There are two stories I want to discuss in this post, stories that add more proof in the evidence file that the term “tolerant liberal” is an oxymoron.
First, from Ohio State University comes this letter written by the Alliance Defense Fund on behalf of OSU librarian Scott Savage who has been slapped with a ’sexual orientation harassment’ charge for - get this - recommending conservative books for freshman reading, two of which the professors in question apparently found offensive. Via the ADF:
Scott Savage, who serves as a reference librarian for the university, suggested four best-selling conservative books for freshman reading in his role as a member of OSU Mansfield’s First Year Reading Experience Committee. The four books he suggested were The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, The Professors by David Horowitz, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye’or, and It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. Savage made the recommendations after other committee members had suggested a series of books with a left-wing perspective, by authors such as Jimmy Carter and Maria Shriver.
Just where does the ’sexual orientation harassment’ part of all this come into play? Via Eugene Volokh:
The professors claim in a formal complaint filed with OSU that this suggestion, and the librarian’s arguments in its defense (which were apparently not otherwise anti-gay, not that this should matter), create a “hostile environment” for them based on their sexual orientation. (The complaint has been referred to as a sexual harassment complaint, but it’s really a sexual orientation harassment complaint, see the first paragraph on page 2 of the Ohio State harassment policy.)
Back to the ADL letter:
Savage was put under “investigation” by OSU’s Office of Human Resources after three professors filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment against him, saying that the book suggestions made them feel “unsafe.” The complaint came after the OSU Mansfield faculty voted without dissent to file charges against Savage. The faculty later voted to allow the individual professors to file charges.
This is absolutely insane. It’s nuts that OSU would take the complaints remotely seriously (he recommmended two books that were pro-family and frowned on homosexuality and two profs freak out because the books “create a hostile environment” which would make them feel “unsafe”? GMADB!). Not only that, but hello - first amendment?
Maybe these two profs should adopt a motto: “tolerance for me but not for thee!”
More commentary on this can be read via Tigerhawk, Ace of Spades, Tammy Bruce (must-read!), Jawa Report, Riehl World View
The second story comes out of Northern Kentucky University, where a professor there actually encouraged students to destroy a pro-life display - a display that NKU officials approved:
HIGHLAND HEIGHTS - A professor at Northern Kentucky University said she invited students in one of her classes to destroy an anti-abortion display on campus Wednesday evening.
NKU police are investigating the incident, in which 400 crosses were removed from the ground near University Center and thrown in trash cans. The crosses, meant to represent a cemetery for aborted fetuses, had been temporarily erected last weekend by a student Right to Life group with permission from NKU officials.
Public universities cannot ban such displays because they are a type of symbolic speech that has been protected by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Witnesses reported “a group of females of various ages” committing the vandalism about 5:30 p.m., said Dave Tobertge, administrative sergeant with the campus police.
Sally Jacobsen, a longtime professor in NKU’s literature and language department, said the display was dismantled by about nine students in one of her graduate-level classes.
“I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to,” Jacobsen said.
Asked whether she participated in pulling up the crosses, the professor said, “I have no comment.”
She said she was infuriated by the display, which she saw as intimidating and a “slap in the face” to women who might be making “the agonizing and very private decision to have an abortion.’”
Jacobsen said it originally wasn’t clear who had placed the crosses on campus.
She said that could make it appear that NKU endorsed the message.
Pulling up the crosses was similar to citizens taking down Nazi displays on Fountain Square, she said.
“Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged,” Jacobsen said.
Which meant it was perfectly ok for you and your students to go out and literally walk all over someone else’s free speech rights, right, Prof. Jacobsen?
For the record, Jacobsen actually did participate in the destruction of the pro-life display. See the first photo on this page.
Hat tip for the NKU links: Michelle Malkin.
Are there anymore questions now from those who doubt that conservatives feel repressed on college campuses across America?
