2008 Woodie Awards
Free Speech Limitations
Why Are We Receptive Only to Opinions We Want To Hear?
Vignesh Asokan
Issue date: 11/11/04 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Voltaire
I think this quote is quite fitting to how I feel about a situation that occurred on this campus last week. On that Tuesday, Montclair State University was visited by an unknown minister from Florida. This man, having all the proper permission to have a demonstration, decided it was necessary to tell most of the student body that was in attendance that they were all sinners and that they would be damned to hell.
He went on to attack individual topics, reportedly saying that homosexuality was a sin and AIDS was its cure.
These statements, of course, did not bode well in our liberal-minded campus, and he created quite an uproar on campus with many angry people present yelling back at him and taunting him.
Many people also believed that he should not have been on campus and were appalled that the University gave him permission to demonstrate in the first place.
Something that was not foreseen by some was that coffee was thrown at this man, which led to his escort off campus by University Police for fear that a riot would ensue against him.
Now, was it really necessary to pelt this man with paper goods filled with liquid? Honestly, I don't think so. Nothing was accomplished by doing this.
This man will be going back to his congregation and reporting of how the "heathens" physically tried to assault him. He makes a martyr of himself and only strengthens his views within his church group.
Everything that was done to him I am quite sure he expected and only fueled his rhetoric further. Furthermore, anyone who believed that he shouldn't have been on campus doesn't fully understand their free speech rights.
In dealing with people like him, utilizing our freedom to choose would have been the best course of action.
The intolerant minister only kept rambling on because he had an audience to ramble to. If people got past their personal egos, and realized the man for who he was, turned away, he would have melted away. As a liberal campus, we shouldn't only support freedom of speech that we are comfortable with listening to, but also the speech that offends us and makes us angry. If the tables were turned and we saw a man having a pro gay demstration and someone had thrown coffee at him the campus would have been filled with outrage. Whoever was responsible for throwing the coffee would probably been accused of a hate crime. There seems to be something of a double-standard here at MSU.
But in the same breath, I must say there are certain boundries found in free speech. These boundries are limited to the speech that intrude on the rights of others in a way that may be injurious to them - yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater would be an example one of these acts.
And if you obstruct the free speech of others, in the end you are only compromising your own free speech.
Free speech should allow for anything and everything to be discussed. In the year 2004, we should be able to respect a man's right to say words, even if we don't respect the words he has to say.
I think this quote is quite fitting to how I feel about a situation that occurred on this campus last week. On that Tuesday, Montclair State University was visited by an unknown minister from Florida. This man, having all the proper permission to have a demonstration, decided it was necessary to tell most of the student body that was in attendance that they were all sinners and that they would be damned to hell.
He went on to attack individual topics, reportedly saying that homosexuality was a sin and AIDS was its cure.
These statements, of course, did not bode well in our liberal-minded campus, and he created quite an uproar on campus with many angry people present yelling back at him and taunting him.
Many people also believed that he should not have been on campus and were appalled that the University gave him permission to demonstrate in the first place.
Something that was not foreseen by some was that coffee was thrown at this man, which led to his escort off campus by University Police for fear that a riot would ensue against him.
Now, was it really necessary to pelt this man with paper goods filled with liquid? Honestly, I don't think so. Nothing was accomplished by doing this.
This man will be going back to his congregation and reporting of how the "heathens" physically tried to assault him. He makes a martyr of himself and only strengthens his views within his church group.
Everything that was done to him I am quite sure he expected and only fueled his rhetoric further. Furthermore, anyone who believed that he shouldn't have been on campus doesn't fully understand their free speech rights.
In dealing with people like him, utilizing our freedom to choose would have been the best course of action.
The intolerant minister only kept rambling on because he had an audience to ramble to. If people got past their personal egos, and realized the man for who he was, turned away, he would have melted away. As a liberal campus, we shouldn't only support freedom of speech that we are comfortable with listening to, but also the speech that offends us and makes us angry. If the tables were turned and we saw a man having a pro gay demstration and someone had thrown coffee at him the campus would have been filled with outrage. Whoever was responsible for throwing the coffee would probably been accused of a hate crime. There seems to be something of a double-standard here at MSU.
But in the same breath, I must say there are certain boundries found in free speech. These boundries are limited to the speech that intrude on the rights of others in a way that may be injurious to them - yelling "fire!" in a crowded movie theater would be an example one of these acts.
And if you obstruct the free speech of others, in the end you are only compromising your own free speech.
Free speech should allow for anything and everything to be discussed. In the year 2004, we should be able to respect a man's right to say words, even if we don't respect the words he has to say.