going to be a bit longer than the twenty seconds allowed by the rules (we needed rules). Well, predictably, it ran a full minute, causing us to come up with another rule, to wit: if you're going to ask a question that either goes longer than 20 seconds or uses the word "dialectic" (almost always in these circumstances both criteria are met), you have to share your funny cigarettes with the rest of us. This is to enhance the enjoyment of the audience, for sure, but it has the added benefit to the questioner of making him/her appear more intelligent ("oooohhhh, yeah, duuuude. That's heavy"). In any event, Mr. MyQuestionCouldFillABook left (noisily) before Mr. Horowitz had finished his answer. Maybe he was going to faint or be sick. Some people can't handle the truth.
*[They...work] added by author 4/15/05
Update on Thursday, April 14, 2005 at 10:02PM by
bbmoe
bbmoe
This from David Horowitz:
"Thanks for the write up. I've used it as a guest
blog on Frontpage. Hope it boosts your traffic."
Thank you, David. From your lips to the blogosphere.
Quid on FrontPageMag.com
View Printer Friendly VersionReferences (1)
References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
-
Response: video marketing[...it's unbelievable what can be written, as was here, when one think's the internet make you...]
Reader Comments (23)
"We were treated to our own homegrown rabble of communist/socialist/fascist/totalitarian wannabes who looked just an awful lot like well-fed middle class white kids..."
Most of the people were actually Anarchists, only a few were "evil totalitarian socialists" of the ISO.
"The lecture was fraught with a certain tension due to the uncouth and uncivil behavior of the rabble and those of us who tossed back their garbage ("Her purse is ugly! Get her out of here!")."
Strange, since I thought Mr. Horowitz was the one that caused the biggest disruption by refusing to speak until the police arrested the very peaceful ISO members with their signs. This is most revealing about Horowitz's desire for "academic free speech". When the he didn't agree with the speech, which was non-vulgar and non-disruptive, he immediately called on the police to silence them. Now who is the totalitarian?
"Nevertheless, Mr. Horowitz delivered, despite interruptions, despite the passivity of the security guards and despite the disorganization of the Federalist Society."
The reason the security guards were so "passive" is because they refused to arrest innocent people who were no breaking Texas law. Horowitz hardly persevered through his trials and tribulation, at one point refusing to speak until the peaceful ISO protestors were arrested. Fortunately this did NOT happen, but unfortunately Horowitz continued to speak.
"The picture of these spoiled children, who adopt Marxism with less thought than they put into choosing a cell phone style, shutting down a lecture because they don't like...correction: because they've been told they shouldn't like what will be said, is really exquisite."
Wow, this incredibly ridiculous. Only one of those arrested was even a juvenile. Most of those at the lecture completely reject Marxist doctrine. You are indeed true Horowitzists, lumping all those who dissent into the "Marxist" camp. "Because [we've] been told [we] should like what will be said"? As though we have no independant thought? As though we go onto our "blogosphere" to spin articles full of lies? This is so full unsubstantial insults and lies it makes my head spin.
"One young man, one of the few Leftists who stayed for the whole talk, was irritated that Mr. Horowitz lumped all Leftists together. He was at pains to point out that he himself has rejected Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism. After explaining (clearly and politely) that yes, indeed there is a spectrum of views on the left. Mr. Horowitz said, 'As to your beliefs, all I can say is talk is cheap.'"
Horowitz, at this point, stumbled over his words and skirted the issue because some individual forced him out of his Marxist camp and wouldn't allow him to overly simplify the world. What Horowitz said was not only "As to your beliefs, talk is cheap" (which is funny coming from a guy getting paid to give a lecture), he also asserted that there is just no alternative so he's just jumping on the Capitalism bandwagon. Way to "think for yourself" Horowitz!
"And what of those few who actually stayed long enough to "engage the enemy?" We think that one of them drew the short straw and actually had to stay behind and ask a question while the others, including the cuffed martyrs, regrouped outside on what was a beautiful Spring night. This fellow warned Mr. Horowitz and the FS hosts that his question was going to be a bit longer than the twenty seconds allowed by the rules (we needed rules). Well, predictably, it ran a full minute, causing us to come up with another rule, to wit: if you're going to ask a question that either goes longer than 20 seconds or uses the word "dialectic" (almost always in these circumstances both criteria are met), you have to share your funny cigarettes with the rest of us. This is to enhance the enjoyment of the audience, for sure, but it has the added benefit to the questioner of making him/her appear more intelligent ("oooohhhh, yeah, duuuude. That's heavy"). In any event, Mr. MyQuestionCouldFillABook left (noisily) before Mr. Horowitz had finished his answer. Maybe he was going to faint or be sick. Some people can't handle the truth."