Read more via Six Meat Buffet, Kim Priestap at Wizbang, Rhymes With Right, Texas Rainmaker, Center for Sanity, Stop The ACLU, Shape of Days
Related Toldjah So posts on left wing educational nonsense:
- UC Santa Cruz: violently anti-military
- Cindy Sheehan to speak at a high school in San Francisco
- Cartoon controversies from across the border (re: The University of Saskatchewan)
- Congressional Medal of Honor recipient not the ’sort of person UW wanted to produce’
- NAACP chairman makes GOP/Nazis comparison (Fayetteville State University)
- Turning their backs on the truth (Georgetown University law school)
- Helping third-graders become anti-war (Frank Allis Elementary School - Wisconsin)
- Ward Churchill confronted (University of Colorado)
- Another censoring of Christmas (Jackson County School System - Georgia)
- Anti-war crowd fights military recruiters in schools (Washington)
- L.A. school district assists students in attending anti-Bush rally
- Former NCSU visiting prof calls for extermination of white people
- Racist logo? (McKinney, TX school district)
- Confronting racism through ‘workshops’ (Guilford County Schools - NC)
- The demise of the homecoming queen as we know them
- Feds Investigate ‘hate Speech’ Incident at UNC-Chapel Hill
| Email This Post | Print This |
ST dissent is not allowed
“Racism phobia can muzzle the truth
By Michael Duffy
April 15, 2006
The Australian academic world can seem, at least to outsiders, a cosy place where anyone who ventures a dissenting opinion on a sensitive topic gets stomped on very quickly. The attacks on them make you wonder how widespread low-level reprisals are for less prominent rebels, and whether others stay quiet from fear of suffering the same fate.”
Comment by stackja1945 @ 4/14/2006 - 9:53 pm
ST Another dissenter
“‘Islam and Christianity can’t both be right’ smh.com.au - AAP
April 14, 2006 - 9:38PM
A Sydney church leader has used a Good Friday address to tell his congregation that Christianity and Islam cannot both lead to God.”
Comment by stackja1945 @ 4/14/2006 - 9:59 pm
Ms Jacobsen needs a remedial course in Constitutional/State law. The 1st amendment does NOT give anyone the right to destroy property.
That, as a matter of fact, is a felony in all 51 states. So much for the hypocrisy of the Liberal idiot brigade. She should be severely reprimanded, if not fired outright, but at the very least, along with her “students”, apologize publicly and replace the displays herself. If she refuses she should be dismissed. That would be poetic justice if there ever will be, in regards to these stupid secularist attacks by the closet Marxist cockroaches amongst us.
- If they had to suffer the results of their rash unconstitutional acts it would stop in a hurry. The right has to push back against this sort of “under the table” Liberal perfidity, or its going to ruin our society and pave the way for Communism.
If I recall the first thing Hitler and Stalin did was burn books. This is a type of modern PC book burning by trying to deny their use in our schools.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/14/2006 - 10:34 pm
- BTW ST. I agree with your assessment of what the school admins response should have been. Listening to the reasoning of these illiterate “elitists”, “The Constitution guarentees that I will never “feel” badly in any manner”, should have gotten them laughed out of the office. People that sit around all day thinking up these imbicilic memes of torured, mis-begotten logic, need to get a life, and stop wasting every ones time.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/14/2006 - 11:17 pm
Well unless its unlawful to step on and vandalize someone’s symbolic crosses, I think the professor and her students had every right to destroy under the same right to freedom of expression
If that makes the conservatives on the campuses cringe, that’s sweeeeeet. lol
Comment by Raj @ 4/14/2006 - 11:27 pm
On a second thought, I think every school should be allowed promote Santorum’s book so that it is clear at the very grassroot level to the college students what a sanctimonious douchebag he is. lol.
Comment by Raj @ 4/14/2006 - 11:29 pm
Been hittin’ the bong hard tonight, eh Raj?
Go get the door, it’s Dominos….
Comment by Severian @ 4/14/2006 - 11:40 pm
Using “Well unless its unlawful…”, and “freedom of expression” in the same paragraph with “destroy”, is all anyone needs to know about the idiots on the left. Unbelievable what a total lack of character and personal responsibility for your actions will let you justify in the name of “the cause”. What a truck load of gutless, two-faced losers.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/14/2006 - 11:49 pm
Freedom of Speech does NOT trump the Law.
Destruction of property in the name of Freedom of Speech is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard.
When some idiot out there sprays you with gasoline and lights you on fire, should I just say and do nothing, since obviously he is exercising his Freedom of Speech.