This is my favorite part of the article because it is so twisted and inaccurate it is almost unrecognizable as to what really happened. "Draw straws"? God forbid someone decide of their own accord to stay and ask a question that doesn't stroke Horowitz's ego. The "cuffed martyrs" were regrouped outside? From what I understand they were all taken straight to jail. There were no "cuffed martyrs" outside. The question to a complex issue was also complexe and long, but since is seems to be such an important issue, I'm not sure how an speaking an additional 40 seconds almost caused the world to collapse. Also, don't fail to point out that while the question was being asked, members of the audience were being loud and disruptive, attempting to "rabble-rouse" over the question-asker. The word "dialectic" was never even used and no "funny cigarettes" were involved at all. How insane, close-minded and judgemental to even assume such a thing. After the question was asked, the individual sat quitely throughout the rest of the lecture. Members of the FS society even approached the two question askers (the anti-capitalist/socialist/communist and Mr. MyQuestionCouldFillABook) and thanked them for being non-disruptive, waiting politely until the Q&A portion, and asking respectful questions.
This blog is full of lies and spin. The only grain of truth it seems to have is that Horowitz spoke at the UT campus. Other than that it's pretty much all fluff and spin. Good job on revealing yourself and Horowitz for the liars you are.
Thank you for the factual correction about the cuffed martyrs. We are extremely pleased that they did hard time in the hoosegow.
It was insane of us to think that any college student would smoke dope. Our bad.
So it's ok for the rules to be violated by the questioner but rude for the audience to object? (double standard alert: code orange).
OK, we didn't actually say "evil" totalitarians but if you insist...
OK, we didn't actually say the word "dialectic" was used in the question...
OK, technically one juvenile, legally one juvenile, emotionally lotsa children.
OK, the ISO are peaceful. It must have been the anarchists who were disruptive. Right.
Thoughtrebel: you were obviously keeping tabs on who did what, who belonged to which leftist frat, and how old everyone was. You probably knew many of the people involved. We were at a distinct disadvantage, as we didn't know anyone and we were in the front row. To the extent that we have deeply affronted you by not ascribing the vile behaviors on display to the correct individual or group, we apologize. We note, however that you do not engage at the point of substance: Why is Mr. Horowitz wrong? And, whether or not he is wrong why should he not be allowed to speak? And if you personally think he should be allowed to speak, why don't you repudiate the tactics of your fellows?
For the record, holding up signs is harrassment and supports the atmosphere of disrespect. If the ISO was only going to hold up signs because they thought that this was ethical, they still supported the more disruptive behaviors tacitly (although we both know they are guilty of the latter as well).
Unfortunately, this Capitalist must get some work done this afternoon and can't give this post much attention. No one else is paying my bills.
And Thoughtrebel, you're not a rebel. You are part of the establishment. Think about it.
I had never heard of Mr. Horowitz until a few days before the event, and the event itself just demonstrated that he isn't profitable in the marketplace of ideas.
If they didn't protest, would anyone care?
I doubt it.
1 - 1/3 = 2/3
1 - 1/2 = 1/2
But you may have stumbled on to an interesting point: by protesting, are the ISO and the Anarchists, etc calling attention to an idea that would die a natural death of its own accord? Well, in fact that is the point. Since you were at the event you heard Mr. Horowitz make the case that freedom of ideas, freedom of speech, academic freedom IS essentially dead in American colleges and universities. He's trying to resurrect it. The protesters are actively trying to keep it dead- because...why?
Surely you are not silly enough to believe that because a certain critical mass of people, as judged by you, proves that that an idea is worthy. Because that would simply prove Mr. Horowitz'and our point. Our, as in we the non-persons who comprised 2/3 to 1/2 of the audience.
It still comes down to this: why do you have a problem with someone giving a talk to a group of people who want to listen? Are you trying to "enlighten" me? Set me straight? If so, that is arrogance. Do you do it just because you can? If so, that is sad. If you are trying to communicate to Horowitz, why not speak during the Q&A?
I'd actually like to know what the problem is and why you think you are justified to shut someone down. It's not very tolerant of you.
"by protesting, are the ISO and the Anarchists, etc calling attention to an idea that would die a natural death of it's own accord? Well, in fact that is the point. Since you were at the event you heard Mr. Horowitz make the case that freedom of ideas, freedom of speech, academic freedom IS essentially dead in American colleges and universities."
I actually didn't hear him make that case. I heard him rail against communists. I heard him rail against Ward Churchill. Like I said, I had never heard of Horowitz until just a few days before the event, so it may be my fault that I can't connect the dots. Ward Churchill holds some despicable beliefs, but he is certainly not representative of professors at American universities.
At some point, however, you must realize that academic diversity isn't always a good thing: To be precise, when an idea loses out in the marketplace of ideas, or when it is foreclosed as a viable hypothesis through scientific advances, that idea should not be taught just for the sake of 'academic freedom' or 'academic diversity.' We still have a duty to teach the truth.
Quid II: Did I say I wasn't a capitalist? Sure didn't.
I'm sorry, but you can't put words in my mouth. Call me all the vile things you want, but I was not one of the protesters. I was the guy in the white polo shirt and green shorts sitting in the 4th row. I didn't disrupt anything; I turned my cell phone off; I listened attentively, and I applauded at the end.
I didn't speak during Q&A for a few reasons. Again, I don't know anything about Horowitz, and I didn't have any good reason to say anything. Second, I had a paper to write, and I was expecting the speech to take an hour. By the time we left, it was closer to two hours. Third, I had told the friend I came with that I wasn't going to say anything. Say whatever else you want about me, but I am polite.
The fact of the matter is that I was one of the people who came to listen.
Quid, at this point, I'm not sure why I am still writing this. I hope you realize that your attempts to tweak my sensibilities were aimed at the wrong target. You really don't know who I am or why I wrote my comment. The simple truth is that I posted my comment for the same reason as the original post: to give my impression of the event.
My impression, again, was that Horowitz was not a man who had a significant following. And, in fact, I agree that the protesters shouldn't have tried to disrupt anything. My point is precisely that they would have been more effective if they had stayed at home.
So, Quid, tell me, where have I said that tolerance is always a good? Where did I try to shut someone down? Where did I say that Horowitz shouldn't have his chance in our marketplace of ideas? Where, or when or how did I have a problem with him giving a speech? Did I ever say anything to contradict you or horowitz? If I didn't, could I have been trying to enlighten you?
I'm happy to have an honest discussion, but at this point, your assumptions and actions towards me are no better than those of the protesters.
How does Reece reconcile his conclusion that Horowitz' concepts are not viable in the marketplace of ideas, with the fact that David has testified in front of numerous state legislatures on this topic, and the Academic Bill of Rights has been brought forth as an issue for debate by 6 states in the last 2 months?
Did Reece fail to do any actual research before posting?
Here's the deal: I am very angry that this group of people (and I exclude you if you didn't participate) were incredibly rude. They can act like the victims, but they came to an event and tried to shut it down. I came to the event to hear a speaker I was interested in hearing. I resent the encroachment on my right to do that. There was a place for them to ask questions. They could even hold their signs outside if they wanted. But you and I both know they were there to intimidate. How many times would you give a talk when you knew that there would always be a group trying to intimate you? Have you stopped to ask how could they be so organized? Hey last time he got a pie in the face. Mr. Horowitz is very brave. Do yourself a favor, read some of his books. He is a very interesting guy.
Beyond that, though, I never referred to 'children' in any of my posts, so I'm kind of curious as to how you inferred my understanding of the term. In fact, I was at no point considering the term when I was writing my two previous posts. I really don't know where you got that.
I also never said that something isn't important if I have never heard of it, but as a matter of fact, I am rather well informed, so it may be telling.
Your reasoning is flawed, Vie. If Horowitz had popular appeal, more people would show up to listen to him. But they didn't. Modus Tollens.