Or when someone burns your car…
Or when someone sets a school on fire….
Or someone blows up a government buidling…
Why even try Moussoui, he was exercising his Freedom of Speech, as were the other terrorists in this country when they murdered 3k+ Americans….
Raj you statement far exceeds the rational.
Comment by sanity @ 4/14/2006 - 11:53 pm
You expected the crosses to stay up for how long? Anyway,the space was needed for the 2400 crosses that the anti-war people are planting out of respect for bush’s war dead. You Rightwing people can tear those up in 10 days. The first clown clearly had a pro-life Facsist agenda in mind and needed to be put in his place. Jimmy Carter was a President of the United States and Shriver is married to the Republican governer of California, both quite “fair and balanced” books, don’t you think? Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 11:05 am
For my part, I hope that the colleges around the country continue to be intolerant of ignorance. Their purpose is to dispell ignorance, not promote it.
Comment by solitaire @ 4/15/2006 - 11:14 am
Sanity, you made one of the most bizarre analogies I’ve seen on debates. That professor destroyed a bunch of fake crosses - lives weren’t lost from that. And Bang, ‘what a total lack of character and personal responsibility for your actions will let you justify in the name of “the cause”. ‘ - that’s exactly what you conservatives are doing regarding Iraq. Spare me the holier-than-thou speech here. And Severian, I think you are very smart.
Comment by Raj @ 4/15/2006 - 11:32 am
Raj,
Do you have a political bumper sticker on your car? If you do what would you do if I ripped it off and destroyed it if I disagree with it? Did you put a political sign in your yard during the campaign. If it offends me do I have the right to destroy it? No and I would not have destroyed it because I am an adult capable of seeing that there are people who disagree with me.
Off course not. You do not try to stop speech you disagree with by destruction. Why is that concept so hard to grasp? If the students had the permission of the university to have the crosses there, no one has the right to tear them down becasue they are upset by them. That is the reaction of a child. Children throw hissy fits when they see and hear things they don’t like and tell other children to shut up when they hear things they don’t like. Adults should be able to enter into a mature debate, not resort to childish destruction. This professor needs to grow up!
You know, I hear and see a lot of things that offend me. I was offended by the picture of Kanye West on the cover of the magazine as Christ. Did that give me the right to destroy them? Not if I didn’t buy it first. I would have been arrested and it would not matter that I was making a political statement.
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Voltaire
Comment by JAH @ 4/15/2006 - 11:50 am
- Raj - No matter how mind-bent you are in your ideology, you can’t just trample on other peoples freedoms because you think its right, or justified. You’re either for free speech or your not. You can’t have it both ways, and the fact you see nothing stupidly hypocritical about such a position is the whole problem with the rabid left these days. Your opinions are protected, and so is everyone elses. To try to state otherwise is the very Nazism, hatefull aggressiveness, you say you so hate in the right.
- When you condone this sort of abberent behavior in those of your following, you completely destroy your own credibility. Is there a Marxist school somewhere that asshats go to learn intolorance and perfidity? Get a clue, and look at your own actions before you berate others fool.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/15/2006 - 12:18 pm
No, us “asshats” learn from bush and the rest of the Rightwing Fascists who want to lock-up or kill or deport anyone who believes that war is wrong. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 12:32 pm
That professor destroyed a bunch of fake crosses - lives weren’t lost from that.
The professor encouraged and incited to violence students that destroyed property, broke hte law and broke the University policy, especially since it was a University approved display.
You arguements hold no weight.
Even the Police and the University say the same that what they did was WRONG.
It really is too bad that you cannot see right from wrong.
Comment by sanity @ 4/15/2006 - 12:33 pm
The rabid right is the paragon of intolerance towards alternative lifestyles and people who do not identify with judeo-christian values - so when u guys accuse the “rabid” left of intolerance, it becomes a joke. Condoning this kind of behavior does not tarnish our credibility since you guys make it up by condoning a lot more crap by your right-wingie bedfellows, fool.
Comment by Raj @ 4/15/2006 - 12:37 pm
No, us “asshats” learn from bush and the rest of the Rightwing Fascists who want to lock-up or kill or deport anyone who believes that war is wrong.
Put up or shut up steve.
Let see some proof that people who disagree with the war have been locked up, jailed, thrown out of the country or killed.
I am sick of your stupid lies.
So either put up proof of what you say, or just shut the hell up.
If your words were true, many people in the US would be killed, jailed, ect as you so stupidily state.
I beleive in freedom of speech as much as the next person, but for Pete’s sake, if you are going to make the worlds stupidest statement like you just did, BACK IT THE HELL UP WITH PROOF.
Otherwise, you are nothing more than the village idiot.
Comment by sanity @ 4/15/2006 - 12:42 pm
- No one on the right that I know “wants to lock-up or kill or deport anyone who believes that war is wrong.” Thats what you wish they did, so you could make yourself more important in the scheme of things and cry “victim”.
- Your ideas are seen as backward, and counter to the safety and security of the country, but other than that, you’re protected under the constitution like everyone else. That you take positions that defy any measure of common sense, just makes you unimportant enough to ever have to worry about. It just wastes everyones time that have to do all the work for you so you can sit on your collectivistic asses and theorize all day.
- Thats generally the case. But every now and then when your cult group decides to take actions to get some attention, actions that are patently illegal, and Nazistically intolorant, you get your heads handed to you, and then you wail like the bunch of immature dolts that you are. Grow up.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 4/15/2006 - 12:47 pm
Steve,
Give me one example of anyone locked up for opposition to the war! Show me the cases, show me the court records. Where are the gulags? Where are the American citizens being rounded up and locked up, or killed or deported for opposing the war? Just the opposite, I see anti war demonstrations all the time and I hear this same tired rhetoric from people who are interviewed at the demonstrations but funny thing is I never see anyone hauled off and the demonstrations broken up. If you cannot produce proof please do not make unsubstantiated charges.
Answer me a few questions please. Which president, and which party did he belong to, locked up Japanese Americans during a war? Which president, and which party did he belong to, created an office of censorship during a war? Which president, and which party did he belong to, attacked several countries during that same war, that did not directly attack us? (Germany, Libya, Algeria)
I am not letting Lincoln off the hook here eiher, he took a lot of “war powers” during the civil war. Compared to Lincoln, Wilson (Sedition Act) and Roosevelt, Bush has been very restrained in the use of presidential war time powers. Right or wrong those three presidents were a lot more proactive on the curtailmnent of civil liberties during war time than Bush has ever been.
The tired rhetoric is getting very tiring.
Comment by JAH @ 4/15/2006 - 12:49 pm
“For my part, I hope that the colleges around the country continue to be intolerant of ignorance. Their purpose is to dispell ignorance, not promote it.”
Most acadamics and colleges today, with their love of leftist, socialist, and Marxist values, do nothing to dispell ignorance, they actively encourage it. Leaving the young ignorant of truth, history, and the real nature of the world allows them to push their Marxist clap trap and convince people that their lies are truth. Orwell was a prescient person, the Left today is practicing NewSpeak, making unpopular people “unpersons” and punishing people for thought crime. Lack of real knowledge is essential to their goals of bamboozling everyone into submission.
Marxism has failed, and will always fail, but the liberal campus elites all still believe in it with a fervor that says volumes about their willful ignorance.
Comment by Severian @ 4/15/2006 - 1:16 pm
“want to”, not “have” locked up,although many people taken to Gitmo were never charged and finally released. There are now 6 retired generals who want Rummy to resign and haven’t I read a bunch of post by Rightwingers calling these men traitors and worse? It might just be that the country would be safer making Peace instead of making war, think about it. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 4:40 pm
Once again, completely useless and offtopic steve, I’m so shocked!!!
And until you step foot into Iraq, your opinions of it and how the effort are going are completely ignorant.
I love watching liberals try and divert the topic to Iraq. That should tell you eveything you need to know about the REAL topic of this thread. It’s perfectly ok with them to destroy other peoples property and stomp on their 1st amendment rights as long as it suits their purpose. Absolutely priceless.
Comment by NC Cop @ 4/15/2006 - 4:53 pm
Steve,
You conveniently did not answer my questions. Oh well maybe you do not know the answers.