Anarchists? Socialists? Who honestly holds these positions? These people are a bit nutty, you must admit. I didn't see a single law school professor there. I didn't go to UT as an undergrad, but I didn't see anyone who looked like professor in another department. I saw a bunch of people who looked like professional protesters. If Horowitz's message was so "important & effective" for people "to try to stifle it," don't you think you would have seen a different quality of people there? Maybe people who had a direct interest in what he had to say? Maybe people who, on his theory, would be threatened by his ideas?
I would think so, but I sure didn't see those people. Again, I saw a bunch of professional protesters. I have a friend at the law school who, as an undergraduate, did that sort of thing. She said that after a while it's more of a social scene than an actual attempt to change the world. I saw a social scene. What did you see?
"Did Reece fail to do any actual research before posting?"
I admitted that I didn't do any research before posting. I'm sorry, I wasn't aware it was required. Did you do research on me before you posted?
Oopsie. I got you confused with Thoughtrebel. Please accept my apologies for the misdirected comment. That sort of changes my perspective a bit, so forgive me for the error and take my comments in the light of intelligent discourse.
"I also never said that something isn't important if I have never heard of it"
My comment referred to your saying "I had never heard of Mr. Horowitz until a few days before the event, and the event itself just demonstrated that he isn't profitable in the marketplace of ideas." This is where I felt you made a real logical leap - the fact that you never heard of him, and one event you attended may not have had a huge crowd, can not reaonably be construed as evidence of the failure of his ideas.
"If Horowitz's message was so 'important & effective'...don't you think you would have seen...people who, on his theory, would be threatened by his ideas?" I posted a comment on the prior thread about one of the attendees, Professor Cloud, who is a prime example of someone who is threatened by him. She is also an answer to your question "Anarchists? Socialists? Who honestly holds these positions?" She is a pretty strange individual, and advocates this sort of demonstration, and even violence (see her writings) in opposition of ideas she does not agree with.
I do not agree that my reasoning is flawed - I do not believe that the attendance at one event (I have not been able to find an article which lists actual attendance at the event, so I can only rely on your first-hand account) is an accurate representation of how popular a speaker is or how many people are listening to what he says. I do agree with you that individuals protesting a speaker or event often distort the true appeal of that speaker or event - years ago I went to see the "Last Temptation of Christ" just because there were protesters who did not want me to, and I am sure that publicity drove many others to go as well. I just disagree with your conclusion, because I don't think you have enough data to make one.
That also related to my last comment about research. If you do just a little research on Horowitz you will find that he has the ear of a great many people. The Students for Academic Freedom website, where you can read the actual text of the Student's Bill of Rights, is a place where you might find the information to connect some of those missing dots.
No, I did not do any research on you before posting, and no, it is not required - just helpful when you are making judgments about people and their message. The the only judgment I made about you was that you were young. That was based on a flawed assumption, for which I apologized - but I wasn't wrong, either!
Commenters guilty of unauthorized extrapolation, commenters feeling tweaked- alas!
Reece: Diversity of opinion in an academic setting is rarely a bad thing. Just because someone's ideas do not appear to have popular support doesn't mean that they are bad, worthless or even mediocre. In fact we can give you SCORES of examples where the opposite is true and if you sat down and thought about it, you could, too. But you still haven't even gotten to the idea: Mr. Horowitz got shut down before he even had a chance to talk about his project. [Personal note: I had never seen Mr. Horowitz before, or heard him speak. I was somewhat aware of his work and had seen his website once sometime ago. I, too, thought that there wasn't a lot in his speech that I could sink my teeth into, but I attributed that to the adverse conditions.] Does it matter if he wanted to sing Dixie for an hour to three people, to advocate the overthrow of Burkina Faso or tell everyone what a great guy Stalin was- in the marketplace of ideas are you going to allow others to decide for you who has a good idea? And are you going to base someone's worth on how loud the protest is against them? We do- the louder the protest, the more closely we listen to the person they are trying to silence.
Just because you think it was more of a social scene for the protesters, does that make it any less destructive to academic freedom? That they were there to disrupt, intimidate and harrass for FUN makes it less rotten? That no one REALLY ascribes Marxism/Socialism/Anarchism (Reece: re-read Thoughtrebel's post) makes this less serious? You are reliquishing your rights as a student and as a free citizen to a bunch of play-pretend revolutionaries as though they were someone else's tantrum-throwing toddlers. Or did you kinda like the theater and couldn't care less about the substance? "Oh, the protesters won. I guess this Horowitz guy is a loser." You don't seem that shallow.