I am simply amazed at your ability to know what other people think and feel. You know for sure that right-wingers “want to” lock up people who dissent. How omniscient of you!
If I recall it is the left on campuses who write anti-free speech speech codes and make those who violate them go to re-education camps, sorry I mean sensitivity training. From what I have seen it is the left that wants to shut down speech, such as this professor, that they disagree with not the right.
NC Cop is right this forum is on free speech. We can debate the Iraq war in another forum. Keep to the topic at hand, the fact that some professor decided that she had a right not to be offended and that she could take destructive action because she was offended.
Sorry, you do not have the right to never be offended, doesn’t work that way. No matter what you say and how carefully you say it, someone, somewhere cold be offended.
Very easy to be for free speech when you agree with it. Much harder to be for it when you disagree. I have argued with friends and co-workers that the KKK, the Black Panthers, Louis Farakhan (sp) all have the right to speak as long as they are not violent.
Time to step up to the plate, be a stand up person and realize this woman’s actions were wrong. Not only for herself but to encourage studednts to follow along was also wrong. Remember nothing stays the same. One day conservatives may be in the majority among college professors, would you want them to write speech codes that make your beliefs a violation of campus policy. Also, do you not fear a generation of college students who are being trained to believe that if they are offended that someone in authority will stop the people who offend them. That is what I find most offensive. Let me repeat what I put in an earlier post:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” Voltaire
This is the Western idea of tolerance, the right to think and believe without fear. Free speech is the cornerstone of free thought, any attempt to shut it down through any means, especially force should be decried by all. The only legitimate response to someone else’s free speech is to exercise your free speech in a non-violent manner and engage in debate!
Comment by JAH @ 4/15/2006 - 6:41 pm
“want to”, not “have” locked up,although many people taken to Gitmo were never charged and finally released.
Playing Clinton with words again eh?
Guess it it depends on what you consider the menaing of the word IS is….
So, since you show NO proof at all on Republicans HAVING jailed, deported, and killed those that disagree with the war, we play symantics and hinge your words on “WANT TO”.
Ok, I assume you must be part of the Psychic Network to know what Republicans think and want in their minds. SHOW ME PROOF THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO!!
You want to dump stupid statements out there, especially here, and expect to be taken at word value?
“Grow some bolts” (from movie Robots), and give us examples of this Republican WANT. Show us legislation, bills, amendments, ect that Republicans have tried to pass or passed that jail, kill, ect those who disagree with the war.
If you cannot give us examples to back up your rediculous statements, then you are and will be marked as a LIAR.
Also, do not try and change the subject from your statement that Republicans “WANT TO” to kill, deport, jail those that disagree with the war to Gitmo. There is no coorelation between what you stated and Gitmo, so keep to the subject of your stupidity.
There are now 6 retired generals who want Rummy to resign and haven’t I read a bunch of post by Rightwingers calling these men traitors and worse?
6 out of a couple of 100?
Wow, do you expect everyone to fall lock step in line and not have an opinion? Sorry, that won’t be us. Perhaps that is what the Democrats like, and if one of their own like Zell Miller leaves their party or Leiberman(sp) disagrees with them, they try and castigate and ruin those that do not agree with them.
It might just be that the country would be safer making Peace instead of making war, think about it.
This country would be alot safer if we quit making EXCUSES for the terrorists. We have to understand them? They came here and killed 3,000 Plus AMERCIAN Citizens, and people like you think we should talk to them, understand them…
No, what we have to do is kill them.
Yes I said it. These murdering terrorists need to be rounded up and shot.
You probably would not like my idea for Moussoi(sp).
He will almost assuredly be found guilty.
I say forget prison.
I want him to know the terror those people who jumped from the towers felt. I want his smiling, unrepentive, I would do it again each and every day, butt to be taken up to the top of the tallest building…and thrown the hell off.
That is his death penalty.
Here is an idea.
We bathe him in pig blood first, then throw his body off the building.
We then put out a video to the terrorists, showing it, and then telling them, each bullet is dipped in pigs blood, each terrorist body will be bathed in pigs blood.
You fight them with what they are scared of.
Do you think they will still think they can go to heaven, and have the virgins if they are killed or bathed in pigs blood?
Perhpas, just perhaps, this will make them think twice about losing their ‘reward’.
Yeah, probably to extreme for your peace people.
They can kill Americans, they can decapitate them, they can rape and defile the bodies of Americans……after all we deserve it in your eyes.
Comment by sanity @ 4/15/2006 - 7:59 pm
The people who drove the crosses into the ground were not halted because there was no rule against driving crosses into the ground, correct? Using the same logic anyone has the right to excercise their “free speech” by pulling the crosses out of the ground, correct? You don’t contend that the pullers have to get permission from the drivers, do you? You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater so no speech is “free” except if is prudent and dosen’t cause violence,don’t you agree? Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 7:59 pm
Most telling quote: “Any violence perpetrated against that silly display was minor compared to how I felt when I saw it. Some of my students felt the same way, just outraged,” Jacobsen said.
So, her alleged “outrage” trumps the free speech of those that placed the crosses in the first place? So, we are all equal but some are more equal than others?
Oh, and steve? Infringing someone else’s free speech is not, in itself, free speech. Well, maybe in that Leftist utopia where you find yourself, I suppose. peas and carrots for all pathological liars. My treat.
Comment by Dave in CO @ 4/15/2006 - 8:51 pm
The people who drove the crosses into the ground were not halted because there was no rule against driving crosses into the ground, correct?
This is NOT about whether they were allowed to do something. This is about a University approved sdisplay, in which I am sure they had approved, time and place for where they could set up and for a certain amount of time. This again was approved by the University.
This has aboslutely NOTHING to do with whether they were allowed to put the display up. Quit trying to obscure the facts.
The facts are, that these students approached the university, got approval, got time and place of set up, set up the crosses and a simple sign that said “Cemetery of the Innocent”.
Said teacher got infuriated by the display, and WITHOUT approval of the University, acting on her own. she incited to violence her students because of her own rage. These students and possibly herself, went out and DESTROYED PRIVATE PROPERTY. Those crosses and sign was owned by the other group who was there on permission of the University and this professor acted just like a vigalante would and took matters into her own hands, breaking the Law and encouraging her students to break the law and break university set policy.
Make sure you get your facts straight here steve and quit trying to downplay such actions. If this was reversed and it was a republican based person that did this, democrats and the ACLU and a host of others would be calling for jail time, for the perso nto lose their job, to instigate new laws protecting the sign and display, ect. There would be lawsuits, ect.
So don’t pass it off as if this is nothing, because if it happened to the Left, that side would be screaming bloody murder.
Using the same logic anyone has the right to excercise their “free speech” by pulling the crosses out of the ground, correct?
Wrong. Read above.
Not only did they ‘pull the crosses up’ they stole the property, they vandalized and destroyed the property of another group who was exercising their freedom of speech, who had approval of the university for setup.
What they did was not freedom of speech, it was unlawful both in the eyes of the local law enforcement and in the eyes of the university policy.
You don’t contend that the pullers have to get permission from the drivers, do you?
I contend you do not have permission to steal or destroy private property. That is not freedom of speech.
You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater so no speech is “free” except if is prudent and dosen’t cause violence,don’t you agree?
Are you contending white crosses and a simple sign that says ‘Cemetery of the Innocent’ is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theatre?
If so I place you in the same idiots category as this professor since she equates this display to Nazi Displays in Fountain Square.
Comment by sanity @ 4/15/2006 - 9:05 pm
It appeared that you were trying to pursue some logic there Dave, keep it up and you’ll eventually catch on. As for utopia, “we the people” can create any world we’d like, so you in authority need to remember that. Back atchya. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/15/2006 - 9:18 pm
Using the same logic anyone has the right to excercise their “free speech” by pulling the crosses out of the ground, correct?
First they did not just pull them out, they destroyed them. Destruction of property, which is a crime.
You don’t contend that the pullers have to get permission from the drivers, do you?
Yes, this was a lawful peaceful demonstration of Free Speech sanctioned by the University. Pulling them out and destroying them was the act of childish people who do not want to stand up and debate.
You cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater so no speech is “free” except if is prudent and dosen’t cause violence,don’t you agree?