By the way, the Socialists have two faculty members that organize them- and, if the Daily Texan is to be believed there were faculty there and they WERE NOT standing up for Mr. Horwitz' right to speak. Wake up: they are out there and they want to limit the things you hear and they want to punish you for thinking the wrong way. That's what political correctness is all about. Are you sure you're just fine with that because you completely agree with their world view, or are you just laying low because you see the raft of crap that comes to the turncoat?
For someone who sat on the sidelines you sure have put yourself in the center. All our comments must be directed at you. Well, I guess we haven't been talking about you if you weren't protesting.
As for the lack of quality people who just came to listen to Horowitz, speak for yourself. I saw plenty of quality people.
I know at 25 you think you know it all, but you really don't. Before you get all offended, there is no way you could know it all. Cool down, this is a good opportunity to find out who David Horowitz is. He is a brilliant writer. And you need to know the context and environment this is happening in. As I mentioned earlier, he was hit with a pie as were several other conservative speakers recently. Isolated pranks? I think not. Potential for escalation? Only if we don't stand up and say, "NO!" Universities used to be a place for civil discourse and exchange of ideas. I'd like to fight for that.
And yes, there were professors there. Hmmm, professional protesters? Who was paying? Step beyond the ego and open your eyes.
If Horowitz truly believes in freedom of speech instead of the heckler's veto as practiced by the Protest Warriors, he should condemn them loudly and at every opportunity. If not he's nothing but an opportunistic hypocrite.
And it wouldn't surprise me. I remember the 1980s, when leftists regularly tried to disrupt and shout down conservative speakers like Jeanne Kirkpatrick. I've seen Michelle Malkin on C-SPAN at college campuses where the left protesters had to be kept in the hallway by the police so she could speak (and you could still hear them in the background.
You do not have a free speech right to shout down speakers at an organized attempt, or to disrupt the proceedings. Stupid attempts to bring a small group like the Protest Warriors into this are a red herring. Grow up.
I have not seen the PWs in action, but I have seen their films. Granted, they choose the footage, but what I've seen is that they show up. That's it. Isn't that what the ISO is complaining about?
Are you saying that Horowitz is connected to the PWs? Just because he supports their right to free speech doesn't mean they are linked.
What I hear you saying is that since the PWs do this, and Horowitz supports their right to free speech, anti-American (your term) protesters have the right to disrupt without any consequences. This mother says, "two wrongs don't make a right."
I will still defend my right to hear the speaker of my choosing.
One important correction: The people who attended the David Horowitz lecture didn't end up frolicking in the grass. They were either in jail or waiting outside the jail for their buddies to get out. This omission strikes me as disingenuous considering that David Horowitz DEMANDED that they be arrested and the Federalist Society also marched down to the police station to cheer on their arrest (which i suppose is the greatest of politenesses, practically out of the book of Miss Manners.)
It's an interesting contrast. On the one hand Horowitz's speech is paid for by big business, while the protester's speech costs them a night in jail. Neither of them were free.
Checking...checking..nope, no one talked about frollicking anywhere in this post. And you can be sure that we don't split hairs here at Quid so we didn't say or imply that anyone covorted in the grass, frollicked on the sidewalk, partied in the foyer or whatever. You all are very big on "we (anarchists, socialists, etc) as opposed to the others (socialists, anarchists, other whatevers)." To us, the audience, you all were disruptive and you didn't wear labels. So while you were arranging bail for your pals, someone else was outside the hall calling me and others Fascists.
Be advised: any other commenter who doesn't understand the "right to free speech" will be deleted from this thread. There is no right to free speech as a general societal concept. The constitution of the United States protects us from THE GOVERNMENT controlling our speech. As for Mr. Horowitz'lecture: he was invited to speak, we were invited to listen and ask questions and that is a civilized and organized way for one person to pass information on to a group of people. The hosts get to lay out the rules and the rule breakers get to face the consequences of their actions. Which they did with apparent relish.. We imagine little merit badges for the very brave foot soldiers of THE CAUSE.