Tell me how those crosses caused the violence? How can a bunch of crosses in the ground incite violence? Spell it out for me. If this is all that it takes to incite violence from someone God help our society, we have become truly a bunch of children. Children act like that.
Let’s take your thoughts a step further. You park your car on a public street and you have a political bumper sticker on it that I disagree with and it makes me angry, so angry that I believe that my outrage trumps your free speech. Do I have the right to tear that sticker off your car and destroy it. Before you say that the car is your private property, remember these crosses had to be bought and paid for by someone and so they were private property also, and you have been arguing that it was ok for this woman to rip these up, and destroy them becuase she has free speech rights and they were on public property.
Also, a professor, a supposedly learned woman can think of no better way to get her point across than to destroy something. You know I am just a dumb old engineer turned physics teacher and I bet I could come up with a better way to express myself. Heck I disagree with abortion and I bet I could come up with a pro abortion display that could have sat next to the crosses as a counter display. This woman could think of nothing better than violence as her first, not her last option? What does this say about her?
You know there are times when violence is needed. If I see someone being beaten up I am not going to try to reason with the attacker, I am going to STOP them. On the other hand my first thought upon seeing a political display I disagree with is not to use violence. That would make me very sad human being indeed.
Comment by JAH @ 4/15/2006 - 9:54 pm
So, evidently to Leftist totalitarians like steve, violence and the infringement of rights is acceptable if it is in support of steve’s own opinion but wrong if it demonstrates against steve’s opinion. So, his whole non-violence spew is a fraud.
Comment by Dave in CO @ 4/15/2006 - 10:05 pm
Hey Peace-ful Steve, Please stand in front of me and mine when the terrorist arrive at our shores. I want you to give the first hug.
Comment by Judith @ 4/15/2006 - 11:08 pm
Oh, and Steve peace-ful, its we asshats, not us asshats. School must have been hard for you.
Comment by Judith @ 4/15/2006 - 11:10 pm
Edited - insult. Let’s get beyond these kinds of suggestions, please. –ST
Comment by Judith @ 4/15/2006 - 11:18 pm
“Judy,Judy,Judy…”. Stuffing the crosses into the ground was meant as a provocative act and was taken that way. Yin/Yang. No, the crosses should not have been destroyed, they should have added 2000, to them and created a memorial to honor bush’s Iraq war dead. The point of the article was the fact that the provocative actions, neither provocative action, was sanctioned by the university. “Judy,Judy,Judy…”, I’ll bet your Mom’s proud? Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/16/2006 - 11:36 am
If and when you should learn anything moron, I certainly hope honor would be among them, for you are sorely in need.
Comment by forest hunter @ 4/16/2006 - 2:57 pm
He has honor if he holds himself to an ideal of conduct though it is incovenient,unprofitable, or dangerous to do so. Lippmann. Maybe you mean “ideal of conduct” and not “honor”. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/16/2006 - 4:17 pm
Are you adressing the “…..ideal of conduct though it is inconvenient, unprofitable or dangerous to do so.”,in reference to the Islamofascist splodidopes or dhimmidummies swamping the left?
I meant the word HONOR as I have referred to it many times before to you steve(fn), not the phrase you copied from someone elses mind.
Comment by forest hunter @ 4/16/2006 - 4:33 pm
Your still confused,being non-violent is not a sign of weakness it’s a sign of strength. Peace
Comment by steve @ 4/16/2006 - 8:03 pm
When you leave your protection to others, whom you castigate and belittle for being war-like, but hide behind because you are a ‘pacifist’, is not strength.
You draw your strength from the fact that you are protected from tyranny, that you have rights and protections that have been fought for, and are enforced through strength of arms.
You can sit there and say being a pacifist is strength, but your strength comes on the backs of real men and women you hold the front line so you can sit on your ass and talk your gibberish.
Without a military, we would not have a Country that we do now. Without a military, you would not have the freedoms you have now.
If you think a piece of paper (US Constitution and Bill of Rights) are what gives you freedoms and the life you live, you are wrong. These important documents are nothing more than paper with words, without a military to protect and keep it.
Comment by sanity @ 4/16/2006 - 9:02 pm
To piggyback on what sanity said,
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill
Comment by JAH @ 4/17/2006 - 4:28 am